Thread by @maddow

Manafort transcript unsealed tonight in which DC District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson rules that Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort lied intentionally after entering a plea agreement:

p.10: “My concern isn’t with non-answers or simply denials but times he affirmatively advanced a detailed alternative story that was inconsistent with the facts.”

p. 11: Judge then says Manafort’s claims about his declining health in prison were simply asserted by his lawyers with no effort to back the claims up with any support.

Judge: “It left the impression that the issue was left in the pleading for public consumption, but not mine.”

p.16 On the $125k payment toward Manafort’s legal fees...

Judge: “The record doesn’t seem to reflect confusion and the defendant didn’t profess to be confused. He does appear, though, to be making a concerted effort to avoid saying what really took place.”

p.23 On that same $125k payment...

Judge: “I find this was a matter about which he provided intentionally false information to the Office of Special Counsel, the FBI, and the grand jury.

I also note — without deciding whether I have to make this finding or not —...

“... that the record supports a finding that the Office of Special Counsel’s interest in tracing the flow of funds to Manafort particularly from REDACTED and vendors associated with the campaign, was material to this investigation.”

p. 26 On Manafort attesting as to Kilimnik’s state of mind...

Judge: “I think it’s also fair to say that advancing that version was not just relaying what Kilimnik said, it appears to be an attempt to exonerate him.”

p. 27

“This is an example of a situation in which the OSC legitimately concluded he’s lying to minimize things here...

This is a problematic attempt to shield his Russian conspirator from liability and it gives rise to legitimate questions about where his loyalties lie.”

p.30

On what the judge describes as Manafort’s “pattern” of “dissembling” about Kilimnik:

Judge: “Denying the meeting REDACTED was denying a contact that was part of what the Office of Special Counsel was investigating.”

p.40

Judge: “We’ve now spent considerable time talking about multiple clusters of false or misleading or incomplete or needed-to-be-prodded-by-counsel statements, all of which center around the defendant’s relationship or communications with Mr. Kilimnik”...

“... This is a topic at the undisputed core of the Special Counsel’s investigation into — as paragraph B of the appointment order put it — ‘any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign.’ Mr. Kilimnik...

“...doesn’t have to be in the government or even be an active spy to be a link.”

p. 41

This is new. This suggests the mysterious “other” DOJ investigation Manafort lied about is an investigation that also relates to the Trump campaign:

Judge: “Defendant suggests that it’s not really that important because it wasn’t about his own wrongdoing...”

“... I’m not sure I buy that because the point of seeking cooperation from a person at the highest level of the campaign was to obtain accurate information about the acts of others, in particular what transpired REDACTED. So it’s very troubling to me.”

p.44 On the (apparently campaign related) other DOJ investigation Manafort lied about...

Judge: “The evidence suggests that he decided to obscure what had taken place to shield possibly Mr. REDACTED. This withholding of facts, this begrudging behavior...”

“...advancing a new version that’s less inculpatory of REDACTED was significant enough to set off alarm bells with his own lawyers.”

And then starting on p.50 a whole bunch of pages that look like this:

And then one last intrigue on p.66:

Judge: “All right. I just have one question for my public minute order. The REDACTED, the fact that REDACTED is still sealed. So I should not use that in my minute order, is that correct?”

Both sides agree, correct.

But what could that be?