US. Department of Justice
AttefiQey—WerleP-roduet // May-Gentmn—Mfiefial—Preteeted—Ufider—Fed—R—Gfim—P—éfie)

Manafort lied to the Office and the grand jury concerning his interactions and communications
with Konstantin Kilimnik about Trump Campaign polling data and a peace plan for Ukraine.


The Office investigated several other events that have been publicly reported to involve
potential Russia-related contacts. For example, the investigation established that interactions
between Russian Ambassador Kislyak and Trump Campaign officials both at the candidate’s April
2016 foreign policy speech in Washington, DC, and during the week of the Republican National
Convention were brief, public, and non-substantive. And the investigation did not establish that
one Campaign official’s efforts to dilute a portion of the Republican Party platform on providing
assistance to Ukraine were undertaken at the behest of candidate Trump or Russia. The
investigation also did not establish that a meeting between Kislyak and Sessions in September
2016 at Sessions’s Senate office included any more than a passing mention of the presidential

The investigation did not always yield admissible information or testimony, or a complete
picture of the activities undertaken by subjects of the investigation. Some individuals invoked
their Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination and were not, in the Office’s
judgment, appropriate candidates for grants of immunity. The Office limited its pursuit of other
witnesses and information—such as information known to attorneys or individuals claiming to be
members of the media—in light of internal Department of Justice policies. See, e.g., Justice
Manual §§ 9-13.400, 13.410. Some of the information obtained Via court process, moreover, was
presumptively covered by legal privilege and was screened from investigators by a filter (or
“taint”) team. Even when individuals testified or agreed to be interviewed, they sometimes
provided information that was false or incomplete, leading to some of the false-statements charges
described above. And the Office faced practical limits on its ability to access relevant evidence as
well—numerous witnesses and subjects lived abroad, and documents were held outside the United

Further, the Office learned that some of the individuals we interviewed or whose conduct
we investigated—including some associated with the Trump Campaign—deleted relevant
communications or communicated during the relevant period using applications that feature
encryption or that do not provide for long-term retention of data or communications records. In
such cases, the Office was not able to corroborate witness statements through comparison to
contemporaneous communications or fully question witnesses about statements that appeared
inconsistent with other known facts.

Accordingly, while this report embodies factual and legal determinations that the Office
believes to be accurate and complete to the greatest extent possible, given these identified gaps,
the Office cannot rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would shed additional
light on (or cast in a new light) the events described in the report.


Next Page_0015