Mueller's Witness Tampering Indictment
A couple of days ago, I expressed some doubt about the strength of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's witness-tampering allegations against Paul Manafort. One question in the back of my mind was implicit—if the evidence of witness tampering was strong enough to warrant a change of Manafort's bond status, why had it not been brought in an indictment?
Published by The Lawfare Institute
in Cooperation With
A couple of days ago, I expressed some doubt about the strength of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's witness-tampering allegations against Paul Manafort. One question in the back of my mind was implicit—if the evidence of witness tampering was strong enough to warrant a change of Manafort's bond status, why had it not been brought in an indictment? On Friday, the Mueller team returned a superceding indictment adding Konstantin Kilimnik as a defendant. The added charges include two new counts, obstruction of justice and conspiracy to obstruct justice, both related to the same allegations of witness tampering that were part of the bond motion.
Apparently, Mueller has the strength of his convictions and he, at least—as well as Alex Whiting and Renato Mariotti at Just Security—thinks I'm wrong. Perhaps so. I look forward to the evidentiary presentation next Friday.
