How to Avoid the Goof Made by Manafort's Lawyers

I've seen two versions of the "unredacted" version of the response filed by Paul Manafort's lawyers. In this version provided by the Associated Press (and opened in Adobe Acrobat) it's clear the redaction failed and whoever did the final proofread should have seen it.

In this version provided by the Daily Beast, also opened in Adobe Acrobat (on a PC), the document appears to be redacted so it might not have been apparent to whoever did the final proof-read. Once open, if you choose the select tool and highlight the blackened parts, then right click and press copy, and then paste in into Microsoft Word, the unredacted text appears. (I have no idea if a Mac works the same way as I don't use my Mac for work, only for music and videos. And I never open PDF's in a browser like Chrome or Firefox, only Adobe Acrobat DC Pro which I assume most law firms use). (It's the same in Adobe X which while outdated, I still use on some laptops and actually prefer.)

VICE presents ways to avoid the cut and paste trick, including making a scanned copy or taking a screenshot. That's problematic for some federal courts, including those in Colorado. [More...]

Local federal rules for Colorado do not allow scanned copies of documents to be e-filed. It also requires they be searchable which an image of a document is not. (This includes affidavits with handwritten signatures -- there's a special rule on how to file those.) If you submit a scanned version of a document or one with a screenshot of text, there will be a permanent shaming notice put on the docket next to your filing calling you out by name for having not followed the rules. It says: [More...]

ADVISORY NOTICE OF NONCOMPLIANCE WITH COURT RULES/PROCEDURES: re: [doc. number] [doc. title] filed by attorney X. The document was scanned and not converted directly to portable document format (PDF). DO NOT REFILE THE DOCUMENT. Action to take - future documents must be filed pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCr49.1(a) and 1.3(f) of the Electronic Case Filing Procedures (Criminal Cases).

How easy is it to properly and neatly redact a document so it looks like Manifort's corrected version? Very. In Adobe Acrobat, under tools, you click on "mark for redaction." You highlight the text you want to redact and it shows as being blacked out. Then you click on "apply redaction". It even reminds you to do both steps with this little popup:

That's all there is to it.
< The Case Against Natalya Veselnitskaya | Julian Castro Announces Presidential Bid >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I'm of the opinion that those 'goofs' ... (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jan 10, 2019 at 07:10:30 PM EST
    ... were no mistake. Rather, I believe this constitutes an attempt at least in part to inform Trump's co-conspirators of the direction in which the OSC is apparently headed.

    Regardless of whether or not it was an error, the contents disclosed as a result of this failure to redact properly -- specifically, that Manafort met in early 2017 with former GRO operative Konstantin Kilimnik in Madrid, a meeting which Manafort had heretofore denied -- ought to be of tremendous concern to everyone n the United States who professes to love their country.

    For starters, it means that even after his removal as campaign chair in August 2016, Manafort was likely still working with Trump as part of a clandestine back-channel between campaign and the Kremlin, with Manafort and Kilimnik as the respective parties' go-betweens.

    Ergo, Trump's repeated denials of "no collusion" are now officially moribund, and Sen. Howard Baker's famous question raised to colleagues on the 1973 Senate Select Committee investigating the Watergate scandal, "What did the president know and when did he know it?", can now be properly asked of Trump.

    There is a very real possibility that Paul Manafort wound up at the heart of the Trump campaign not in spite of his Kremlin connections but rather, BECAUSE of those ties. And very likely, Robert Mueller knows it.


    It does seem almost (none / 0) (#6)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 11, 2019 at 10:12:47 AM EST
    Unbelievably inept and/or stupid.

    You have no idea (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Peter G on Fri Jan 11, 2019 at 11:37:09 AM EST
    how ignorant and incompetent my fellow attorneys can be about the simplest computer technology, including that which they absolutely need to understand to do their jobs.

    For example (none / 0) (#19)
    by Peter G on Tue Jan 15, 2019 at 04:44:22 PM EST
    A trial lawyer's office today forwarded me their electronic file on a case I have taken over for appeal. It contains many documents that the court provided to them as native PDFs, which the trial lawyer's office then printed, did not save in the form in which the documents were sent to them, and then scanned the printed copies and saved the scans in the file. This is far from the first time I have seen this done.

    Breaking news (none / 0) (#8)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 11, 2019 at 07:42:04 PM EST
    Wittes is on tv talking about this.  Seems like a pretty big deal.

    What if the Obstruction Was the Collusion? On the New York's Times's Latest Bombshell

    The reporting says they were investigating Trump for working for Russia very early

    Yikes (none / 0) (#9)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 11, 2019 at 07:43:28 PM EST
    In the days after President Trump fired James B. Comey as F.B.I. director, law enforcement officials became so concerned by the president's behavior that they began investigating whether he had been working on behalf of Russia against American interests, according to former law enforcement officials and others familiar with the investigation.

    The inquiry carried explosive implications. Counterintelligence investigators had to consider whether the president's own actions constituted a possible threat to national security. Agents also sought to determine whether Mr. Trump was knowingly working for Russia or had unwittingly fallen under Moscow's influence.

    You don't need a weatherman (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by jmacWA on Sat Jan 12, 2019 at 05:31:30 AM EST
    to tell which way the wind blows...

    AND it finally appears to be blowing in the right direction.


    If only someone had (5.00 / 5) (#13)
    by KeysDan on Sat Jan 12, 2019 at 01:42:23 PM EST
    That Lawfare link is slammed (none / 0) (#10)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 11, 2019 at 07:47:10 PM EST
    The stunning news (none / 0) (#11)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jan 11, 2019 at 10:33:20 PM EST
    is that the FBI opened an inquiry to ascertain if Trump was an agent of Russia.  However, the public information over the past two years, up to and including, Trump's bizarre history lesson on the Afghan invasion by Russia. And, it was assumed that counter-intelligence was a part of Mueller's investigation.

    It has long been clear to me that sufficient cause existed for articles of impeachment/conviction, given political will...a political action that does not set forth the same degree of "proof" that may be required for conviction of a crime in a court of law, since impeachment is not a criminal proceeding.

    It may be, at this point, that impeachment becomes inevitable, as much as it might want to be avoided.   Yes, Trump will counter-attack with retribution exacted from the FBI and/or against Mueller. And, this, too, will be a part of the necessity for Congress to act.  A fine mess.  


    "A whole big fat hoax" (none / 0) (#14)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 14, 2019 at 03:57:40 PM EST
    Who would have imagined we would ever live to hear that phrase from a sitting president.  About anything.  Forget hearing it in response to being asked if he is a Russian agent.

    I miss W.

    I think that trump was probably (none / 0) (#15)
    by desertswine on Mon Jan 14, 2019 at 05:00:48 PM EST
    born in Russia.  He should be hounded until he produces a birth certificate.

    IMO (none / 0) (#17)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 15, 2019 at 11:34:13 AM EST
    He is a lab experiment gone terribly wrong

    William Barr (none / 0) (#16)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 15, 2019 at 11:33:20 AM EST
    If he is telling the truth, and no man (or woman) can know, Trump will regret nominating him.

    Barr is (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jan 15, 2019 at 04:56:47 PM EST
    from the competent, evil side of the Republican party.   So far, the damage to the country has, in large measure, been ameliorated by the ineptness and incompetency.  Barr is slick and untrustworthy; after all, he is the one who made Iran Contra go away with his pardons, and got Daddy Bush home free.

    Yes (none / 0) (#21)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 15, 2019 at 06:28:37 PM EST
    The competent evil side.  I suppose the only hope is that group hopes to regain control of the party from the bat-sh!t-crazy-whole-big-fat-hoax faction.

    To do that Trump clearly needs to go.  Not only go but be discredited and disgraced.

    Hopelessly optimistic, I know


    I enjoyed his (none / 0) (#22)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 15, 2019 at 06:31:46 PM EST
    Telling the story of how he had explained to Trump  how he simply did not have the time in his life to help with his legal defense wanting, as he did, to spend more time with his family.

    But, yeah, I could be AG.  no prob.


    And BTW (none / 0) (#18)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 15, 2019 at 11:37:32 AM EST
    Amy Klobuchar is doing the best questioning so far

    Am I naive to think (none / 0) (#23)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 16, 2019 at 09:34:45 AM EST
    The talk of pulling out of NATO might bring some reflection on the republican side?

    I may be (none / 0) (#24)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jan 16, 2019 at 11:17:45 AM EST
    cynical, but my guess is no. The question I have is can the president break a treaty without Congress, or at least the Senate approval.  Treaties, according to the Constitution, require the advice and consent of 2/3 of the Senate (resolution to ratify).

    Treaties function as law in the US legal system.....and the president cannot repeal a law without Congress. It is true that presidential appointments that require Senate advise and consent can be ended without Senate involvement, but appointments do not function as law.  There has been no SC ruling on whether the president has the power to break a treaty.

    The. Courts did not interfere when President W. Bush unilaterally withdrew from the ABM treaty, but the larger question did not have to be considered since that treaty, itself, gave each party the right to withdraw if given six months notice...which Bush did.  If republicans are concerned they need to introduce legislation to deprive Putin of Trump `treachery.

    I dunno (none / 0) (#25)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 16, 2019 at 11:22:42 AM EST

    thats different