Was Paul Manafort trying to cash in on the Trump campaign months after he left? Manafort’s former employee Rick Gates testified that his old boss was trying to pull favors to get one of his creditors a top defense job in the administration. The defense tried to suggest that Gates himself was scamming the Trump inaugural committee. So who’s telling the truth?
Welcome to Rabbit Hole.
The T-word: Prosecutors have signaled that the Manafort trial would be focused primarily on his alleged financial crimes and not his work for then-candidate Donald Trump. But the Trump campaign surfaced at least twice during Gates’ testimony.
ADVERTISEMENT
On direct examination by prosecutor Greg Andres, Gates—who continued working for the campaign after Manafort left in August 2016—said Manafort had emailed him to recommend that Federal Savings Bank CEO Stephen Calk be put forward as the Trump campaign’s nominee for secretary of the Army in late November. At the time, Calk was already an adviser to the campaign and a member of its economic advisory committee. Emails offered by the government showed Manafort hit up Gates again in December to ask for inauguration tickets for Calk and his son.
You’ll recall that Federal Savings Bank, where Calk was CEO, was also one of the banks where Manafort had allegedly applied for a mortgage loan with fraudulent documents when his business was failing and he needed cash. Prosecutors didn’t follow through on the Calk line of questioning and didn’t suggest that Calk had done anything wrong. But they appear to be headed toward a suggestion that Manafort was making an unusual effort to kiss up to his creditor.
Inaugural committee: The defense team raised the Trump campaign again, only this time via an unproven insinuation that Gates had embezzled from the president-elect’s inaugural committee with fake expenses the way he has admitted to doing with Manafort’s offshore bank accounts. Asked if he submitted personal expenses for the inauguration, Gates said, “I don’t recall, it’s possible” but bristled at the suggestion that he had submitted false ones and said the campaign reviewed expenses “very closely.” Despite the suggestion, defense attorney Kevin Downing offered no exhibits or evidence that Gates had embezzled from the campaign or claims to that effect.
Credibility battle: Gates testified again and again that his alleged activities to help Manafort cheat on his taxes and commit bank fraud were directed by Manafort. The problem for the feds, as the defense noted on cross examination, is that Gates claimed his boss’ instructions to help him commit crimes on his behalf were always verbal (Gates also testified that the two used encrypted-messaging apps like Signal and Viber). The prosecution has presented a host of circumstantial evidence backing up Gates’ claims that many of his crimes were to Manafort’s exclusive personal benefit. But as Downing pointed out, he is asking the jury to believe a witness who is an admitted criminal with a record of lying to the special counsel’s office in his initial proffer session, lying in a civil deposition, and lying on a host of financial documents.
Secret life: The defense team offered a motive for Gates’ embezzlement from his former boss: an apparent affair. In cross-examination, Gates appeared to anticipate where the defense was going with its questions about the flat he kept in London, trips to the U.K. on first-class air travel, and the “secret life” it represented. “There was a time in my life when I had another relationship,” he said. Gates didn’t detail the relationship or explain who it was with, but said his wife was aware of it.
Quote of the day: When Downing hammered Gates on his credibility issues, the witness tried to draw a contrast between the course he had chosen and the one Manafort had picked. “Mr. Manafort had the same path. I’m here,” he said, his voice faltering. “I am trying to change. I am taking responsibility.”
Can’t say the word: Gates and Downing also sparred over the word “embezzlement.” Gates tried to offer an explanation and some explanation of and atonement for stealing from his former employer. “In essence, I was living beyond my means,” he said, adding, “I’m taking responsibility for that. But Gates resisted when asked by Downing to use the word “embezzlement” to describe his theft. He dodged and called the acts “unauthorized” transactions, and then dug in with irritated retorts like “You can choose whichever word you like” and “what difference does it make?” before finally buckling and calling it “embezzlement.”
Repetition is the foundation of memory: It wasn’t hard to discern the themes the defense team was trying to drive home, thanks to constant emphasis and repetition by Downing. “Secret life” obviously came up often, but so did “scheme.” The defense repeatedly used the term to describe Gates’ embezzlement. The language is a pretty clear attempt to buttress the defense’s characterization of Gates as the criminal mastermind who set up his former boss.
