Still another Rick Gates post
I keep trying to get away from it, but something about this story keeps gnawing at me. So here are some more details of Gates’ testimony against Manafort [emphasis mine]:
On the stand, Gates testified that he and Manafort knowingly committed several crimes. He said that at Manafort’s direction, he didn’t report 15 foreign financial accounts they controlled to the US government, even though they knew that was illegal. He also testified that Manafort directed him to send millions in foreign cash as phony “loans” to his US companies, so he could avoid paying taxes on them…
But the defense team has made its strategy clear: They hope to pin as much of the allegations against Manafort as they can on Gates instead. Defense lawyer Thomas Zehnle focused much of his opening statement last week on attacking Gates, claiming Manafort had merely “placed his trust in the wrong person,” accusing Gates of embezzling, and calling Gates the “foundation of the special counsel’s case.”…
Gates testified Monday that on all these fronts, Manafort knew exactly what he was doing. He testified that to the extent he helped, he was doing so at Manafort’s instruction. And he testified that both of them knew full well that what they were doing was illegal.
Gates is there to testify to Manafort’s state of mind. As far as I know, the rest of the evidence the prosecution introduced as to Manafort’s state of mind consists of tax documents and testimony about those documents (for example, from Manaforts’ accountant), which certainly might lead a person to conclude that Manafort must have known or should have known. But apparently there is nothing other than Gates’ testimony that tells anyone what Manafort actually did know or did intend. Only Gates gives that information, and that information is supposedly necessary in order to find Manafort guilty.
One of the most important facts about Gates is not just that, if what he says about Manafort is indeed true, then Gates is just as guilty as Manafort of the same crimes Manafort is being tried for, although that is true. A more important thing about Gates, IMHO, is that Gates was betraying Manafort by embezzling money from him. That doesn’t just demonstrate that Gates is a liar and a crook, it demonstrates that, despite being Manafort’s partner (and, apparently, his protege), Gates had no reluctance to screw Manafort over. None whatsoever. And that was before Mueller even got to Gates or Manafort. So Gates was a viper in regard to Manafort even before they were caught. How on earth can an objective observer that think Gates would have a single moment of reluctance to lie about Manafort and stab him in the back, now that Gates can get out of a potential 100-year prison term by doing so?
Of course, that doesn’t mean Gates is lying about Manafort. He may be telling the truth. That’s the beauty of it, isn’t it?
This is also quite interesting, although of course its meaning can be interpreted in several ways:
Manafort reportedly stared directly at Gates, while Gates avoided eye contact with Manafort.
If you read this, too, it really appears that Gates was handling the bulk of Manafort’s paperwork, supposedly (according to Gates) doing all the shady stuff only at Manafort’s request.
I think that this headline summarizes it rather nicely: “Rick Gates says he lied for years at Paul Manafort’s request and stole from him in the process”:
In his first hour on the witness stand, Gates catalogued years of crimes, saying most of his wrongdoing was committed on behalf of his former boss, Paul Manafort, while other crimes were for his own benefit, including the theft of hundreds thousands of dollars. Gates also made clear he was testifying against Manafort in the hopes of receiving a lesser prison sentence, having pleaded guilty in February as part of a deal with special counsel Robert Mueller…
For most of his testimony, Gates did not look at Manafort, while the defendant stared intently at his former business partner…
Gates, 46, testified that he had embezzled from other employers as well and that he volunteered that information to investigators once he began cooperating.
So Gates is a habitual liar and criminal, defrauding multiple people (not only Manafort) and not at Manafort’s request. And yet certain crimes—the ones for which prosecutors wish to convict Manafort—Gates says only committed at Manafort’s direction.
One could certainly conclude, though, that Gates needed no such encouragement or direction.
And I think that this is really the heart of the matter [emphasis mine]:
Manafort’s lawyer, Kevin Downing, tried to undercut the prosecutors’ case by getting Laporta [the accountant] to concede that Manafort’s finances were complicated, and that Gates was deeply involved in the process.
How Manafort’s New York properties were classified on his taxes changed some years, and she agreed that keeping track of those changes was “difficult to follow.”
How much control did Gates have over the process? How “deeply involved” was he, and how involved was Manafort?
Gates was a habitual criminal. Do we have any indication Manafort was a habitual criminal, doing things like this even before he met Gates? I don’t think so; at least, I’ve never read anything to that effect (and failing to register as a lobbyist does not count in terms of habitual criminality).
In conclusion,I have to say that Gates reminds me a bit of Uriah Heep in David Copperfield, minus the ‘umbleness:
Uriah Heep’s scheme is this: he is a law clerk for Mr. Wickfield. But he knows that Mr. Wickfield is depressed over his wife’s death and has a severe drinking problem. So, Uriah Heep encourages the drinking. Slowly, he takes over more and more of Mr. Wickfield’s daily affairs, until Mr. Wickfield relies on Uriah Heep completely (even though Mr. Wickfield never really likes or trusts him – he feels that he has no choice).
To make the trap even harder to get out of, Uriah Heep starts showing Mr. Wickfield receipts for crazy investments and loans with Mr. Wickfield’s name attached to them. Mr. Wickfield can’t remember signing them, but he also can’t explain the evidence of his own financial wrongdoing that Uriah Heep has shoved in his face.
So, Uriah Heep blackmails Mr. Wickfield into signing Uriah Heep as a partner of his law office…
It certainly doesn’t match perfectly, but Uriah is what comes to mind for me.
Uriah Heep! One of the best characterizations in English Lit. Such a slimy weasel, perfectly portrayed in the 1935 (?) movie by Roland Young, probably better known as Cosmo Topper.
I can see Gates as such a crook, although with fewer physical clues as we were shown by Mr. Young’s portrayal.
A lawyer I correspond with thinks the testimony of the accountants will sink Manafort on some charges. I don’t see any indication he’s ever been an embezzler, but he has for decades run a lucrative client-hustling and influence-peddling business. I’d wager he’s less scrupulous than the median attorney, much less the median businessman.
Frankly, at this point, it appears that Gates’ credibility is less than zero; he hurts the case more than he helps it. I would say this regardless of whether the case was intended to hurt a Republican or Democrat figure. There is clear evidence that Gates lies, cheats and steals, and has been doing so since long before he crossed paths with Mueller. As a normal human being looking at the situation, I see him as the kind of worthless snake who would lie about his grandmother for profit, never mind to save his skin, and his testimony would mean exactly nothing to me as a juror unless it was corroborated by real evidence. And as Neo said in a previous post, that would mean I was swayed by the evidence – not by Gates.
No one with a real case, or any sense, would trot this guy out as a witness.
Rhetorical question…I know…
But how does Manafort go to jail & “you-know-who” walk this earth free as a bird & still get paid speaking gigs?
The first three days of trial included accountants and bookkeepers testifying that Manfort knew, that they spoke with Manafort, and that Manafort was in control and approved every expenditure. E-mails also indicates that Manafort knew.
His accountants say, for instance, that he lied to them about not having foreign accounts. Then the prosecution showed wire-transfers from said foreign accounts that Manafort used to buy expensive goods. They also tell a narrative of how Manafort was out of cash and thus provide a motive as to why he was falsifying his records to obtain bank loans.
So, for instance, see this:
https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/manafort-trial-day-seven
Hightlights mine.
I’m not reading the trial transcript, but as far as what has been reported, all the government has proved so far is that Rick Gates is a crook. To prove criminal tax fraud (as opposed to civil tax fraud), the government must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, not only that the taxes due were not paid, but that the taxpayer believed them to be due and willfully did not pay them. All Manafort has to do is say (or otherwise show, if he is not to testify), “I entrusted all my financial affairs to Rick Gates and my accountants. They had all the information they needed to prepare true and correct tax returns, and as far as I know, the returns I signed were true and correct.” If the jury believes him, bye-bye tax fraud case. (The IRS could still go after him civilly, but that’s a completely different process, and totally outside this case.)
I’m not an expert in bank loan law, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the law is parallel.
If so, Manafort may be acquitted on the tax and bank fraud counts. That would leave only the unregistered foreign agent counts, as to which, as far as the news reports I have seen indicate, the government has not offered any proof at all.
This analysis confirms what I thought from the beginning, that he wouldn’t have gone to trial if he didn’t think he could beat the raps.
Manju:
I’ve read many articles that indicate that the accountants’ and bookkeepers’, etc, testimony only show what Manafort DID, not whether he had criminal intent and knowledge, and that his financial affairs were so complex that it’s not at all clear he knew he was committing any crimes, and that Gates did a lot of the work.
And, as Judge Ellis pointed out, if Manafort was so aware of his financial dealings, how could Gates get away with embezzling so much money from him?
Again, I have no idea if Manafort is guilty or not. I know that Gates is. And yet Manafort is the one at risk. If I was a juror in the trial and had spent all this time listening to all the witnesses, I might have a better idea of Manafort’s guilt or innocence.
I have little idea if the accountant’s testimony is enough to convict Manafort, but I think it is clear that, as others have pointed out, that Mueller’s case being so dependent on Gates is very clear evidence that he is going to trial with a weak case. Trying to get Trump on a trumped up charge (pun intended, oh God yes!) based on a tax case from many years before Manafort worked briefly for Trump and that case itself based on a clearly crooked, self-serving witness – is a travesty. A Hail Mary pass wrapped in a Hail Mary pass.
Manafort and Gates had (if I take the indictment at face value) 33 off shore accounts. (Interestingly enough, Manafort, per the prosecutor. only accessed two of them in the 60 month period before the indictment was issued). There’s was a service enterprise that employed a single-digit (or low double-digit) corps of people. had no physical plant but their offices (which may have well been rented) and no supplies other than office equipment &c. No mines, no factories, no commercial buildings, nada. They weren’t engaged in any dimension of finance for their clientele.