In another e-mail from January 2016, Washkuhn wrote to Manafort that taxes were due that day on a New York City property he owned.

Davis Manafort Partners was also struggling to pay its bills. In an email to Rick Gates in April 2016, Washkuhn wrote the firm's medical insurance was going to be cancelled because the bill hadn't been paid. She said to send money "ASAP."

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

In another e-mail from January 2016, Washkuhn wrote to Manafort that taxes were due that day on a New York City property he owned.

Davis Manafort Partners was also struggling to pay its bills. In an email to Rick Gates in April 2016, Washkuhn wrote the firm's medical insurance was going to be cancelled because the bill hadn't been paid. She said to send money "ASAP."

---

Why did she email Gates and not Manafort? That's a delicious question for cross examination

I have been doing a little digging of my own and found this interesting.

For a company allegedly violating FARA they weren't hiding the fact very well since they registered in Florida in 2011

Back to the trial

Prosecutors have now gotten to the meat of the bank fraud charges against Paul Manafort. They showed Rick Gates sent financial documents to two banks indicating Davis Manafort Partners made $4.5 million in 2015.

Bookkeeper Heather Washkuhn testified that was "four million more than what was reported on the documents that we created." Her firm recorded the company making about $400,000 that year.

Prosecutors showed jurors several emails that seem to show an effort to inflate income.

In messages early in the morning on March 16, 2016, Gates asks Washkuhn to send him a Word document version of the previous year's financial records, rather than a scanned pdf. Washkuhn replies that's impossible.

Quote:

---

My input:

This I find interesting him wanting it in a word document, sounds like he wanted to be able to alter it. The purpose of the software generating the document in a pdf, likely a secure one, is to reduce the chances of it being altered or at least make it difficult.

---

He then asks for the pdf that comes out of her bookkeeping system because the scanned pdf is "slanted and not completely clear." Washkuhn replies that she can't do that either; the system prints out a document and she can only scan it or send it by regular mail.

"It sounds like old technology," Gates replies.

Gates then asks her to add $2.6 million in "accrued revenue" for 2015, something he said in a previous email Manafort had requested. She says she cannot; the firm operates on a cash basis, recording money when it comes in rather than when it is earned.

Gates then emails another employee at the bookkeeping firm, Laura Tanner, and, "per email with Heather," she should add the $2.6 million to the 2015 income.

It's unclear what Tanner did. But prosecutors showed jurors an attachment Gates sent to Banc of California. "It is similar in some respects" to the DMP financial statement prepared by the bookkeeping firm, Washkuhn testified, but she said the disclaimer was missing, the font was different, and "the numbers are different."

Bonfire1996 said:

---

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

In another e-mail from January 2016, Washkuhn wrote to Manafort that taxes were due that day on a New York City property he owned.

Davis Manafort Partners was also struggling to pay its bills. In an email to Rick Gates in April 2016, Washkuhn wrote the firm's medical insurance was going to be cancelled because the bill hadn't been paid. She said to send money "ASAP."

---

Why did she email Gates and not Manafort? That's a delicious question for cross examination

---

Gates was the CFO

akm91 said:

---

Sounds like Gates should be the one on trial.

---

He did a guilty plea

BMX Bandit said:

---

akm91 said:

---

Sounds like Gates should be the one on trial.

---

He did a guilty plea

---

Quote:

---

The superseding indictment was filed just a couple of hours after Manafort's business partner, former campaign aide Rick Gates, pleaded guilty to conspiracy and lying to investigators even while he was negotiating a deal with special counsel Robert Mueller.


Gates is now the third associate of President Donald Trump to strike a cooperation agreement with Mueller, who is investigating Russian meddling in the 2016 election and possible ties to the campaign.
The agreement, which requires Gates to cooperate on "all matters" prosecutors deem relevant, appears to be a good deal for both sides. Gates could get as little as probation if he keeps up his end of the bargain, and Mueller's case against Manafort morphs from one built on paper evidence to one in which the star witness worked hand-in-hand with the defendant.

---

LINK

Quote:

---

Mueller, who is investigating Russian meddling in the 2016 election

---

Is he? From my vantage it just looks like he's a damned tax lawyer chasing after shady businessmen who happened to have once been within 10,000 miles of Moscow.

MSNBC "Legal Analysts Panel" have overwhelming concluded that the POTUS tweets are in fact "Jury Tampering"

You cannot make this stuff up....

Trial is in a brief recess before the Defense gets to cross examine the book keeper

Tampering for a not even empaneled jury for a court case that doesn't exist regarding charges that have never been filed?

They argue TDS doesn't exist, but something is causing many seemingly intelligent people to say and do some galactically stupid things.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

Tampering for a not even empaneled jury for a court case that doesn't exist regarding charges that have never been filed?

---

lol

I guess we need more context. I was thinking they meant he was tampering with the Manafort jury.

How? Mueller's team isn't running that case and trial. Trump isn't talking about tax fraud and evasion.

Defense cross examination of bookkeeper

Defense attempts Washkuhn to tie Manafort's personal and business finances to Rick Gates, his business partner. The defense has contended that Gates was responsible for any financial wrongdoing and that he sought to manipulate Manafort and his finances for his own personal gain.

Defense attorney Thomas Zehnle asked Washkuhn if she was correct in her earlier assessment that Gates was Manafort's "right hand man." She answered that was fair. She also added under questioning that Gates had the authority to direct wire transfers from overseas, a central part of the case.

"He handled a lot of the business affairs," Waskuhn said of Gates.

"He approved every expenditure on the personal and business side," Washkuhn said.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

How? Mueller's team isn't running that case and trial. Trump isn't talking about tax fraud and evasion.

---

Roscoe's post didn't say Mueller's team, and I don't do Twitter to see exactly what Trump has tweeted. There is no doubt in my mind I could be wrong and you are right.

VegasAg86 said:

---

MouthBQ98 said:

---

How? Mueller's team isn't running that case and trial. Trump isn't talking about tax fraud and evasion.

---

Roscoe's post didn't say Mueller's team, and I don't do Twitter to see exactly what Trump has tweeted. There is no doubt in my mind I could be wrong and you are right.

---

There are two Mueller team members at the table with two EDVA members,

Sounds to me if they lose it's on EDVA, if the win, it's Team Mueller win

Every Brief filed to date has Andrew Weissmann's name still at the bottom of it along with
Uzo Asonye


Greg D. Andres and Brandon L. Van Grack are the two Mueller team members at the table.

Prosecutors next witness is a Manafort accountant Philip Ayliff



Prosecutors 13th overall witness, is Philip Ayliff. His testimony is expected to last about as long as bookkeeper Heather Washkuhn's, meaning he will likely have to take the witness stand again tomorrow.

Prosecutors submitted to the court a list of 35 possible witnesses, and they will not necessarily call every one. They have said they could rest their case next week.

Yeah, but one has to be taking the lead, and the jurisdiction for the trial must somehow relate to which office is prosecuting it I would think. Regardless of who is prosecuting it, the jury isn't supposed to be taking in media regarding the case, from any source, so how would Trump using a media platform matter? And again, he's not even commenting on that case.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

Yeah, but one has to be taking the lead, and the jurisdiction for the trial must somehow relate to which office is prosecuting it I would think. Regardless of who is prosecuting it, the jury isn't supposed to be taking in media regarding the case, from any source, so how would Trump using a media platform matter? And again, he's not even commenting on that case.

---

Uzo Asonye (EDVA) and Greg D. Andres (SC) have been leading the prosecution Uzo Asonye is first chair he did the opening arguement. Both have been doing the questioning on the witnesses.

Quote:

---

Sounds to me if they lose it's on EDVA, if the win, it's Team Mueller win

---

Looks like EDVA is being set up by the Mueller team.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

How? Mueller's team isn't running that case and trial. Trump isn't talking about tax fraud and evasion.

---

It was Lawrence O'Donnell saying the Tweets about Sessions are tampering with the Manafort jury.

Quote:

---

O'Donnell said, "On day two of Paul Manafort's trial, the president did something we have never seen any other president do. He deliberately, willfully, and with pre-meditation, interfered with that trial."

---

http://dailycaller.com/2018/08/02/lawrence-odonnell-trump-crime-in-public/

Never?

VegasAg86 said:

---

MouthBQ98 said:

---

How? Mueller's team isn't running that case and trial. Trump isn't talking about tax fraud and evasion.

---

It was Lawrence O'Donnell saying the Tweets about Sessions are tampering with the Manafort jury.

http://dailycaller.com/2018/08/02/lawrence-odonnell-trump-crime-in-public/

---

It's actually Jill Wine-Banks was who started the conversation on a four person panel (Mimi Rocah, Ari Melber, and I can't remember the other one) and they all agreed.

aggiehawg said:

---

Never?

---

You can't really expect MSNBC to let the facts get in the way of OMG TRUMP IS THE WORST EVER!!!

Philip Ayliff read from engagement letters sent to Manafort every year, which covered Davis Manafort Partners and several other entities Manafort controlled. The letters warned Manafort that the firm "will not audit or verify the data you submit," and that "our engagement does not include any procedures designed to detect material errors, irregularities or illegal acts."

Manafort signed those letters every year from 2012 to 2016.

Manafort also signed off on tax returns from 2011 to 2014 in which he claimed to have no foreign bank accounts, according to the documents introduced by prosecutors. Ayliff testified that clients would be given a form telling them that failure to report such accounts could lead to substantial civil or criminal penalties.

"We ask clients about foreign accounts every year," he said. "We wanted to make sure clients were adhering to this rule, because the penalties are very severe."

The firm did so even more insistently starting around 2010, Ayliff said, because the IRS was "placing more emphasis" on foreign bank account reporting. The crimes with which Manafort is now charged include failing to report foreign bank accounts.

Court broke for the day after Assistant U.S. Attorney Uzo Asonye was twice cut off by Judge Ellis from asking what were deemed questions for an expert only.

The first time, after Ellis said "he can't testify as an expert," defense attorney Kevin Downing got up to make an objection to that effect.

"You're a little slow," Ellis said with a laugh.

Testimony resumes at 9:30 a.m. Friday.

VegasAg86 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Never?

---

You can't really expect MSNBC to let the facts get in the way of OMG TRUMP IS THE WORST EVER!!!

---

Lawrence is still trying to find out who was hammering

Quote:

---

Court broke for the day after Assistant U.S. Attorney Uzo Asonye was twice cut off by Judge Ellis from asking what were deemed questions for an expert only.

---

Can't wait to see the wording Asonye was using to ask those questions. The rules on questioning experts are quite specific. As they also are for qualifying someone as an expert.

Ellis is holding their feet to the fire and will do the same when the defense presents their case.

LOL

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

Defense cross examination of bookkeeper

Defense attempts Washkuhn to tie Manafort's personal and business finances to Rick Gates, his business partner. The defense has contended that Gates was responsible for any financial wrongdoing and that he sought to manipulate Manafort and his finances for his own personal gain.

Defense attorney Thomas Zehnle asked Washkuhn if she was correct in her earlier assessment that Gates was Manafort's "right hand man." She answered that was fair. She also added under questioning that Gates had the authority to direct wire transfers from overseas, a central part of the case.

"He handled a lot of the business affairs," Waskuhn said of Gates.

"He approved every expenditure on the personal and business side," Washkuhn said.

---

^
|
I see what you did here.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2018/08/02/paul-manafort-trial-day-3-live-updates/?utm_term=.182a51434481

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1025043796843585536.html

Short thread on why the FBI investigation of Manafort from 2014-16 went nowhere.

This article below also contains interesting info buried within it with a different take:
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jasonleopold/manafort-under-scrutiny-for-40-million-in-suspicious#.mlllljz2mD

Quote:

---

...

Quote:

---

Federal law enforcement officials have identified more than $40 million in "suspicious" financial transactions to and from companies controlled by President Donald Trump's former campaign manager Paul Manafort a much larger sum than was cited in his October indictment on money laundering charges.

The vast web of transactions was unraveled mainly in 2014 and 2015 during an FBI operation to fight international kleptocracy that ultimately fizzled. The story of that failed effort -- and its resurrection by special counsel Robert Mueller as he investigated whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to interfere with the 2016 election -- has never been fully told.

But it explains how the special counsel was able to swiftly bring charges against Manafort for complex financial crimes dating as far back as 2008 -- and it shows that Mueller could still wield immense leverage as he seeks to compel Manafort to cooperate in the ongoing investigation.

---

...

Quote:

---

In the summer of 2014, an FBI special agent questioned Manafort at his attorney's office in Washington, DC. Manafort denied knowing anything about money reportedly stolen by the Yanukovych government, according to internal FBI emails reviewed by BuzzFeed News, and promised to turn over documents to the Bureau. He never did, according to the two officials.

"We had him in 2014," one of the former officials said. "In hindsight, we could have nailed him then."

The FBI's top brass, both of the former officials said, deemed Manafort's suspected financial crimes as too petty: They amounted to only tens of millions of dollars -- small potatoes compared to what Manafort's boss, Yanukovych, was suspected of stealing.

---

---

https://saraacarter.com/lawmakers-demand-declassification-of-bruce-ohr-fbi-interviews/

Quote:

---

..."Ohr was one of the top officials at DOJ and they told the court they had terminated Steele, but Ohr was continuing to meet with Steele despite his termination and then (he was) feeding the information to the FBI," said Nunes on Thursday. "It is completely appropriate for Grassley to ask for these documents to be declassified."...

The information of Bruce Ohr's close ties to the FBI's relationship with Steele appear to be corroborated by testimony former FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok provided in July to the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees. According to Strzok, Ohr gave extensive material to the FBI regarding the dossier. Some lawmakers believe it was Mr. Ohr who gave the salacious material contained in former British spy Steele's multi-part dossier to the bureau....

---

Well that's new. We've heard that Steele gave the dossier to FBI agents, and that the Department of State gave at least parts of the dossier to the FBI, + McCain, + Corn. But this is a new avenue: Steele to Fusion GPS to Nellie Ohr to Bruce Ohr to the FBI. This confirms at least one of Nellie Ohr's functions, a carrier pigeon.

I have been thinking about my experiences with owners/bookkeepers/accountants. My first job as a lawyer, the Managing Partner was an accountant/tax attorney. Been with the IRS/Ernst & Young before going into private practice. Very smart guy and in his mid-40's at the time. Seasoned.

But when it came to the day-to-day accounting for operation of the law firm, he relied on the bookkeeper. True story time. One year, the bookkeeper, single woman who loved to party, was taken out by her friend for the bookkeeper's birthday. The next day (afternoon) she woke up in Mexico. Ooops!

But here was the problem, it was a Friday and payday and she had not done payroll before she left. Double Ooops!! The accountant/tax attorney/managing partner had no idea how to do it, nor did anyone else. This was back when "bankers' hours" was a thing and banks closed for business in the early afternoon. But fortunately, this guy was an afficionado of large old fashioned safes and had one in the office. In it he always kept $50,000 cash in case he ever had to bail out a large client (or so he said was the reason).

So he paid everyone in cash, no withholding, just their gross pay for the period and figured that would be the bookkeeper's problem to sort it all out when she returned. And no, she wasn't fired. She had worked for the firm for 15 years.

Point being, even the most educated, smart, knowledgeable people come to rely on other people, sometimes to their detriment.

I was trying to decide how big of a smartass remark i was going to make regarding the "accountants trip" to Mexico, because it kind of sounds like a bed time story, and a good one. She had to have had a hell of a hangover. That phone call to the office had to just sucked, not to mention it being long distance!

But, I was afraid it would be construed as a lack of respect for you, so I actually decided to keep it to myself, for once!

"And there I was, in a one room hotel in Juarez................"