Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every day we bring you insight and analysis into the most important legal news of the day. You can find more episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. An accident in redacting a court filing by Paul Manafort's defense team has given an unintended glimpse at potentially damaging areas of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian meddling in the twenty
six presidential election. The document shows that Trump's former campaign chair shared polling data on the election with an associate tied to Russian intelligence and lied about it. Joining me is Jimmy Grule, a professor at Notre Dame Law School. Jimmy tell us more about the information the redaction revealed. Well, revealed that that there was this meeting again, as you stated, between Paul Manafort, who was at the time the Trump campaign him and in an individual by the name of
Constantine Clinic and Clinics, a very interesting individual. The U. S Intelligence community has reason to believe that he's connected to Russian intelligence and apparently the purpose of the meeting was for Manafort to share this internal polling data with Colinic, and so this raises a number of very serious and important questions. You know, first, why would the campaign chairman share this, this internal polling data with an individual connected
to Russian intelligence? And I think the obvious reasonable explanation is that this would be information that would assist the Russians, again, if passed on by Clinic to to others in the Russian intelligence community to target to assist Trump and getting elected. That's the bottom line, to assist Trump in getting elected by enabling the Russians to better target their social media campaign to assist and motivate Trump voters and to suppress
Hillary Clinton voters. Is this the clearest evidence we have seen so far of collusion or what lawyers might call conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia. I think there's no question that it is. It's clearly the most concrete, direct evidence of the Trump campaign conspiring with Russian officials to aid Trump and getting elected. But despite all the information we've seen, there still is no connection to the president. Is that right? That's correct? So that that's the other
important questions I raised. The first, you know, what was the purpose of the meeting? How did it benefit the Trump campaign? The next question, and again it's an open question, is was Trump aware? Was Trump aware Candidate Trump aware at that time that this meeting was taking place. Did he give his blessing? Did he encourage man of words to meet with Clinic? Was just something that Manafort did
on his own, without the President's knowledge. So, Jimmy, most of the time when the FBI or prosecutors are questioning cooperators, they know the answers to the questions. Was this a case of Manafort saying something and then the prosecutors saying, oh, but we have this evidence, and then Manafort saying, I forgot that You're right? And is this what Mueller is calling lies by Manafort? Yeah, that's the issue. I mean.
So again, the context in which this this new information was revealed wasn't a document that was filed by Manafort's attorneys with the court in Washington, d c. In an effort to contest allegations by by Mueller's lawyers that Manafort did not cooperate fully in the investigation, that he lied to Mueller's investigators. And basically, Manafort's lawyers are saying, oh, he he forgot you know that this is just something
that that he didn't remember at the time. As you stated, the questioning by Mueller's lawyers of Manafort would be very very specific, and if he stated, oh, I don't recall or that may have happened, they would have probably followed up with very specific questions, what about this date, what about this time? And again, this would be based on on concrete evidence that they have to establish this particular
connection and this meeting between Manafort and clinic. Manaport's defense attorneys aren't even seeking a hearing about Mueller pulling this plea agreement. Where does this leave Maniford as far as sentencing. Yeah, it's interesting, isn't it. So they're not requesting a hearing to contest Mueller's claims of breach of the plea agreement. You would think that if they truly believe that this was simply a memory oversight by Maniford, that they would
want to have a hearing. Maybe they would want to introduce evidence, maybe witnesses, maybe called Manafort himself to explain
this this oversight, But they're not requesting that. They're not requesting that, which is very curious in and of itself, and so I think at the end of the day, the court is going to make a determination based on the pleadings that have been submitted regarding whether or not Manafort should receive any benefit for cooperating with an older investigation, and if not, then he's going to be sentenced to
a substantial term of imprisonment. Another big reveal, also on Tuesday, is that the Russian lawyer who attended the norm Tower meeting in June between Manafort, Jared Kushner, and Donald Trump Jr. Has been indicted for obstruction of justice. How significant is that? Well, that's of significant development as well, because now the fact that Valisntskaya, this Russian lawyer, has been indict the government
has leverage. They have leverage that they could exert against her in an effort to obtain her cooperation and in the Muller investigation. And so there's a real incentive now for her to cooperate in the investigation and disclose any relevant, credible information that she has that could assist Mueller in the Russia probe. This came out of the Southern District of New York, though the prosecutors there. Why do you think the Special Council gave it to them or handed
it off. Yeah, because again, it doesn't fall clearly within the scope of the Special Council's mandate. And so the mandate of the Special Council is to again investigate collusion between the Trump campaign and Russians, and so this is kind of a side issue. It's it's a crime that maybe has some relevance, but it's certainly not central to the Muller investigation. And so they decided that it would be better for the Southern District of New York to
handle the matter. Thanks Jimmy. That's Jimmy Garula, a professor at Notre Dame Law School. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can subscribe and listen to the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I am June Brosso. This is Bloomberg