Thread by @nycsouthpaw

"No material changes have occurred in the past months," writes the US Attorney in DC, explaining why the Washington Post still can't have unredacted transcripts of the hearings on Paul Manafort's breach of his plea agreement. documentcloud.org/documents/5912…

these*

From the redacted transcripts of these breach hearings we know that Andrew Weissman told the court that Manafort and Kilimnik's NYC meeting "goes... very much to the heart of what the special counsel is investigating" and is "of significance to the special counsel."

As you can see, there are redactions in that very discussion--about what the Special Counsel is interested in. (Why's the campaign chairman meeting in person with this guy tied to Russian intelligence at this peculiar time?)

The Special Counsel subsequently concludes his investigation, so he's no longer looking at that meeting. But now, the government says that all "the ongoing investigations that required redactions--MANY OF WHICH were already being conducted by other offices--remain ongoing."

So we can make a couple conclusions from that language, if it's accurate.
- SOME of Mueller's referrals came after the transcripts were released in Feb.
- At least one such ongoing investigation is still looking at the meeting that went to the Mueller investigation's heart.

Caveat: It's theoretically possible, I suppose, that all these redactions in the section discussing a meeting that goes to the heart of what the SCO was investigating were made for privacy reasons and not to protect the ongoing SCO investigation, but that seems like a reach.

Ongoing investigation or privacy, the govt’s position as of Monday is that key details of Manafort and Kilimnik’s meeting in NYC still need to be secret. What are the odds that changes by Thursday morning? Seems to foreshadow some important redactions in the Mueller report.