Quote:

---

The witness argued that Mueller wielded too much power and was appointed unlawfully. In the witness's view, Mueller should have been nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate, and there was no statute giving Rosenstein the authority to appoint him.

---

That's the Appointments Clause argument and it was always weak.

I like Concord's argument better. Attacking the appointment on the basis of regulations Rosenstein relied upon in making the appointment.

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

Judge Beryl A. Howell wrote that Mueller's power "falls well within the boundaries the Constitution permits," because he was supervised by an official who was himself accountable to the president. She wrote that "multiple statutes" authorized Mueller's appointment, and Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein, who named him to the post, "had power to do so."

---

Technically, yes, but is he in fact accountable?

Did they make the Professor Calabresi/Mark Levin argument?

Prosecution has shifted gears somewhat

Heather Washkuhn, managing director at California-based Nigro Karlin Segal Feldstein & Bolno, testified she had access to Manafort's personal and business bank accounts, managed his spending and also oversaw a series of his properties he owned, including a horse farm in Virginia, condos in New York City and a property in Florida.

Washkuhn described Manafort as an engaged client in the seven years she worked with him, from 2011 to 2018.

"He was very knowledgeable," Washkuhn told the jury. "He was very detail oriented. He approved every penny of everything we paid."

Washkuhn told the jury she sometimes saw activity in those accounts from other accounts she did not have access to. She would request documents from Manafort on those accounts, but only get them "sometimes."

Washkuhn also testified she was unaware of and did not have any records of foreign holdings or accounts controlled by Manafort. That's important because prosecutors allege Manafort hid income in accounts offshore in places such as Cyprus and used them to make loans to himself and pay vendors as a tax avoidance scheme.

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

In other business elsewhere, but directly affects the Manafort trial

Quote:

---

Judge Beryl A. Howell wrote that Mueller's power "falls well within the boundaries the Constitution permits," because he was supervised by an official who was himself accountable to the president. She wrote that "multiple statutes" authorized Mueller's appointment, and Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein, who named him to the post, "had power to do so."

The opinion came in response to a legal challenge from witness Andrew Miller who was arguing he could not be compelled to testify before a grand jury. The witness argued that Mueller wielded too much power and was appointed unlawfully. In the witness's view, Mueller should have been nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate, and there was no statute giving Rosenstein the authority to appoint him.

---

I here's the 93 page Opinion by Judge Howell

http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/sites/dcd/files/REDACTED_In_re_GJ_18-gj-34_MEM_OP_20180802_FINAL.pdf

---

If I read it right, I hope this judge gets spanked based on an appeal at some point. There's a creative use of quotes and brackets where, I think, Judge Howell changes the reference "specially appointed attorneys" in 533(1) to 'may specially appoint attorneys'. (Last paragraph of page 12).

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

Washkuhn also testified she was unaware of and did not have any records of foreign holdings or accounts controlled by Manafort. That's important because prosecutors allege Manafort hid income in accounts offshore in places such as Cyprus and used them to make loans to himself and pay vendors as a tax avoidance scheme.

---

This type of testimony concerns me. Most financial crime cases are exceptionally tedious and often plodding. But that is because of what, exactly, the government has to prove up. Broadly categorized facts like, "he's rich," and "he had finances he didn't tell me about" just don't do it. Is Mueller's crew going to get into the nitty gritty detail or are they going to leave themselves exposure to a lot of directed verdicts?

blindey? While you are here, apparently Team Mueller introduced yet another forged invoice, this time from a home improvement company to Global Endeavors, same one on the clothing forged invoice.

I'm seeing that as a fake payee type of scheme. Now it could have been Manafort, or it could have been Gates. If Gates, the lack of an IRS audit could come back into play, in my view.

Thoughts?

blindey said:

---

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

Washkuhn also testified she was unaware of and did not have any records of foreign holdings or accounts controlled by Manafort. That's important because prosecutors allege Manafort hid income in accounts offshore in places such as Cyprus and used them to make loans to himself and pay vendors as a tax avoidance scheme.

---

This type of testimony concerns me. Most financial crime cases are exceptionally tedious and often plodding. But that is because of what, exactly, the government has to prove up. Broadly categorized facts like, "he's rich," and "he had finances he didn't tell me about" just don't do it. Is Mueller's crew going to get into the nitty gritty detail or are they going to leave themselves exposure to a lot of directed verdicts?

---

Heather Washkuhn, testified that she was specifically unaware that Manfort controlled firms in Cyprus that loaned him money or gave him payments, including a 2011 $2 million loan from Yiakora Ventures. She said she would have asked for documentation on that kind of loan but did not recall getting it.

Likewise, she said she did not know Manafort to control Leviathan Advisors, which paid him and his wife over $2 million that same year.

Before breaking for lunch, Judge T.S. Ellis III asked prosecutor Greg Andres how much longer he expected Washkuhn's testimony to take. Andres estimated another two hours.

Ellis asked him to try to trim that a bit, and Andres replied that he would. But he noted that Washkuhn's testimony was at the heart of the prosecution's case.

"Ms. Washkuhn plays a relevant role in the bank fraud," as well as the alleged tax fraud, Andres said. "Not to say she was involved, she wasn't." But, he said, she had key knowledge.

Quote:

---

Washkuhn told the jury she sometimes saw activity in those accounts from other accounts she did not have access to. She would request documents from Manafort on those accounts, but only get them "sometimes."

---

But did she ever ask Gates about them? And by "activity" did she mean deposits, debits, or both? If deposits, how did she book them?

aggiehawg said:

---

blindey? While you are here, apparently Team Mueller introduced yet another forged invoice, this time from a home improvement company to Global Endeavors, same one on the clothing forged invoice.

I'm seeing that as a fake payee type of scheme. Now it could have been Manafort, or it could have been Gates. If Gates, the lack of an IRS audit could come back into play, in my view.

Thoughts?

---

This is my thought process on this exactly.

I don't see the gain by Manafort having these faked, unless they were submitted to the IRS with his taxes.

If he had submitted them, the IRS would have a copy of them, these came from the raid on his files.

So why would he have them in his files if he weren't using them for his taxes? My guess is like yours, sounds like someone was trying to pull the wool over on Manafort, not the IRS

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

So why would he have them in his files if he weren't using them for his taxes? My guess is like yours, sounds like someone was trying to pull the wool over on Manafort, not the IRS

---

How would he use them on his taxes? How could those purchases could be deductible? Gates creating them to defraud Manafort seems far more likely.

aggiehawg said:

---

blindey? While you are here, apparently Team Mueller introduced yet another forged invoice, this time from a home improvement company to Global Endeavors, same one on the clothing forged invoice.

I'm seeing that as a fake payee type of scheme. Now it could have been Manafort, or it could have been Gates. If Gates, the lack of an IRS audit could come back into play, in my view.

Thoughts?

---

I think the answer is Gates. Wouldn't these otherwise be in tax docs filed with government? And I think whatever the IRS did civilly is certainly back on the table (pending Gates testimony, at least).

Speaking of Gates, his cross by the defense is make or break.

VegasAg86 said:

---

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

So why would he have them in his files if he weren't using them for his taxes? My guess is like yours, sounds like someone was trying to pull the wool over on Manafort, not the IRS

---

How would he use them on his taxes? How could those purchases could be deductible? Gates creating them to defraud Manafort seems far more likely.

---

Suits could be considered work clothing possibly, Him buying them through a business would just be a flat out line item business expenditure.

Irregardless just having them in his files makes no sense if he wasn't using them.

I think Gates make have to explain that, and that may have been the initial hesitation by the prosecution of putting him on the stand, because in cross, you can bet they will go after him.

blindey said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

blindey? While you are here, apparently Team Mueller introduced yet another forged invoice, this time from a home improvement company to Global Endeavors, same one on the clothing forged invoice.

I'm seeing that as a fake payee type of scheme. Now it could have been Manafort, or it could have been Gates. If Gates, the lack of an IRS audit could come back into play, in my view.

Thoughts?

---

I think the answer is Gates. Wouldn't these otherwise be in tax docs filed with government? And I think whatever the IRS did civilly is certainly back on the table (pending Gates testimony, at least).

Speaking of Gates, his cross by the defense is make or break.

---

Exactly!!!

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

blindey? While you are here, apparently Team Mueller introduced yet another forged invoice, this time from a home improvement company to Global Endeavors, same one on the clothing forged invoice.

I'm seeing that as a fake payee type of scheme. Now it could have been Manafort, or it could have been Gates. If Gates, the lack of an IRS audit could come back into play, in my view.

Thoughts?

---

This is my thought process on this exactly.

I don't see the gain by Manafort having these faked, unless they were submitted to the IRS with his taxes.

If he had submitted them, the IRS would have a copy of them, these came from the raid on his files.

So why would he have them in his files if he weren't using them for his taxes? My guess is like yours, sounds like someone was trying to pull the wool over on Manafort, not the IRS

---

Look at Manafort's opening statement analysis by Techno Fog. Says that Gates was claiming fake business expenses in order to pay himself.

Quote:

---

I don't see the gain by Manafort having these faked, unless they were submitted to the IRS with his taxes.

---

All depends on where that money ended up. It went somewhere.

In a fake payee scheme, a vendor is set up by the embezzler and then an account under that name. Upon presentation of the forged invoice, the company cuts the check or does the wire according to instructions either on the invoice or pursuant to standard business practices. The money then goes into the fake vendor account and is accessed by the embezzler. (I know you know this but just explaining for other posters who may be unfamiliar with fake payee schemes.)

Here, they used existing vendors but slightly altered the names and addresses so as to not alert anyone that the money was not going for payment on a legitimate purpose. But it went somewhere, if it didn't go to the normal vendor with the correct name, which would have created a credit on Manafort's account.

Whomever controlled that other account is the embezzler. Although in this case, it appears that Team Mueller is asserting that it was part of Manafort's tax avoidance scheme. Which is possible of course.

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

Suits could be considered work clothing possibly, Him buying them through a business would just be a flat out line item business expenditure.

Irregardless just having them in his files makes no sense if he wasn't using them.

I think Gates make have to explain that, and that may have been the initial hesitation by the prosecution of putting him on the stand, because in cross, you can bet they will go after him.

---

The IRS has shot down the professional clothing as a business expense claim. Plus, those are offshore companies he is supposed to be hiding from the IRS. They didn't file with the IRS, hence the charges of tax evasion.

Hawg is right, an audit is needed to see where the money for those forged invoices was going. Gates defrauding Manafort is all the more reason for him to plea and help the government.

aggiehawg said:

---

Here, they used existing vendors but slightly altered the names and addresses so as to not alert anyone that the money was not going for payment on a legitimate purpose. But it went somewhere, if it didn't go to the normal vendor with the correct name, which would have created a credit on Manafort's account.

Whomever controlled that other account is the embezzler. Although in this case, it appears that Team Mueller is asserting that it was part of Manafort's tax avoidance scheme. Which is possible of course.

---

Seems this is a question that has to be answered at some point, doesn't it?

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

I don't see the gain by Manafort having these faked, unless they were submitted to the IRS with his taxes.

---

All depends on where that money ended up. It went somewhere.

In a fake payee scheme, a vendor is set up by the embezzler and then an account under that name. Upon presentation of the forged invoice, the company cuts the check or does the wire according to instructions either on the invoice or pursuant to standard business practices. The money then goes into the fake vendor account and is accessed by the embezzler. (I know you know this but just explaining for other posters who may be unfamiliar with fake payee schemes.)

Here, they used existing vendors but slightly altered the names and addresses so as to not alert anyone that the money was not going for payment on a legitimate purpose. But it went somewhere, if it didn't go to the normal vendor with the correct name, which would have created a credit on Manafort's account.

Whomever controlled that other account is the embezzler. Although in this case, it appears that Team Mueller is asserting that it was part of Manafort's tax avoidance scheme. Which is possible of course.

---

Manafort being guilty of what's in the indictment and being a victim of Gates are not mutually exclusive, right?

True. I think the question is if the prosecution can prove Gates was helping Manafort hide money, or stealing money from his boss with Manafort just being sloppy and reckless with his tax obligations, or some combination. The defense may try to build a reasonable doubt if they can show Gates was arranging these transitions outside the knowledge of Manafort without being able to show Manafort understood these transactions and helped plan and authorize them.

At some level it becomes a question of frequency and magnitude, at least regarding the number of counts and dollar total for future sentencing.

No, they don't have to be mutually exclusive, at all. But it sure does affects Gates credibility with the jurors. And the last thing the Prosecution wants to do is create any juror sympathy for Manafort being duped by the same guy who then pled out and turned on him. Gates can say Manafort knew everything but the jury may not believe him anyway.

I have had a case or two wherein I was afforded the opportunity to ask every lawyer's dream question, "Were you lying then? Or are you lying now?" Witness answered, "Then," and the jury buys it. It happens.

And what's all this got to do with RUSSIA-TRUMP COLLUSION RABBLE RABBLE...?

To quote the infamous Quannel-X:
"Just because a cat gives birth to kittens in the oven, that don't make'em biscuits!"

SpreadsheetAg said:

---

And what's all this got to do with RUSSIA-TRUMP COLLUSION RABBLE RABBLE...?

To quote the infamous Quannel-X:
"Just because a cat gives birth to kittens in the oven, that don't make'em biscuits!"

---

Of all personalities possible I never thought Q-10 would be referenced in this thread. Well played sir.

BTW, you recover from trying to amputate your fingers?

The Last Cobra Commander said:

---

SpreadsheetAg said:

---

And what's all this got to do with RUSSIA-TRUMP COLLUSION RABBLE RABBLE...?

To quote the infamous Quannel-X:
"Just because a cat gives birth to kittens in the oven, that don't make'em biscuits!"

---

Of all personalities possible I never thought Q-10 would be referenced in this thread. Well played sir.

BTW, you recover from trying to amputate your fingers?

---

partially... I've given up on rehab and i missed a DR appt about 4 weeks ago and haven't been back... too busy.

Ring finger is a little "curly" at the tip, but I have 80% of my movement back

drcrinum said:

---

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

blindey? While you are here, apparently Team Mueller introduced yet another forged invoice, this time from a home improvement company to Global Endeavors, same one on the clothing forged invoice.

I'm seeing that as a fake payee type of scheme. Now it could have been Manafort, or it could have been Gates. If Gates, the lack of an IRS audit could come back into play, in my view.

Thoughts?

---

This is my thought process on this exactly.

I don't see the gain by Manafort having these faked, unless they were submitted to the IRS with his taxes.

If he had submitted them, the IRS would have a copy of them, these came from the raid on his files.

So why would he have them in his files if he weren't using them for his taxes? My guess is like yours, sounds like someone was trying to pull the wool over on Manafort, not the IRS

---

Look at Manafort's opening statement analysis by Techno Fog. Says that Gates was claiming fake business expenses in order to pay himself.

---

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

drcrinum said:

---

Look at Manafort's opening statement analysis by Techno Fog. Says that Gates was claiming fake business expenses in order to pay himself.

---

---

The red outline is very interesting. "The evidence will show" means they did the audit, or at least enough research to know Gates was forging invoices to funnel money to himself. That or they've screwed themselves by claiming evidence they don't have.

Quote:

---

The red outline is very interesting. "The evidence will show" means they did the audit, or at least enough research to know Gates was forging invoices to funnel money to himself. That or they've screwed themselves by claiming evidence they don't have.

---

I wonder if the forged invoices were the "fake expenses" or those came as a surprise to the defense? A nice gift if they didn't already know.

Back on the stand after lunch,

Heather Washkuhn continued to go through the financial documents she prepared when she was his bookkeeper.

The documents show that in 2015, the finances for the firm Davis Manafort Partners went off a cliff.
Having taken in millions for years in 2012 Manafort reported paying himself a nearly $2 million salary the firm reported only $338,542 in income in 2015 and a $1.2 million loss in 2016.

As Manafort was running Donald Trump's campaign without pay, according to the records, his firm was losing hundreds of thousands of dollars a month.

With her testimony, Washkuhn continued to cast doubt on the reliability of the financial records, again saying she was unaware that Manafort controlled companies that were paying the firm or loaning the firm money.

She said one such loan, a $1.5 million line of credit from Peranova Holdings Limited in 2015, was reclassified as income at the direction of Manafort deputy Rick Gates.

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

Back on the stand after lunch,

She said one such loan, a $1.5 million line of credit from Peranova Holdings Limited in 2015, was reclassified as income at the direction of Manafort deputy Rick Gates.

---

The Last Cobra Commander said:

---

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

Back on the stand after lunch,

She said one such loan, a $1.5 million line of credit from Peranova Holdings Limited in 2015, was reclassified as income at the direction of Manafort deputy Rick Gates.

---

---

Yep! That could possibly bolster Manafort's defense, as it shows Gates involvement in the finances. And that he pretty much had free reign over decisions made.

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

Back on the stand after lunch,

Heather Washkuhn continued to go through the financial documents she prepared when she was his bookkeeper.

The documents show that in 2015, the finances for the firm Davis Manafort Partners went off a cliff.
Having taken in millions for years in 2012 Manafort reported paying himself a nearly $2 million salary the firm reported only $338,542 in income in 2015 and a $1.2 million loss in 2016.

As Manafort was running Donald Trump's campaign without pay, according to the records, his firm was losing hundreds of thousands of dollars a month.

With her testimony, Washkuhn continued to cast doubt on the reliability of the financial records, again saying she was unaware that Manafort controlled companies that were paying the firm or loaning the firm money.

She said one such loan, a $1.5 million line of credit from Peranova Holdings Limited in 2015, was reclassified as income at the direction of Manafort deputy Rick Gates.

---

Uhmm, that's not making sense to me. If they were losing that amount of money per month, did they have reserve accounts that she was drawing from? Shareholder advances, capital contributions. shareholder loans?

I'm confused.

aggiehawg said:

---

I wonder if the forged invoices were the "fake expenses" or those came as a surprise to the defense? A nice gift if they didn't already know.

---

Seems they'd be pretty excited if the government gave them the piece of the puzzle they were missing. Would be fun to be in their conference room reviewing the day to know.

Washkuhn continues her testimony by detailing how Davis Manafort Partners's financial meltdown began to take a toll on Paul Manafort personally. He had made a nearly $2 million salary a handful of years earlier doing political consulting in Ukraine, but by 2016, Manafort's patron, Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, had fled his homeland and could no longer pay Manafort.

And Washkuhn testified she was sending a series of desperate e-mails to Manafort, seeking payment for a laundry list of Manafort's personal bills. A tally from early 2016 showed Manafort owed more than $1.1 million to pay off credit cards and other expenses from lavish spending.

"$120K is urgently needed for your personal bills," Washkuhn wrote to Manafort in an e-mail that was shown to the jury.

Manafort seems like kind of a dumbass. How can you be so loose with money and the laws dealing with it, and be a expert at politi....

Oh...

Quote:

---

And Washkuhn testified she was sending a series of desperate e-mails to Manafort, seeking payment for a laundry list of Manafort's personal bills. A tally from early 2016 showed Manafort owed more than $1.1 million to pay off credit cards and other expenses from lavish spending.

"$120K is urgently needed for your personal bills," Washkuhn wrote to Manafort in an e-mail that was shown to the jury.

---

I'm sorry but the first thing I thought of was a friend of mine who was in the accounting department at Barnes-Connally the last few months before they filed Chapter 7. Down to a skeleton staff with phones ringing off of the hook, they were instructed to answer, "Barnes-Connally, the check is in the mail," and hang up.