“You never know how a jury is processing this, but the evidence from where I sit looks overwhelming … it’s in black and white, it’s in the documents,” Dilanian tells MSNBC’s Ali Velshi.
The prosecution’s 12th witness will be Heather Washkuhn, Manafort’s bookkeeper. This suggests the prosecutors are finished with vendor testimony and now they are moving on to explaining how they claim Manafort hid his overseas accounts.
Michael Regolizio, the owner of New Leaf Landscaping and Maintenance, discussed the work he did for Manafort’s home in Bridgehampton, New York.
He provided tree services from 2010-2012, and then took over full responsibility of all lawn care and maintenance from that point on. In government questioning, Regolizio said he only dealt with Manafort over phone and email, and Manafort always told him when to expect the wire transfers. Regolizio never spoke or had any dealings with Rick Gates or Konstantin Kilimnik.
Some of the work Regolizio did included mowing Manafort’s lawn twice a week, and working on hundreds of flowers and a waterfall feature. Regolizio also pointed out that there was a flower bed shaped in the form of an “M” at the beginning of the driveway.
Regolizio was paid more than $400,000 between 2010-2014. The court was shown there were a number of Cyprus wire transfers that were applied to Manafort’s New Leaf Landscaping account. Manafort was the only customer of Regolizio’s paying by international wire.
Regolizio testified that starting around 2014, he was instructed to “CC” another party on the invoices, but could not remember who it was.
Regolizio was shown the purportedly fake invoices, and confirmed he had never seen them before the government showed them to him a few weeks ago. This makes it the fourth “fake invoice” of the trial so far.
The defense for the first time called suspicious invoices “fake,” and Regolizio agreed.
The prosecution’s first witness of the day three was Joel Maxwell, COO of Big Picture Solutions.
Maxwell testified that Manafort was a “top five” client of his company, and spent over $2.2 million over on TVs, internet networks and home automation at five of his properties. He said that he dealt directly with Manafort until 2013, when he billed through Rick Gates.
Prosecutors entered into evidence bank statements that showed money coming to Big Picture Solutions from Cyprus and Maxwell testified that the money was applied to Manafort’s accounts.
A potentially fake invoice was shown to Maxwell. “I’ve never seen this,” he said. The invoice purported to be from Big Picture Solutions, LLC (Maxwell’s company is Inc, not LLC) billing Global Endeavour, LLC for $163,000.
There was a payment stamp from a bank in St. Vincent and the Grenadines. This is the third potentially fake invoice to Global Endeavour that has been presented at trial. Bank records showed that Big Picture Solutions were paid on occasion from Global Endeavour’s Cyprus accounts.
Upon cross-examination, Maxwell testified that in emails Gates explained that it was “hard to move money from his account to mine.”
Next witness: Michael Regolizio, the head of a landscaping firm.
And Day Three is underway.
After the prosecution yesterday cast doubt on calling Rick Gates as a witness, Uzo Asonye immediately clarified this morning that they have “every intention” of calling him to the stand. Gates, Manafort’s former business partner, has already pleaded guilty in a deal with Mueller and is considered a key witness for the prosecution.
Asonye said the prosecution is constantly evaluating which witnesses will be called from the list of 35, in an effort to shorten the trial.
Meanwhile, we have an update on the dispute over whether photos of Manfort’s flashy suits and expenditures will be shown to the jury.
Judge Ellis told prosecutors that he isn’t likely to allow it because doing so could unfairly “besmirch the defendant.”
“It could engender bias against rich people,” Ellis told prosecutors, saying he didn’t want them to “gild the lily.”
The jury has seen some photos, but despite a brief filed late Wednesday from prosecutors, urging the judge to let them show more evidence of Manafort’s lavish spending, the judge indicated he’s not likely to loosen the reins. Jurors have seen some photos, but not as many as prosecutors wanted them to see.
And in case you were wondering what a $15,000 ostrich jacket looks like, that is one on the left. These jackets were among the collection of high-end menswear submitted by the government as evidence on Wednesday.
And some thoughts from Chuck Rosenberg, former U.S attorney for eastern district of Virginia and NBC News analyst, on the trial brief filed by Mueller’s team overnight:
“The government believes that the judge has improperly prohibited them from introducing certain evidence at trial, to demonstrate that Manafort intentionally filed false tax returns. Remember, that burden is on the government and it must show specific intent. That’s a high burden. So, the government did some research and is presenting the judge with a bunch of cases that say it would not be error for him to permit the photographs of Manafort’s luxury items and large expenditures to be put before the jury.
“Note that the cases the government references generally say it is not an ‘abuse of discretion’ for a judge to permit such evidence to be introduced. This is where they think the judge is wrong in ruling that the evidence they want to use is essentially more prejudicial than probative — the heart of rule 403 of the federal rules of evidence. The judge is wrong to keep such evidence out, and well within his discretion — so these cases say — to permit the government to introduce it.
“The trial brief is an attempt by the government to get the judge to change his mind. I will say this about Ellis — I have seen him reconsider his own rulings during trial. The judge could change his mind, so this is worth a shot by the government. I have occasionally done this in the middle of trial where I think a judge is misinterpreting a rule of evidence or a rule of procedure.”
Good morning,
The special counsel’s team filed a brief overnight urging the judge to reconsider his decision not to allow them to show photos of Manafort’s suits and other luxury goods. Yesterday, the government produced invoices for some $1.26 million in clothes, including a $15,000 suit made from ostrich.
Mueller’s team argues they have a right to show photos of the clothes to help prove their case, and that Judge T.S. Ellis is wrong to say it would be unfair. (The judge, for his part, has said it’s not illegal to have expensive taste.)
“Courts have consistently held in tax and bank fraud cases that evidence of a defendant’s spending and lifestyle is relevant to his intent and is not unduly prejudicial,” the brief says, directly challenging the ruling of Judge Ellis, who has consistently blocked prosecutors from showing the jury such evidence.
Furthermore, the brief states: “That Manafort had an expensive lifestyle that required lots of money to maintain is important proof as to why he would commit the bank frauds. When Manafort’s income declined in 2014, he resorted to bank fraud as a means to maintain his lifestyle. Indeed, the government is entitled to refute the common argument that a wealthy person has no need to commit bank fraud, by demonstrating that Manafort had grown accustomed to his material wealth.”
The ninth witness brought to the stand by the government was Doug DeLuca, another contractor who performed work on Andrea Manafort’s Arlington home. The work included exterior design, an outside kitchen with soapstone countertops, a living room and a pergola.
DeLuca’s firm, Federal Construction Company LLC, was paid $104,424 by Paul Manafort.
DeLuca told attorney Brandon Van Grack that he was subpoenaed for documents related to his business with Manafort, including emails, sketches, photos of progress and completion, and bank statements.
It was established through an email brought into evidence that DeLuca would handle design with Andrea, and matters of construction and budget with Paul.
In one agonizing moment, Van Grack asked DeLuca what a “pergola” is. DeLuca took Van Grack to task, offering a lengthy explanation, including specific details about the wisteria vining up the wood to create natural shade. Judge Ellis interjected, asking Van Grack the “virtue” of “having a witness describe in exquisite detail” this aspect of the work. “You’re done. Move on,” Ellis said.
Manafort paid Federal Construction via wire from an entity called Lucicle Consultants Ltd — not to be confused with Lucille LLC, the entity that purchased Andrea Manafort’s home — and Pompolo Ltd.
DeLuca said he had no knowledge of the origins of these companies.
Again appearing to try to head off the defense’s strategy, Van Grack asked DeLuca if he’d ever met or spoken with Rick Gates, or if he’d received payment from him. DeLuca said he not to all of these questions.
In his cross examination, defense lawyer Jay Nanavati’s asked DeLuca if Manafort ever said this would be a business project (“No”), if he ever said the house would be used for anyone other than Andrea (“No”) and if he’d ever heard of Lucille or Lucicle except through Paul Manafort (again, “No”).
Stephen Jacobson testified that his company, SP&C, worked for Paul Manafort beginning in 2001 and billed $3.2 million for work on at least five of his homes — including one in Trump Tower.
Prosecutor Greg Andres asked Jacobson how he received payment on Manafort’s invoices. Jacobson said that the bills were mostly paid by international wire transfer. Prosecutors showed records of international wire transfers from banks in Cyprus to SP&C that Jacobson said matched outstanding invoices for work done at Manafort’s properties.
Andres entered into evidence an invoice that purported to be from SP&C to a company named Global Endeavours, but Jacobson said he did not recognize it. The balance matched a $75,000 payment from Cyprus to SP&C from two days earlier in November 2013. The prosecution was implying that something is suspicious about this invoice but haven’t yet expanded any further.
Earlier in the day, the manager at a luxury New York menswear shop said that he didn’t recognize a different misspelled invoice.
Upon cross-examination, defense attorney Jay Nanavati asked Jacobson to describe Manafort’s demeanor. “Tough but fair,” Jacobson said. Jacobson testified that after Manafort handed off bill paying to a woman named Heather, the bills were paid in a more timely fashion.
Next on the stand: Douglas DeLuca, a builder.
The seventh witness the government called to the stand was Wayne Holland, a retired Army lieutenant colonel turned contractor and real estate agent, and who is a neighbor of Manafort’s. Holland called Manafort a “very close friend” for over 30 years.
When asked if he knew what Manafort had done for a living, Holland said he knew he was a successful lobbyist.
Holland was an agent for Manafort’s daughter Andrea when she purchased a $1.89 million house in Arlington, Virginia, in 2012. Holland told the jury that Manafort told him to “go for it” and offer the full asking price. He said the money deposit for the home came from Andrea, and Manafort paid the rest.
He said it was a cash offer.
Holland didn’t have a sense of where geographically the money came from. Prosecutor Uzo Asonye presented an email from Paul Manafort to Holland regarding the purchasing property. The email said:
“1.9 million should be in your escrow account tomorrow morning. It is coming from Lucille LLC.”
Holland did not know what Lucille LLC was, and didn’t inquire as that was beyond his job requirements as the buyer’s realtor. He said Manafort did not say where the wire was coming from.
When asked about Rick Gates, Holland stated he was familiar with him in regards to his involvement in the news, but he was not involved in home purchase.
Defense attorney Jay Nanavati reiterated in cross examination that Holland didn’t know and didn’t need to know Lucille, as it was a matter for the seller. He asked finally, “Is Paul Manafort one of the nicest neighbors you’ve had?”
Prosecutor Uzo Asonye told Judge Ellis that the prosecution is moving “ahead of schedule,” and that he anticipates the government will rest its case next week. He did not specify a more specific time frame.
The CFO of a Beverly Hills store that has called itself “the most expensive store” testified that Paul Manafort was a good customer. Ron Wall of House of Bijan, Wednesday’s fourth witness, said most customers paid by card or check, but some paid by wire transfer.
Prosecutor Greg Andres showed Wall a series of invoices dating from 2010 through 2012 totaling $334,325, all of which were paid through wire transfers from banks that originated in Cyprus.
Between Alan Couture of New York and Bijan Couture, so far on Wednesday the government has produced invoices for some $1.26 million worth of clothes that it says Manafort purchased between the years 2010 and 2014.
In defense attorney Jay Nanavati’s cross examination, he pointed out to the jury that Wall had never met Manafort, had not been a sales person for Bijan or in a “customer-facing” position, and did not interact with Manafort. He was also quick to reiterate that other clients at Bijan also paid through wire transfers.
Another witness, Daniel Opsut of Mercedes-Benz of Alexandria, testified that Manafort had paid for a new Mercedes with money from Cyprus. Opsut said that in October 2012, Paul and Kathleen Manafort bought a new 2013 SL 550, list price $123,000, by trading in two other cars and covering the remaining $62,750 with a payment from Cyprus Popular Bank.
The prosecution’s first witness after lunch break, 29-year-old Maximilian Katzman, told the jury that Paul Manafort was one of his luxury menswear shop’s best customers, and the only one who paid through international wire transfer.
An exhibit prepared by the FBI using banking records from Katzman’s New York City store, Alan Couture, showed that Manafort had spent more than $825,000 on suits and other clothes from the store between 2011 and 2014.
Judge T.S. Ellis then warned prosecutors they were spending too much time on the price of the suits. “The government doesn’t want to prosecute someone for wearing nice clothes,” Ellis said. He told them to focus instead on how the invoices were paid.
Records from HSBC showed that funds from Cyprus were used to pay invoices. Katzman also testified that Manafort had emailed him saying that these funds were coming.
Katzman also testified that he only contacted Rick Gates, Manafort’s business partner, about invoices when he couldn’t get in touch with Manafort. “I believe he is Mr. Manafort’s assistant,” Katzman said. Gates worked for Manafort’s consultancy, Davis Manafort, and also worked with Manafort on the Trump presidential campaign.
Prosecutors asked Katzman to look at what appeared to be an invoice from “Alan Corture,” a misspelling of the firm’s name. Katzman said he had never seen the document before.
Upon cross-examination, defense attorney Jay Nanavati asked Katzman if he was aware of Gates’ level of education and spelling ability. He said he wasn’t.
Next up on the stand: another luxury menswear shop owner, Ronald Wall.
On Tuesday, the first day of Paul Manafort’s trial, prosecutors revealed the defendant owned a $15,000 suit made from ostrich. On Wednesday, just before the court broke for lunch, FBI agent Matthew Mikuska testified that Manafort had “closets full” of suits, and prosecutors presented invoices for bespoke suits totaling $66,000.
Judge T.S. Ellis didn’t permit photos of the suits to be entered into evidence, and struggled to pronounce the name of Manafort’s high-end tailors. “If it doesn’t say Men’s Wearhouse,” said Ellis, “I don’t buy it.”
The prosecution presented two invoices for custom suits from Alan Couture nearing $66,000, as well as invoices for $160,000 in silk rugs. The judge read aloud a stipulation stating that offshore funds were wired to the Virginia rug vendor to pay for them.
Manafort’s trial has, of course, not escaped the attention of President Donald Trump, who asked in a tweet who was treated worse: the legendary gangster Alphonse “Al” Capone or Paul Manafort.
This tweet came shortly after Trump called on Attorney General Jeff Sessions to “stop this Rigged Witch Hunt Right now.”
In a lengthy romp through the documents seized at Manafort’s apartment, Judge T.S. Ellis became impatient with prosecutor Uzo Asonye’s questioning of FBI Special Agent Matthew Mikuska. Asonye introduced exhibit 372, which was an agenda from Rick Gates, Paul Manafort’s business partner, dated March 21, 2013. Ellis asked Asonye why the prosecutors were asking the witness about that if the government is going to call Gates as a witness.
Asonye replied, “He may testify in this case, he may not testify.”
The judge said that was news to him and to about 50 reporters “who ran out of here like rats on a sinking ship.”
Asonye backtracked, saying it’s not to suggest that prosecutors will not call Gates. “If I need to shorten the case I will,” he said. “We evaluate each witness by what the case needs.”
Ellis said, “Yes, but you know by and large which witnesses you intend to call. If you’re going to call Mr. Gates, this is a waste of time. Remember I said that.”
Gates worked on the 2016 Trump campaign as deputy to Manafort, the campaign’s chair, and then stayed with the campaign after Manafort left in August. Gates was indicted as part of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. He pleaded guilty to making false statements and conspiracy and has agreed to cooperate with Mueller’s probe.
The prosecution called its second and third witnesses Wednesday morning, political strategist Daniel Rabin and FBI Special Agent Matthew Mikuska.
As with the first witness, political consultant Tad Devine, the prosecution used Rabin to establish the kind of work Manafort was doing in Ukraine. Rabin worked with Manafort for candidate Viktor Yanukovych.
Prosecutor Greg Andres asked Rabin about Manafort’s relationship with Manafort’s business partner Rick Gates, who has pleaded guilty to conspiracy and agreed to cooperate with Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. Rabin said that while Manafort worked on overall political strategy, Gates handled the business and logistical side of the firm. Rick worked for Paul, Rabin said. He was the gatekeeper.
Defense attorney Richard Westling cross-examined Rabin, asking about Manafort’s work ethic and reputation.
After Rabin, Mikuska took the stand. Mikuska was the seizing agent when the FBI raided Manafort’s Virginia apartment on August 14, 2017.
Mikuska said he and an FBI team entered the apartment with a key after knocking several times. Manafort was inside the apartment at the time they entered. Mikuska described the apartment as a large “luxury unit.”
Prosecutor Uzo Asonye brought forth into evidence a series of documents that were seized in the raid. These documents included loan agreements, loan applications, and home improvement invoices on several of Manafort’s homes, including those in Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Hamptons and in Florida.
The documents all had Paul Manafort’s name, except one document confirming forgiveness of debt, which listed Davis Manafort LLC.
The prosecution called its second witness, political strategist Daniel Rabin.
Much like Tad Devine, the prosecution sought to establish the kind of work that Manafort was doing in Ukraine for Viktor Yanukovych. Rabin worked with Manafort on the campaign until 2014.
Prosecutor Greg Andres asked Rabin about Manafort’s relationship with Rick Gates. Rabin said that while Manafort worked on overall political strategy, Gates handled the business and logistical side of the firm. Rick worked for Paul, Rabin said. He was the gatekeeper.
Defense attorney Richard Westling cross-examined Rabin, asking about Manafort’s work ethic and reputation.
The next witness to be called: FBI agent Matthew Mikuska.
Before the jury was even called into the courtroom this morning, Judge T.S. Ellis had some opinions to tell the court.
First, he expressed some impatience with the prosecution spending considerable time establishing the fact that Paul Manafort did extensive work in Ukraine. Tad Devine, the government’s first witness yesterday, filled that purpose, as Daniel Rabin, the government’s second witness who is next to take the stand, is intended to do today.
But the judge took particular offense to the term “oligarch,” which prosecutor Greg Andres used yesterday in reference to those financing Viktor Yanukovych’s campaign. Ever the traditionalist, Ellis referred to the definition of “oligarchy,” where power resides in a select few.
“I suppose high schools are oligarchies in that sense,” Ellis said.
He said that use of the term “oligarch” implies Manafort is consorting with criminals, and there will be no evidence presented to the court about them. “The only thing we know is that they have a lot of money.”
So do George Soros and the Koch brothers, he added, but they wouldn’t be referred to as “oligarchs.”
He added that the term has taken on a “pejorative” connotation.
Andres tried to counter, but Ellis told him to “find another term to use” and suggested “he financed it.” He told Andres he could submit a brief explaining why he needs to use the word, which Andres indicated he would do.
“Nobody would refer to the principal of a high school as an oligarch,” but it could fit the definition, Ellis said.