Rick Gates, who has turned on former boss Paul Manafort to testify they committed bank and tax fraud together, returned to the stand for several more hours of testimony in federal court on Tuesday.

Gates, testifying as part of a plea deal, said Tuesday that Manafort would fraudulently classify certain wire transfers as loans to reduce the amount of taxable income in a given year. Manafort, with his arms folded, has been staring daggers at his former deputy during the testimony.

Before proceedings began in the morning, prosecutors said they expected three more hours of testimony from Gates, considered the star witness in the high-profile fraud case against Manafort, the former chairman of the Trump campaign.

Manafort, 69, faces tax evasion and bank fraud charges as he is accused of hiding a “significant percentage” of income earned from his Ukrainian work from the IRS. He also is accused of fraudulently obtaining millions more in bank loans, including while he was working on the Trump campaign.

Manafort has pleaded not guilty to the charges.

But Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team is running into trouble as the famously-prickly judge in the case, U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III, lashed out again at the prosecution.

After jurors were dismissed for the day Monday, Ellis got into an extended verbal debate — lasting about 10 minutes — over the merits of the prosecution, the length of the case and even the eye contact of prosecutor Greg Andres.

Ellis specifically pushed Andres on why the prosecution was moving slowly with Gates, as well as why the prosecution is focusing on the link between wealthy Ukrainian politicos and Manafort. Ellis argued that the connection was not the basis of the case. –Fox News

So, what is the basis of Mueller’s case? And what the heck is going on with their crooked “star witness” Rick Gates?

“Techno Fog” does a brilliant job of analyzing and breaking down the appearance of Rick Gates, Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s “star witness” before Judge Ellis in the Paul Manafort case. In his thread,  “Techno Fog” reveals that Gates embezzled huge amounts of money from Paul Manafort, that he was involved in a Ponzi scheme, that he knowingly and intentionally lied when he provided false information in his testimony to the Special Counsel, and that the Special Counsel objected when Gates was asked about his time with the Trump campaign, and that the next 6 pages of his testimony after Gates is asked about the Trump campaign are sealed.

Here is the thread:

Transcript on the cross-examination of the Special Counsel’s star witness Rick Gates in the Paul Manafort case.

How much did he embezzle?

How many lies did he tell the Special Counsel during their investigation? 

Before cross-examination began, there was a bench discussion.

Manafort’s lawyer said he would get into how Gates stole money to fund his “secret life.”

There was an agreement that they wouldn’t bring up Gates’ infidelity.

However, they were going to imply how he stole the money to finance his “separate secret life.”

The special counsel didn’t object to that.

Defense: “Do you recall when you first started giving false and misleading information to the Office of the Special Counsel?”

Gates avoids directly answering the question – indicating how he was coached by the Special Counsel.

“I didn’t provide false and misleading information to the Special Counsel’s office.”

Their star witness just committed perjury.

Defense: If you didn’t lie, then why did you plead guilty to providing false information?

Gates backtracks: “Under one instance I did.”

Judge Ellis calls Gates out: “Well, so previously, you said you didn’t provide false information.”

Now Gates is blaming his “bad recollection” on why he pleaded guilty to lying to the Special Counsel.

The patience of Judge Ellis is wearing thin.

Judge: “You just said you just had a bad memory. Did you provide false information or did you have just a bad memory?”

Gates: “Your Honor, I provided false information to the Special Counsel prior to my plea agreement.”

Who confronted Gates about his lies?

The equally crooked Andrew Weissmann.

The Special Counsel was in a bind and had to charge their witness with lying or they’d lose all credibility with the jury.

Remember Gates blaming his memory on why he was charged with lying to the Special Counsel?

Manafort’s lawyer now gets him to admit that he “knowingly and intentionally lied.”

Now, this part was a bit muddled, but Manafort’s lawyer is getting to the point that he thinks Gates embezzled $350,000 from a Cyproit account for an investment deal.

Gates now “can’t recall” telling the Special Counsel about unauthorized transactions from the Cyproit accounts.

He can’t pick out the transactions he told the Special Counsel were authorized.

But he had a perfect memory when questioned by the Special Counsel during direct.

Defense: Did you perpetrate a scheme to take money from offshore accounts?

Gates: “It wasn’t a scheme. I just added expense numbers to the reports.”

The jury must have been rolling their eyes at this point.

Manafort’s lawyer brings up how Gates would falsify expense reports to pay off his AmEx.

Defense: “That included substantial personal expenditures?”

Gates avoids answering yet again: “Yes, that’s possible.”

Defense: Was that the $125K you stole from a SunTrust account? Gates: “I don’t know what you’re referring to.”

Did the Special Counsel question you about closing the SunTrust account?

Gates: “I don’t recall”

This guy has ZERO credibility.

Manafort’s lawyer has the notes from the Special Counsel’s interviews with Gates.

It seems like Weissmann caught Gates in another lie, this time about the SunTrust account.

Conveniently, Gates can’t recall being confronted by Weissmann.

Now Gates is asked if he orchestrated a scheme to steal from Trump’s inaugural committee.

He can’t recall what he told the Special Counsel about that, either.

I feel like I’m taking crazy pills – Gates keeps contradicting himself.

Here he switches from “I don’t recall” to “it’s possible” when asked about submitting expenses to the inaugural committee.

Gates denies embezzling money to pay for his “secret life” that was mentioned in the bench discussion at the start of this thread.

Another lie.


Rick Gates was helping run a Ponzi scheme – and falsifying financial documents – separate from his work with Manafort?

The Special Counsel confronted Gates with potential fraud charges in that business venture.. all of which would go away if he cooperated.

Yet more crimes/financial violations.

It goes on and on.

This time for insider trading with a company called “ID Watchdog” on the eve of an IPO.

Manafort’s lawyers moves on to Gates’ false tax returns.

Gates can’t recall being confronted with leaving off “well over $1 million” on his amended return.

He can’t recall if it was a large number.

He can’t recall “what it related to.”

This is interesting.

Gates is asked about being interviewed about his time with the Trump campaign.

The Special Counsel objects.

The next 6 pages are sealed.

No idea what happened. (But the next line of questioning has to do with 2010 wire transfers)

Here we see exactly how Gates embezzled money.

In this example, Gates falsified multiple documents to steal $65,000 from Manafort.

Next: how Gates stole $120,000 by creating “a false and phony invoice”

This (verbatim) interaction is good…

Defense: Why won’t you say “embezzlement”?

Gates: What difference does it make?

Defense: Why won’t you say “embezzlement”?

Gates: It was embezzlement from Mr. Manafort.

Meanwhile, the Special Counsel pipes up and gets smacked down.

Special Counsel: “Judge, could we have questions and answers as opposed to a discussion here?”

Judge: “I don’t see that as an objection. I’ll overrule it.”

Now Manafort’s lawyer goes for blood.

Defense: After all the lies you told and fraud you’ve committed, you expect this jury to believe you?

Gates: Yes.

Defense: Uncorroborated?

Gates: Yes.

Defense: Can you return the money you stole from Manafort?

Gates: No, I cannot.

Defense: So you’re really not taking responsibility, are you?

Gates: On that subject, no.


Join The Conversation. Leave a Comment.