Rick Gates - Prosecuton Sentencing Memo PDF

Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 643 Filed 12/10/19 Page 1 of 19
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
Crim. No. 17-201-2 (ABJ)
RICHARD W. GATES III,
Defendant.
GOVERNMENT’S MOTION FOR A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE AND

MEMORANDUM IN AID OF SENTENCING
Since entering a guilty plea in February 2018, the defendant, Richard W. Gates III, has
provided the government with extraordinary assistance. He met with investigators more than fifty
times, providing truthful information to the Special Counsel’s Office and several other prosecuting
offices of the Department of Justice. He voluntarily surrendered his electronic devices with broad
authorization for the government to image and search them. He gave sworn testimony in three
federal criminal trials in the Eastern District of Virginia and the District of Columbia. And he has
pledged to continue to cooperate with the government after his sentencing in several ongoing
matters. In short, under exceedingly difficult circumstances and under intense public scrutiny,
Gates has worked earnestly to provide the government with everything it has asked of him and has
fulfilled all obligations under his plea agreement. Accordingly, consistent with its promise to
Gates in his plea agreement, the United States, through the United States Attorney for the District
of Columbia, submits this memorandum in aid of sentencing and respectfully moves for a
downward departure, pursuant to the United States Sentencing Guidelines (“Guidelines” or
“U.S.S.G.”) § 5K1.1, and does not oppose Gates’ request for probation.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This section reviews the charges filed against Gates in this Court, in the District Court for
the Eastern District of Virginia, and his subsequent guilty plea.
I. District of Columbia Indictment
On October 17, 2017, a federal grand jury in the District of Columbia returned an eight-
count indictment in the instant case. Indictment, ECF No. 13. The conduct charged in the
Indictment related to Manafort’s and Gates’ failure to register under the Foreign Agents
Registration Act (FARA) for their work as agents of the Government of Ukraine, the Party of
Regions, and Ukrainian President Victor Yanukovych, as well as their failure to report the income
earned from that work and the overseas accounts in which those funds were maintained. Manafort
and Gates also later concealed that work by making false statements to the United States
Department of Justice, National Security Division’s FARA Unit. The various charged schemes
involved money laundering and tax fraud, as well as a series of lies, by both Manafort and Gates,
to the professionals hired by Manafort to assist with his finances and government filings, including
his bookkeepers, tax preparers, and lawyers.
II. Eastern District of Virginia Indictment
On February 22, 2018, a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia returned a
32-count Superseding Indictment charging Manafort and Gates. Gates was charged with: (a)
assisting Manafort in the filing of Manafort’s false tax returns as to income and the existence of
Manafort’s overseas accounts from 2010 to 2014 (Counts Six through Ten); (b) subscribing false
tax returns as to Gates’ income and the existence of his own overseas accounts from 2010 to 2014
(Counts Fifteen through Nineteen); (c) filing a false amended tax return in 2013 (Count Twenty);
(d) failing to file Foreign Bank Account Reports (FBARs) in the years 2011, 2012 and 2013 for
2
his own overseas accounts (Counts Twenty-One, Twenty-Two, Twenty-Three); and (e) various
bank fraud and bank fraud conspiracy counts (Counts Twenty-Four to Thirty-Two). United States
v. Manafort and Gates, 1:18-cr-83 (TSE) (ECF No. 9).
Prior to pursuing charges in the Eastern District of Virginia, the Special Counsel’s Office
asked Manafort and Gates whether they would waive venue and allow the additional charges to be
added to the existing District of Columbia Indictment. Gates agreed to waive venue. Manafort,
as was his right, declined. In light of Manafort’s decision, the government proceeded in the Eastern
District of Virginia against both defendants.
As with the Indictment filed in the District of Columbia, the tax and FBAR charges related
to income earned in Ukraine, maintained in overseas accounts, and transferred to the United States
to purchase luxury items and real estate, and to improve Manafort’s homes in Bridgehampton,
New York, and Palm Beach, Florida, among others. The Indictment also alleged that Manafort
and Gates disguised, for Manafort’s benefit, more than $10 million in income transferred from
overseas accounts by falsely characterizing that income as loans.
The Indictment added substantive tax charges relating to Gates’ false personal income tax
filings from 2010 to 2014. During that time period, Gates wired more than $3 million from various
overseas accounts to accounts he controlled—some of which he stole from Manafort, totaling
several hundred thousand dollars. Gates failed to report this income and the overseas accounts he
controlled.
Additionally, the Indictment charged Manafort and Gates in nine bank fraud/bank fraud
conspiracies, involving five loan applications to three separate financial institutions. Four of these
loans related to properties that Manafort purchased or improved with funds from his overseas
accounts. As such, Manafort was able to access the overseas income he invested in these
3
properties, and for which he did not pay taxes, by using the property as collateral. Manafort (or
his son-in-law) were the sole beneficiaries of the four loans that were approved; Gates did not
receive any proceeds.
III. Guilty Plea and Cooperation Agreement
On February 23, 2018, less than four months after his initial indictment in the instant case,
Gates pled guilty, under a plea agreement, to a two-count Superseding Criminal Information. ECF
No. 195. Count One of the Information charged Gates with Conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 371; the objects of the conspiracy were tax fraud in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1), FBAR
crimes in violation of 31 U.S.C. §§ 5312, 5322(b), and a FARA violation, including making false
statements to the Justice Department, in violation of 22 U.S.C. §§ 612, 618.
Gates’ specific conduct underlying the charges was summarized in the Statement of the
Offense attached to his plea agreement. ECF No. 206. During his allocution, Gates admitted that
he caused millions of dollars of Manafort’s income to be wired from offshore accounts for goods,
services, and real estate purchased for Manafort; that Gates helped conceal that income and the
related purchases, and the offshore accounts themselves; that Gates helped Manafort hide millions
of dollars of other income by characterizing it as “loans”; that Gates lied to Manafort’s bookkeeper
and tax preparers about the payments from overseas and the existence of the bank accounts from
which the money was transferred; that Gates engaged in extensive lobbying activities in the United
States on behalf of Ukraine and failed to register for this work as required; that Gates was involved
in hiring two U.S. lobbying firms to represent Ukraine; and that in submissions to the Department
of Justice in November 2016 and February 2017, Gates caused false and misleading statements to
be made relating to the Ukraine work. Gates also admitted that as part of the lobbying scheme, he
4
was involved in hiring a group of former European leaders to lobby in the United States on behalf
of Ukraine.
Count Two charged Gates with making a false statement to the Federal Bureau of
Investigation on February 1, 2018, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a). This conduct involved
Gates’ lies during his initial proffer sessions with the government at the start of the cooperation
process, the effect of which was to provide false exculpatory information about Manafort.
Specifically, the information supported a false defense that Manafort was not guilty of a FARA
violation because he did not directly lobby any United States government officials. Gates lied
about what Manafort and a senior lobbyist told him about their meeting with a Member of Congress
in March 2013, affirmatively telling the government that Manafort told Gates that Ukraine was not
discussed. After Gates was confronted with, among other things, a memorandum for President
Yanukovych written by Gates and Manafort that summarized the meeting and explicitly noted that
the meeting addressed Ukraine, Gates admitted the truth.
Gates’ lie during the proffer was not without consequence. Because of the false statement,
the government’s plea offer changed substantially, and in order to obtain a cooperation agreement,
Gates had to plead guilty to the false statement count in addition to the conspiracy count. Gates’
criminal exposure under the resulting plea agreement increased from five to ten years. Gates
agreed.
Consistent with the Gates’ plea agreement, the government moved to dismiss without
prejudice the charges filed against Gates in the Eastern District of Virginia. The court granted that
motion on March 1, 2018. United States v. Gates, 1:18-cr-83 (TSE) (ECF No. 21).
5
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The Court is familiar with Gates’ substantial criminal conduct. For more than a decade,
Gates engaged in a range of crimes at Manafort’s direction. Together, Manafort and Gates engaged
in tax fraud, FBAR and FARA violations, money laundering, bank fraud, false statements to the
government, and related conspiracies. Throughout their jointly undertaken crimes, Manafort was
the principal and Gates was his employee. Although Manafort generally benefited either
exclusively or principally from these crimes, Gates sometimes profited as well.
Many of Manafort’s and Gates’ crimes related to their work for Ukraine, President
Yanukovych, the Party of Regions, and the Opposition Bloc in Ukraine. Gates, at Manafort’s
direction, helped conceal the nature of their work, the income derived from it, and the overseas
accounts where those funds were maintained. Gates assisted in laundering funds to promote the
scheme. From 2010 to 2014, Gates assisted Manafort in shielding more than $15 million of
Manafort’s income from United States tax authorities. Manafort used that money to pay vendors
for personal goods and services and to purchase and improve real estate. More than $65 million
flowed through the overseas accounts that Manafort controlled and which Gates helped maintain
and conceal. After Manafort’s work in Ukraine ended in 2015, Manafort needed liquidity and
secured more than $25 million through bank fraud. Gates was an active participant in these
schemes, although he received no money from the fraudulently procured loans.
Gates did not commit crimes only with Manafort; on a far smaller scale, he also committed
crimes on his own and for his own benefit. He failed to report more than $3 million in income on
his tax returns over several years, failed to disclose his own foreign bank accounts, and stole
approximately several hundred thousand dollars from Manafort’s overseas accounts. He engaged
in mortgage fraud by overstating his income and the submitted false reimbursement vouchers to
6
employers. And Gates also engaged in an investment fraud scheme with a defendant charged in
the Southern District of New York, Steven Brown, by drafting a letter that made false
representations to promote that scheme. United States v. Brown, No. 16-cr-436 (KBW). Finally,
as the Court is aware, Gates lied during proffer sessions early on in his cooperation, a crime to
which he pled guilty.
ARGUMENT
I. Before Any Departure, A Sentence at the Low End of the Guidelines is Sufficient
and not Greater than Necessary
In order to determine an appropriate sentence, the Court first accurately calculates the
defendant’s advisory Guidelines range, and then considers the various factors set forth under 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a). Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49-50 (2007). The United States submits
that in this case, in light of such factors, a sentence at the low end of the advisory Guidelines
range—before any departure under Section 5K1.1—is appropriate.
A. Gates’ Advisory Guidelines Range
The Presentence Investigation Report (PSR)—with which both Gates and the government
agree—has calculated the Gates’ total offense level at 23. See PSR at 13. This includes a base
offense level of 24, pursuant to U.S.S.G. §2T1.1; an additional 2 levels for failure to report income
of $10,000 or more from criminal activity, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2T1.1(b)(1); and an additional
2 levels for an offense involving sophisticated means, pursuant to U.S.S.G. §2T1.1(b)(2). Id. at
11-12. The PSR then subtracts 2 levels for Gates’ mitigating role, pursuant to U.S.S.G. §3B1.2(b).
Id. at 12. The PSR agrees that Gates should receive a 3-level reduction for acceptance of
responsibility, pursuant to U.S.S.G. §§ 3E1.1(a) and (b). Id. at 13.
Gates has no criminal history. Accordingly, based on a total offense level of 23 and a
criminal history category of I, his advisory Guidelines range is 46 to 57 months’ imprisonment.
7
B. Section 3553(a) Factors
Under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the goal of sentencing is to impose a sentence that is “sufficient,
but not greater than necessary.” After calculating the defendant’s advisory Guidelines range, the
Court considers factors under Section 3553(a), including the nature and circumstances of the
offense; the history and characteristics of the defendant; and the need for the sentence to promote
respect for the law, just punishment, and adequate deterrence. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
The nature and circumstances of the offenses demonstrate that Gates engaged in a pattern
of deceit over an extended period of time. To be clear, the principal beneficiary of Gates’ criminal
acts was Manafort, who directed Gates to lie, conceal, and commit fraud and money laundering to
feed Manafort’s immense greed. But for a decade, Gates agreed and participated, and enabled
Manafort to defraud the government on a massive scale. Furthermore, Gates enjoyed some
personal financial benefit from his crimes.
Gates’ history and characteristics suggest that he could easily have chosen to avoid criminal
conduct. According to the PSR, Gates had a pleasant upbringing, earned Bachelor’s and Master’s
degrees, and held positions with several companies before choosing to work for Manafort in 2006.
At the same time, the crimes that Gates committed at Manafort’s direction appear inconsistent with
his behavior before starting work as Manafort’s employee, or his conduct since pleading guilty in
this case and assisting the government. Gates has no previous criminal convictions and served in
the Army National Guard until his honorable discharge. As noted above, Gates accepted
responsibility for his crimes within months of his indictment, and has been truthful and reliable
since entering his plea.
Finally, a sentence at the low end of the advisory Guidelines range is appropriate to
promote respect for the law and ensure adequate deterrence. The government is confident that
8
there is no need in Gates’ case for specific deterrence. But a pre-departure sentence within the
Guidelines would promote respect for laws requiring disclosures of foreign bank accounts and
work for foreign principals, and would send a public message that extended financial crimes like
Manafort’s and Gates’ merit a significant prison sentence.
II. Motion for Downward Departure under Section 5K1.1 of the Guidelines
The United States moves for a significant downward departure from Gates’ advisory
Guidelines range under Section 5K1.1, based on his substantial assistance in the investigation and
prosecution of others. Gates’ extensive cooperation is detailed here and in the accompanying
sealed submission.
A. Nature of Gates’ Cooperation
i. Debriefings
As noted, Gates initially lied to the government about Manafort’s involvement in a meeting
with a lobbyist and a Member of Congress. Thereafter, however, Gates’ cooperation improved
markedly, and the government believes he has been entirely candid about his and other’s
criminality. His assistance has been substantial.
Gates has met on more than fifty occasions with numerous prosecutors and investigators
from a range of Department of Justice components, and his information has been used in more
than a dozen search warrants. As described in the supplemental Motion being filed separately
under seal, Gates has provided truthful and valuable information in a number of different ongoing
matters.
Furthermore, over the course of debriefings with the government, Gates has admitted his
own participation in crimes in addition to those to which he pled guilty—several of which the
government was unaware. These admissions included that Gates stole money from Manafort;
9
committed mortgage and credit card fraud; testified falsely during a civil deposition; and
participated in investment fraud with a business associate. Most significantly, and early in his
cooperation, Gates admitted that he had been living beyond his means and, to pay his expenses, he
had stolen money from Manafort’s overseas accounts, amounting to approximately several
hundred thousand dollars. At the time of this disclosure, the government was unaware that Gates
had taken this money from Manafort.
Gates also admitted that as part of a lawsuit involving the Pericles fund that Manafort
operated for Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch, at Manafort’s request, Gates provided false
testimony about his relationship with a lawyer in Cyprus who worked with Manafort. In particular,
Gates lied by testifying that Deripaska recommended the lawyer in question and that the Cypriot
lawyer controlled the bank accounts at issue. Gates explained that he lied to make it appear that
Deripaska had some control over the money that flowed through the overseas bank accounts, when
in fact Manafort controlled those accounts. At the time of this disclosure, the government did not
know the nature of Gates’ false testimony.
Gates provided information about his involvement in additional frauds, including inflating
vouchers to his employers and providing false statements to financial institutions to secure credit
cards and mortgages for himself. The vouchers involved expenses such as meals that he would
claim to be business-related, when they were not. With respect to his mortgage application, Gates
had Manafort draft a letter overstating Gates’ income as part of a mortgage application. The
government was not aware of these frauds at the time Gates admitted them.
Finally, Gates acknowledged that, at the behest of defendant Steven Brown, he drafted
documents that made false claims regarding the purchase of film rights, which Brown then used
in the course of an investment fraud scheme to induce investment by others. Gates admitted that
10
the purpose of the documents was to mislead and were, in his words, “clearly fraudulent.” The
Special Counsel’s Office learned of the fraudulent documentation from prosecutors involved in
the Brown investigation. When questioned, Gates admitted he had written the materials and
understood their purpose. Gates profited from several investments he made with Brown, with
whom he invested in various film productions. Brown has since pled guilty in the Southern District
of New York and been sentenced in connection with this scheme. United States v. Brown, No. 16-
cr-436 (KBW).
ii. Sworn Testimony
As the Court knows, as part of his cooperation, Gates has testified under oath in three
federal criminal trials.
1. Testimony in the Eastern District of Virginia, United States v.

Manafort, 1:18-cr-83 (TSE)
Gates provided important testimony at Manafort’s trial in the Eastern District of Virginia
(EDVA) over a three-day period from August 6-8, 2018. He provided a firsthand account as to
each of the 18 tax, FBAR, and bank fraud/bank fraud conspiracy charges against Manafort, and
his testimony was corroborated by numerous documents and was consistent with that of almost a
dozen other witnesses. For the Court’s consideration, a transcript of Gates’ testimony in that case
is enclosed as Exhibit 1.
As the Court is aware, as part of the Eastern District of Virginia prosecution, Manafort was
principally charged in two schemes: one involving tax fraud and FBAR violations and a second
involving multiple bank fraud and bank fraud conspiracies.
During his testimony, Gates detailed Manafort’s political work in Ukraine supporting the
Party of Regions and Victor Yanukovych (and noting Manafort’s skill as a political strategist); the
payment by Ukrainian oligarchs including Rinat Akhmetov, Serhiy Lyovochkin, and Boris
11
Kolesnikov to Manafort for his services; the manner in which they made the payments (from
Cypriot account to Cypriot account); the relevant underlying consultancy agreements and the
names of both the entities controlled by the Ukrainian oligarchs and Manafort’s own entities; the
manner in which the monies were held and concealed in Cyprus, and later moved to St. Vincent
and the Grenadines; his understanding of how accounts were held by others to conceal Manafort’s
name and how those accounts were set up and maintained; the manner in which Manafort moved
these funds to the United States, and specifically the payments to his tailors, landscapers, and other
contractors, totaling millions of dollars; and Manafort’s (and Gates’) lies to his bookkeepers and
tax preparers to perpetuate the scheme. Manafort also fraudulently reduced his tax exposure by
classifying certain overseas income as loans, and Gates detailed for the jury the lies Manafort told
to do so. Gates provided important details and context to the documentary evidence presented to
the jury.
As noted, Manafort was also charged with a series of bank frauds (Counts 25 to 32) relating
to five loan applications from three financial institutions for more than $25 million in funding—
all at a time when Manafort was experiencing financial difficulties due to President Yanukovych’s
flight to Russia. Four of the five loans related to properties that Manafort purchased or improved
using money he earned in Ukraine and failed to report as income. The properties included a
townhouse in Brooklyn on Union Street, a SoHo condominium in Manhattan on Howard Street,
and a home in Bridgehampton in Long Island, New York. Manafort applied for a $3.4 million
loan from Citizens Bank on the Howard Street property; a $5.5 million mortgage from Citizens
Bank on the Union Street property; a $9.5 million mortgage on the Bridgehampton property from
The Federal Savings Bank; and a $6.5 million mortgage on the Union Street property also from
The Federal Savings Bank. Of these loans, only the $5.5 million loan from Citizens was not
12
funded. Manafort also applied for, and was granted, a $1 million business loan from the Banc of
California.
Gates testified about each of these frauds and many of the materially false statements
Manafort made on the bank applications ranging from where he lived and his use of the property
to his assets and income, and the existence of liens on the properties at issue. As noted, Gates
participated in each of the frauds, and often collected the relevant underlying documents and
submitted them to the bank. Gates, for example, helped Manafort create and submit false profit
and loss (P&L) statements overstating Manafort’s income. At Manafort’s request, Gates cut and
pasted the contents of .pdf documents to “word versions” and back, altering them in the process
and before they were submitted to banks. The details of their efforts to doctor P&L statements
were often documented in emails, which Gates read and explained for the jury. At Manafort’s
direction, Gates also asked an insurance broker to submit an older version of an insurance binder
with respect to the Union Street property to conceal the existence of a prior mortgage on the
property. Finally, Gates testified about his role in supporting Manafort’s claim that a substantial
delinquency on Manafort’s American Express card—a red flag on his mortgage applications to
The Federal Savings Bank—was the result of Manafort’s having lent his credit card to Gates to
buy season tickets for the New York Yankees, when in fact Manafort had made this payment
himself.
Manafort was convicted on 8 of 18 counts in the Eastern District prosecution, and he has
been sentenced in both that district and before this Court.
13
2. Testimony in the District of Columbia, United States v. Craig, 19-cr-

125 (ABJ)
On August 22, 2019, Gates provided a full day of crucial testimony in the trial of United
States v. Craig, in which Craig was charged with a false statements scheme. In communications
with the Department of Justice’s FARA Unit in 2013, Craig allegedly concealed information about
his work on a report (the Report) for Manafort and Ukraine, including his efforts to distribute the
Report within the United States. Gates’ testimony was essential to providing the jury with an
understanding of how and why Manafort and Ukraine decided to commission the Report,
Manafort’s and Ukraine’s plan for the rollout of the Report in the United States, and Gates’
understanding of Craig’s participation in the rollout. For the Court’s consideration, a transcript of
Gates’ testimony in U.S. v. Craig is enclosed as Exhibit 2.
In his testimony, Gates explained to the jury why Ukraine had commissioned the Report.
He testified that the work that he and Manafort were doing for Ukrainian president Victor
Yanukovych included retaining a major United States law firm to review Ukraine’s prosecution of
its former prime minister (and Yanukovych rival), Yulia Tymoshenko; Manafort’s strategy was
that such a report would improve Ukraine’s image internationally. Gates testified that Manafort
chose the law firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom (Skadden) and Craig, a senior
Skadden partner, because Skadden was a credible Western firm and Craig was, in Gates’ words,
“a very experienced and credible attorney that would give the project visibility globally.” Exhibit
2 at 1822.
Gates also outlined the strategy for the rollout of the Report once it was complete—that a
public relations agent would provide an advance copy of the Report to a trusted reporter whose
initial exclusive article would set the tone for later coverage. Gates testified that Craig had
participated in discussions regarding the rollout of the Report in the United States, understood the
14
rollout strategy, and had recommended a particular New York Times reporter to receive the advance
copy of the Report. Gates further explained that the New York Times reporter suggested by Craig
ultimately was chosen to receive the exclusive advance copy of the Report, consistent with the
rollout strategy—and that in fact, Craig personally provided the Report to the reporter and spoke
with him. Finally, Gates stated that he had viewed the Report’s rollout—and the first New York
Times article on the Report—as successes for Ukraine.
As the Court knows, Craig was acquitted on the false statements scheme charge on
September 4, 2019. Although Craig was acquitted, Gates’ testimony was corroborated and
credible, and the government believes that Gates testified truthfully and completely in that case.
Gates’ assistance should be evaluated independent of the jury’s decision—he should be given no
more or less credit for his cooperation in that matter than had Craig been found guilty.
3. Testimony in the District of Columbia, United States v. Stone, 19-cr-

018 (ABJ)
On November 12, 2019, Gates provided significant testimony in the prosecution of Roger
Stone for making false statements and obstructing justice. Stone was charged with obstruction
and false statements in connection with Stone’s 2017 appearance before and communications with
the House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), and witness
tampering in connection with Stone’s threatening communications with another witness whose
testimony HPSCI sought. The scope of HPSCI’s inquiry included WikiLeaks, whether Stone had
been in contact with WikiLeaks, and whether Stone had provided information about WikiLeaks to
anyone in the Trump Campaign in 2016. Because Gates had worked for the Trump Campaign in
2016, he was able to provide the jury with factual testimony that established that the information
that Stone provided to HPSCI in 2017 was not accurate. For the Court’s consideration, a transcript
of Gates’ testimony in U.S. v. Stone is enclosed as Exhibit 3.
15
In particular, Gates testified that he personally had conversations with Stone during the
2016 campaign in which Stone indicated that he had non-public information that WikiLeaks would
soon be releasing more information publicly. Gates also recounted an incident in which, when
riding in a car with then-candidate Trump, Gates observed Trump take a phone call from Stone,
immediately following which Trump indicated that more information would be coming.
As the Court is aware, Stone was found guilty of all of the charges against him on
November 15, 2019.
iii. Voluntary Surrender of Valuable Evidence
During his cooperation, Gates surrendered a series of electronic devices, including multiple
phones and computers, which were imaged and searched by the government. Numerous
documents recovered from these devices provided the government with important information
relating to Manafort. Gates also turned over other physical evidence, namely several passports,
which demonstrated his travel to Ukraine and Cyprus. These documents were of evidentiary value
and were admitted at Manafort’s Eastern District of Virginia trial, as they corroborated Gates’
testimony about his and Manafort’s work in Ukraine, and the use of financial accounts in Cypress.
iv. Manafort Breach Issue
Finally, Gates provided information relevant to the Court’s determination that Manafort
breached his cooperation agreement and the Court’s finding that Manafort lied to the government
and the grand jury. Gates provided information that formed a part of the Court’s findings.
v. Commitment to Continue Cooperation
Although he is being sentenced now, Gates has committed to continue his cooperation
with the government, and has agreed that the Court can make such continuing cooperation a
condition of any probationary sentence that he may receive.
16
B. Considerations Under Guidelines Section 5K1.1
Under Section 5K1.1 of the Guidelines, upon a motion by the government regarding a
defendant’s substantial assistance, courts may depart from the guidelines. The Guidelines suggest
that, in determining the appropriate reduction of a defendant’s sentence based on his substantial
assistance, a court’s considerations may include factors such as the court’s evaluation of the
significance of the defendant’s assistance (taking into account the government’s evaluation); the
truthfulness, completeness, and reliability of information provided by the defendant; the nature
and extent of his assistance; any injury or risk of injury suffered to the defendant or his family;
and the timeliness of the defendant’s assistance. See U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1(a).
In Gates’ case, each of these factors weighs in favor of a significant departure from Gates’
advisory Guidelines range. As the government has described above and in the supplemental
submission filed under seal, Gates’ assistance has been significant and useful to the government
in several criminal cases. Since entering his guilty plea, Gates has worked assiduously to provide
truthful, complete, and reliable information to any government investigators who have asked to
speak with him. And Gates’ assistance has been timely; after pleading guilty within four months
of his initial indictment, Gates has provided significant information contributing to the convictions
of Manafort and Stone, and to other investigation that are ongoing.
Finally, is important to note that the public nature of this case has made Gates and Gates’
family the subject of intense media scrutiny. Gates’ cooperation has been steadfast despite the fact
that the government has asked for his assistance in high profile matters, against powerful
individuals, in the midst of a particularly turbulent environment. Gates received pressure not to
cooperate with the government, including assurances of monetary assistance. He should be
commended for standing up to provide information and public testimony against individuals such
17
as Manafort, Craig, and Stone, knowing well that they enjoy support from the upper echelons of
American politics and society.
Based on his substantial assistance, the government recommends a downward departure
and does not oppose Gates’ request for a probationary sentence.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the government respectfully moves this Court for a significant
downward departure from Gates’ advisory Guidelines range based on his substantial assistance,
and does not oppose his request for probation. The government respectfully requests that the Court
make Gates’ continued cooperation a condition of his sentence.
Respectfully submitted,
JESSIE K. LIU
United States Attorney
District of Columbia
D.C. Bar No. 472845
By: /s/ Molly Gaston

Molly Gaston, VA Bar No. 78506
Assistant United States Attorney
555 4th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
(202) 272-7803
Molly.Gaston@usdoj.gov
18
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that by virtue of the ECF system, I have caused a copy of the foregoing
Motion to be served on counsel for the defendant.
/s/ Molly Gaston

Molly Gaston
Assistant United States Attorney
19
Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 643-1 Filed 12/10/19 Page 1 of 580
Exhibit 1
U.S. v. Manafort
981
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
2 ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
3 ------------------------------x
:
4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : Criminal Action No.
: 1:18-CR-83
5 versus :
:
6 PAUL J. MANAFORT, JR., :
: August 6, 2018
7 Defendant. : Volume VI
------------------------------x
8
TRANSCRIPT OF JURY TRIAL
9 BEFORE THE HONORABLE T.S. ELLIS, III
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
10
APPEARANCES:
11
FOR THE GOVERNMENT: UZO ASONYE, AUSA
12 United States Attorney's Office
2100 Jamieson Avenue
13 Alexandria, VA 22314
and
14 GREG ANDRES, SAUSA
BRANDON LANG VAN GRACK, SAUSA
15 Special Counsel's Office
U.S. Department of Justice
16 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
17
FOR THE DEFENDANT: JAY ROHIT NANAVATI, ESQ.
18 BRIAN KETCHAM, ESQ.
Kostelanetz & Fink LLP
19 601 New Jersey Avenue NW
Suite 620
20 Washington, DC 20001
and
21 THOMAS E. ZEHNLE, ESQ.
Law Office of Thomas E. Zehnle
Suite 620
and
24 KEVIN DOWNING, ESQ.
Law Office of Kevin Downing
Suite 620
Tonia M. Harris OCR-USDC/EDVA 703-646-1438
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
U.S. v. Manafort
982
and
2 RICHARD WILLIAM WESTLING, ESQ.
Epstein, Becker, & Green, PC
3 1227 25th Street NW
Washington, DC 20037
4
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER: TONIA M. HARRIS, RPR
5 U.S. District Court, Ninth Floor
401 Courthouse Square
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

U.S. v. Manafort
983
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
TRIAL
2 WITNESSES
3 On behalf of the Government:
4 Cindy Laporta (cont'd from 8/3/18)
5 Cross-examination by Mr. Downing................. 990

Redirect examination by Mr. Asonye............... 1047
6 Recross-examination by Mr. Downing............... 1065
7 Paula Liss
8 Direct examination by Mr. Asonye................ 1076

Cross-examination by Mr. Zehnle................. 1081
9 Redirect examination by Mr. Asonye.............. 1089
10 Richard Gates
11 Direct examination by Mr. Andres................ 1090
12 EXHIBITS

Admitted
14
Number 2F................................................ 1101
15 Number 338A.............................................. 1134
Number 338B.............................................. 1137
16 Number 356............................................... 1140
Number 342............................................... 1152
17 Number 344............................................... 1153
18 On behalf of the Defendant:

Admitted
19
Number 3................................................. 1010
20
MISCELLANY
21
Preliminary matters...................................... 984
22 Certificate of Court Reporter............................ 1177
23
24
25

U.S. v. Manafort
984
1 P R O C E E D I N G S
2 (Court proceedings commenced at 1:33 p.m.)
3 THE COURT: Contrary to public opinion, Mr. Flood
4 was not previously a Marine Corps drill sergeant, but he does
5 a good job.
6 All right. The record will reflect that the
7 defendant and counsel for the Government and counsel for the
8 defendant are present, prepared to proceed in this case, which
9 is U.S. against Manafort. What's the number, Margaret?
10 (Discussion off the record.)
11 THE COURT: 83 -- 18-CR-83.
12 All right. And as I recall -- before we get the
13 jury in, is there anything that needs to be done, Mr. Andres?
14 MR. ANDRES: Very briefly, Judge. Your Honor, I
15 don't know if it's the practice of the Court to give an
16 instruction to the jurors about whether they run into counsel
17 and other people outside the courtroom, but I know I was in
18 the elevator with a juror this morning. Obviously I said
19 nothing. But if Your Honor was inclined to just say to the
20 jury that we're not being rude, but that we're under --
21 THE COURT: Yes, I'll do that. I'll do that.
22 MR. ANDRES: Okay. Thank you, Judge.
23 THE COURT: Anything else?
24 MR. ANDRES: Just secondly, to the extent we've
25 identified previously the idea that -- the idea of any marital

U.S. v. Manafort
985
1 infidelity on the part of a witness is not necessarily
2 reflective of truthfulness and not necessarily a relevant
3 ground for cross-examination.
4 We've talked to the defense about that, and they've
5 agreed to the extent that that comes up during their
6 cross-examination we would approach the bench to understand
7 the circumstance of that so that Your Honor could rule on that
8 prior to any questions asked if that's okay with Your Honor.
9 THE COURT: Yes, that's the way we do it.
10 MR. ANDRES: Great.
12 MR. ANDRES: Just two other issues, which we briefed
13 and won't come up today necessarily, but one is the 1006
14 exhibits and --
15 THE COURT: Yes, I've read that brief. I haven't
16 had the opportunity to read the most recent submission, which
17 you-all made, but I will.
18 MR. ANDRES: Okay.
19 THE COURT: The 1006, I've read that, but it won't
20 come up in -- on this witness' testimony, it hasn't --
21 MR. ANDRES: Correct. And we've also talked to the
22 defense, and not clear to me, and they'll speak to themselves,
23 that they'll object to those.
24 And, lastly, the one we filed today, which won't
25 come up today either, is just to have a FBI agent read the

U.S. v. Manafort
986
1 e-mails from Mr. Manafort that are his own statements. That,
2 again, won't come up today, but just to preview for Your
3 Honor.
4 THE COURT: All right.
5 MR. ANDRES: Thank you, Judge.
6 THE COURT: As far as the exhibits, which I've
7 already told you you may use those summary exhibits as
8 demonstrative. You want to introduce them as evidence in
9 chief. And I understand that.
10 If you look at the rule carefully, the rule says
11 that if the data is voluminous, that it's sensible and
12 appropriate to do so as long as the exhibits are admitted and
13 so forth.
14 What you may not do is to use an exhibit, which is
15 really a demonstrative, to put that in. It's an argument
16 disguised as an exhibit. And so I won't allow that. But I
17 think what you had originally shown me is something having to
18 do with voluminous financial figures and the like. And
19 that's, of course -- but I'll hear the parties on that in
20 greater detail.
21 Again, keep in mind that if it is a summary of an
22 argument disguised to be a 1006, I won't allow it. That
23 doesn't mean you can't use it, but it will be a demonstrative.
24 MR. ANDRES: Understood. Thank you, Judge.
25 Appreciate that.

U.S. v. Manafort
987
1 THE COURT: All right. Anything else before we
2 begin?
3 MR. DOWNING: No, Your Honor.
4 MR. ASONYE: We have one other issue, Your Honor.
5 We were handed a number of exhibits that defense
6 counsel plans to use in the cross of Ms. Laporta. One of them
7 is --
8 THE COURT: Well, how thoughtful of them.
9 MR. ASONYE: One of them is --
10 THE COURT: But they're not obligated to do that.
11 MR. ASONYE: Your Honor, one of them is a tax return
12 from 2016, which is outside of the charged period and was not
13 prepared by Ms. Laporta or her firm. The Government sees no
14 relevance whatsoever in this document; and, additionally, she
15 would have no personal knowledge of it either. So we would
16 object to it being used to cross-examine her.
17 THE COURT: Well, are you going to ask questions of
18 this witness to demonstrate the relevancy of this document.
19 MR. DOWNING: Correct, Your Honor.
20 THE COURT: All right. Well, why don't I wait until
21 you ask those questions? And when it's offered, then,
22 Mr. Asonye, you may state your objection. I'll probably have
23 you come to the bench. But I need to see it in context and
24 it's -- it's a waste of time to sit here and hear Mr. -- hear
25 one or both of you -- hear Mr. Downing or Mr. Zehnle tell me

U.S. v. Manafort
988
1 about this --
2 MR. DOWNING: May I have one second to confer with
3 the Government?
4 THE COURT: Yes, you may.
5 (Discussion off the record.)
6 THE COURT: Mr. Downing, all set?
7 MR. DOWNING: Yes.
8 THE COURT: All right. You may bring the jury in,
9 Mr. Flood.
10 (Jury in.)
11 THE COURT: All right. You may be seated. Good
12 afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. We'll begin as always with
13 the calling of the roll by the numbers. Ms. Pham.
14 THE DEPUTY CLERK: Ladies and gentlemen, as I call
15 your number, please answer "present" or "here."
16 Juror 0008.
17 THE JUROR: Here.
18 THE DEPUTY CLERK: Juror 0037.
19 THE JUROR: Here.
21 THE JUROR: Present.

U.S. v. Manafort
989
21 THE DEPUTY CLERK: And Juror 0133.
23 THE DEPUTY CLERK: Thank you.
24 THE COURT: All right. Good afternoon, ladies and
25 gentlemen. Let me confirm, verify that you were able to do as

U.S. v. Manafort
990
1 you were instructed to refrain from discussing the matter with
2 anyone over the weekend.
3 THE JURORS: Yes.
4 THE COURT: Good. Thank you. And I hope you had a
5 pleasant and I had a pleasant and uneventful -- and to me that
6 always make it pleasant, I realize. You'll get to the point
7 where uneventful is really good.
8 All right. Ms. Laporta. Let's have Ms. Laporta
9 back on the stand, please.
10 Ms. Laporta, you may recall you remain under oath.
11 THE WITNESS: Yes.
12 THE COURT: You may resume the stand.
13 (Witness seated.)
14 THE COURT: Mr. Downing, you may proceed, sir.
15 (Witness previously sworn 8/3/18.)
16 CROSS-EXAMINATION (cont'd)
17 BY MR. DOWNING:
18 Q. Good afternoon, Ms. Laporta. My name is Kevin Downing,
19 and I represent Paul Manafort. Thank you for coming back
20 today.
21 I want to follow up on some of your testimony from
22 last week. There's a bit of testimony about services that you
23 provided through your accounting firm, KWC, to Mr. Manafort
24 and his entities.
25 Can you explain to the jury how big of an accounting

U.S. v. Manafort
991
1 firm KWC is?
2 A. Yes, certainly.
3 KWC has about --
4 THE COURT: I'm sorry, Ms. Laporta, I can't hear
5 you. Ask you just to speak up. I'm sure your voice is fine;
6 my ears aren't.
7 THE WITNESS: I'm happy to speak up.
8 KWC has about -- I think we've got around 80 people
9 on staff, including partners, CPAs, administrative staff.
10 BY MR. DOWNING:
11 Q. And you're affiliated with an international accounting
12 firm; is that correct?
13 A. That's correct.
14 Q. And what firm is that?
15 A. BDO.
16 Q. How big of a firm is that?
17 A. They're an international firm.
18 Q. Hundreds of accountants?
19 A. I would -- yes.
20 Q. With respect to both KWC and BDO, do you have -- did you
21 have available to you back in 2013, '14, '15, individual CPAs
22 that had expertise in tax?
23 A. Yes, we did.
24 Q. And that's not your particular area of expertise, is it?
25 A. No.

U.S. v. Manafort
992
1 Q. What is your particular area of expertise?
2 A. Accounting and auditing.
3 Q. And you didn't do any auditing for Mr. Manafort or for
4 his entities, did you?
5 A. No, I did not.
6 Q. And most of the work was tax work; is that correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And you did tax work for him individually?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. For DMP and DMP International, his political consulting
11 firm?
13 Q. As well as a myriad of entities that were involved in
14 everything from real estate, horse farm, correct?
15 A. That's before my time, but as a client of the firm --
16 Q. You're familiar with that? Movie production?
17 A. That's right.
18 THE COURT: You'll have to answer a little louder,
19 please.
21 THE COURT: And you as well, Mr. Downing. Just a
22 little louder, please.
23 MR. DOWNING: I've never heard that, Your Honor.
24 BY MR. DOWNING:
25 Q. How about international investing?

U.S. v. Manafort
993
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And with respect to this engagement, how is it that you
3 as an audit and accounting partner got put in charge of a tax
4 engagement?
5 A. Well, typically the profile of our clients is their
6 business taxes, their individual taxes, and then financial
7 statement work. And what we do at our firm, is we have a tax
8 department that we work as a team on these engagements.
9 So while I may advise on an engagement that is
10 typically tax but then has an accounting and audit section, I
11 would help there the same way the tax department will step in
12 and help me on an engagement. And when I took over -- well,
13 that's all.
14 Q. So at that time, did -- KWC did not have someone of your
15 experience that had the expertise in tax to take over that
16 relationship?
17 A. Uhm, the -- at the time I took over, it was still being
18 run by Philip Ayliff.
19 Q. And you felt that Mr. Ayliff had considerable experience
20 in the area of tax?
21 A. Yes, he did.
22 Q. And with respect to your dealings with Mr. Manafort's
23 entities and his personal taxes, you had quite a few
24 interactions with Mr. Richard Gates; is that correct?
25 A. Yes, that is correct.

U.S. v. Manafort
994
1 Q. And if I -- if I got this correct from your testimony
2 last week, this was not a client that had everything organized
3 and for you -- and for -- available to you on a timely basis;
4 is that correct?
6 Q. And you ran up against a lot of deadlines; is that
7 correct?
8 A. Yes, that is.
9 Q. And it seemed like it was quite a chore to get this
10 information that you needed to get the returns filed year in
11 and year out; is that correct?
12 A. That is correct.
13 Q. And I could sense a level of frustration that you had, in
14 particular with Mr. Gates and others on your team, in terms of
15 that process being inefficient, difficult, a fact-finding
16 mission; is that correct?
18 Q. And I think you even stated last week there came a point
19 in time where you just didn't believe what Mr. Gates was
20 saying to you; is that correct?
22 Q. Now, in terms of the team that was involved, especially
23 let's talk about for tax years 2014 and '15, which would cover
24 years 2015; is that correct?

U.S. v. Manafort
995
1 Q. Because the tax returns come a year after?
3 Q. Now, your team consisted of you, that had the general
4 relationship?
5 A. No, I had the general communication.
6 Q. General communication. Mr. Ayliff, what would you
7 describe his role?
8 A. He would prepare and review the tax returns.
9 Q. And Mr. Walters, was it?
10 A. He was one person on the team at one point.
11 Q. And did he have the tax expertise?
12 A. Absolutely, yes.
13 Q. And Mr. O'Brien, who is Mr. O'Brien?
14 A. He was a staff member on the engagement.
15 Q. Pretty young accountant at the time?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. So when it came to the technical tax issues, was it
18 primarily Mr. Walters that would be relied upon?
19 A. And Mr. Ayliff.
20 Q. And Mr. Ayliff?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And others at KWC in the tax department?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. So one of the issues that you testified about last week
25 had to do with real estate. It was Howard Street, in

U.S. v. Manafort
996
1 particular, that came up.
2 Now, Mr. Manafort had invested in quite a few
3 residential properties; is that correct?
5 Q. And when I say "residential," I don't mean as a
6 residence, but they weren't commercial and big buildings.
7 They were actually individual properties; is that correct?
9 Q. And the ownership interest of these various properties in
10 New York involved Mr. Manafort, correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. His wife?
14 Q. His daughters?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And there were several entities that were being used in
17 various forms, whether it was for personal occupancy?
18 A. Correct.
19 Q. Or rentals?
21 Q. And they were in various states of construction or
22 rehabilitation; is that correct?
23 A. Yes, that is.
24 Q. And during the 2015 and 2016 period, there were lots of
25 issues about trying to get financing for these various

U.S. v. Manafort
997
1 properties; is that correct?
2 A. Yes, that is.
3 Q. A lot of moving parts, would you say?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And we could see from the e-mail traffic that the
6 Government went through with you last week that it seemed to
7 be a lot of things were changing year by year; is that
8 correct?
10 Q. And that was one of the issues that it was tough for KWC
11 to deal with, was it not?
12 A. Yes, it was difficult to follow.
13 Q. And, in fact, at some time one of the issues that came
14 up, well, is it being used as a personal residence or is it
15 being rented; is that correct?
17 Q. And it was for more than one property?
18 A. Yes, I believe so.
19 Q. And involving more than Mr. Manafort, all the individuals
20 we talked about before, his daughters?
21 A. Yes, that's correct.
22 Q. And then some individual named Jeff Yohai, is it?
23 A. I don't recall if Jeff Yohai was part of the -- who
24 was -- regarding those properties.
25 Q. I think you said the other day that you -- you remember

U.S. v. Manafort
998
1 Jessica had a husband and his name was Jeff?
3 Q. Is that Jeff Yohai?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And he was involved with one of Jessica's properties; is
6 that correct?
7 A. So I just -- I guess I think of Jess, where she was
8 living, she was going to be living in New York. I didn't put
9 it together about Jeff Yohai until just now.
10 Q. But you do know that she was married to him at the time;
11 is that correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Now, with respect to the Howard Street property, there
14 was an issue that came up, I think Mr. Manafort had sent you
15 an e-mail that was covered last week, and he said, hey -- he
16 didn't say "hey." That was me.
17 He said, Can you help me with something? I'm
18 looking to borrow against one of the properties, Howard
19 Street. And he said that it was a residence and that he
20 wanted you to communicate with the bank about that property
21 being not his primary but his secondary residence?
22 Do you recall that?
23 A. Yes, I do.
24 Q. And I believe you stated that you did convey that to
25 Mr. Fallarino at Citizens Bank; is that correct?

U.S. v. Manafort
999
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And you also indicated that you made a mistake, that it
3 actually wasn't a second residence, it had been picked up as a
4 rental property; is that correct?
5 A. I relied on Rick Gates' facts as to how each of those
6 properties was being used -- or had been used for 2015.
7 Q. Right. And I think just part of the explanation for
8 dealing with an issue like this for the jury, you're not
9 spending day and night on these questions, are you?
10 A. No.
11 Q. So if Mr. Manafort calls you up as a client, with a
12 question, how many clients call you with a question any given
13 day?
14 A. All day, every day.
15 Q. All day, every day. And you try to do your best to get
16 accurate information back out for the client; is that correct?
18 Q. And you have files that you can go check or have others
19 check to make sure that you're providing accurate information?
21 Q. And I think, in this instance, you said that you didn't
22 have an opportunity to go check the tax returns or your work
23 papers when you conveyed the information; is that correct?
24 A. I believe what I said was that I didn't rely on anything
25 else or didn't do any more work on determining how that house

U.S. v. Manafort
1000
1 had been used, how those properties had been used.
2 Q. And one way you could have done that is to go to your --
3 the tax return that had been filed for the prior year; is that
4 correct?
5 A. I don't believe so, because I don't think the timing
6 would have been right for that.
7 Q. So you wouldn't know from the prior years return what was
8 going on, whether it was a rental or a residence for the
9 current year; is that correct?
11 Q. And that's because you hadn't prepared the tax returns
12 yet?
14 Q. And that's because you didn't have any other information
15 from Mr. Gates regarding how the property was being used?
16 A. The only information I had was his representation,
17 correct.
18 Q. And other than taking Mr. Gates' representation, you
19 didn't do any other procedures or inquiries to determine if
20 they were accurate; is that correct?
22 Q. Okay. So at the end of the day, it ends up that it was
23 not accurate; is that correct?
25 Q. Now, on your part, you wouldn't say that you conveyed

U.S. v. Manafort
1001
1 something intentionally false to the bank, did you?
2 A. No, I did not believe so.
3 Q. And, if anything, a mistake was made on your part; is
4 that correct?
6 Q. And you would have no reason to believe whether
7 Mr. Manafort was mistaken either, do you?
8 A. No, I have no reason to believe that.
9 Q. So one of the -- one of the overriding issues, I think,
10 last week during your direct had to do with foreign bank
11 accounts and whether FBARs had to be filed. And over the
12 years, it seemed there were a lot of questions about whether
13 or not FBARs had to be filed for Mr. Manafort or for his
14 entities; is that correct?
16 Q. Now, the FBAR area is not an area of expertise for you,
17 is it?
18 A. No.
19 Q. And who on your team did you go to in terms of relying
20 upon the analysis as to whether or not Mr. Manafort or his
21 entities had any FBAR filing requirements?
22 A. Philip Ayliff was very well informed about these
23 international filing requirements, and he had established this
24 in a routine of being certain that we addressed it each and
25 every year, for each and every entity.

U.S. v. Manafort
1002
1 Q. And did you think that Mr. Ayliff had expertise with
2 respect to determining if an FBAR had to filed?
3 A. Yes, or he would have gone to another member of the firm
4 that did.
5 Q. Why do you say yes? You said, yes, you thought he had
6 experience with respect to determining whether or not an FBAR
7 had to be filed.
8 A. Because he had a lot of large clients that had FBAR
9 requirements.
10 Q. Would you be surprised to learn last week he testified
11 that he did not have expertise with respect to determining
12 whether or not an FBAR had to be filed?
13 A. Well, as I said, he may have spoken to other members of
14 the KWC team that did have expertise.
15 Q. But I asked if you would be surprised if he said he did
16 not have the expertise with respect to determining if an FBAR
17 had to be filed?
18 A. No, I guess I could see him relying on other people.
19 Q. As you did; is that correct?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And in terms of the determination to file FBARs, there
22 came a point in time, I believe, the -- you had some
23 discussions with Mr. Gates, in particular, about some accounts
24 that were in Ukraine; is that correct?

U.S. v. Manafort
1003
1 Q. And it has been represented to us that you had said that
2 Mr. Gates told you that things were set up, the bank accounts,
3 so that they did not have an FBAR filing requirement with
4 regards to a foreign account; is that correct?
6 Q. And other than Mr. Gates' representation to you on that
7 issue, did you have any other information from Mr. Gates about
8 what that meant about how things were set up?
9 A. No, I did not.
10 Q. And do you know if KWC or Mr. Ayliff made any further
11 inquiries about what that meant, how they were set up?
12 A. I don't believe so, or I'm not aware of any others.
13 Q. And another issue last week that I think you spent
14 considerable time on was talking about loans, and loans
15 between DMP and foreign entities or loans between affiliates
16 and DMP or Mr. Manafort.
17 Do you recall that?
18 A. I do recall those.
19 Q. And in particular, you were brought -- you were asked
20 some questions about the 2015, '16 time frame, and most of it
21 came out of questions -- is that correct?
23 Q. Sorry. I need to slow down.
24 And was that -- did that come about because of some
25 of the questions about Mr. Manafort trying to get lending on

U.S. v. Manafort
1004
1 the real estate?
2 A. Do you mind repeating your question?
3 Q. Sure. I'll break it down in a smaller piece.
4 Last week when you were asked questions about
5 Telmar?
6 A. Okay.
7 Q. Telmar questions came up because Mr. Manafort was trying
8 to borrow some money and they were trying to get financial
9 statements out to the lenders; is that correct?
10 A. That is not how I recall the Telmar note.
11 Q. Do you recall Telmar being part of tax return
12 preparation?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Do you recall it being on a deadline date --
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. -- when you were dealing with that issue?
17 Now, when you talked about Telmar, some issues came
18 up about how you're dealing with income that was coming into
19 DMP International; is that correct?
21 Q. And DMP International, you understood to be earning
22 income overseas by providing political consulting; is that
23 correct?
25 Q. And you understood the money that was coming in from

U.S. v. Manafort
1005
1 these overseas companies was for the political consulting
2 fees?
4 Q. But there was another issue that you -- KWC was dealing
5 with every year. It was a question of how much money would be
6 reported as loans to Mr. Manafort or loans from an affiliate;
7 is that correct?
8 A. The first experience I had with that was filing the 2014
9 tax return.
10 Q. And Mr. Ayliff was involved with that issue, correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And Mr. Ayliff had been doing the work -- tax work for
13 Mr. Manafort and his entities, going back to 1997, did you
14 know that?
15 A. Yes, I did.
16 Q. And Mr. Ayliff is familiar with this income loan issue;
17 is that correct?
18 A. That's my understanding, yes.
19 Q. So before I get into the nitty-gritty detail, which I
20 apologize, I need to do, are you familiar that when you're
21 dealing with a partnership and its partners, that every year
22 you have to reconcile issues in terms of personal expenditures
23 that may have been made on behalf of a partner by the
24 partnership?
25 A. Yes.

U.S. v. Manafort
1006
1 Q. Distributions that may have been made that may not have
2 been taxed?
4 Q. And then finally, what is the income of the partner; is
5 that correct?
7 Q. Now, in the course of doing accounting and doing tax work
8 in a given year, a partnership may pay out personal expenses
9 for an individual partner; is that correct?
11 Q. And the question is, at the end of the day, how do you
12 account for it; is that correct?
14 Q. Because you're not going to account for it as a
15 deduction, a business deduction for the partnership, correct?
17 Q. And that's because it's personal?
18 A. Correct.
19 Q. But the next thing to figure out is, okay, what do we do
20 with it? Is it going to be compensation to a partner?
21 A. No.
22 Q. It's not, because you're not going to have compensation
23 to a partner; is that correct?
25 Q. So the next question is: Is it a distribution? Has the

U.S. v. Manafort
1007
1 partnership taken its own money for the personal benefit of a
2 partner and distributed it out?
3 A. That's --
4 Q. So it could be a distribution?
5 A. Yes, it could be a distribution.
6 Q. And then the other item, the only other item that you're
7 generally going to deal with: If a particular partner got a
8 personal benefit, whether or not it's a loan to that partner;
9 is that correct?
10 A. I'm sorry. Can you repeat that question for me?
11 Q. The third way you can categorize the partnership's
12 payment of a personal expense for a partner would be as a loan
13 to a partner?
15 Q. Okay. Now, in terms of this issue, as an accountant, you
16 deal with this issue every day with closely held partnerships;
17 is that correct?
19 Q. Because quite often, the partners in these closely held
20 partnerships are having personal expenses paid by the
21 partnership, correct?
23 Q. But they're also going out of their own pockets to pay
24 business expenses?

U.S. v. Manafort
1008
1 Q. And you had that -- you had that second issue with
2 Mr. Manafort also with respect to DMP; is that correct?
4 Q. Do you need something, ma'am?
5 A. I need water badly. Sorry.
6 (A pause in the proceedings.)
7 BY MR. DOWNING:
8 Q. Now, in the -- in the course of doing work for
9 Mr. Manafort and for DMP International, did you have occasion
10 for yourself or your staff to put together work papers?
11 A. Yes, we did.
12 Q. And can you explain to the jury what's a work paper?
13 What's the purpose of it?
14 A. Work paper is to support items that are reported on the
15 balance sheet or certain income and expense accounts that need
16 to have a little more detail, so that we can follow the next
17 year in preparation. There might be anticipated activity that
18 we'd want to include in that work paper. It's just really a
19 guide to help as a -- if there are any questions on the
20 current year, but also for any assistance in the following
21 year.
22 Q. And part of your work every year for an accountant, let's
23 just talk about DMP and DMP International, there are certain
24 schedules you need to keep, because every year the issue is
25 going to come up again on a tax return like schedules for

U.S. v. Manafort
1009
1 depreciation?
3 Q. That would be an example. But anything you would
4 consider reoccurring on a tax return, you'd want to have a
5 schedule for?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And as part of your work with DMP International with
8 Mr. Manafort, there also comes occasion when clients ask you
9 for information; is that correct?
11 Q. And you have occasion, in your capacity as an accountant
12 at a CPA firm, to put together schedules for clients; is that
13 correct?
14 A. Yes, that is.
15 Q. So I'm going to ask you to take a look at what's been
16 marked Defendant's Exhibit 3.
17 And take a minute and take a look at it.
18 A. Exhibit 3?
19 Q. 3, yes.
20 And, Ms. Laporta, is this a work paper, would you
21 call it, spreadsheet? What would you call it?
22 A. A spreadsheet.
23 Q. And is this something that you -- the client had asked
24 you to put together?
25 A. Yes, it is.

U.S. v. Manafort
1010
1 Q. And is this something you were involved with putting
2 together and oversaw the completion of it?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And at the time you were putting this together, was this
5 put together from the tax filings of DMP, DMP International,
6 and Mr. Manafort?
8 Q. And as you were putting the document together, did you
9 have other people help you out and check that it's fair and
10 accurate?
11 A. Yes, I did.
12 Q. Okay. And as you sit here today, do you know this to be
13 a fair and accurate record that you put together?
14 A. Yes.
15 MR. DOWNING: Your Honor, I move Defense Exhibits 3
16 into evidence as business record of KWC.
17 MR. ASONYE: No objection.
18 THE COURT: Admitted.
19 (Defendant's Exhibit No. 3
20 admitted into evidence.)
21 MR. DOWNING: May we publish, Your Honor?
22 THE COURT: You may.
23 MR. DOWNING: Maybe not.
24 THE COURT: You can use the ELMO.
25 MR. DOWNING: With a little help, I think so.

U.S. v. Manafort
1011
1 THE COURT: That, I can't help you with.
2 There we are.
3 MR. DOWNING: Thank you.
4 Well, it's small enough that no one can read it, so
5 I'm not sure that's going to be helpful.
6 THE COURT: Well, you can. You can magnify. You
7 can focus it down.
8 Let me ask the court security officer, can you
9 manipulate this thing or do we need to get Lance up here?
10 THE CSO: Probably Lance.
11 MR. DOWNING: I have a volunteer.
12 THE COURT: Oh, all right.
13 MR. DOWNING: Thank you, sir.
14 MR. NANAVATI: Sure.
15 MR. DOWNING: We're having technical difficulty.
16 THE COURT: Mr. Nanavati.
17 MR. NANAVATI: I'm going to do my best, Your Honor.
18 Yes, Your Honor.
19 THE COURT: All right. Go ahead. He knows how to
20 do it.
21 MR. DOWNING:
22 Q. Very good. So on that -- the top left corner of this
23 document, it says it's loans from wire transfers.
24 And do you recall you going back in time and trying
25 to find out through the records, what kind of monies were

U.S. v. Manafort
1012
1 flowing into DMP International, where it was coming from, and
2 how it was categorized; is that correct?
4 Q. And this particular spreadsheet shows wires that came in
5 from various foreign entities that had been recorded as loans;
6 is that correct?
8 Q. And going back as far as 2006, you -- the first loan you
9 have recorded there is about $10 million; is that correct?
11 Q. And then as you go down that column, there's 3.5 million
12 in 2007, correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And in 2007, there's another -- that's from LOAV.
15 There's another one, 2.8 million that came in, do you see
16 that?
18 Q. And then for 2008, you have four entries; is that
19 correct?
21 Q. For 225,507, 8 million, 120,000. That one totaled
22 8,120,000, correct?
23 A. Correct.
24 Q. You have another 105,000, and then if we go down a little
25 further on 2008, there's a series of transfers in from

U.S. v. Manafort
1013
1 Yiakora, correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. To the tune of 1.9 million, do you see that?
4 A. Yes, I do.
5 Q. Okay. And then 2012, there's Peranova, right?
6 A. Right.
7 Q. 1.5, and next up for 2014, '15 is Telmar, which Peranova
8 and Telmar are what you were familiar with, correct?
10 Q. Okay. So over that period of time, from 2006 to 2015,
11 there was over $30 million in loans that had been reported on
12 the tax returns, correct?
14 Q. Of DMP International?
15 And during that same period of time, if we can go
16 down a little further --
17 A. Excuse me, not all on DMP International. I don't think.
18 I'm looking at the responsible party. I'm sorry, I'm not --
19 Q. Go ahead. Take your time.
20 A. Okay. That's all I was going to point out, that there
21 were other entities.
22 Q. Go ahead. One more time, I'm sorry?
23 A. That there were other entities here besides DMP.
24 Q. There were other entities involved, too.
25 But this -- all of this information came from tax

U.S. v. Manafort
1014
1 returns that had been filed by KWC, correct?
3 Q. Okay. And we go to the bottom, you have a total number
4 for the total loans and it shows $30 million, correct?
6 Q. Okay. What's the next line, "recognized revenues," what
7 does that mean?
8 A. Those are loans that had been over time. I guess -- I
9 have to guess, the only one I'm familiar with is the
10 1.5 million from Peranova, but -- so that's the only time I
11 remember recognizing revenue for what had previously been a
12 loan.
13 Q. And let's just go back to that testimony you gave.
14 The recognition of income from a loan is when you
15 say the loan has been forgiven?
17 Q. And then the amount of the loan in the case of Peranova,
18 you would report that 1.5 million Peranova loan as income on
19 Mr. Manafort's tax return, correct?
21 Q. And even though he didn't receive anymore money, you
22 reported as income because he's not paying it back, correct?
24 Q. So in addition to Peranova, there must have been another,
25 what is that, almost 6 million, just shy of 6 million in loan

U.S. v. Manafort
1015
1 forgiveness that you were not involved with?
3 Q. But KWC was?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. How about the next line, "Distributed to Paul Manafort,"
6 is that what we were talking about earlier, the distributions
7 from the partnership?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And that totals $15.7 million, correct?
10 A. Correct.
11 Q. The next line is, "Distributed to others, other
12 partners." Do you see that?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. 2.3? And then "Worthless Investment," what does that
15 mean?
16 A. I would think that that would -- that would be an
17 investment that had been reported on the tax return that had
18 no further value.
19 Q. And then the final balance on there says 1.9 million,
20 correct?
22 Q. And that would be Telmar, correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Okay. Now, let's go to the bottom right-hand side of the
25 document.

U.S. v. Manafort
1016
1 You have some notes on this side of the document,
2 and the particular note I want to point your attention to is
3 the three-star note. Can you read that?
4 A. "To be recognized as income in 2016 by Paul Manafort, no
5 longer expected to receive connected anticipated proceeds in
6 order to repay this debt."
7 Q. So that was the outstanding amount as of 2015?
9 Q. And you were expecting that in 2016, that would be picked
10 up in income?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Now, you didn't prepare the 2016 tax return for Mr.
13 Manafort, did you?
14 A. No, I did not.
15 Q. But you did talk to a Mr. Gittelman, a CPA, about the
16 preparation of that return?
17 A. Yes, I tried to --
18 Q. And you provided some records with respect to the
19 preparation of that return, correct?
21 Q. And you have to provide records, right? It's like
22 anything else, a new accountant can't start from scratch, they
23 need to know what happened before, correct?
25 Q. And they need some books and records and prior year's tax

U.S. v. Manafort
1017
1 returns, and those are the kind of things that you provided,
2 correct?
4 Q. Now, I'm going to ask you to take a look at what's been
5 marked Government's Exhibit 4 -- Defendant's Exhibit 4. Sorry
6 about that.
7 I would like you to take a look at Line 1. And what
8 is line -- well, first of all, what is this?
9 A. This is a tax return for DMP International for 2016, and
10 it was prepared by Gittelman CPA.
11 Q. And that's the Gittelman CPA that you were dealing with
12 in providing information --
13 THE COURT: Mr. Downing, I want to know what magic
14 you have. Mr. Asonye started to get up and he went like this
15 and he sat right back down.
16 MR. ASONYE: Give him a little more leeway, Your
17 Honor.
18 MR. DOWNING: A little more rope you've given me, I
19 believe.
20 THE COURT: I see. Are you offering the Exhibit 4?
21 MR. DOWNING: Not yet, Your Honor.
23 MR. DOWNING: Not yet.
24 THE COURT: Proceed.
25 MR. DOWNING:

U.S. v. Manafort
1018
1 Q. So you see the Line 1, gross receipts?
2 A. I do.
3 Q. And how much is that?
4 MR. ASONYE: Well, objection, relevance, Your Honor.
5 MR. DOWNING: I'm about to explain why it's
6 relevant.
7 MR. ASONYE: Now, getting the information out of the
8 document. It's not admitted.
9 THE COURT: Go ahead, Mr. Downing, and elicit why
10 it's relevant from this witness, if you can do so.
11 MR. DOWNING:
12 Q. In terms of your note on the work sheet we just talked
13 about, you had $1.9 million that was supposed to be picked up
14 in 2016; is that correct?
16 Q. And in your dealings with Mr. Gittelman, did you provide
17 him with information regarding picking up that income?
18 A. I don't recall. It would -- I just don't recall that for
19 sure. I gave him everything I could or that he asked for, but
20 I can't tell you exactly what I gave him besides tax returns.
21 Q. Okay. So can you turn to the back of this tax return in
22 the statement section marked Page 2, Statement 6?
23 A. I'm here.
24 Q. Do you see that entry?
25 A. Yes.

U.S. v. Manafort
1019
1 Q. Now, does that refresh your recollection as to whether
2 KWC provided the Telmar information to Mr. Gittelman?
3 A. It could have also come from the general ledger, the 2016
4 general ledger.
5 Q. And do you know if the 2016 general ledger indicated that
6 the Telmar investment was picked up as income for
7 Mr. Manafort?
8 A. I don't remember. I don't believe I saw that 2016
9 general ledger.
10 Q. And that's what's being indicated on this year's return,
11 correct?
13 THE COURT: What is it that's being reflected on
14 this 2016 return?
15 THE WITNESS: That the -- the liability to Telmar
16 Investments is zero at the end of 2016.
17 THE COURT: Meaning what?
18 THE WITNESS: That it was included in income.
19 MR. DOWNING: In 2016?
20 THE COURT: For whom in 2016?
21 THE WITNESS: DMP International.
22 THE COURT: Next question.
23 MR. DOWNING:
24 Q. And with respect to the partnership structure at DMP
25 International, the income of DMP International would directly

U.S. v. Manafort
1020
1 flow down to its partners, correct?
3 Q. And that would be Mr. Manafort and Mrs. Manafort,
4 correct?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And that would flow through to their 1040 for that year?
8 Q. Now, in terms of your preparation of other documents and
9 work papers for Mr. Manafort at the request of the client,
10 would you take a look at Government's Exhibit No. 2 --
11 Defendant's Exhibit No. 2?
12 THE COURT: I've already admitted 2, have I not?
13 MR. DOWNING: It's Defendant's. I'm sorry, Your
14 Honor.
15 THE COURT: Yeah, but I've already admitted
16 Defendant's 2, have I not?
17 MR. DOWNING: 3.
18 THE COURT: 3 I've admitted.
19 MR. DOWNING: I'm going out of order.
20 THE COURT: All right. You may do so.
21 MR. DOWNING:
22 Q. Ms. Laporta, you've had a chance to look at that
23 document?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And, again, is this a schedule you prepared at the

U.S. v. Manafort
1021
1 request of a client?
2 A. Yes, it is.
3 Q. And your capacity as a CPA?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And did you have other individuals at KWC work with you
6 on this?
7 A. Yes, I did.
8 Q. And has it been checked for accuracy?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Against the tax records of KWC for DMP and Mr. Manafort?
11 A. It was prepared from the tax returns.
12 MR. DOWNING: Your Honor, I move Defendant's Exhibit
13 No. 2 into evidence as a record of KWC.
14 MR. ASONYE: No objection.
16 MR. DOWNING: May I publish, Your Honor?
18 MR. DOWNING:
19 Q. Ms. Laporta, can you explain what this work sheet is?
20 A. It's a summary of all of Mr. Manafort's companies and it
21 shows the gross receipts that came from those companies.
22 The second column shows what was reported on
23 Mr. Manafort's personal income tax returns as adjusted gross
24 income. And then the next column shows what was reported on
25 these various tax years on Mr. Manafort's taxable income.

U.S. v. Manafort
1022
1 Q. So can we -- go ahead. I'm sorry.
2 A. The final column is how much in federal taxes did
3 Mr. Manafort pay in each of those years.
4 MR. DOWNING: So can we scroll down to the total,
5 please, Jay?
6 BY MR. DOWNING:
7 Q. And, again, we have totals by year here, correct?
9 Q. So start -- going back to 2005, there was about
10 10.9 million in gross revenues, correct?
11 MR. ASONYE: Your Honor, at this point we're going
12 to object to the relevance of years beyond the charge years
13 2010 to 2014.
14 MR. DOWNING: I believe Mr. Asonye said the other
15 day this goes back to 2005.
16 MR. ASONYE: Not the actual income. Not the actual
17 income that's charged in the indictment, Your Honor.
18 THE COURT: I'll overrule the objection. You may
19 proceed.
20 MR. DOWNING:
21 Q. So there's a year-by-year account from '05 to '15,
22 correct?
24 MR. DOWNING: And why don't we just scroll down year
25 by year? We -- we'll go to the total, Jay. To the next page,

U.S. v. Manafort
1023
1 please.
2 BY MR. DOWNING:
3 Q. So in total for this period of time, you're reporting
4 that 92.5 million was reported as gross revenue on the tax
5 returns of DMP and DMP International, correct?
7 Q. And those are federal United States tax returns, correct?
9 Q. The next number that you list there, it says, "Entity
10 business expenses." And those are the entity business
11 expenses that were deducted on those various federal tax
12 returns against the $92 million; is that correct?
14 Q. You also have other partner share. What is that?
15 A. I think in one of these years there was another partner
16 involved and so the income would have gone to their -- it
17 would have been reported on that partner's 1040, not
18 Mr. Manafort's.
19 Q. And then you have other Paul Manafort 1040 items. And
20 what does that encompass? You have a note on that, I believe,
21 at the bottom.
22 A. Would you like me to read that note?
23 Q. Sure.
24 A. So this 14 million that we're showing here is other
25 Manafort income, meaning not derived from these various

U.S. v. Manafort
1024
1 entities. Includes W-2 wages, consulting income, and
2 investment portfolio income.
3 Q. And that leaves $30,249,398 of adjusted gross income
4 reported on Mr. Manafort's personal federal income tax returns
5 over that period; is that correct?
7 Q. And the next total on there for 30 -- I'm sorry --
8 $23,924,619, what is that?
9 A. That's the taxable income.
10 Q. And how do you get to taxable income from gross to
11 taxable? Can you explain that?
12 A. There are a few adjustments, including health insurance,
13 but the biggest, of course, is the Schedule A deductions.
14 Q. And on that amount of money you have that Mr. Manafort,
15 on his federal income taxes from 2005 to 2015, paid $8,383,179
16 in federal income tax; is that correct?
19 MR. DOWNING:
20 Q. Ms. --
22 MR. DOWNING:
23 Q. Now, Ms. Laporta, last week you were asked some questions
24 about this Telmar loan, and I think you had said that if the
25 $1.9 million had been picked up as income in 2015 or -- 2015,

U.S. v. Manafort
1025
1 I believe it was, that there could have been about $500,000 in
2 tax; is that correct?
4 Q. But it's a ballpark, you're giving a high-end number
5 saying --
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. -- tax bracket --
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Now, in terms of -- in terms of that number, you saw the
10 tax return, it was picked up in 2016, as you indicated on your
11 work sheet; is that correct? The tax return we just looked
12 at?
13 A. Yes. I don't know -- I mean, it seems like that's the
14 case.
15 Q. Well, you saw the number on the income line, correct?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. I'd like to ask you a question. Do you know what the --
18 the penalty for late payment is, that's calculated by the IRS,
19 of tax?
20 A. So there are -- there are different fines and
21 penalties --
22 Q. Sure.
23 A. -- including underpayment of taxes, and then if it's --
24 Q. So let's talk about the underpayment of taxes. Can you
25 go to -- take a look at Defendant's Exhibit 5?

U.S. v. Manafort
1026
1 It's an IRS publication and it has a penalty for
2 late filing, and it says, "Penalty for late payment." Do you
3 see that No. 3?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And that charges .5 percent per month; is that correct?
7 Q. And with respect to the Telmar, assuming what you've seen
8 as being correct, that Telmar was not reported in 2015 as
9 income but was reported in 2016; is that correct?
11 Q. And the IRS would say, "Okay, well, if we think it should
12 have been paid in 2015, we want .5 percent per month for the
13 late payment"; is that correct?
14 A. Up to as much as 25 percent.
15 Q. Depending upon how long you went out; is that correct?
17 Q. But in this case let's say we went out just one year.
18 That's about $30,000, isn't it?
19 A. I can't do that in my head.
20 Q. Well, you could do it by month, right?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Why don't you try?
23 A. So, no, that's -- that's ballpark.
24 Q. That's ballpark, about $30,000. And that's what would
25 have been additionally owed to the IRS for a late payment if,

U.S. v. Manafort
1027
1 in fact, they prevailed; is that correct?
3 Q. So one other issue I wanted to talk about before we leave
4 Telmar. It seems to -- part of the conversation about Telmar
5 up against the September filing date in 2016 was a question
6 of, why was KWC so off on the estimated taxes? Why would a
7 client be in a position this far into filing season to be --
8 not know what the tax would be?
9 So why don't we take a minute and talk about that?
10 Can you explain what estimated taxes are and what
11 you do as an accountant with respect to estimated taxes for a
12 client?
13 A. So you really asked me two questions, right? The first
14 is -- right.
15 Q. Go ahead.
16 A. Okay. The first question was, how do we -- what are
17 estimated taxes and how are they calculated?
18 Q. Yes.
19 A. So typically estimated taxes are calculated at the same
20 time that an extension would be prepared in April.
21 And the information that we have available, as
22 provided by the client, we estimate what the tax hit on that
23 is and then we ask, will the following year be better or the
24 same? If it's the same, we divide that -- we divide that
25 number by 4 and have the client pay in those estimated taxes

U.S. v. Manafort
1028
1 during the year.
2 And then the second question about when you get to
3 the -- when you -- based on what you've done in April for
4 extension purposes and then down to the final -- the filing of
5 the tax return, why is there a difference? And that -- in
6 this instance you're asking how can we be so far off?
7 Q. Well, I would ask you differently. When you do your
8 estimates you're at, you know, April 15th, sometimes the
9 following year and you're setting up for the next year,
10 there's a lot of unknowns, correct?
12 Q. But you generally use last year's numbers, correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And then you see if the client has any insight into
15 whether or not you're going to have a lot more income or a lot
16 less; is that correct?
18 Q. And then as the year goes on, you check in with the
19 client, I would imagine?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And try to see if you can get some updates?
23 Q. And I don't know why, but for some reason for that tax
24 year, KWC didn't seem to note that there was going to be that
25 amount of income that had to be reported, and, therefore,

U.S. v. Manafort
1029
1 there was going to be additional tax that was going to have to
2 be paid that was not covered by the estimate; is that correct?
4 Q. Do you know how that happened? Do you know why it
5 happened?
6 A. Just lack of response to our questions.
7 Q. And -- and the person that you were dealing with with
8 respect to these kinds of things was Mr. Gates; is that
9 correct?
10 A. Typically. But as I testified on Friday, often
11 Mr. Manafort was copied on those e-mails. Or if I wasn't
12 getting Rick's attention then I'd copy Mr. Manafort on e-mails
13 for requesting information.
14 Q. Sure. You also had another source of information, that
15 is, the bookkeeper?
17 Q. And she's recording things, activity, as it occurs during
18 the year, correct?
19 A. I don't know that for sure how frequently her recording
20 is, but we certainly relied on her information.
21 Q. So if she was not up to date on the books and records and
22 you were using the books and records to determine if you
23 needed to pay an additional tax, the tax payments would be
24 short?

U.S. v. Manafort
1030
1 Q. Okay. So the tax payments were short that year, were
2 they not?
4 Q. And you have experience dealing with clients on filing
5 deadlines, don't you?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Do clients have a tendency to get very upset when all of
8 a sudden they're told they have to cut a check for a few
9 hundred thousand dollars?
10 A. Yes, this is an usual --
11 Q. Unusual filing.
12 Regardless of who may have caused the problem, it's
13 just one of those things that people are upset because they
14 usually want to plan for it, especially when it's a large
15 amount of money?
17 (A pause in the proceeding.)
18 Q. So now I'd like to go back and talk a little bit about
19 the Peranova loan and the write-off of the Peranova loan.
20 Again, the issue with the Peranova loan came up with
21 respect to an attempt by Mr. Manafort to borrow money from a
22 bank; is that correct?
24 Q. And had to do with some of his properties up in New York;
25 is that correct?

U.S. v. Manafort
1031
1 A. Yes, that is.
2 Q. And the bank had a bunch of questions about
3 Mr. Manafort's balance sheet, correct?
4 A. Yes, that's true.
5 Q. The bank had made a determination that they weren't going
6 to use Mr. Manafort's income or P&L, profit and lost
7 statement, to determine whether or not they were going to
8 lend; is that correct?
10 Q. And they were looking at his assets and his liabilities,
11 correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. You'd call that a balance sheet?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. An issue came up about --
16 THE COURT: I'm sorry, did you answer that question?
18 THE COURT: All right. Next question.
19 MR. DOWNING:
20 Q. And an issue came up with respect to Peranova being a
21 liability, correct?
23 Q. Okay. And what was being conveyed to the bank was that,
24 no, it's not a liability at this point in time; is that
25 correct?

U.S. v. Manafort
1032
2 Q. Now, much like the issue that you talked about with
3 Telmar, if you're making a call whether or not something is a
4 loan or it's income, you're making a call, correct?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And in this case, the call was made that they were no
7 longer going to carry this as a loan, correct?
8 A. As I said to the bank, this is being represented to me as
9 forgiveness of debt.
10 Q. And that's important because you wouldn't know otherwise?
12 Q. Correct?
13 And you were being told by Mr. Gates this is what
14 happened, correct?
16 Q. But more importantly at that point in time, if, in fact,
17 Peranova was no longer an outstanding loan, it would not be
18 appropriate to tell a bank it was a liability, correct?
20 Q. And let's go to another issue. There was an issue about
21 monies that Mr. Manafort was owed, about $2.4 million from one
22 of his consulting contracts. Do you remember that?
23 A. Yes, I do.
24 Q. And there was this question about, well, are we doing a
25 cash basis P&L or are we doing an accrual P&L?

U.S. v. Manafort
1033
2 Q. And the way you addressed it, you told the bank, well,
3 here is a cash basis P&L from the bookkeeper, correct?
5 Q. And I want you to know that my client also has an
6 accounts receivable that he believes he is going to collect by
7 November for $2.4 million, correct?
9 Q. So two separate issues. Here is the P&L cash basis, and
10 you should know my client believes he's got another asset?
12 Q. Correct?
13 There's nothing inappropriate about telling the bank
14 that someone owes you money, correct?
16 Q. And it's called an accounts receivable, correct?
17 A. That's what it's called, yes.
18 Q. But it's not going to show up on a cash P&L, a cash basis
19 P&L, correct?
21 Q. Why is that?
22 A. Because cash basis only records income that's been
23 received and not what's been earned but not received.
24 Q. And you have no reason, as you sit here today, to believe
25 that the 2.4 million wasn't really owed as an accounts

U.S. v. Manafort
1034
1 receivable?
2 A. I didn't have any evidence that -- to the contrary, I
3 asked for contracts or invoices, but I never saw that.
4 Q. Well, it's interesting you should raise that issue. It
5 seems like KWC asks for a lot of information, especially
6 contracts and loan documents that it never received; is that
7 correct?
9 Q. So this would be another instance of not getting what it
10 is you would like to have in your file?
12 Q. So one last thing I'd like to cover with you -- until, of
13 course, I convey with my colleagues and they tell me
14 everything I missed -- an issue came up, and we talked about
15 earlier, that you had reason to question the representations
16 of Mr. Gates, representations he made to you?
18 Q. About financial information that you were conveying to
19 other people, correct?
21 Q. About financial information that you would have to put on
22 tax returns?
24 Q. And you testified last week that you didn't want to rock
25 the boat, you didn't want to upset a client, I think, in sum

U.S. v. Manafort
1035
1 and substance is what you said about why you didn't raise an
2 issue; is that correct?
3 A. I did raise issues.
4 Q. I mean about Mr. Gates' credibility, about him giving you
5 false or misleading information, did you raise that issue?
6 A. Yes, I did with him.
7 Q. With Gates?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Okay. And I'm sure he reacted well to that?
10 A. That he didn't respond.
11 Q. He didn't respond. So you pointed out to him you thought
12 that you were getting misleading information or incomplete
13 information from him; is that correct?
14 A. Yes. I asked for clarification on that.
15 Q. And you didn't get it?
17 Q. And did you share that with Mr. Ayliff or other folks at
18 KWC?
19 A. I don't recall whether they would be copied or whether we
20 talked about it. We probably talked about it.
21 Q. Do you know if Mr. Ayliff, in particular, had a similar
22 feeling about the representations he was getting from
23 Mr. Gates?
24 A. I feel that Philip also felt -- had that --
25 Q. And at the time of dealing with various banks, this --

U.S. v. Manafort
1036
1 this Telmar issue and Peranova, the e-mail was clear that you
2 were dealing with Mr. Gates.
3 Did you ever think about picking up the phone and
4 calling Mr. Manafort, either you personally or with
5 Mr. Ayliff, to let him know what your concerns were?
6 A. I did not do that. I think that in most instances it was
7 clear that Mr. Manafort was aware of what was going on.
8 Q. But in this particular instance, you don't know?
10 Q. And were you surprised when Mr. Gates was telling you
11 that Mr. Manafort couldn't come up with the money to pay a
12 couple hundred thousand dollars in tax? Did that surprise
13 you?
14 A. Yes, but I had limited experience with the client, so I
15 didn't know if this -- if these were conversations --
16 Q. Of course.
17 A. -- that had happened in the past.
18 Q. Of course. Well, what if you picked up the phone and it
19 led to finding out that Mr. Gates was embezzling millions of
20 dollars from Mr. Manafort and his entities --
21 MR. ASONYE: Objection, calls for -- objection, Your
22 Honor.
23 THE COURT: Let him finish the question, and then
24 you may object.
25 THE WITNESS: I didn't hear.

U.S. v. Manafort
1037
1 MR. ASONYE: Your Honor --
2 THE COURT: You don't have -- wait until he finishes
3 his question. Re-ask your question starting at the beginning.
4 And don't answer -- I want to hear the objection and then I
5 may have you come to the bench if you need to, Mr. Asonye.
6 What's your question.
7 MR. DOWNING:
8 Q. Ms. Laporta, if at the time you were dealing with
9 Mr. Gates you knew that he had embezzled millions of dollars
10 from Mr. Manafort unbeknownst to Mr. Manafort, would you have
11 picked up the phone and called Mr. Manafort?
12 MR. ASONYE: Objection.
13 THE COURT: What's your objection?
14 MR. ASONYE: Assumes facts not in evidence, Your
15 Honor.
16 THE COURT: I can't hear you.
17 MR. ASONYE: There are no facts of that in evidence.
18 MR. DOWNING: I have a good faith basis for asking
19 the question, and the Government knows facts will be coming
20 into evidence. Mr. Gates is next up.
21 THE COURT: I'll overrule the objection. You may
22 answer.
23 THE WITNESS: If I had known --
24 MR. DOWNING: Could the court reporter ask the
25 question back, please?

U.S. v. Manafort
1038
1 (Audience laughter.)
2 (Reporter read back into the record.)
3 THE COURT: I don't think that was the question.
4 Try it again.
5 MR. DOWNING: I'm sorry, Your Honor. Did it quiet
6 down?
7 BY MR. DOWNING:
8 Q. Ms. Laporta, if at the time you were dealing with the
9 Telmar issue and Peranova, if at the time you learned that
10 Mr. Gates was embezzling millions of dollars from
11 Mr. Manafort, would you have picked up the phone, you or
12 Mr. Ayliff to let Mr. Manafort know that?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Would that have caused you to not trust anything that
15 Mr. Gates was telling you?
16 A. Yes. I don't know how that would happen, that whole
17 scenario you've described, but, of course, if I knew there was
18 wrongdoing, then --
19 Q. So you raised an interesting point. You've been an
20 accountant for how many years now?
21 A. Since '84.
22 Q. Since '84.
23 You have a retainer agreement at KWC that says you
24 are not retained to conduct procedures to detect fraud,
25 illegalities, or defalcations; is that correct?

U.S. v. Manafort
1039
2 Q. And is that because generally the two last people to know
3 about it are the accountants and the business owner?
5 Q. And unless you're specifically called in to do procedures
6 to detect fraud, you really won't know?
8 Q. But there's one thing you probably do know, given your
9 experience, when you have somebody on the inside of an
10 accounting system, in the inside of a business that is in
11 control of financial information, if that person is embezzling
12 funds, is that person usually the one of the most difficult to
13 get information from?
14 MR. ASONYE: Objection, Your Honor, because this
15 calls for speculation.
16 MR. DOWNING: No, I'm asking her about a CPA -- as a
17 CPA, her experience.
18 MR. ASONYE: Your Honor, there's no foundation that
19 she's ever dealt with that type of scenario before. It calls
20 for speculation.
21 THE COURT: I'll overrule it. She can answer. If
22 you don't know, simply say you don't know.
23 THE WITNESS: That scenario you've just described is
24 what is taught in fraud related CP -- that's continuing
25 professional education.

U.S. v. Manafort
1040
1 MR. DOWNING:
2 Q. And then continuing professional education for CPAs, they
3 train you for these red flags, would you call them?
5 Q. And some of the red flags are difficulty in getting
6 information from that individual?
7 A. Yes. That's normally on the audit side; on the tax side,
8 not so much.
9 Q. Well, explain it on the audit side?
10 A. Well, on the audit side, it's a whole different world and
11 you're doing a risk assessment before you even see a number.
12 Q. I'm talking about the behavior that you're looking for,
13 not the procedures. But somebody who is difficult to get
14 information from that should have the information for you; is
15 that correct?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And you have reason to call into question what
18 information was given to you; is that correct?
20 Q. So these are some of the telltale sides of someone who
21 can be involved as an insider in an embezzlement; is that
22 correct?
24 MR. DOWNING: No further questions.
25 THE COURT: Let me have counsel quickly at the

U.S. v. Manafort
1041
1 bench, please.
2 (Bench Conference.)
3 THE COURT: Mr. Downing, I didn't understand what
4 you meant by "there would be evidence of embezzlement."
5 MR. DOWNING: The Government has produced statements
6 of Mr. Gates regarding embezzlement. We have accounting
7 records from various accounts which Mr. Gates was unauthorized
8 to take monies out of and embezzled funds, and that's
9 something that that's been given to us by the Government and
10 have put us on notice of the embezzlement.
11 THE COURT: So is that what you meant when you said
12 you had a good faith basis to believe that he had embezzled
13 money from Mr. Manafort?
14 MR. DOWNING: That's correct, Your Honor.
15 THE COURT: Now, on another subject, you didn't ask
16 this witness -- she testified in her direct examination what
17 she took responsibility for. You didn't go into that at all,
18 about what she took responsibility for, or what consequences
19 she faced, or anything of that sort.
20 Is that right?
21 MR. DOWNING: That is correct.
22 THE COURT: And that's a judgment that you-all made?
23 MR. DOWNING: Correct, Your Honor.
24 THE COURT: Is she still an accountant? Is she
25 still a CPA?

U.S. v. Manafort
1042
1 MR. DOWNING: I believe she is. I believe that -- I
2 think the Government knows better. I think over the weekend
3 she was suspended from her firm. I don't know in what terms.
4 THE COURT: But you're not going into that? And you
5 don't plan to go into it for sure?
6 MR. ASONYE: No, Your Honor.
7 THE COURT: And he didn't ask whether you-all had
8 made any deal with her about that.
9 MR. ASONYE: About her --
10 THE COURT: Consequences. Typically when a
11 cooperating witness cooperates, typically, they cooperate, but
12 there are consequences. They plead guilty and so forth. And
13 they get a reduction in their sentence. It seems odd in this
14 case that there are no consequences. And, indeed, her lawyer
15 wanted to sit with her to assert objections to questions,
16 which, of course, I didn't permit.
17 MR. DOWNING: And, Your Honor, I guess we believe
18 that we can use that immunity in our closing.
19 THE COURT: Yes, you can. But it's a judgment you
20 made. I'm not going to ask the question.
21 Did you want to say something?
22 MR. ANDRES: May I, Judge?
24 MR. ANDRES: It's not right to assume there were no
25 consequences. Whether they get brought out on direct or not

U.S. v. Manafort
1043
1 is a different issue. Mr. Downing wants the jury to believe
2 that Ms. Laporta is telling the truth. So, obviously, there's
3 no -- I just -- it doesn't mean that we didn't -- there
4 weren't consequences and with her own employment --
5 THE COURT: What did I miss? What are the
6 consequences?
7 MR. ANDRES: Well, she has licensing issues, I'm
8 sure. She just testified in public that she's lied about
9 things. That doesn't mean that the accounting board or these
10 other entities, which have now been alerted to, may take
11 action. We don't know. We don't control that within the
12 Department of Justice.
13 THE COURT: And, of course, there's no Government
14 agreement to help her avoid that?
15 MR. ANDRES: No, no. The only agreement that we
16 have --
17 THE COURT: Is in the --
18 MR. ANDRES: Immunity order.
19 THE COURT: It's not in the order, it's in the
20 agreement you have with her. I just signed --
21 MR. ANDRES: We don't have an agreement with her.
22 THE COURT: All right. I signed an order requiring
23 her to testify. There is no agreement?
24 MR. ANDRES: The agreement was to get her immunity
25 from the Court, to apply to the Court for --

U.S. v. Manafort
1044
1 THE COURT: That's the only agreement?
2 MR. DOWNING: Yes.
3 THE COURT: I did not give her immunity. You did.
4 MR. ASONYE: That is correct.
5 THE COURT: I required her to testify.
6 MR. ASONYE: That is correct, Your Honor.
7 MR. ANDRES: Yes. Absolutely.
8 MR. DOWNING: Thank you, Your Honor.
9 THE COURT: Let's be very clear about it. All
10 right. Thank you. Mr. Downing --
11 MR. ASONYE: Your Honor, I was going to ask if it's
12 time for -- an appropriate time for a bathroom break.
13 THE COURT: Oh, okay. Yes, I'll do that.
14 MR. ASONYE: Thank you, Your Honor.
15 (End of bench conference.)
16 THE COURT: All right. Is there any redirect, Mr.
17 Asonye?
18 MR. ASONYE: Yes, there is, Your Honor.
19 THE COURT: How long?
20 MR. ASONYE: You know, it could be about 15, 20
21 minutes. 15 minutes.
22 THE COURT: All right. I take it you would
23 appreciate a break now.
24 MR. ASONYE: That would be helpful, Your Honor.
25 THE COURT: Pass your books to the right. The court

U.S. v. Manafort
1045
1 security officer will collect them, maintain their security.
2 Ms. Laporta, you may step down. Remember, you may
3 not discuss your testimony with anyone at all. You understand
4 that includes attorneys?
5 THE WITNESS: Yes, I understand. Thank you.
6 THE COURT: All right. We will reconvene at 5
7 minutes after 3:00.
8 I hope -- you got your lunches today, those of you
9 who wanted them. Good.
10 And there will be soft drinks, Mr. Flood?
11 THE CSO: Yes, sir.
12 THE COURT: Good. Remember to refrain from
13 discussing the matter with anyone or among yourselves and also
14 undertaking any kind of investigation at all.
15 THE CSO: Quiet.
16 THE COURT: You may follow Mr. Flood out.
17 (Recess.)
18 THE COURT: All right. Before we begin -- ladies
19 and gentlemen, you may be seated for just a moment.
20 Before we begin, in the last session, for the second
21 time in this case, because of something that was said, at
22 least a half a dozen to a dozen or more people jumped up and
23 ran out of here.
25 THE COURT: Making noises as they did. It happened

U.S. v. Manafort
1046
1 once before. The first time it happened, it was disruptive
2 and mildly amusing, especially since there was no reason at
3 all for it, and this time it was not as amusing and equally or
4 more disruptive.
5 You may not do that. If you cause a disruption, I'm
6 going to have you excluded. It's that simple. If you want to
7 leave the courtroom, yes, of course, you may do so. But do so
8 in a quiet, orderly way, not in the way in which we've seen it
9 done twice. Let's not have that again.
10 All right. Let's have the jury brought in. We'll
11 continue with the redirect examination of the witness.
12 Did you have something, Mr. Asonye?
13 MR. ASONYE: Just if Your Honor could remind -- we,
14 again, ran into some of the jurors in the elevator at the
15 break.
16 THE COURT: Oh, yes, you're quite right. I will do
17 that, Mr. Asonye. Thank you for the reminder.
18 (Jury in.)
19 THE COURT: All right. You may be seated.
20 Ladies and gentlemen, you will, on occasion, see
21 lawyers on behalf of the Government or the defendant, either
22 in the hallways, here, or on the street or walking across to
23 the hotel or whatever. And they will typically not
24 acknowledge you or say hello, and that's entirely appropriate.
25 They are told by the Court not to discuss or not to

U.S. v. Manafort
1047
1 have any conversations or contact with any of the jurors.
2 And, indeed, everyone should avoid that, but the lawyers, in
3 particular. So if that happened, don't think of the lawyers
4 as being rude. Think of them, instead, as having adhered or
5 abiding my instructions.
6 All right. Let's have Ms. Laporta return and,
7 Mr. Asonye, you may do your redirect examination, which you
8 say should be about 30 minutes?
9 MR. ASONYE: And hopefully I can do it in less, Your
10 Honor.
11 THE COURT: Good.
13 THE COURT: Ms. Laporta, you'll recall you're still
14 under oath.
15 THE WITNESS: Yes, I do, Your Honor.
16 THE COURT: And you may resume the stand.
17 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
18 BY MR. ASONYE:
19 Q. Good afternoon. Ms. Laporta, Mr. Downing, do you
20 remember him asking you some questions about 29 Howard Street
21 and whether there was some confusion about whether it was a
22 rental?
23 Do you remember those questions?
24 A. Yes, I do.
25 Q. Okay. Were you confused as to whether 29 Howard Street

U.S. v. Manafort
1048
1 was a rental?
2 A. Was I confused that it was?
3 Q. Were you confused?
4 A. No, I think the only confusion was whether or -- who was
5 living there when another name was thrown out there.
6 Q. In fact, let me show you Government Exhibit 156, which
7 has already been admitted.
8 MR. ASONYE: Your Honor, may we publish?
10 BY MR. ASONYE:
11 Q. And you received -- if you look at the middle e-mail?
12 You received this e-mail from Rick Gates, and did
13 Rick Gates ever express any confusion about the 29 Howard
14 Street, whether it was a rental in 2015?
15 A. No.
16 Q. In fact, in Paragraph 2, what does he say about how it's
17 used in 2015?
18 A. He said rental clearly.
19 Q. All right. And if we can pull up Government Exhibit
20 337L, which is the tax return for MC Soho, 29 Howard Street in
21 2015. And if we could turn to Page 14, if we could zoom in on
22 the top.
23 Was there any confusion about the number of days
24 this property was rented out for when the tax return was
25 filed?

U.S. v. Manafort
1049
1 A. No, there was not.
2 Q. Is the -- how many days was it rented for?
3 A. It was available 365 days.
4 Q. Okay. In fact, if you read Line 1, you said it was
5 available for 365 days. Could you actually read Line 1 to the
6 jury, what does it say?
7 A. (As read): "Show the type and address of each property.
8 For each rental property -- real estate property listed,
9 report the number of days rented at fair rental value and days
10 with personal use."
11 Q. All right. So that says days rented at fair rental
12 value; is that correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And how many days was it rented?
15 A. 365.
16 Q. How many days was it personal?
17 A. None.
18 Q. If we can take that down. Thank you.
19 Now, Mr. Downing also asked you some questions about
20 your expertise in preparing tax returns; is that correct?
22 Q. And what is your expertise?
23 A. Expertise is accounting and auditing, but experience
24 includes business and personal tax returns.
25 Q. Now, did it take you an -- did you need to be an expert

U.S. v. Manafort
1050
1 in order to determine that the Peranova letter -- forgiveness
2 letter for $1.5 million was backdated? Did you need to be an
3 expert to figure that out?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Did you need to be an expert to know that you can't
6 disguise income as a loan?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Was that complicated?
9 A. No.
10 Q. Did you need to be an expert to know that calling
11 $900,000 from Telmar was wrong and not right?
12 A. The $900,000?
13 Q. Calling that a loan instead of income?
14 A. Correct.
15 Q. Did you need to be an expert to know that that was wrong?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Now, Mr. Downing asked you about some tax returns from
18 KWC going all the way back to 2005; is that correct?
20 Q. Now, you testified that you signed the 2014 and the 2015
21 return for DMP International; is that correct?
23 Q. Did you sign the 2010, '11, '12, or '13 returns?
24 A. No, I did not sign those returns.
25 Q. Did you even work on the 2010, '11, or '12 returns?

U.S. v. Manafort
1051
1 A. No, I did not.
2 THE COURT: Did you work on the 2013 return?
3 THE WITNESS: I did not work on them. There's --
4 it's possible I was copied on e-mails in that transition
5 period, but I don't recall.
6 THE COURT: So you when you say you didn't work on
7 them, what do you mean?
8 THE WITNESS: I don't -- I don't recall working on
9 anything but '14 or '15.
11 BY MR. ASONYE:
12 Q. In effect, with respect to 2013, did you review or
13 approve the 2013 tax return for Mr. Manafort?
15 Q. So with respect to the tax returns that are at issue in
16 this case, that are charged in this case, what is the one year
17 that you worked on?
18 A. 2014 and 2015.
19 Q. Now, Mr. Downing asked you about DMP International's 2016
20 return. Did you work on that return?
22 Q. Did your firm work on that tax return?
23 A. No, we did not.
24 Q. Okay. Have you ever seen that tax return before today?
25 A. No, I have not.

U.S. v. Manafort
1052
1 Q. And you indicated during your cross-examination that
2 $1.9 million from Telmar was apparently picked up as income in
3 that 2016 tax return, correct?
5 Q. Okay. And did you recall when that 2016 tax return was
6 actually filed?
7 A. I don't recall when it was actually filed.
8 Q. If you could take a look at Defendant's two thousand- --
9 I'm sorry, Defendant's 4?
10 A. Oh, sorry. October 16, 2017.
11 Q. Okay. Now, when were you interviewed for the first time
12 in this investigation?
13 A. I don't remember. Maybe a year ago.
14 Q. Was it -- was it prior to October 2017?
15 A. I don't believe so. I honestly don't remember.
16 Q. Now, let me show you -- Mr. Downing asked you about
17 Defendant's Exhibit 2, and if we could actually put that up on
18 the ELMO.
19 And did you testify that you prepared this document?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Okay. How did you prepare this document?
22 A. It's just based on tax returns that are in the files for
23 those years for those entities.
24 Q. And did those tax returns rely on the GL's that were
25 provided by Heather Washkuhn and her firm?

U.S. v. Manafort
1053
1 A. Presumably.
2 MR. DOWNING: Objection, Your Honor. How can a tax
3 return rely on a general ledger?
4 THE COURT: I'll overrule the objection. But you
5 may, of course, in a recross-examination, clarify that. She's
6 answered the question.
7 MR. ASONYE: Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't -- I didn't
8 hear her response, Your Honor.
9 THE COURT: Well, maybe I missed it as well.
10 You may re-ask it.
11 BY MR. ASONYE:
12 Q. Okay. Ms. Laporta, the tax returns that you -- that KWC
13 prepared, did they rely on the information on the GL's
14 provided by Heather Washkuhn and her firm?
15 A. That's the initial representation of the activity for the
16 entities, the general ledger.
17 Q. And if --
18 THE COURT: Does that mean that everything is
19 accepted without question?
20 THE WITNESS: No, it does not.
22 BY MR. ASONYE:
23 Q. Now, if income wasn't included on the GL and the client
24 didn't tell you about it, was it reflected in the client's tax
25 return?

U.S. v. Manafort
1054
1 A. And which tax year are we talking about? I'm sorry to be
2 confused.
3 Q. The -- let's just take 2014, the year that you signed for
4 Mr. Manafort.
5 A. Okay. Okay.
6 Q. If you -- if you didn't see a payment or income on the GL
7 and -- or -- and Mr. Manafort didn't tell you about it, was it
8 reflected on his tax return?
9 A. No, I don't think so, if I'm following correctly.
10 Q. And, in fact, were you aware of any foreign accounts that
11 were under the control of Mr. Manafort?
12 A. No, I was not ever aware of those foreign accounts.
13 Q. So did your tax returns that you prepared reflect any
14 payments into those foreign accounts?
15 A. No.
16 Q. And if payments were made out of those foreign accounts
17 on behalf of Mr. Manafort to U.S. vendors, would that have
18 been reflected in your tax returns?
19 A. If payments had been made from foreign accounts to
20 vendors?
21 Q. If a payment was made from a foreign account that you
22 didn't know about to a U.S. vendor on Mr. Manafort's behalf,
23 would that have been reflected as income on the tax return
24 that you prepared?
25 A. Well, I'm not completely following, but I think

U.S. v. Manafort
1055
1 if overseas accounts were used to pay vendors of the
2 company --
3 Q. Vendors of Mr. Manafort, personal vendors for
4 Mr. Manafort?
5 A. Oh, I didn't know of any. And if they were, I don't know
6 if they'd be expenses on his behalf or --
7 Q. So --
8 A. -- it'd be -- it would be income. What your -- I think
9 what the -- ultimately, if there was payments made from
10 another account, that income would need to be picked up
11 somewhere.
12 Q. And you're not aware of any such payments, are you?
13 A. No, I'm not.
14 Q. So any such payments are not reflected on Defendant's
15 Exhibit 2, are they?
17 Q. And, in fact, let's look a little closer at Defendant's
18 Exhibit 2.
19 Now, if you -- Mr. Downing asked you about the total
20 amount of gross receipts between 2005 and 2015, and you said
21 92 million on the second page; is that right?
23 Q. Okay. But I want you to actually focus on five
24 particular years, if we can do a little bit of addition
25 together. If you could add the gross receipts for 2010

U.S. v. Manafort
1056
1 through 2014 that was reported that you-all picked up, I'd
2 like you to tell the jury what the total of that is, okay?
3 So we're going to start for 2010. And how much was
4 reported as gross receipts by Davis Manafort in 2010?
5 A. Approximately $6.5 million dollars.
6 Q. Okay. Let me just keep track of that.
7 THE COURT: What is this?
8 MR. ASONYE: Your Honor, I'm just -- I'm just trying
9 to --
11 THE COURT: You don't -- no, take it off of there.
12 You don't testify.
13 BY MR. ASONYE:
14 Q. All right. 6.5 --
15 THE COURT: Yes, all right is correct.
16 Go head, Mr. Asonye.
17 BY MR. ASONYE:
18 Q. In 2011, how much is reported as gross receipts for Davis
19 Manafort Partners?
20 A. 5.3 million.
21 Q. Okay. So are we now at 11.8 million?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. For 2012, how much is reported in gross receipts for DMP
24 International?
25 A. Seven million-three.

U.S. v. Manafort
1057
1 Q. Okay. So are we now at 19.1 million? 11.8 plus 7.3?
2 A. That sounds right.
3 Q. Okay. And how much is reported for 2014 -- 2013?
4 A. 4.5 million.
5 Q. Does that take you to 23.6 million approximately?
6 A. Approximately.
7 Q. And then the final year, how much is reported for DMP
8 International in 2014?
9 A. 7.4 million.
10 Q. Does that get you to around 31 million?
11 A. Right.
12 Q. Okay. Is that less than 60 million?
13 A. Excuse me?
14 Q. Is that less than $60 million --
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. -- for the one million that's reported?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Now, let me show you Defense Exhibit 3. You were asked
19 about this as well.
20 And can you explain to the jury again what this
21 exhibit is?
22 A. Yes. This exhibit is a summary of loans that were made
23 from wire transfers during 2005 and 2015. And we show the
24 dates and the amounts and which entities received those
25 monies -- that money. And -- and then we show of those loans

U.S. v. Manafort
1058
1 how much was recognized in revenue, how much was distributed
2 to the patterns, how much was written off as a worthless
3 investment, and the year of -- the loans were repaid or
4 converted.
5 Q. Okay. So --
6 THE COURT: Did you do this?
7 THE WITNESS: Yes.
8 THE COURT: Did you do this as what, in order to
9 help you get the return accurate?
10 THE WITNESS: No, this was a request of the clients.
11 THE COURT: From Mr. Gates?
12 THE WITNESS: No, from Mr. Manafort.
13 THE COURT: What was -- you may proceed.
14 MR. ASONYE: Thank you, Your Honor.
15 BY MR. ASONYE:
16 Q. I want to ask you first about some of the entities that
17 are listed on this exhibit.
18 THE COURT: But is it accurate based on what you
19 saw?
20 THE WITNESS: This was developed from tax returns
21 that were already filed. So there were no judgments made here
22 in the preparation of this schedule.
24 BY MR. ASONYE:
25 Q. Now, Yiakora Ventures Limited, do you see that, Yiakora

U.S. v. Manafort
1059
1 Ventures Limited, in the middle?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Okay. What was your understanding of what that entity's
4 relationship with Davis Manafort Partners was?
5 A. I believe -- and I wasn't familiar back in those years,
6 but I believe they were all -- they were all -- I didn't know
7 the relationship between them. I'd be guessing.
8 I know the two I dealt with, Peranova and Telmar,
9 were customers of DMP International.
10 Q. And you didn't understand Peranova to be controlled by
11 Mr. Manafort?
12 THE COURT: You're leading.
13 BY MR. ASONYE:
14 Q. Did you understand -- did you understand --
15 THE COURT: What, if anything.
16 BY MR. ASONYE:
17 Q. What, if anything, did you understand about whether
18 Peranova was controlled by Mr. Manafort?
19 A. No -- no knowledge of that.
20 Q. And what about for Yiakora?
21 A. I don't -- I wasn't involved with Yiakora, I don't think.
22 Q. And --
23 A. I mean, I know I wasn't.
24 Q. Now, there's a name at the top, Deripaska. What, if
25 anything, did Mr. Manafort tell you about $10 million in loans

U.S. v. Manafort
1060
1 from Mr. Deripaska?
2 A. Nothing. We were just using numbers and maybe he came in
3 with some explanations or maybe they came from the general
4 ledger. I don't remember where the client or customer listing
5 or entity where that was coming from.
6 Q. What did Mr. Manafort tell you about a Russian NGO?
7 A. Nothing.
8 Q. Now, this -- the title of this document is called "Loans
9 From Wire Transfers."
10 Why did -- why did you label this document "Loans
11 From Wire Transfers"?
12 A. We were going from what was reported on tax returns, the
13 balance sheets, as loans for each of these years. So it was
14 simply every Schedule L for all the entities that are listed
15 here.
16 Q. Now, the loans I asked you about from Deripaska, the
17 10 million and the 8 million from Yiakora, do you see that --
18 those loans ever being picked up as income in any subsequent
19 year?
20 A. All I know are when Telmar was picked up as income.
21 Q. But do you know of any time that the $10 million in loans
22 from Deripaska was picked up as income?
23 A. I don't know that. It would be in the recognized income
24 of 7 million. And I don't have the details of that. Oh,
25 wait. That's not true. 7 million -- recognizes income.

U.S. v. Manafort
1061
1 And which two are you asking about?
2 Q. Well, let's first start with Deripaska.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Do you see the $10 million purportedly loaned from
5 Deripaska ever being picked up as income?
6 THE COURT: What do you mean by "ever"?
7 MR. ASONYE: Ever.
8 THE COURT: Well, have you seen any returns after
9 2016?
10 THE WITNESS: No, I have not.
11 THE COURT: All right. So that's all she can say.
12 BY MR. ASONYE:
13 Q. For any return that you've ever seen these loans
14 were made -- supposedly made in 2006?
15 THE COURT: Well, if she hasn't seen a return, of
16 course, it isn't there.
17 MR. ASONYE: For any return that she's worked on or
18 seen.
19 THE COURT: All right. That's an appropriate
20 question. You may ask that.
21 BY MR. ASONYE:
22 Q. Since 2006, have you seen the $10 million in supposed
23 loans from Deripaska being picked up as income?
24 A. I'm sorry, I'm reading the disposition of those loans
25 over here in the columns to the right. And it looks like the

U.S. v. Manafort
1062
1 loans were distributed, reported as distributions, and to
2 another partner, and there was a write-off of a worthless
3 security.
4 So I don't see it here where its been paid off, no.
5 Q. And, in fact, if you look at your other -- the other
6 chart that you prepared, which was Mr. Manafort's income that
7 year -- if we could flash that up quickly -- Defendant's
8 Exhibit 2.
9 Do you see any income that is reported from
10 Deripaska?
11 A. No, I don't see any.
12 Q. And then let's take a look at Yiakora. Is there
13 supposedly $1.969 million in loans from Yiakora on Defendant's
14 Exhibit 3; isn't that right?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And do you see that on Defendant's Exhibit 2 ever being
17 picked up as income?
18 A. Well, if we can stick with the loan document, the
19 schedule I prepared on loans --
20 Q. Sure.
21 A. -- the 1.9, if you go to recognized income, it appears to
22 have happened and it says, "Year 2016 to be recognized in
23 income in 2016."
24 Q. And when Mr. Downing showed you that 2016 tax return, did
25 you see that being picked up as income?

U.S. v. Manafort
1063
1 A. I did not.
2 Q. Now, Ms. Laporta, in order to call something a loan, do
3 you have to have an intent to actually repay it?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Can you call something a loan when it's actually income?
6 A. No.
7 Q. If you do that, if you call something a loan when its
8 income, is that fraud?
9 A. It could be considered fraud.
10 Q. Now, let me ask you, Mr. Downing asked you about the
11 Telmar loan, isn't that right, or supposed loan?
13 Q. Was Mr. Manafort's 2014 tax return accurate when he
14 called the $900,000 a loan and not income?
15 A. No, it was not.
16 Q. And so is -- was Mr. Manafort's 2014 tax return still
17 false for 2014 even if he picked it up as income two years
18 later?
20 THE COURT: Anything further?
21 MR. ASONYE: Just a little bit, Your Honor.
23 BY MR. ASONYE:
24 Q. Mr. Downing -- do you recall when Mr. Downing asked you
25 about your representations to the bank about $2.4 million in

U.S. v. Manafort
1064
1 accrual income for Mr. Manafort?
2 A. Yes, I do.
3 Q. Okay. And I think you said there's nothing inappropriate
4 about using an accrual P&L; is that correct?
6 Q. Now, to show as income on an accrual P&L --
7 THE COURT: Go ahead and finish your question.
8 MR. ASONYE: I haven't even finished my thought,
9 but, yes.
10 BY MR. ASONYE:
11 Q. When is income recognized on an accrual basis P&L?
12 MR. DOWNING: Objection, Your Honor. The question
13 to Ms. Laporta earlier had to do with the cash basis P&L and
14 then accounts receivable. I did not ask her a question about
15 an accrual based P&L.
16 THE COURT: Well, I'll overrule the objection. But
17 you might use those words. It might be better, more accurate.
18 Go ahead, Mr. Asonye.
19 BY MR. ASONYE:
20 Q. For an accrual based P&L, when is income recognized?
21 A. In the year.
22 THE COURT: Haven't we been over this?
23 Let's not --
25 THE COURT: Let us not cover ground that has already

U.S. v. Manafort
1065
1 been covered.
2 BY MR. ASONYE:
3 Q. Did you receive any evidence that the $2.4 million was an
4 accounts receivable for Mr. Manafort?
5 A. No, I did not.
6 Q. Did you ask for it?
7 A. Yes, I did.
8 Q. And in that case were you dealing with Mr. Manafort
9 directly?
10 A. Yes, I was.
11 Q. And did you ever get it from him?
13 Q. Did he tell you why?
14 A. No.
15 MR. ASONYE: Nothing further, Your Honor.
16 THE COURT: Mr. Downing, any recross based on that?
17 MR. DOWNING: Brief.
18 THE COURT: All right, sir. That's the magic word.
19 RECROSS-EXAMINATION
20 MR. DOWNING:
21 Q. Ms. Laporta, with respect to the questions that you were
22 just asked, the Schedule L is the balance sheet on a tax
23 return; is that correct?
25 Q. And the schedule you put together that you were just

U.S. v. Manafort
1066
1 talking about when it looked at the Schedule L's for the tax
2 returns for DMP and DMP International from '05 to '15,
3 correct?
5 Q. And can you explain from year to year on those
6 Schedule L's, do they have a beginning balance for the items
7 on the balance sheet?
8 A. Yes, they do.
9 Q. And do they have an ending balance?
10 A. Yes, they do.
11 Q. And as part of your preparation of the tax returns, a
12 balance sheet, in fact, has to balance, correct?
14 Q. And what does that mean?
15 A. That the assets have to equal the liabilities and equity.
16 Q. And with respect to a loan account, from a year-to-year
17 basis, for a loan to go off of the balance sheet, either
18 somebody had to repay it, correct?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Or it had to be reclassified; is that correct?
22 Q. They don't magically disappear, do they?
23 A. No, they don't.
25 THE COURT: All right. Thank you. You may step

U.S. v. Manafort
1067
1 down. You may be excused.
2 Call your next witness.
3 (Witness excused.)
4 MR. ASONYE: The Government calls Paula Liss.
5 MR. ZEHNLE: Your Honor, may I be heard?
6 THE COURT: Yes. At the bench?
7 MR. ZEHNLE: Yes.
8 THE COURT: All right. Keep Ms. Liss outside for
9 just a few minutes.
11 THE COURT: Yes, Mr. Zehnle?
12 MR. ZEHNLE: Good afternoon, Your Honor.
13 It is my understanding that through Special
14 Agent Liss that the Government intends to introduce Government
15 Exhibit 117. That's what we were advised of.
16 And the defense has an objection to Government
17 Exhibit 117 both for relevancy under 401 and 403 analysis and
18 under -- you know, basically stating that it's irrelevant for
19 many, many purposes.
20 It's a composite exhibit. It deals with more than a
21 dozen separate individuals and entities and purports to state
22 that no FBAR reports were filed for any of these individuals
23 or entities.
24 The defendant's objection --
25 THE COURT: Let me get the report.

U.S. v. Manafort
1068
2 THE COURT: Tell me what you think these purport to
3 be, Mr. Zehnle.
4 MR. ZEHNLE: These are essentially certifications
5 from the FinCEN, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, stating
6 that a search was done for records relating to the filing of
7 foreign bank reports. And it purports to do so for the period
8 of January 1, 2001 through May 25th of this year, 2018.
9 The defense's objection, Your Honor, is that in
10 Counts 11 through 14 of the superseding indictment, the
11 Government has charged Mr. Manafort, and Mr. Manafort alone,
12 for failing to file a foreign bank account report for each of
13 the years 2011, '12, '13, and '14.
14 So the basis for the objection are multiple.
15 Number one, out of these -- and I counted them, I
16 believe there's 14, Your Honor. There's more than a dozen.
17 Out of more of a dozen of these records, the only ones that
18 relate to Mr. Manafort appears to be the first page of the
19 exhibit, Government 117.
20 In addition, the search purports to state that it
21 was done for a period going all the way back to 2001 and
22 continuing all the way up to May 25th of this year, 2018.
23 None of these things have relevance to the four charges
24 related solely to Mr. Manafort with respect to the failure to
25 file the FBARs.

U.S. v. Manafort
1069
1 And, in fact, under 401 and 403 analysis, it seems
2 that the Government was trying to suggest that he had a duty
3 or a responsibility or an obligation to file these things
4 going back all these years when, in fact, no evidence has been
5 adduced to that whatsoever.
6 THE COURT: What's your response?
7 MR. ASONYE: Well, Your Honor, these are all --
8 these not only Mr. Manafort, but all his related entities. We
9 just saw a chart where he's talking about, I guess, loans from
10 foreign sources for an account that is an affiliate of his.
11 We, of course, to check, A, to show that there was no absence
12 of mistake to show that: Well, maybe his wife, another 50
13 percent partner, filed the FBAR. We, of course, had to go and
14 check. And in addition to --
15 THE COURT: Well, maybe you had to check, but I'm
16 not sure it's admissible. Because that -- these people are
17 not the ones accused of it. And it has -- it has the effect
18 of -- a bit of a smear. But you have already evidence in the
19 record that he checked "no" on his tax returns; is that right?
20 MR. ASONYE: Yeah, but this is an independent and
21 different requirement. The tax return is one requirement.
22 There's a separate statute of a partner that actually filed
23 the FBAR with a different agent.
24 Secondly, Your Honor --
25 THE COURT: But it only accuses him of failing to do

U.S. v. Manafort
1070
1 it.
2 MR. ASONYE: Well, the --
3 THE COURT: Do you intend to argue that the
4 Government has not proven that because they didn't do it
5 on evidence -- that -- that John Hannah, LLC, did not file
6 a -- an FBAR?
7 MR. ZEHNLE: Yes, Your Honor. That's my point.
8 There's no evidence that's been adduced.
9 THE COURT: No. Do you intend to argue to the jury
10 that they failed because they didn't show that John Hannah,
11 LLC, did not file an FBAR?
12 MR. ASONYE: Your Honor.
13 MR. ANDRES: No, Your Honor.
14 (Court reporter interruption.)
15 THE COURT: Yes, she can only get one of us at a
16 time.
17 MR. ASONYE: Your Honor, the other thing that's
18 incredibly important here, the defense -- the parties just
19 agreed to a stipulation where we're going to get into the fact
20 that Mr. Manafort and one of his entities responded to the 31
21 subpoenas and these are Mr. Manafort's -- DMPs foreign
22 accounts.
23 And there's no FBAR filing for DMP as well.
24 THE COURT: Well, let me see if I can get my
25 fingers -- or my arms around this.

U.S. v. Manafort
1071
1 Who is John Hannah, LLC? It's a name I've never
2 even heard in the case so far.
3 MR. ASONYE: It is, Your Honor. It's one of
4 Mr. Manafort's entities. In fact, if I can grab that chart, a
5 number of entities received these foreign loans, supposed
6 foreign loans.
7 THE COURT: Jesand Investments.
8 MR. ASONYE: These are Manaforts. And he is a
9 member of these entities or his children are a member of these
10 entities. But most of them -- I believe all of them are. But
11 there may be a way. This is the first time we're hearing
12 about it. I can tell you about the ones we care about, Your
13 Honor.
15 MR. ASONYE: We care about Paul Manafort, Kathleen
16 Manafort. That's on their tax return. They probably care
17 more about Rick Gates than we do, but -- Davis Manafort
18 matters and DMP International. Davis Manafort Partners.
19 Those are the most important ones that are critical to this
20 case. The evidence about all of those parties actually having
21 foreign accounts and controlling those accounts and that he
22 never filed a FBAR for any of those. That's highly relevant.
23 The rest we can --
24 THE COURT: Just a minute. I want to get a copy of
25 the indictment.

U.S. v. Manafort
1072
1 MR. ZEHNLE: Your Honor, if you want to just look at
2 mine.
3 THE COURT: No.
5 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Zehnle --
6 MR. NANAVATI: Yes, Your Honor.
7 THE COURT: -- do you intend to argue that the
8 Government fails in its allegations on the FBAR, because they
9 didn't cover all of these various other entities?
10 MR. NANAVATI: No, Your Honor. My focus is really
11 if we had -- if they had produced a document that simply said
12 Mr. Manafort did not file -- there's no record of filing FBARs
13 for the years 2011 through 2014, we wouldn't be standing here.
14 THE COURT: Well, you have that, don't you?
15 MR. ASONYE: We have it for those -- no, we don't.
16 What we have, Your Honor, is each entity and they do one
17 search. They cover an entire period.
18 THE COURT: I don't care how they do it. Do you
19 have evidence that Mr. Manafort didn't file FBARs on these
20 four years, which is the crime he's accused of committing?
21 MR. ASONYE: Yes. I mean, we have --
22 THE COURT: All right. Then let's offer that and
23 we'll end with that.
24 MR. ASONYE: Your Honor, it's also absolutely
25 relevant that the company, DMP International did not --

U.S. v. Manafort
1073
1 THE COURT: He's not accused of that.
2 MR. ANDRES: He would be required on his tax return.
3 I believe this witness is going to testify it would have
4 been --
5 THE COURT: All right. I said that I'm only going
6 to allow one lawyer, but go ahead, Mr. Andres. Go ahead.
7 MR. ANDRES: I think the requirement would be that
8 because of his position at DMP, he would have had to file
9 those either himself or for his company. So his -- he has an
10 obligation to file not just for himself but for his companies.
11 And so --
12 THE COURT: Well, that's not alleged in the
13 indictment is the problem. And do you intend to argue
14 anything about his entities having filed FBARs?
15 MR. ZEHNLE: No, Your Honor.
16 THE COURT: All right. That's the way it's going
17 the stand.
18 MR. ANDRES: Understood.
19 THE COURT: I'm going to sustain the objection. You
20 are limited to these four years and the failure of him and his
21 wife, I think -- doesn't she jointly file with him?
22 MR. ASONYE: Yes.
23 THE COURT: It's a joint return.
24 MR. ZEHNLE: The only point I would make in that
25 regard, Your Honor, is that these are done on -- excuse me --

U.S. v. Manafort
1074
1 the FinCENs are done on an individual basis. And they didn't
2 charge anything in there with respect to Mrs. Manafort. Or --
3 I mean, there's individuals in here and there's also entities
4 that they are doing this for and they are doing it for a long
5 period of time.
6 THE COURT: Yes. I think you've made your point
7 clear and I've accepted it. I'm not going to allow them to
8 put on evidence that they've not done it for 15 years.
9 I'm going to allow them to show that he didn't file
10 the FBAR on 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014, because that's what's
11 alleged in the indictment. And if -- if you want to show
12 that, you may do it. How you do it is entirely up to you.
13 MR. ASONYE: I think -- well, I obviously can't do
14 it from the exhibit, Your Honor. It's becomes the longer
15 periods --
16 THE COURT: Yes, but you could maybe ask the person
17 to look -- I'm not going to tell you how to try your case, but
18 I think you have evidence. You just need to present it. And
19 you're not required to go ahead with this witness.
20 MR. ASONYE: Well, Your Honor, may I -- I can either
21 lead her or just have one minute with her to make her clear of
22 the Court's ruling on where we can go. That will probably
23 solve the issue.
24 THE COURT: All right. Well, I'll let you lead --
25 well, did -- did he file -- does the record show that he filed

U.S. v. Manafort
1075
1 an FBAR for the years 2012, '13, '14, '15? Yes or no?
2 MR. ASONYE: Yes, I just -- she's --
3 THE COURT: And she can rely on this record to make
4 that statement. Don't you agree?
5 MR. ZEHNLE: I'm fine with that, Your Honor.
6 THE COURT: Let's do it.
7 MR. ASONYE: I just -- she's prepped a number of
8 times for the whole thing, so it may not --
9 THE COURT: That's her problem. Don't let her
10 answer. I don't want to take a recess at this time.
11 MR. ANDRES: I agree.
12 THE COURT: Because then we have a long witness,
13 right? We do, don't we?
14 MR. ANDRES: Yes.
15 THE COURT: That's your witness?
16 MR. ANDRES: Yes.
17 THE COURT: All right. Let's proceed.
18 MR. ZEHNLE: Thank you, Your Honor.
19 THE COURT: For the record -- just a moment.
20 For the record, the objection is sustained, but the
21 Government is permitted to offer evidence based on the search
22 that relates to the matters that were listed in the
23 indictment.
24 MR. ZEHNLE: Understood.
25 THE COURT: And the sustained -- and it's not

U.S. v. Manafort
1076
1 relevant, all of those other things. And there is a 403
2 problem with doing it that way. They can convict him for
3 years that he's not alleged to have violated in the
4 indictment. So that is why I'm doing it. Let's proceed.
6 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Asonye, you may proceed
7 in accordance with the Court's ruling, which focuses sharply
8 on what is in the indictment.
9 MR. ASONYE: The Government calls Paula Liss.
11 Come forward and take the oath, please, ma'am.
12 Thereupon,
13 PAULA LISS,
14 having been called as a witness on behalf of the Government
15 and having been first duly sworn by the Deputy Clerk, was
16 examined and testified as follows:
18 THE COURT: All right. You may proceed, Mr. Asonye.
19 DIRECT EXAMINATION
20 BY MR. ASONYE:
21 Q. Good afternoon. Could you please state and spell your
22 last name for the record?
23 A. My name is Paula Liss, L-i-s-s.
24 Q. And how far did you go in school?
25 A. I have a bachelor's degree in accounting.

U.S. v. Manafort
1077
1 Q. Do you have any certifications?
2 A. Yes. I'm a certified fraud examiner and a certified
3 anti-money laundering specialist.
4 Q. And, Ms. Liss, if you could scoot up and just speak a
5 little bit closer into the microphone, that will -- that will
6 help some of us who are getting up in age, myself.
7 So do you -- where do you work?
8 A. I work at the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network,
9 commonly known as FinCEN.
10 Q. And what Government agency is FinCEN part of?
11 A. FinCEN is a Bureau of the Treasury Department.
12 Q. What does FinCEN do?
13 A. FinCEN's mission is to protect the U.S. financial system
14 from money laundering, terrorist financing, and other illicit
15 use through the collection --
16 THE COURT: Can we get immediately to the
17 straightforward question? There's no money laundering in this
18 case alleged.
19 BY MR. ASONYE:
20 Q. Where do you -- what's your position at FinCEN?
21 A. I'm a senior special agent.
22 Q. And what are your duties?
23 A. Part of my duties are to search records maintained in
24 FinCEN's database, testify as custodian of record.
25 Q. And are you familiar with a report of foreign bank

U.S. v. Manafort
1078
1 account -- bank and financial accounts?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Is that also called the FBAR?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Okay. What is that?
6 A. An FBAR is required when a U.S. person has a financial
7 interest in or signature or other authority over one or more
8 foreign financial accounts when aggregated exceed $10,000 at
9 any time during a calendar year.
10 Q. And is the FBAR reporting requirement separate from the
11 requirement to disclose a foreign bank account on an
12 individual tax return?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. When during the year is the deadline to file an FBAR if
15 you are required to do so?
16 A. It's April 15th of the year following the activity.
17 Q. Now, when was the deadline to file an FBAR in tax years
18 2011 through 2014?
19 A. It was June 30 of the following year.
20 Q. Now, if a person has an obligation to file a FBAR, how is
21 it actually filed?
22 A. Electronically.
23 Q. Was there a time that it could be mailed?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. When was that?

U.S. v. Manafort
1079
1 A. It could be mailed prior to June 30, 2013.
2 Q. And if it was mailed, who was the FBAR mailed to?
3 A. It was mailed to the IRS.
4 Q. Are you familiar with the way that FinCEN keeps records
5 of FBARs?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And generally how does FinCEN keep those records?
8 A. They are maintained electronically.
9 Q. And do you have access to those electronic records?
10 A. Yes, I do.
11 Q. Were you asked to conduct a search for FBAR filings in
12 this case?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And did you conduct a FBAR filing search for Paul
15 Manafort, the defendant?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Let me show you what's marked as Government Exhibit 117
18 in your binder.
19 THE COURT: I thought we discussed that at the
20 bench.
21 MR. ASONYE: I just want her to see it.
22 THE COURT: Just ask her the question as we
23 discussed at the bench. Let's get it done.
24 MR. ASONYE: Trying, Your Honor.
25 THE COURT: Well --

U.S. v. Manafort
1080
1 BY MR. ASONYE:
2 Q. Did you -- did you conduct a search of whether Paul
3 Manafort filed an FBAR for the tax years 2011, 2012, 2013, and
4 2014?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And who conduct -- who asked you to conduct that search?
7 A. The U.S. government.
8 Q. And what were the results -- what did you find for those
9 tax years?
10 A. There were no FBARs in FinCEN's system of record.
11 MR. ASONYE: Thank you.
12 THE COURT: Any cross-examination?
13 MR. ASONYE: Actually, Your Honor, may I have one
14 moment, Your Honor.
17 MR. ASONYE: Your Honor, may we approach? There's a
18 question about the Court's ruling.
19 THE COURT: All right. Yes, you may.
21 THE COURT: What's the question?
22 MR. ASONYE: The question is whether we're allowed
23 to ask about any FBAR filings for Kathleen Manafort during the
24 same period? We understood that we were allowed to do so,
25 Your Honor.

U.S. v. Manafort
1081
1 THE COURT: Any objection to that?
2 MR. ZEHNLE: Your Honor, I was just asking for
3 clarification. I thought initially it was just the husband.
4 THE COURT: I did, but as long -- they filed joint
5 returns --
6 MR. ZEHNLE: I'm okay with it, Your Honor.
7 THE COURT: Let's return.
9 THE COURT: All right. You may proceed.
10 BY MR. ASONYE:
11 Q. And, Ms. Liss, for the same period, 2011, 2012, 2013, and
12 2014, did your search yield any results for FBAR filings for
13 Kathleen Manafort, the defendant's wife?
14 A. There were no FBARs in FinCEN's system of record.
15 THE COURT: I didn't hear you.
16 THE WITNESS: There were no FBARs in FinCEN's system
17 of record.
18 THE COURT: Thank you. Cross-examination.
19 MR. NANAVATI: Yes, briefly, Your Honor.
20 CROSS-EXAMINATION
21 BY MR. ZEHNLE:
22 Q. Good afternoon, Agent Liss. My name is Thomas Zehnle,
23 and I represent Paul Manafort in this case.
24 A. Good afternoon.
25 Q. I just wanted to go over a little bit of your testimony a

U.S. v. Manafort
1082
1 moment ago. You are familiar with the FBAR, correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Okay. And I think you testified that in the past it used
4 to be filed on June 30th of the following year; is that
5 correct?
7 Q. And that was not the same time obviously as income tax
8 returns were generally due, correct?
9 A. That's true.
10 Q. And then it's also now changed to a system whereby it's
11 done electronically; is that correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And in the past it could have been mailed in by paper,
14 right?
15 A. True.
16 Q. And that was sent to the Detroit center; wasn't that
17 correct?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Okay. Now, just in terms of the FBAR so we can clarify
20 this, there are a number of elements that need to be satisfied
21 before a person, a U.S. person, is required to file an FBAR;
22 is that correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And so one of those elements would be that it has to be a
25 United States person, correct?

U.S. v. Manafort
1083
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And a person can be more than just an individual, right?
4 Q. It can be a corporation, correct?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. A U.S. domestic corporation has to file.
7 And the U.S. person has to have a financial interest
8 in the account; is that correct?
9 A. That's one of the ways.
10 Q. And another way is that they have signature authority
11 over the account?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Okay. And then there's a definition of what is a foreign
14 financial account, correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And a financial account can mean more than just a bank
17 account, right?
19 Q. It can be a securities account, right?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. It could be an insurance policy with a cash or
22 undervalue, right?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. There are a number of definitions that deal with what a
25 foreign financial institution is, correct?

U.S. v. Manafort
1084
2 Q. Okay. And then you also said something about aggregating
3 the amounts. And how amounts are aggravated in order to meet
4 the $10,000 threshold, there are regulations on that as well,
5 correct?
6 A. Yes, there's guidance on that as well.
7 Q. And there are practical issues because if it's a foreign
8 financial account, it might be in currency that's different
9 than U.S. dollars, of course?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Okay. So in terms of a corporation's filing
12 requirements, and an individual who owns a corporation, what
13 is the rule in terms of ownership of the corporation in order
14 to require the filing of an FBAR?
15 A. I'm not sure I understand your question.
16 Q. Okay. That was probably my inartful question.
17 How much ownership does a person have to have in a
18 corporation in order to be required to file an FBAR on behalf
19 of that corporation?
20 A. The corporation may have its own filing requirement, and
21 then an individual may have their own filing requirement if
22 they own, directly or indirectly, more than 50 percent of the
23 company.
24 Q. That is, it's more than 50 percent, correct?

U.S. v. Manafort
1085
1 Q. So if it's 50 percent ownership or less, they have no
2 filing requirement?
3 A. Well, you have to take into consideration if they may
4 indirectly own some of that as well.
5 Q. Okay. So if you take that into account and they don't
6 have indirect ownership of it, if it's 50 percent or less,
7 there is no FBAR filing requirements?
8 A. For the individual who owned something in the company,
9 that's correct. Others may have a filing requirement because
10 multiple people can have a filing requirement on one account.
11 Q. Okay.
12 MR. ZEHNLE: Nothing further, Your Honor.
13 MR. ASONYE: Your Honor, I believe he's opened the
14 door on some of the --
15 THE COURT: I'm sorry?
16 MR. ASONYE: May we -- I can -- we can approach on
17 this, but we believe his cross opened the door on at least one
18 or two additional filings.
19 THE COURT: I don't agree. I can see that. It's
20 done. But come to the bench anyway.
22 THE COURT: Mr. Zehnle, do you intend to argue that
23 any entities -- well, that Paul Manafort or his wife did not
24 file FBARs because they didn't have 50 percent of a company?

U.S. v. Manafort
1086
1 MR. ASONYE: Your Honor, he just basically made the
2 argument. Because their evidence in this case is if a person
3 who doesn't necessarily own 50 percent of DMP, therefore
4 implying that he has no filing responsibility. He also went
5 deeply into personal --
6 THE COURT: But they're not accused of failing to
7 file. We're only focused on his obligation to file. You
8 could have indicted him for more, but you didn't.
9 MR. ASONYE: Then, Your Honor, then he expanded in
10 the area and went into this --
11 THE COURT: Yes, but he's entitled -- he's entitled
12 to -- what he did in cross-examination is to make clear that
13 if he doesn't own 50 percent of a company, he doesn't have to
14 file. If he does own more than 50 percent, then he and the
15 company have to file, but the company hasn't been indicted.
16 Only he has been indicted.
17 So he's entitled to argue that for any company that
18 he only owned 50 percent of, there was no FBAR requirement.
19 Well, that's what he wants to argue. Am I correct?
20 MR. ZEHNLE: Correct, Your Honor.
21 MR. ASONYE: And to be clear, Your Honor, in 2010
22 and in 2011, Mr. Manafort owned 100 percent of Davis Manafort
23 Partners.
24 THE COURT: Well, do you have evidence to that?
25 MR. ASONYE: It's already in evidence.

U.S. v. Manafort
1087
1 THE COURT: Well, then don't worry about it.
2 MR. ASONYE: Well, Your Honor, that's what we were
3 going to ask her now. That opened the door on that issue. If
4 Mr. Manafort had 100 percent ownership in Davis Manafort
5 Partners, did he have an FBAR requirement and so did Davis
6 Manafort.
7 THE COURT: Yes, but you don't have to -- his
8 failure to file is all you can prosecute because of your
9 indictment. You cannot prosecute that Davis Manafort
10 Partnership didn't file.
11 Do you understand what I'm saying?
12 MR. ASONYE: I understand what you're saying, Your
13 Honor. I just vigorously disagree that he has now opened that
14 issue now by --
15 THE COURT: Well, then you lose the argument. I'm
16 going to permit you to offer as much evidence as you would
17 like that he had an obligation to file and that he didn't
18 file. That is what's in exhibits -- or in the counts 11
19 through 14. The fact that some partnership or some company
20 didn't file, no. But if you have shown that he owns more than
21 50 percent of the company, then he had an obligation to file.
22 Not for the company, but on his own.
23 MR. ASONYE: And, Your Honor, we're going to do that
24 now. I'm going to ask her that on redirect then.
25 THE COURT: All right. You can do that on redirect,

U.S. v. Manafort
1088
1 but it can only focus on him. Do you understand that?
2 MR. ASONYE: On Mr. Manafort, understood.
3 MR. ZEHNLE: Your Honor, if I might just be heard on
4 this. I was -- I was very careful in the way I asked the
5 questions, simply talking about the element of what's required
6 for the filing of an FBAR. Mr. Asonye seems like he wants to
7 bring this into a direct discussion of Mr. Manafort's
8 obligations. I was only asking: What are the elements that
9 are necessary because the jury needs to know that this is a
10 complicated process. This isn't just something where it's
11 like, oh, gee, I've got a foreign account and I have to file.
12 THE COURT: Well, the other --
13 Mr. Flood, let's have the noise in the courtroom
14 kept down, please.
15 THE CSO: Stop talking. Court is in session.
16 THE COURT: Again, I want to emphasize that
17 Mr. Manafort has been indicted for failing to file FBARs for
18 four years, and that is the sharp focus. Now, it's come out
19 that he does have an obligation to file an FBAR if he owns
20 more than 50 percent of a company that had that obligation.
21 The company would have to file it and the individual would
22 have to file it. I think that's right.
23 MR. ASONYE: That's correct.
24 THE COURT: And so what is it, Mr. Zehnle, that you
25 would object to if he emphasizes that point he asks on

U.S. v. Manafort
1089
1 redirect. All he would ask is if Mr. Manafort owns more than
2 50 percent, he has to file an FBAR.
3 MR. ASONYE: I mean, Your Honor, the question I
4 would ask is: For 2010 and 2011, Mr. Manafort owned 100
5 percent of Davis Manafort Partners and DMP foreign bank, did
6 he have an obligation to file a FBAR?
7 THE COURT: Any objection to that?
8 MR. ZEHNLE: Well, only to the extent, Your Honor --
9 not on that particular point, but only to the extent that it
10 assumes that all the other elements that I just discussed with
11 this witness --
12 THE COURT: That's a matter of argument. I'll
13 permit you to ask that question and then we're done.
14 Let's proceed.
15 MR. NANAVATI: Thank you, Your Honor.
17 THE COURT: All right. You may proceed in
18 accordance with the ruling at the bench.
19 MR. ASONYE: Okay. One moment, Your Honor.
21 BY MR. ASONYE:
22 Q. Ms. Liss, if in 2010 and 2011 Davis Manafort Partners had
23 a foreign bank account with more than $10,000 in it and
24 Mr. Manafort owned 100 percent of that company, would he have
25 an FBAR filing requirement in 2010 and 2011?

U.S. v. Manafort
1090
1 A. It sounds like it, yes.
2 Q. I'm sorry?
3 A. Yes, yes.
4 MR. ASONYE: No further questions.
5 THE COURT: Any cross?
7 THE COURT: Thank you. You may step down. You may
8 be excused.
10 THE COURT: All right. Call your next witness,
11 please.
12 MR. ANDRES: The Government calls Richard Gates.
13 THE COURT: Come forward and take the oath, please,
14 sir.
15 Thereupon,
16 RICHARD GATES,
17 having been called as a witness on behalf of the Government
18 and having been first duly sworn by the Deputy Clerk, was
21 MR. ANDRES: May I inquire, Judge?
22 THE COURT: Just a moment, please.
23 MR. ANDRES: Sure.
24 THE COURT: Thank you. Proceed, Mr. Andres.

U.S. v. Manafort
1091
1 BY MR. ANDRES:
2 Q. Please state your name and spell your last name for the
3 record.
4 A. Yes, Rick Gates, G-a-t-e-s.
5 Q. How old are you, Mr. Gates?
6 A. 46 years old.
7 Q. Where do you live?
8 A. Richmond, Virginia.
9 Q. Are you married?
10 A. I am.
11 Q. Do you have children?
12 A. I do.
13 Q. How many children?
14 A. I have four children.
15 Q. Can you describe your educational background, starting
16 with college?
17 A. Yes. I received my bachelor of arts from the College of
18 William and Mary in 1994, and then I received a masters in
19 arts and public policy in 2001.
20 Q. Have you served in the military?
21 A. I did.
22 Q. In what capacity?
23 A. I was in the Virginia Army National Guard.
24 Q. Were you discharged?
25 A. I was.

U.S. v. Manafort
1092
1 Q. What was the nature of your discharge?
2 A. Honorable.
3 Q. Since graduating from college, what field have you worked
4 in?
5 A. Primarily political affairs.
6 Q. And can you tell us -- briefly describe what jobs you've
7 held?
8 A. Yes. Since graduating from university, I first served
9 with a lobbying firm called Black, Manafort Stone and Kelly.
10 I then went to work for a company called GTECH Corporation.
11 That was followed by a company called Business Strategies and
12 Insight, then went to work for Scientific Games followed by my
13 employment at Davis Manafort Partners, and then I worked for
14 one of the presidential campaigns most recently.
15 Q. Do you know Paul Manafort?
16 A. I do.
17 Q. How do you know Mr. Manafort?
18 A. I worked for Mr. Manafort from 2006 to 2016.
19 Q. When did you first meet Mr. Manafort?
20 A. I first met Mr. Manafort when I was an intern at his
21 firm, Black, Manafort, Stone and Kelly in 1995.
22 Q. Can you explain the circumstances under which you met
23 Mr. Manafort?
24 A. Yes. I was an intern at the time. Mr. Manafort was
25 hosting a Christmas party at his house.

U.S. v. Manafort
1093
1 Q. And you testified that you worked at Black, Manafort,
2 Stone and Kelly. What is that?
3 A. That is a bipartisan political lobbying firm that was
4 based in Alexandria, Virginia.
5 Q. And when you worked there, who did you principally work
6 for?
7 A. At that time, it was one of the named partners, Charlie
8 Black and Rick Davis.
9 Q. Was Mr. Manafort a named partner?
10 A. He was.
11 Q. Did you work with him during that time period?
13 Q. And over what period of time did you work at Black,
14 Manafort, Stone and Kelly?
15 A. From 1995 to 1997.
16 Q. Let me direct your attention to 2006.
17 Did you start a new job in that year?
18 A. I did.
19 Q. What month of that year did you start the job?
20 A. October of 2006.
21 Q. And where did you go to work?
22 A. Davis Manafort Partners.
23 Q. And what is Davis Manafort Partners?
24 A. It is a -- it was a political lobbying company that also
25 did work in electoral campaigns.

U.S. v. Manafort
1094
1 Q. Did you work with Mr. Manafort at Davis Manafort
2 Partners?
3 A. I did.
4 Q. Okay. At some point, did the name of the firm change?
5 A. It did.
6 Q. Can you explain why it changed and when?
7 A. Yes. The two named partners went their separate ways. I
8 believe the name changed in 2012.
9 Q. And what was it changed to?
10 A. DMP International LLC.
11 Q. And who owned, as far as you knew, DMP International?
12 A. Mr. Manafort.
13 Q. During this time period, from 2006 to 2016, who did you
14 report to?
15 A. Mr. Manafort.
16 Q. And what type of work did you do?
17 A. I did primarily work on political electoral campaigns and
18 then the firm also, at that time, had a private equity fund
19 that it was working on.
20 Q. Did you work internationally?
21 A. I did.
22 Q. Where specifically?
23 A. Primarily in Ukraine.
24 Q. Anywhere else?
25 A. In Cyprus as well.

U.S. v. Manafort
1095
1 Q. While you were working for Mr. Manafort, from 2006 to
2 2016, did your responsibility change over time?
3 A. It did. Over the years, my responsibilities increased.
4 As well, we had a number of employees that left the firm over
5 time. So with less employees, I acquired more of the work.
6 Q. What was the process or protocol during that time by
7 which you kept Mr. Manafort up to date on your activities?
8 A. Yes, we typically had calls, e-mail exchanges throughout
9 the week. But that usually culminated in kind of an agenda
10 process where either Mr. Manafort or I would prepare an
11 agenda, and then the other would add items to the agenda to go
12 through kind of on a weekly or biweekly basis.
13 Q. During the course of the time that you worked for
14 Mr. Manafort, did you learn about his educational background?
15 A. I did.
16 Q. Was that -- did you learn about that as part of your work
17 for Mr. Manafort?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. How?
20 A. In -- as part of my job, I had to put together
21 presentations to describe the firm, and as part of that, I
22 would take and put the bios into the experience that the
23 principals had at the time.
24 Q. And what did you learn about where Mr. Manafort went to
25 school?

U.S. v. Manafort
1096
1 A. He went to Georgetown University.
2 Q. And did he have any additional education?
3 A. And then he went to Georgetown University of law school
4 following that.
5 Q. Do you know if Mr. Manafort practiced as a lawyer?
6 A. I don't know. I don't know.
7 Q. Do you know if he had any -- took any continuing legal
8 education courses?
9 A. I believe he took continuing legal education courses.
10 Q. How did you know that?
11 A. I recall, at one point, Mr. Manafort describing that he
12 had to take some classes in continuing legal education.
13 Q. During the time that you worked for Mr. Manafort, how
14 often would you communicate with him?
15 A. Very frequently. I wouldn't say daily, but I mean,
16 sometimes more than a few times a day and then other times
17 throughout the week.
18 Q. How did you communicate with him?
19 A. By e-mail, phone, and text.
20 Q. Did you meet with him in person?
21 A. I did.
22 Q. Where would you meet with him?
23 A. Initially, we met at our Alexandria office until we no
24 longer had the office.
25 And then I would also meet with him at his house in

U.S. v. Manafort
1097
1 Alexandria, Virginia.
2 And then later, his condo in Alexandria, Virginia.
3 And then we also had a office temporarily in New
4 York, and also in his New York apartment.
5 Q. In addition to having a professional relationship with
6 Mr. Manafort, did you socialize with him?
7 A. No, outside of business, we didn't, you know, socialize.
8 I was an employee of the firm. And I kind of, you know -- I
9 believe Mr. Manafort viewed me as an employee of the firm, but
10 our work was mainly professional.
11 Q. During the time that you worked for Mr. Manafort, were
12 you involved in criminal activity?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Did you commit crimes with Mr. Manafort?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Were you indicted for some of those crimes?
17 A. I was.
18 Q. Were you arrested?
19 A. I was.
20 Q. When were you arrested?
21 A. In October of 2017.
22 Q. Did you make a decision about how you wanted to resolve
23 those charges?
24 A. I did.
25 Q. What decision did you make?

U.S. v. Manafort
1098
1 A. I made the decision to plead.
2 Q. And when did you plead guilty?
3 A. In February of 2018.
4 Q. As part of your guilty plea, did you enter into a written
5 agreement with the Government?
6 A. I did.
7 Q. Does that agreement contain all the terms of your
8 agreement with the Government?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Do you have a binder in front of you? Two binders. The
11 binder that starts with Tabs 2F to 326.
12 Can I ask you to look at Government Exhibit 2F?
13 Can you tell me what that is?
14 A. This is a copy of my plea agreement.
15 MR. ANDRES: Your Honor, I'd like to admit that.
16 THE COURT: 2F, did you say?
17 MR. ANDRES: Yes, Judge.
18 THE COURT: Come quickly to the bench, please.
20 THE COURT: I want to be clear. I'm not sure I am
21 clear. He didn't plead guilty in this case, did he?
22 MR. ANDRES: No.
23 THE COURT: This plea agreement isn't in the form
24 I'm accustomed to. That doesn't mean anything, but he pled
25 guilty to a criminal information?

U.S. v. Manafort
1099
1 MR. ANDRES: Yes.
2 THE COURT: And the criminal information was in the
3 D.C. case?
4 MR. ANDRES: Correct.
5 THE COURT: And so am I correct that when the time
6 comes for an assessment of whether he has provided substantial
7 assistance and whether he's been truthful, that's not a
8 judgment I will make. It's a judgment that the judge in the
9 District of Columbia will make?
10 MR. ANDRES: Correct.
12 Yes?
13 MR. DOWNING: Well, I've been in multi-district
14 prosecutions before, and I think, generally, the judge in D.C.
15 will pay deference to your thoughts on the testimony.
16 THE COURT: Perhaps.
17 MR. DOWNING: I mean, I've seen it before, Your
18 Honor.
19 THE COURT: Well, it isn't something that really is
20 of immediate concern. It does bother me a bit, but that's the
21 way it's happened and we'll deal with it.
22 Ultimately, it's her judgment as to whether he has
23 provided substantial assistance. And it's her judgment, as to
24 how much that should count and how that should reduce his
25 sentence. I assume you're going to ask him whether he's been

U.S. v. Manafort
1100
1 sentenced yet. And I don't see that she's obligated at all to
2 communicate with me or ask me my views.
3 So I'm not sure it works that way.
4 MR. DOWNING: Okay.
5 THE COURT: If she calls me, I'll give her my views.
6 MR. ANDRES: And, Judge --
7 THE COURT: The problem with that is that it isn't
8 out in the open. She has to explain or give some speculation
9 of why she thinks there's been substantial assistance and why
10 she thinks that quantum of substantial assistance warrants the
11 required reduction that she orders that's required.
12 Your brow is furrowed.
13 MR. ASONYE: I'm sorry, Your Honor, I'm just
14 listening.
15 MR. ANDRES: You're pleasantly listening.
16 THE COURT: Yes, your brow wasn't furrowed, his was.
17 But anyway, I just wanted to be clear. He didn't
18 plead here.
19 MR. ANDRES: Judge, just here is the full scale of
20 the record. And to the extent that -- I know you're not
21 implying this. It's not like we chose to let him plea in one
22 place or the other.
23 THE COURT: Oh, of course not. I'm not implying
24 that.
25 MR. ANDRES: The case is much more developed. It

U.S. v. Manafort
1101
1 went -- the only reason we came here, the defendant, as he's
2 entitled to, decided not to waive in that other court.
3 Your Honor, Mr. Gates wasn't indicted in the Eastern
4 District of Virginia and Your Honor dismissed the indictment
5 against him at the Government's request, and that's a term of
6 his plea agreement, which I will elicit.
7 THE COURT: All right. Any objection to any of
8 that?
9 MR. DOWNING: No.
10 THE COURT: Let's go.
12 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Andres, you may proceed.
13 MR. ANDRES: Your Honor, the Government moves to
14 admit Government Exhibit 2F.
15 THE COURT: All right. Without objection?
16 MR. DOWNING: Without objection.
17 THE COURT: It's admitted.
18 (Government's Exhibit No. 2F
20 MR. ANDRES: May I publish that, Judge?
22 BY MR. ANDRES:
23 Q. Mr. Gates, can I ask you, again, to look at Government
24 Exhibit 2F and tell me what that is?
25 A. Yes, this is a copy of my plea agreement.

U.S. v. Manafort
1102
1 Q. Okay. And can I ask you, first, to look at the last
2 page?
3 Did you sign that agreement?
4 A. I did.
5 Q. And did your lawyer sign it?
6 A. He did.
7 Q. And if I could ask you to look at the preceding page, is
8 it also signed by the Government?
9 A. It is.
10 Q. Do you see in the bottom corner, there's writing on each
11 page?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. What is that?
14 A. Those are my initials with the date.
15 Q. And why did you initial and date each page?
16 A. I was requested by the judge to do so in order to make
17 sure that I read every page.
18 Q. Okay. Let me ask you to turn, again, to the first page
19 of the --
20 THE COURT: Let me ask one further question.
22 THE COURT: If you'd come up quickly, please. It's
23 very minor, but I want to be sure.
25 THE COURT: I haven't had the opportunity to read it

U.S. v. Manafort
1103
1 thoroughly. In virtually every plea agreement in this
2 district, there is an obligation to submit to a polygraph.
3 Is there any reference to a polygraph? Because we
4 strike that routinely when it's admitted in this Court.
5 MR. ANDRES: There is not, Judge. And just so
6 you're clear, these agreements -- this isn't my home district
7 either. So this is the Washington, D.C. district's plea
8 channel that we follow. It was slightly foreign to me, but
9 there is no polygraph. Well, actually --
10 MR. ASONYE: Well actually --
11 MR. ANDRES: -- a forfeiture --
12 THE COURT: If there is, it needs to be stricken.
13 MR. ASONYE: Yes.
14 MR. ANDRES: I'm not going to refer to it.
15 MR. ASONYE: We'll take a look at it and we'll
16 redact it and let the court know.
17 THE COURT: All right. Let's proceed.
19 BY MR. ANDRES:
20 Q. Can you turn now to the first page of the plea agreement?
21 Can I direct your attention to Paragraph 1 where it
22 says, "Charges and statutory penalties"? Do you see that?
23 A. I do.
24 Q. And were you required to plead guilty to one count or two
25 counts?

U.S. v. Manafort
1104
1 A. Two counts.
2 Q. And are those listed in Paragraph 1A and 1B?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And with respect to Paragraph 1A, what were you charged
5 with?
6 A. One count of conspiracy.
7 Q. Conspiracy against the United States?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And with respect to the second count, what were you
10 charged with?
11 A. Making a false statement to the Government.
12 Q. With respect to the Count 1 conspiracy against the United
13 States charge, as part of those -- as part of that crime, who
14 did you conspire with?
15 A. Mr. Manafort.
16 Q. And over what period of time did that conspiracy cover?
17 A. It was 2008 to 2015.
18 Q. Does that conspiracy cover a series of crimes?
19 A. It does.
20 Q. What crimes?
21 A. There was three components to it. I assisted
22 Mr. Manafort in filing his tax returns falsely.
23 Mr. Manafort, with my assistance, did not file a
24 report indicating he had control over foreign banks.
25 And the third was Mr. Manafort did not register as a

U.S. v. Manafort
1105
1 foreign agent, which I was aware.
2 Q. You testified that you pled guilty to conspiring with
3 Mr. Manafort to file false tax returns. How are those returns
4 false?
5 A. There are two aspects. One is that the income was
6 underreported.
7 And, two, there was a schedule in the IRS -- IRS tax
8 report that was not checked.
9 THE COURT: That was not what, sir?
10 THE WITNESS: Checked, regarding the foreign bank
11 accounts.
13 BY MR. ANDRES:
14 Q. With respect to the tax charges that you're talking
15 about, whose tax returns were involved?
16 A. Mr. Manafort's.
17 Q. Can you explain to the jury what you did to conspire with
18 Mr. Manafort to file those false tax returns?
19 A. Yes. Mr. Manafort over the years had requested that I
20 make wire transfers from the offshore accounts. That
21 information was not reported to the accountants. The income
22 was not reported as well.
23 In addition, we did not report the foreign bank
24 accounts. And, then again, we also failed to check the box on
25 the tax returns indicating we had foreign accounts.

U.S. v. Manafort
1106
1 Q. With respect to those foreign accounts, where were those
2 foreign accounts housed?
3 A. They were primarily in Cyprus and then the Grenadines,
4 and one in the United Kingdom.
5 Q. And during the time that you were conspiring with
6 Mr. Manafort to file the false tax returns, did you deal with
7 his accountants?
8 A. I did.
9 Q. Did you lie to them?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Why?
12 A. We didn't report the income or the fact that the accounts
13 existed.
14 Q. At the time did you understand that it was illegal to
15 file --
16 MR. DOWNING: Objection, Your Honor, nonresponsive.
17 The question was: Why? Why did he lie?
18 THE COURT: Was that your question, Mr. Andres?
19 MR. ANDRES: It was a question or two again, but I
20 don't -- I did ask why. I asked why Mr. Gates lied to the tax
21 accountants.
22 THE COURT: Well, the objection is overruled, but
23 you should clarify it.
25 BY MR. ANDRES:

U.S. v. Manafort
1107
1 Q. You testified that you lied to Mr. -- lied to
2 Mr. Manafort's accountants. Why did you do that?
3 A. Yes. Mr. Manafort requested at different points in the
4 year that we do not disclose the foreign bank accounts.
5 Q. Okay. At the time that you conspired with Mr. Manafort,
6 did you understand that it was illegal to file false U.S. tax
7 returns as to income?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And did you understand that it was a crime to fail to
10 identify foreign bank accounts on a tax return?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. As part of the tax fraud conspiracy, did you provide
13 information to Mr. Manafort's accountants about alleged loans?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And can you explain what information you provided?
16 A. Yes. When income came into the company, Mr. Manafort
17 directed whether the income would be treated as income or, in
18 some cases, whether it would be treated as loans.
19 However, the entity that loaned the money was not
20 one of the companies that actually paid for the work that was
21 done. It was actually a company offshore controlled by
22 Mr. Manafort.
23 Q. And were there times that you characterized income as
24 loans?
25 A. Yes.

U.S. v. Manafort
1108
1 Q. And why did you do that?
2 A. That was in order to reduce the taxable income on the tax
3 returns.
4 Q. Whose tax returns?
6 Q. And who directed you to characterize the income as a
7 loan?
8 A. Mr. Manafort.
9 Q. Did you have an understanding of how that benefitted
10 Mr. Manafort?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. How?
13 A. By not including the income and treating it as a loan he
14 was able to defer the ability to pay the increased tax on his
15 tax returns.
16 Q. In the context of the income that was characterized as
17 loans, did you deal with Mr. Manafort's bookkeeper?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Who is that?
20 A. Heather Washkuhn.
21 Q. And were you truthful to her about the nature of the
22 income?
23 A. No.
24 Q. And in the course of dealing with these loan issues, did
25 you deal with Mr. Manafort's tax preparers?

U.S. v. Manafort
1109
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And who were they?
3 A. It was primarily Philip Ayliff and Cindy Laporta.
4 Q. And were you truthful to them as to -- were you truthful
5 with them with respect to the nature of the loans and the
6 income?
7 A. No.
8 Q. You testified that you conspired with Mr. Manafort to
9 fail to file foreign bank accounts reports with the Treasury
10 Department. Do you remember that?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. What did you do that made you guilty of failing to file
13 foreign bank account reports with the Treasury Department?
14 A. We did not submit the required form designating that we
15 had control over a offshore account that was in Mr. Manafort's
16 control.
17 Q. With respect those accounts, did you have discussions
18 with -- with Mr. Manafort's accountants about the FBAR
19 requirements?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Okay. And what, if anything, did you tell them about
22 whether Mr. Manafort had false -- had foreign bank accounts?
23 A. We told them that he did not have foreign bank accounts.
24 Q. And when you say "we," who do you mean by "we"?
25 A. Meaning the company or Mr. Manafort.

U.S. v. Manafort
1110
1 Q. And when you spoke to the accountants and told them there
2 were no foreign bank accounts, why did you tell them that?
3 A. Mr. Manafort's direction.
4 Q. With respect to those foreign bank accounts, do you know
5 how much money flowed through those accounts?
6 A. Over the years, it was several million dollars.
7 Q. And with respect to those overseas bank accounts that
8 Mr. Manafort controlled, do you know what countries they were
9 in?
10 A. Yes. They were primarily in Cyprus, the Grenadines, and
11 the United Kingdom.
12 Q. And at the time that you conspired with Mr. Manafort to
13 fail to file FBARs, did you know it was illegal to fail to
14 file those FBARs?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. How did you know it was illegal?
17 A. We were notified by the accounting firm in regards to
18 e-mails that were sent both to myself and Mr. Manafort along
19 with the regulation outlining the definitions of foreign bank
20 accounts.
21 Q. Mr. Gates, you've testified about a variety of foreign
22 bank accounts under Mr. Manafort's control. Can you tell me
23 the names of those accounts and their locations?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Slowly.

U.S. v. Manafort
1111
1 A. Actinet was in Cyprus. Black Sea View Limited was in
2 Cyprus. Bletilla was in Cyprus. Yiakora was in Cyprus.
3 Peranova was in Cyprus. Olivenia was in Cyprus. Marziola,
4 Cyprus. Serangon, Cyprus. Lucicle, Cyprus.
5 Let me see how many more in Cyprus.
6 And then there were two in the Grenadines, Global
7 Endeavor and Jeaunet.
8 And one in the United Kingdom called Pompolo.
9 Q. Okay. How about a company named -- or an entity known as
10 Leviathan Advisors?
11 A. Yes. Leviathan Advisors was Cyprus, and Global Highway
12 Limited was also Cyprus.
13 Q. How about LOAV?
14 A. LOAV was Cyprus.
15 Q. Do you know if Mr. Manafort's name was listed on any of
16 these accounts?
17 A. Yes, some of them.
18 Q. And was your name listed on any of these accounts?
19 A. It was.
20 Q. Was there anyone else who was listed on the accounts?
21 A. Yes. One other colleague, Mr. Konstantin Kilimnik.
22 Q. Who is Konstantin Kilimnik?
23 A. He's a consultant that worked for Mr. Manafort.
24 Q. Okay. Were there other signatories on these accounts?
25 A. There were.

U.S. v. Manafort
1112
1 Q. Who?
2 A. The way that the accounts were set up in Cyprus is that
3 there were two directors from a legal firm that set up the
4 entities so they were the signature panels on the accounts.
5 Q. With respect to the money that was in those accounts,
6 whose money was that?
8 Q. And where did it come from?
9 A. It came from income related to political campaigns that
10 he worked on in Ukraine.
11 Q. Was that income to Mr. Manafort?
12 A. It was.
13 Q. You testified that you also pled guilty to making a false
14 statement to the FBI. Can you explain that charge?
15 A. Yes. It was in regards to a meeting that Mr. Manafort
16 had with a member of the United States Congress.
17 Q. And what false statement did you tell?
18 A. It was a meeting that was, you know, over five years ago.
19 I was not at the meeting. I was given information after the
20 meeting when I was presented with a memo from the government.
21 I had made a mistake and I lied on the -- on the basis of the
22 memo that the meeting had not occurred and it did.
23 Q. When you made the false statement to the government, when
24 did you make that false statement to the government?
25 A. During the interview sessions.

U.S. v. Manafort
1113
1 Q. Okay. Was that before or after you pled guilty?
2 A. That was before I pled guilty.
3 Q. As a result of making those false statements to the
4 government, was -- were there consequences?
5 A. There were.
6 Q. What were the consequences?
7 A. The Government added a second charge of making a false
8 statement.
9 Q. And did you plead guilty to that charge as well?
10 A. I did.
11 Q. Can you explain to the jury what effect that second
12 charge had on the amount of time you're facing in jail?
13 A. Yes, it increased it from potentially five years to ten
14 years.
15 Q. Okay. You testified that you pled guilty. When you pled
16 guilty did you appear in front of a federal judge?
17 A. I did.
18 Q. Did the judge explain to you what penalties you're
19 facing?
20 A. She did.
21 Q. For the Count 1 conspiracy against the United States
22 charge, what are the statutory penalties?
23 A. It's up to five years imprisonment, up to a fine of
24 $250,000, and up to three years of supervised release.
25 Q. With respect to the Count 2 false statement charge, what

U.S. v. Manafort
1114
1 penalties are you facing?
2 A. Again, it was up to five years imprisonment, up to
3 $250,000 in fines, and up to three years of supervised
4 release.
5 Q. And with respect to the total amount of time, jail time
6 you're facing, what is that?
7 A. Up to ten years.
8 Q. Does --
9 THE COURT: What, if anything, were you told about
10 whether the two five-year maximums could run concurrently as
11 well as consecutively?
12 THE WITNESS: I was advised by my attorney that
13 could happen but it was totally up to the judge, as I
14 understood.
16 BY MR. ANDRES:
17 Q. Does your plea agreement estimate the amount of time you
18 may be facing in jail in terms of something called the
19 sentencing guidelines?
20 A. It does.
21 Q. What does it say?
22 A. It indicates that I could serve up to -- from 57 to 71
23 months.
24 Q. As part of your written agreement with the Government,
25 did you make -- did you make certain promises to the

U.S. v. Manafort
1115
1 Government?
2 A. I did.
3 Q. What did you promise to do?
4 A. I promised to tell the truth, I promised to plea, I
5 promised to provide evidence, and I promised to testify if
6 required.
7 Q. Okay. Have you turned over evidence to the Government?
8 A. I have.
9 Q. What evidence have you turned over to the Government?
10 A. Documents, e-mails, computers, and phones.
11 Q. Okay. As part of the written plea agreement, what
12 promises did the Government make to you?
13 A. The Government promised to write a 5K1 letter. It
14 promised not to bring any additional charges.
15 It also promised to drop the charges in regards to a
16 second indictment.
17 And then it also agreed not to oppose my attorney
18 filing a recommendation of probation at sentencing.
19 Q. You testified that the Government agreed to dismiss a
20 second indictment. Where was that indictment brought?
21 A. Here in the Eastern District of Virginia.
22 Q. And what crimes were you charged with in that indictment?
23 A. Related to, primarily, tax fraud, bank fraud, and foreign
24 banks.
25 Q. And were you indicted alone in that case?

U.S. v. Manafort
1116
1 A. No.
2 Q. Who else was charged?
3 A. Mr. Manafort.
4 Q. Were you charged with any crimes relating to your own
5 taxes?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Can you explain what charges were included in that
8 indictment as they related to your personal tax returns?
9 A. Yes. I was charged with underreporting income on my
10 personal account and then also not disclosing a foreign bank
11 account.
12 Q. Were you also charged with FBAR charges?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Okay. And bank fraud?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Were you guilty of those charges?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. With respect to the income on your tax return that you
19 failed to disclose or your false filing, can you explain to
20 the jury what you did to make you guilty?
21 A. Yes. In regards to some of the payments that I received
22 for my compensation, I transferred those from a Cyprus bank
23 account to a UK bank account then transferred them to my U.S.
24 bank account. And I did not report the additional income from
25 the UK account to the U.S. account.

U.S. v. Manafort
1117
1 Q. During that time period, did you have a tax preparer?
2 A. I did.
3 Q. Did you use the same tax preparer as Mr. Manafort?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Okay. Were you truthful with your tax preparer about
6 your other income?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Okay. You also testified that you were charged with
9 filing tax returns as it related to overseas accounts. Did
10 you have overseas accounts?
11 A. I did.
12 Q. Okay. Where were they?
13 A. They were based in the United Kingdom.
14 Q. And did you report those on your tax return?
15 A. I did not.
16 Q. With respect to the bank fraud charges, what conduct did
17 that involve?
18 A. That related to a series of loans that Mr. Manafort was
19 attempting to receive.
20 Q. And did you help him with those loans?
21 A. I did.
22 Q. Did you provide fraudulent documents to banks?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Did you alter documents?
25 A. Yes.

U.S. v. Manafort
1118
1 Q. At the time you did that, did you know it was illegal to
2 send those documents to banks?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And did you benefit in any way from those loan
5 applications that Mr. Manafort made?
6 A. No, I did not.
7 Q. You testified that the Government agreed to dismiss the
8 second indictment in the Eastern District of Virginia. Has
9 the Government done that?
10 A. It has.
11 Q. Are there circumstances where those charges could be
12 brought again?
13 A. There is.
14 Q. Under what circumstances could they be re-filed?
15 A. If they -- there's a violation of the plea agreement or I
16 breach the plea agreement then those charges can be brought
17 against me.
18 Q. If you lied during your testimony today, would that
19 violate your agreement?
20 A. It would.
21 Q. You testified that the Government also agreed not to
22 bring additional charges with respect to certain conduct.
23 What were you referring to?
24 A. Yes. I omitted information in a deposition. I added
25 payments to expenses. I also increased my income on a credit

U.S. v. Manafort
1119
1 card and mortgage application and then also created an
2 inaccurate letter for a colleague.
3 Q. As far as you're aware, how did the Government become
4 aware of these additional crimes?
5 A. I presented those to the Government at my accord during
6 my interview sessions.
7 Q. Okay. Did you also tell the Government about additional
8 money that you took from Mr. Manafort that wasn't authorized?
9 A. I did.
10 Q. Okay. Let me start with the mortgage fraud. You
11 testified that you lied on a mortgage application. Can you
12 explain to the jury what you did?
13 A. Yes. I increased my income level in regards to
14 submitting the application for the mortgage.
15 Q. How about credit card applications? Have you filed false
16 credit card applications?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. What did you do?
19 A. Increased the amount of income.
20 Q. Have you filed false expense reports to your employers?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Okay. You testified that you were not truthful during a
23 deposition. Can you explain when that was and what happened?
24 THE COURT: You said -- just a moment. You said you
25 filed false expense reports to your employer?

U.S. v. Manafort
1120
1 THE WITNESS: Yes.
2 THE COURT: Is that Mr. Manafort?
3 THE WITNESS: Yes.
4 THE COURT: Did he know they were false.
5 THE WITNESS: No.
7 BY MR. ANDRES:
8 Q. Was it Mr. Manafort and other employers?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Okay. You testified that you weren't truthful during
11 deposition. Can you explain what happened and when that was?
12 A. Yes. It was in regards to a private equity fund that the
13 company had set up. We -- the principals of the firm had been
14 deposed in separate settings. During the course of that and
15 in preparation for that Mr. Manafort and I met on several
16 occasions and Mr. Manafort had asked me not to include certain
17 things in the deposition.
18 Q. You testified about a colleague that you worked with,
19 Steve Brown. Do you remember that?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Were you involved in a business with him?
22 A. I was.
23 Q. And were you involved in fraudulent conduct with respect
24 to that business?
25 A. Yes.

U.S. v. Manafort
1121
1 Q. How so?
2 A. Mr. Brown had asked me, as a favor, to write him a letter
3 in regards to an investment offer that he was making. I
4 represented that the company that we are using had income
5 level that was not accurate.
6 Q. You testified that you took money from Mr. Manafort that
7 wasn't authorized. Can you explain specifically what you did?
8 A. Yes. In essence, I added money to expense reports and
9 created expense reports to receive the additional money.
10 Q. And where did that money come from?
11 A. Primarily from Cyprus.
12 Q. Okay. And approximately how much money did you take from
13 Mr. Manafort that wasn't authorized?
14 A. I don't have an exact number, but approximately, I'd say,
15 several hundred thousand.
16 Q. Okay. And how were you able to take that money from
17 Mr. Manafort and not -- and he not notice?
18 A. I had authority on some of the offshore accounts to move
19 that money.
20 Q. Okay. And were you paid money from those accounts that
21 Mr. Manafort authorized?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And how would you make those payments?
24 A. Same basis, through wire transfers.
25 Q. Okay. And Mr. Manafort was aware of those?

U.S. v. Manafort
1122
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. With respect to the money that was unauthorized, how
3 would you charge those?
4 A. How do I charge?
5 Q. What -- what was the process by which you would be able
6 to take that money that wasn't authorized?
7 A. Yes. So the way that the wire transfers worked is
8 typically Mr. Manafort would request, you know, me to make
9 wire transfers or he would do it himself. Those transfer
10 requests would be sent to the law firm in Cyprus. They had a
11 separate group that dealt with financial and accounting
12 matters. They would then process the wire transfers that were
13 requested.
14 Q. Okay. And with respect to that money, you identified
15 them as expenses?
16 A. Uh-huh, yes.
17 Q. Okay. And as you identified them expenses, do you know
18 if those charges were passed onto anybody else?
19 A. Yes. Typically, the firm took the expenses from any of
20 the employees that were working on the Ukrainian campaigns,
21 and we submitted those expenses back to the client in Ukraine.
22 Q. Were you ever charged criminally for taking this money
23 from Mr. Manafort in your first indictment?
24 A. No.
25 Q. Were you ever charged with taking this money from

U.S. v. Manafort
1123
1 Mr. Manafort in your second indictment?
2 A. No.
3 Q. As far as you know, how does the Gov -- how did the
4 Government find out about these unauthorized monies?
5 A. I made the Government aware of them in our interviews.
6 Q. You testified that the Government promised that if your
7 cooperation was substantial, the Government would not oppose
8 your application for a sentence of probation.
9 Can you explain what that means?
10 A. Yes. It means that on the basis of the Government
11 writing a 5K1 letter, that if I provide substantial
12 cooperation, then my attorney can file a request for probation
13 that the Government would not oppose.
14 Q. And has that recommendation --
15 THE COURT: What's your understanding of who would
16 make the decision?
17 THE WITNESS: The judge makes the decision.
18 THE COURT: Which judge?
19 THE WITNESS: The judge in D.C.
21 BY MR. ANDRES:
22 Q. You testified about a 5K letter. What is a 5K letter?
23 A. A 5K1 letter is something that the Government writes. It
24 is a summary of everything I've done to cooperate
25 substantially, and it also includes everything I've done wrong

U.S. v. Manafort
1124
1 and then that letter is presented to the judge.
2 Q. And who writes the letter?
3 A. The Government.
4 Q. And who does the Government write the letter to?
5 A. It writes it to the judge.
6 Q. Is that letter important to you?
7 A. It is.
8 Q. Why?
9 THE COURT: So we're clear, the judge in D.C.?
10 THE WITNESS: The judge in D.C. yes, Your Honor.
11 THE COURT: Next question. Go ahead, Mr. Andres.
12 BY MR. ANDRES:
13 Q. Who does the prosecutor write the letter to? The judge
14 in D.C., you testified.
15 Is that letter important to you?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Why?
18 A. It potentially reduces the amount of time that I can be
19 potentially incarcerated.
20 Q. If the Government writes the letter, is the judge
21 obligated to give you a lower sentence?
22 A. She is not.
23 Q. Okay. Do you understand what will happen to you if you
24 breach this agreement in some way?
25 A. Yes.

U.S. v. Manafort
1125
1 Q. What?
2 A. I lose all the benefits associated with the plea
3 agreement.
4 Q. And what happens to your guilty plea?
5 A. The guilty plea would stand.
6 Q. Would you be entitled to a sentencing reduction for your
7 cooperation?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Okay. After your arrest, Mr. Gates, were you released on
10 bail?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Are there conditions with respect to your travel?
13 A. There are.
14 Q. Have you always complied with all those conditions?
15 A. No.
16 Q. In what respect did you not comply?
17 A. In one instance I violated the curfew, it was set for
18 11:00, by about 15 minutes. And then I notified the probation
19 office of that violation.
20 Q. Okay. Prior to your testimony here today, did you meet
21 with the Government to prepare?
22 A. I did.
23 Q. And during that time, did you review documents and other
24 materials?
25 A. Yes.

U.S. v. Manafort
1126
1 Q. Approximately how many times did you meet with the
2 Government?
3 A. Approximately 20 times.
4 Q. Okay. You testified that in 2006 you began working for
5 Mr. Manafort. Can you explain to the jury what your
6 responsibilities were?
7 A. Yes. When I first started, my first role was to help the
8 firm finalize a private equity fund that it was starting.
9 Following that, I became more involved in the political
10 activities of the firm and the international elections it was
11 working on.
12 Q. Okay. Did Mr. Man -- did Davis Manafort have offices in
13 the United States at the time?
14 A. It did.
15 Q. Where?
16 A. In Alexandria, Virginia.
17 Q. How about offices in the Ukraine?
18 A. It did.
19 Q. Where was that located?
20 A. In Kiev, Ukraine.
21 Q. Did you work from both offices?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. With respect to the Alexandria office, how many -- how
24 many employees worked there?
25 A. It ranged over time over the years, but when I first

U.S. v. Manafort
1127
1 joined, there were approximately eight employees at the
2 company.
3 Q. And how about the office in Kiev, how many employees were
4 employed there -- how many -- let me rephrase that. Sorry.
5 With respect to the Kiev office, how many people
6 worked there?
7 A. It, again, ranged over time depending on the amount of
8 work that was happening. It ranged anywhere from, you know, 5
9 to 12 employees.
10 Q. And who were some of the people that worked in the Kiev
11 office?
12 A. Some of the original people were Konstantin Kilimnik,
13 Phillip Griffin, Vlad Sivkovych, and then several other local
14 employees that we had hired.
15 Q. And what were Mr. Kilimnik's responsibilities in the Kiev
16 office?
17 A. He was primarily Mr. Manafort's translator and one of the
18 principal people that interacted with the political people in
19 Ukraine.
20 Q. And you said that he was a translator. Did he speak
21 Ukrainian?
22 A. He spoke Ukrainian and Russian and English.
23 Q. Okay. Did Mr. Kilimnik have a nickname?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. What was it?

U.S. v. Manafort
1128
1 A. KK.
2 Q. Were individuals in the Ukraine often referred to by
3 their initials?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Why?
6 A. Because sometimes their names were a little difficult to
7 pronounce or long and it was easier to abbreviate in e-mails.
8 Q. Okay. During the time that you were in the United States
9 and Mr. Kilimnik was in the Ukraine, were you able to
10 communicate with him?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Were there any problems with respect to the time
13 difference?
14 A. No.
15 Q. Any problems with respect to the phones?
16 A. No.
17 Q. How about e-mail?
18 A. No.
19 Q. How about Mr. Manafort, did he communicate with
20 Mr. Kilimnik from the United States?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. How do you know that?
23 A. Because in some instances I was with him when he was
24 communicating with Mr. Kilimnik.
25 Q. Were you able to help direct the efforts in the Ukraine

U.S. v. Manafort
1129
1 from the United States?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. You testified that your first assignment at Davis
4 Manafort Partners related to a private equity fund. Can you
5 explain what you did?
6 A. Yes. The firm was -- at the beginning of starting a
7 private equity fund, we were putting together the documents,
8 that constituted the fund and seeking investment at that time.
9 Q. Okay. When did you first start working on elections in
10 the Ukraine?
11 A. The first election I worked on was the parliamentary
12 election in 2007.
13 Q. And over what period of time did you work on the
14 elections?
15 A. From 2007 to 2014.
16 Q. Who did you report to with respect to your election work
17 in the Ukraine?
18 A. Mr. Manafort.
19 Q. Did you ever learn how Mr. Manafort first started working
20 on elections in the Ukraine?
21 A. I did.
22 Q. Okay. First of all, when did he first start working
23 there?
24 A. It was, I believe, 2005.
25 Q. And what did you understand about how he first started

U.S. v. Manafort
1130
1 working there?
2 A. He was introduced to a Ukrainian businessmen that he was
3 helping with a business project, which then later translated
4 to a political project because of the role of the businessmen.
5 Q. And who was that businessman?
6 A. His name was Rinat Akhmetov.
7 Q. Who did you understand Mr. Akhmetov to be?
8 A. He was one of the founders of the party that Mr. Manafort
9 worked for over the years and he was also a very wealthy
10 businessman in Ukraine.
11 Q. Did you refer or people within your company refer to him
12 by his initials?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And what were they?
15 A. RA.
16 Q. Okay. You said that he was a wealthy man. Do you know
17 approximately what his net wealth was?
18 A. I mean, in the papers it fluctuated over time, but it was
19 anywhere from --
20 THE COURT: Do you know for any -- on any basis
21 other than what was in the newspapers.
22 THE WITNESS: No.
23 BY MR. ANDRES:
24 Q. Okay.
25 THE COURT: All right. Let's not venture on --

U.S. v. Manafort
1131
1 MR. ANDRES: I understand.
2 THE COURT: You don't need it. It's not relevant.
3 Next question.
5 BY MR. ANDRES:
6 Q. Do you know what business Mr. Akhmetov was in?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. What business?
9 A. Energy and steel.
10 Q. And did he hold a position in politics in the Ukraine?
11 A. He did.
12 Q. What position?
13 A. He was a member of parliament for a number of years.
14 Q. Was Mr. Akhmetov responsible for paying Davis Manafort --
15 Davis Manafort and DMP International for certain work?
16 A. Yes, he was.
17 Q. What work?
18 A. Largely political work from the time that I started.
19 Q. And how did he make those payments?
20 A. Through wire transfers.
21 Q. Okay. Wire transfers from where to where?
22 A. Generally it was from Cyprus to Cyprus.
23 Q. Okay. And did Mr. Akhmetov make those payments through
24 associates?
25 A. Yes, in some cases he did.

U.S. v. Manafort
1132
1 Q. And did they have shelf companies?
2 A. They did.
3 Q. Where were those shelf companies located?
4 A. In Cyprus.
5 Q. I'm sorry, what?
6 A. In Cyprus.
7 Q. And in terms of those contracts or those issues, who
8 negotiated the payments for Mr. Akhmetov?
9 A. Mr. Manafort.
10 Q. And do you know how Mr. Manafort received those payments?
11 A. Through a wire transfer.
12 Q. You testified that Mr. Akhmetov asked Mr. Manafort to set
13 up the Party of Regions. Can you explain to the jury what the
14 Party of Regions is?
15 A. Yes. The Party of Regions was a new political party. At
16 the time, the purpose of it was to create a stable party in
17 Ukraine that brought together many of the different regions in
18 the country.
19 Q. Did Mr. Manafort agree to do this work?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And at the start of the Party of Regions, what was the
22 initial work that Mr. Manafort did?
23 A. It was primarily building the party. So it started out
24 party structuring, party platform, creating party leadership,
25 and a party congress. It was kind of, you know, building a

U.S. v. Manafort
1133
1 party 101.
2 Q. Who was the leader of the Party of Regions at the time?
3 A. Mr. Viktor Yanukovych.
4 Q. Do you know if Mr. Manafort had a relationship with
5 Mr. Yanukovych?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. What did you understand that to be?
8 A. The relationship was such that Mr. Manafort, in essence,
9 brought him back from the proverbial political dead.
10 Mr. Yanukovych ran for the presidential election in 2004 and
11 ultimately lost. And Mr. Manafort was successful in bringing
12 him back.
13 Q. When you say "bringing him back," what does that mean?
14 A. Bringing him back, back into the political spectrum.
15 Later on Mr. Yanukovych became prime minister with
16 Mr. Manafort's help and then later he won the presidency in
17 2010 in Ukraine.
18 Q. And what role did Mr. Manafort have in those election
19 successes?
20 A. Mr. Manafort ran the elections, you know, kind of from
21 start to finish.
22 Q. And during the time that you worked for him, how did you
23 assess his political skills or his ability to work in the
24 Ukraine?
25 A. He's probably one of the most, you know, politically

U.S. v. Manafort
1134
1 brilliant strategists I've ever worked with.
2 Q. Did Mr. Manafort ever meet with President Yanukovych?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Frequently?
5 A. I mean, I think, you know, most of the times that he was
6 in Ukraine, he would meet with him.
7 Q. When you say "he was in Ukraine," who are you talking
8 about?
9 A. Mr. Manafort.
10 Q. Would you attend those meetings?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Why not?
13 A. Those meetings were designed more for kind of the
14 principals to meet. I was not at that level.
15 Q. And with respect to President Yanukovych, was he referred
16 to in the company memos by a certain way?
17 A. He was.
18 Q. How?
19 A. It was either VFY for his initials or sometimes BG or Big
20 Guy.
21 Q. During the course of your work in the Ukraine, did you
22 travel there?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. How often?
25 A. It was frequently during the elections. And then I did

U.S. v. Manafort
1135
1 some work for the private equity fund there as well.
2 Q. Okay. Was there a period of time when you weren't
3 traveling?
4 A. Yes. I traveled primarily from 2007 to 2010 and then
5 2012 to 2014.
6 Q. Can I ask you to take a look at Government Exhibit 338A.
7 Do you see that?
8 A. I do.
9 Q. Can you tell me what's included in Government
10 Exhibit 338A?
11 A. It's a copy of my U.S. passport.
12 Q. Did you provide this passport to the Government as part
13 of your cooperation?
14 A. I did.
16 admit Government Exhibit 338A.
19 (Government's Exhibit No. 338A
21 MR. ANDRES: May we publish it?
22 THE COURT: Yes, but I -- let's get to the heart of
23 the matter. I doubt a passport --
24 MR. ANDRES: Judge, we've been at the heart of
25 the --

U.S. v. Manafort
1136
1 THE COURT: Just listen to me. For goodness sakes.
2 Don't speak when I speak.
3 My point was, I don't see clearly why a passport
4 makes a hill of beans. And I'm going to admit it and allow
5 you to use it, but I want you to focus sharply on what matters
6 in this case so we can get this case done.
7 MR. ANDRES: Your Honor, we have gone through the
8 relevant payments with this witness. When he travels on his
9 passport is relevant, and that's why we're seeking to admit
10 it.
11 THE COURT: All right. You may use it.
12 MR. ANDRES: Thank you.
13 THE COURT: But I don't think there is any dispute
14 about when he was there. Just ask him.
15 MR. ANDRES: Well, this evidence has not been
16 entered yet.
17 THE COURT: Just get on with it, please.
19 BY MR. ANDRES:
20 Q. Can you turn to the first page?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And what's the period of time that's covered in this
23 passport?
24 A. It's from April 2009 to April 2011.
25 Q. Okay. And are there passports stamps in here that relate

U.S. v. Manafort
1137
1 to the Ukraine?
2 A. There are.
3 Q. Okay. And can I ask you to turn to page Bates No. 00020.
4 A. Mine stops at 0017.
5 Q. Do you see it on the screen?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. What is that?
8 A. That is entry and exit stamps into Ukraine.
9 Q. Okay. Can I ask you to take a look at Government's
10 Exhibit --
11 THE COURT: Let me ask: Mr. Downing, do you have
12 any dispute about when he was in the Ukraine?
13 THE WITNESS: No, we don't, Your Honor.
14 THE COURT: Why not have just a list of the dates he
15 was there that are undisputed. We can get it into the record
16 and move on.
17 MR. ANDRES: Well, for one, no one has asked for
18 that before and, two, the defense --
19 THE COURT: I am.
20 MR. ANDRES: -- the defense has never raised that
21 before and we're happy to do that, Judge.
22 THE COURT: Good. Do it.
23 BY MR. ANDRES:
24 Q. Can you take a look at Government Exhibit 338B?
25 THE COURT: I'd like to find ways, Mr. Andres, to

U.S. v. Manafort
1138
1 expedite the trial of this matter, and that's one way we can
2 do it rather than go through pages of a passport.
3 MR. ANDRES: Judge, I appreciate that. And as you
4 know, each night you've asked us for copies of the exhibits,
5 which we've done. So we've done everything we can to move the
6 trial along, and I think we've succeeded in doing that.
7 THE COURT: All right. Well, you have, and I
8 appreciate what you've given me. But I have no idea just by
9 looking at something that says "passport."
10 In other words, find a way to expedite. You want to
11 show when he was in the Ukraine, fine. Mr. Downing says he
12 doesn't have an objection, so you can show him some summary
13 and get it done in one question.
15 This next passport relates to travel in Cyprus,
16 which has not been admitted yet, so if it's okay --
17 THE COURT: I'll admit it. No objection, is there?
18 MR. DOWNING: No objection, Your Honor.
19 (Government's Exhibit No. 338B
21 BY MR. ANDRES:
22 Q. Can you take a look at Government Exhibit 338B?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. What is that?
25 A. It's a copy of my passport.

U.S. v. Manafort
1139
1 Q. Over what time period?
2 A. From April 2011 to April 2013.
3 Q. Okay. Can I ask you to turn to page, at the bottom,
4 00025?
5 A. Okay.
6 MR. ANDRES: Can I publish that, Your Honor?
7 THE COURT: Yes, you may. Let me be specific,
8 Mr. Andres, if you will submit to Mr. Downing what you want to
9 show as to when this witness was in the Ukraine or Cyprus, let
10 them look at it, see if they have any objection to it. If
11 they don't, I'll admit that. We'll be done with it. We'll
12 move on.
13 MR. ANDRES: Thank you, Judge. It's just going to
14 take a minute.
15 THE COURT: Well, you see, it creates -- all right.
16 Go on.
17 BY MR. ANDRES:
18 Q. With respect to Government Exhibit 338 and the -- on the
19 screen there are number of -- or at least there's one passport
20 stamp from Laranka [sic]. Is that -- am I pronouncing that
21 right?
22 A. Larnaka.
23 Q. What is that? What is Larnaka?
24 A. Larnaka is the capitol of Cyprus.
25 Q. Okay. And did you travel to Cyprus --

U.S. v. Manafort
1140
1 A. I did.
2 Q. -- during the course of your work at DMP?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Okay. And why did you travel to Cyprus?
5 A. Primarily two reasons: the first was that we worked on
6 some political election work for a candidate, and that
7 individual was also our attorney in Cyprus for our business
8 matters.
9 Q. Okay. What was the name of that individual?
10 A. Kypros Chrysostomides.
11 Q. Okay. Did he have a nickname?
12 A. He did.
13 Q. What was it?
14 A. Dr. K.
15 Q. Okay. With respect to Dr. K, you testified that you
16 worked on some political campaigns for him?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Can you explain what you did?
19 A. Yes. In 2008, Cyprus was having a presidential election.
20 Mr. Manafort had been contacted by a business associate and
21 asked us to meet with them and assess whether or not he had a
22 prospect of not only running in the race but potentially
23 winning.
24 Q. Okay. And did you meet with Dr. K?
25 A. We did.

U.S. v. Manafort
1141
1 Q. Okay. And you testified that Dr. K also performed
2 certain services with respect to your Cyprus accounts?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Can you explain what that was?
5 A. Yes. Dr. K's law firm opened up all of the Cyprus
6 accounts that were under Mr. Manafort's control.
7 Q. Okay. And how did you first meet Mr. -- Dr. K?
8 A. Mr. Manafort invited me to a meeting with Dr. K in
9 Cyprus.
10 Q. Okay. Can I ask you to take a look at Government
11 Exhibit 356.
13 A. Yes. This is a memo to a businessmen Mr. Manafort knew
14 from Mr. Manafort and Dr. K.
15 Q. And does this relate to the work that you did for Dr. K
16 in Cyprus?
17 A. It does.
18 MR. ANDRES: The Government moves to admit 356.
19 MR. DOWNING: No objection.
21 (Government's Exhibit No. 356
23 MR. ANDRES: May I publish it, Your Honor?
24 THE COURT: Yes.
25 BY MR. ANDRES:

U.S. v. Manafort
1142
1 Q. Starting from the top of the memo -- can you highlight
2 the top, please -- can you just explain who it's to, from, the
3 subject matter, and the date?
4 A. Yes. The "to" is to Oleg Deripaska. The "from" is from
5 Mr. Manafort, and KC is also Kypros Chrysotomides.
6 Q. And what does it say for the subject?
7 A. The subject is Cyprus.
8 Q. How about the date?
9 A. The date is April 20, 2009.
10 Q. And can you read the first paragraph?
11 A. "Following several conversations in relation to the next
12 steps for KC in Cyprus, presented below is an interim report
13 that summarizes the strategy and the next steps pending your
14 agreement and approval."
15 Q. Okay. You testified earlier about your work with
16 Mr. Manafort in the Ukraine. During the periods of time that
17 he was traveling, were you able to contact him?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Okay. And how would you speak with him?
20 A. Either usually by phone or e-mail.
21 Q. And do you know if during the time that Mr. Manafort was
22 traveling, he was able to be in touch with his bill payer?
23 A. Yes.
25 A. Because in some cases I had the e-mails forwarded to me

U.S. v. Manafort
1143
1 by Mr. Manafort, you know, seeking action on a document or
2 other matter that he had received from the accountant or
3 bookkeeper.
4 Q. Was there anything about Mr. Manafort's travel that
5 prevented him from speaking to his tax preparers?
6 A. Not to my knowledge.
7 Q. How did you know whether or not he was in contact with
8 his tax preparers?
9 A. Again, I would get e-mails either forwarded by
10 Mr. Manafort or, in some cases, the accountants would reach
11 out to me and say they had talked to Paul and were trying to
12 follow up on certain actions.
13 Q. You testified that you worked on elections in the
14 Ukraine. What was the first election you worked on?
15 A. The parliamentary election in 2007.
16 Q. And can you describe how -- what work you did on that
17 election?
18 A. Yes. That was my first election. I had primarily helped
19 by coordinating a number of the outside consultants that the
20 company used for that election, then also helping writing the
21 messaging and talking points for the Party of Regions.
22 Q. Okay. And can you describe how the parliamentary
23 elections work in the Ukraine?
24 A. Yes. Politics in Ukraine is a little different than the
25 United States. They do not have elections by direct members.

U.S. v. Manafort
1144
1 It's done by proportional representation --
2 THE COURT: Do you have an objection?
3 MR. DOWNING: I do. Objection, Your Honor,
4 irrelevant.
5 MR. ANDRES: I'm not sure how this is irrelevant.
6 This is what Mr. Manafort is paid for, for his work in the
7 Ukraine.
8 THE COURT: Well, you don't deny that he was paid.
9 You just deny that -- or the Government takes the position
10 that he didn't report everything he was paid for. Nobody
11 denies that he did work over there.
12 MR. ANDRES: Judge, there has not been a single
13 admission, not a single admission by the defense as to any
14 facts in this case. The fact that they opened on it doesn't
15 mean that they made an admission. It doesn't mean that the
16 Court's not going to instruct the jury they have to find it.
17 It doesn't mean we don't have the burden to do so.
18 THE COURT: I don't see anything in any instruction,
19 that either side has submitted, that calls for an instruction
20 on this.
21 Let me -- go ahead and move on, Mr. Andres, and
22 we'll talk about it after we let the jury go home.
23 But we need to focus sharply. What's in the
24 indictment, what the allegations are, and what each witness
25 can contribute to that.

U.S. v. Manafort
1145
1 I certainly hope you don't mean to offer a history
2 of Ukrainian politics or anything of that sort, do you?
4 MR. ANDRES: No. Judge, to be clear, what --
5 THE COURT: Do you? Answer my question.
6 MR. ANDRES: No.
7 THE COURT: All right. Well, keep that in mind.
8 Next question.
9 MR. ANDRES: The Government intends to --
10 THE COURT: Next question, sir.
11 BY MR. ANDRES:
12 Q. With respect to the number of elections that you worked
13 on in the Ukraine, how many elections did you work on?
14 A. I think over the period of time from 2007 to 2014, it was
15 eight to ten.
16 Q. And what type of work did you do?
17 A. Primarily, again, worked in pulling a series of
18 consultants together that we used externally. Also, working
19 with our local staff to pull together messaging, talking
20 points, election integrity efforts, and media and political
21 matters and polling.
22 Q. You testified that you -- did you work on the 2010
23 election of President Yanukovych?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Okay. And who won that election?

U.S. v. Manafort
1146
1 A. Mr. Yanukovych.
2 Q. Can I show you what's been marked as Government
3 Exhibit 346?
5 A. Yes. This is a memo from Mr. Manafort to our campaign
6 team and it's in regards to kind of a status of the campaign
7 three weeks out from the election date.
8 Q. And what campaign does that refer to?
9 A. This is in reference to -- let me check real quick -- the
10 presidential campaign in 2010.
11 Q. Okay. And did you work on that campaign?
12 A. I did.
13 Q. Okay. And after that, can -- did you --
14 A. Sorry, I apologize. The date, this is the parliamentary
15 election in 2012.
16 Q. And did DMP and Mr. Manafort work on that campaign?
17 A. It did, yes.
19 admit Government Exhibit 346.
21 THE COURT: It's admitted. But let me give you an
22 opportunity, Mr. Andres, to tell me a bit more about why you
23 think it's relevant. Come to the bench.
25 THE COURT: All right. Why is it relevant?

U.S. v. Manafort
1147
1 THE CSO: Quiet.
2 MR. ANDRES: Is there an objection, Judge?
3 THE COURT: I want to know why it is relevant. Yes,
4 I have an objection to the time this is taking. This witness
5 has testified that he committed crimes, pointed them out. You
6 have evidence that you've -- but you're asking him about what
7 he did in an election and it just doesn't seem relevant. And
8 so I'm giving you an opportunity to tell me why.
9 MR. ANDRES: I'm asking these questions because
10 these are the facts that are alleged in the indictment and
11 this is the money that he'll be paid for. What he's going to
12 testify about shortly about who specifically paid for those
13 elections, for what accounts they used, how they did it.
14 There are a number of individuals --
15 THE COURT: Ask him that directly.
16 MR. ANDRES: Judge, you --
17 THE COURT: You can ask the question directly.
18 MR. ANDRES: And there's also no reason why I can't
19 ask the questions.
20 THE COURT: There is, because we don't have
21 interminable time. Don't look so puzzled (directing comment
22 to Mr. Asonye.)
23 You've tried cases in this Court before.
24 MR. ANDRES: Judge, I disagree that speed is more
25 important than the substance.

U.S. v. Manafort
1148
1 THE COURT: I agree that speed isn't more important
2 than substance, but a delay is unnecessary.
3 MR. ANDRES: The suggestion that the Government is
4 somehow delaying the record does not reflect that.
5 THE COURT: You're going into areas that don't seem
6 to be relevant.
7 MR. ANDRES: I understand. But Your Honor -- as
8 Your Honor now knows, I haven't previewed my entire case for
9 you. So I don't know how exactly I'm supposed to explain to
10 the Court before I ever admit any of the evidence what's
11 coming next. And so Your Honor has questions about what's
12 coming next --
13 THE COURT: Look at me when you're talking to me.
14 MR. ANDRES: I'm sorry, Judge, I was.
15 THE COURT: No, you weren't. You were looking at
16 down.
17 MR. ANDRES: Because I don't want to get in trouble
18 for some facial expression. I don't want to get yelled at
19 again by the Court for having some facial expression when I'm
20 not doing anything wrong, but trying my case.
21 So every instance the Court interrupts every single
22 one of the Government's directs, every single one. On the
23 defense direct, they get to bring in documents that aren't
24 even in the relevant time frame.
25 THE COURT: Well, why didn't you object?

U.S. v. Manafort
1149
1 MR. ANDRES: We did.
2 THE COURT: Then I ruled on it. You must be quiet.
3 One lawyer at a time. You knew that.
4 (Directing comment to Mr. Asonye.)
5 MR. ANDRES: I'm sorry, Judge.
6 THE COURT: Well, I understand how frustrated you
7 are. In fact, there's tears in your eyes right now.
8 MR. ANDRES: There are not tears in my eyes, Judge.
9 THE COURT: Well, they're watery.
10 Look, I want you to focus sharply on what you need
11 to prove -- to prove the crime. And I don't understand what a
12 lot of these questions have to do with it.
13 Now, let me be clear about the trips to the Ukraine.
14 I'm going to permit you to show those, but I'd like you to
15 expedite things and I don't fault you for not doing this in
16 advance. You could have, but you're not required to. Give
17 him a list of when he was in the Ukraine, and ask them to do
18 that, then we don't have to spend time going page by page
19 through a passport.
20 Now, what is it you want to elicit from him about
21 the work on the campaigns?
22 MR. ANDRES: The memos list the individuals who are
23 paying for the campaigns. They are being updated repeatedly.
24 Their names have not been entered into evidence.
25 The last time we tried to go through the memos, with

U.S. v. Manafort
1150
1 the search warrant witness, the Court prevented us from doing
2 that. These are memos that Mr. Gates wrote for Mr. Manafort
3 or was copied on.
4 THE COURT: And what do they show?
5 MR. ANDRES: They show who the -- who's being
6 updated about the campaign. And the people with the initials,
7 the businessmen here, the oligarchs. We're not calling them
8 that obviously, but businessmen who are paying them for
9 the campaign. This is the money trail Your Honor has been
10 asking for for some time and here we are, and yet, we're still
11 having problems submitting our case.
12 THE COURT: How were they paid? They were paid by
13 wire transfers through the Cyprus accounts.
14 MR. ANDRES: Through shell companies. So we have to
15 elicit the name of people who control the accounts. Who the
16 pay masters were, the businessmen, what accounts they held.
17 There's documentary evidence which support that. Your Honor
18 knows very well that Mr. Gates' credibility will be tested
19 severely on cross-examination. And we're simply submitting
20 documents that are going to help how it is he knows what he
21 does.
22 MR. DOWNING: Your Honor, I'm -- I get your point,
23 too. I don't mind working with the Government. If they give
24 us some kind of summary of the contracts for the consulting
25 services and the payments that go into the accounts, we'd be

U.S. v. Manafort
1151
1 more than happy to work on this.
2 And by the way, to be clear, this was something I
3 talked to Mr. Andres about before this trial, about getting
4 some of this stuff summarized, getting an agreement on it, and
5 moving through this case.
6 So I definitely did raise it with him and I did not
7 appreciate him saying that earlier. That is not what
8 happened.
9 MR. ANDRES: Okay. So maybe Mr. Downing can send up
10 an e-mail that it doesn't exist. And by the way, Judge,
11 you'll remember not long ago, I tried to show a witness a
12 summary chart and Your Honor wouldn't let it in.
13 THE COURT: That's a different matter.
14 MR. ANDRES: It's not a different matter.
15 THE COURT: I say it's different.
16 Now, you're going to get a chance to introduce those
17 later, but the right way.
18 MR. ASONYE: Can I say something on this point?
19 THE COURT: No, you may not.
20 MR. DOWNING: But I will -- I'll work with
21 Mr. Andres this evening, do my work.
22 THE COURT: Look -- yes, and I want you-all to work
23 to see if you can expedite getting the evidence in this case.
24 You may continue with your examination now.

U.S. v. Manafort
1152
3 MR. ANDRES: Thank you, Your Honor.
4 THE COURT: And I didn't exclude anything, so you
5 may proceed as you were doing.
7 BY MR. ANDRES:
8 Q. Can you look at Government Exhibit 342?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Can you tell me what that is?
11 A. This is an e-mail chain involving Mr. Kilimnik and
12 Mr. Manafort.
13 Q. Okay. And the attached -- the subject, can you read the
14 subject?
15 A. The subject is ST documents.
16 Q. And the reference to ST, is that an individual?
17 A. It is.
18 Q. Who is ST?
19 A. His name is Serhiy Tihipko.
20 Q. Okay. And was he -- who is Serhiy Tihipko?
21 A. Serhiy Tihipko is -- had his own political party and also
22 supported the Party of Regions that we were working for. And
23 at the point of this e-mail, he was helping as a surrogate on
24 economic matters.
25 Q. In the course of your work in the Ukraine, did

U.S. v. Manafort
1153
1 Mr. Tihipko make payments to Davis Manafort and DMP
2 International?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. For what?
5 A. For a lobbying project involving the EU in the U.S.
6 Q. Okay.
9 MR. DOWNING: No objection, Your Honor.
13 BY MR. ANDRES:
14 Q. With respect to the payments that ST made, or Serhiy
15 Tihipko, how were those payments made?
16 A. By wire transfer.
17 Q. Okay. Wire transfer from where to where?
18 A. From his company in Cyprus to Mr. Manafort's company in
19 Cyprus.
20 Q. And did Mr. Tihipko, did he control certain shell
21 companies in Cyprus?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Do you know what the names of those were?
24 A. Yes. The one that was used by Mr. Tihipko was Dresler
25 Holdings, I believe, Dresler Holdings.

U.S. v. Manafort
1154
1 Q. Okay. And did they make payments to Mr. Manafort's
2 Cypriote holdings?
3 A. Yes.
5 A. Because I was the one that helped organized the paperwork
6 to -- and initiate the wire transfer from their side.
7 Q. Can you take a look at Government Exhibit 344?
9 A. Yes. This is a memo drafted by Mr. Manafort in regards
10 to an election integrity program that we were working on for
11 the upcoming parliamentary elections in 2012. And this was to
12 basically outline the strategy for how the Party of Regions
13 members would work with embassies, the media, and MGO's prior
14 to the campaign.
15 MR. ANDRES: The Government moves to admit
16 Government Exhibit 344.
21 MR. ANDRES: May I publish it?
22 THE COURT: Yes.
23 BY MR. ANDRES:
24 Q. Okay. You testified, Mr. Gates, about the e-mail, the
25 top e-mail. And I'd just ask you to look at the top e-mail

U.S. v. Manafort
1155
1 and tell me who the e-mail is to?
2 A. The top e-mail is to Mr. Manafort.
3 Q. And who's it from?
4 A. Mr. Kilimnik.
5 Q. And are you CC'd?
6 A. I am.
7 Q. What's the date?
8 A. Date is July 12, 2012.
9 Q. Okay. Can you tell me what the subject of the e-mail is?
10 A. The subject is EI, which means Election Integrity
11 Outreach International Plan.
12 Q. Okay. And in the e-mail, can you just read the first
13 sentence of the e-mail? Who's it -- after it says, "Paul,"
14 can you just read that first sentence?
15 A. Yeah. "Attached is the final version of the memo. It
16 was given to SL, Levenets, MFA, AK."
17 Q. Okay. The reference to SL, who is that?
18 A. Serhiy Lyovochkin.
19 Q. Okay. During the course of the time that you worked in
20 the Ukraine, did Mr. Lyovochkin pay for certain services?
21 A. He did.
22 Q. Davis Manafort?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. What did he pay for?
25 A. He paid for political work and some policy work on behalf

U.S. v. Manafort
1156
1 of the Party of Regions.
2 Q. And without giving us a particular number, were those
3 payments in the millions of dollars?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Okay. And did DMP International enter into series of
6 work contracts with them?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. How did Mr. Lyovochkin pay for the work to DMP?
9 A. Mr. Lyovochkin wired money from his Cyprus account to
10 Mr. Manafort's account in Cyprus.
11 Q. And was his Cyprus account in the name of a shell
12 company?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. What were the names?
15 A. The two that Mr. Lyovochkin primarily used were Taunton
16 Limited and Telmar Investments.
17 Q. And with respect to the way that Mr. Manafort received
18 those payments, where did he receive those payments?
19 A. He received them in Cyprus.
20 Q. Okay. And did he -- when the money got to Cyprus, did he
21 move it to the United States immediately?
22 A. In some cases, he moved some, but he left some in Cyprus
23 as well.
24 Q. Did Mr. Manafort maintain those Cyprus accounts over a
25 period of time?

U.S. v. Manafort
1157
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And was there money in those accounts?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Was it millions of dollars?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Can I ask you to turn to the memorandum attached to
7 Government Exhibit 344?
9 A. Yes. This is the memo that Mr. Manafort drafted to
10 several people in the party of leadership, outlining what
11 needed to be done in terms of the election integrity efforts.
12 Q. Okay. Can you tell me who's on the "to" line?
13 A. Yes. SL is Mr. Serhiy Lyovochkin.
14 AK is Andriy Klyuyev.
15 ST is Serhiy Tihipko.
16 BVK is Borys Kolesnikov.
17 And KG is Kostyantyn Gryshchenko.
18 Q. And who is KG?
19 A. KG is Kostyantyn Gryshchenko.
20 Q. And what was his position?
21 A. At that time, I believe he was the Minister of Foreign
22 Affairs.
23 Q. Okay. With respect to the four other individuals, SL,
24 AK, ST, and BVK, were they businessmen in the Ukraine?
25 A. They were.

U.S. v. Manafort
1158
1 Q. Were they all involved in making payments to
2 Mr. Manafort?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Okay. Did they make those payments through shell
5 companies?
6 A. I should say the only one, Mr. Gryshchenko did not make
7 any payments.
8 Q. Correct. So all the people before KG?
9 A. Correct. That's -- yes.
10 Q. Okay. You've testified previously about SL. Who is AK?
11 A. AK is Andriy Klyuyev. He was the first deputy prime
12 minister in the government.
13 Q. Is he also a businessmen in the Ukraine?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And did he make payments to Mr. Manafort?
16 A. Yes. Not that many, though.
17 Q. Okay. What entities did he use?
18 A. I think the primary one he used was Novirex Limited.
19 Q. Okay. And --
20 THE COURT: What -- do you know what these payments
21 were for?
23 THE COURT: What?
24 THE WITNESS: Primarily political campaigns with
25 Mr. Klyuyev specifically, since he didn't make that many, and

U.S. v. Manafort
1159
1 this one was for polling work that was done.
2 THE COURT: In other words, services?
3 THE WITNESS: Services, yes.
4 THE COURT: Services done in support of these
5 people's political campaigns?
6 THE WITNESS: That's correct.
7 THE COURT: So the people they supported.
8 THE WITNESS: Yes.
9 THE COURT: And you said payments were made by these
10 people or their entities, because you said --
11 THE WITNESS: Their Cyprus entities, yes, Your
12 Honor.
13 THE COURT: I beg your pardon?
14 THE WITNESS: Their Cyprus entities.
15 THE COURT: Yes, to Mr. Manafort.
16 THE WITNESS: Correct.
17 THE COURT: Or his entity?
18 THE WITNESS: His Cyprus entity, yes.
20 BY MR. ANDRES:
21 Q. The person with -- that's identified as BVK?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Can you tell me who that is?
24 A. Yes. That's Borys Kolesnikov. He was in the party
25 leadership. He's very closely associated with Rinat Akhmetov.

U.S. v. Manafort
1160
1 And then Mr. Kolesnikov is also the minister of transportation
2 in the government.
3 Q. Okay. And with respect BVK, was he a wealthy
4 businessmen?
5 A. Yes, I think so.
6 Q. Did he make payments to Mr. Manafort?
7 A. He did.
8 Q. And what were those payments for?
9 A. Political work.
10 Q. And did he make those payments through a series of shell
11 companies?
12 A. He did.
13 Q. Do you know what the names of those shell companies are?
14 A. Some that I recall are Mistaro, Inlord Sales -- let's
15 see, Firemax. I think there are some others as well.
16 Q. Okay. Do you have an understanding why these
17 businessmen --
18 THE COURT: Go ahead. Go ahead.
19 BY MR. ANDRES:
20 Q. Do you have an understanding why these businessmen were
21 making payments for political campaigns in the Ukraine?
22 A. Yes. In Ukraine, there's no party structure like there
23 is in the U.S. So you don't really have a Republican National
24 Committee or a Democratic National Committee, so there are no
25 political contributions in Ukraine. And what typically

U.S. v. Manafort
1161
1 happens is those people supporting a particular party come
2 together, a budget is created, and then the budget is divided
3 among those people who can contribute to those campaigns.
4 THE COURT: So it is a political contribution.
5 THE WITNESS: A very high one, yes, Your Honor.
6 THE COURT: You've said they did it shelf -- through
7 shelf companies.
8 THE WITNESS: Yes.
9 THE COURT: What did you mean by that?
10 THE WITNESS: Shelf companies are basically
11 companies in Cyprus that have already been set up and remain
12 on the corporate registry in Cyprus and that you're allowed to
13 use. And it's cheaper than to set up a company that you
14 actually create a name for.
15 THE COURT: Well, what does the term "shell" mean?
16 THE WITNESS: I think it's shelf company. You said
17 shell? Yeah, it should be shelf, not shell. Shelf, like
18 meaning they are already on the shelf.
19 THE COURT: Oh, I see.
20 THE WITNESS: Right.
21 THE COURT: Are you saying s-h-e-l-f?
23 THE COURT: I see. All right. Go ahead,
24 Mr. Andres.
25 BY MR. ANDRES:

U.S. v. Manafort
1162
1 Q. You testified about the manner in which the -- well, let
2 me ask you this: Did the businessmen in the Ukraine, did they
3 benefit in some way from supporting these elections?
4 A. If the party was successful and that party came to power,
5 then yes. Often they benefitted financially through contracts
6 or ownership of certain companies or percentages of companies.
7 Q. You testified about this manner in which these payments
8 were made from the businessmen in the Ukraine to Mr. Manafort.
9 How did you first learn about that process?
10 A. Mr. Manafort told me, and then later Mr. Kilimnik also
11 confirmed that information.
12 Q. Anything to you about whether or not he was required to
13 open accounts in Cyprus?
14 A. Yes. He indicated that the Ukrainian businessmen and the
15 people that were working on the political parties had directed
16 him to set up Cyprus accounts because the payments would be
17 coming from Cyprus. So it was easier for the Ukrainian
18 businessmen to make those payments.
19 THE COURT: When you come to a good stopping point,
20 I take it you have more that we can't finish today.
21 MR. ANDRES: I can stop now if you'd like, Your
22 Honor.
23 THE COURT: Let's do that.
24 Mr. Gates, you may step down.
25 We will reconvene tomorrow at 9:30. And in the

U.S. v. Manafort
1163
1 interim, you may not discuss your testimony with anyone at
2 all, whether lawyer or other.
3 THE WITNESS: Okay. Thank you.
5 THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, pass your books to
6 the right. Mr. Flood will collect them, maintain their
7 security.
8 Remember, as always, to refrain from discussing the
9 matter with your family or anyone or undertaking any
10 investigation on your own.
11 And avoid, as I find it easy to do, the news or
12 anything, any discussions.
13 Let me ask Mr. Andres: How much more do you
14 anticipate with this witness?
15 MR. ANDRES: Approximately three hours.
16 THE COURT: All right. Gives you a forecast. We'll
17 try, of course, to focus it sharply and ensure that -- that
18 time is spent well.
19 You may follow the court security officer out. I'll
20 see you tomorrow morning at 9:30. You filled out your menus,
21 I hope.
22 Good. See you tomorrow morning.
23 (Jury dismissed.)
25 Mr. Andres, let me give you an opportunity to

U.S. v. Manafort
1164
1 educate me. I understand that the -- Mr. Andres?
2 MR. ANDRES: I'm listening, Judge. I'm sorry. I
3 was listening.
4 THE COURT: It's customary, as Mr. Asonye will tell
5 you, when I address you to come to the podium and stand, but
6 you can be forgiven.
7 MR. ANDRES: No, no.
8 THE COURT: You can be forgiven that.
9 Anyway, Mr. Andres, I want to give you an
10 opportunity to explain to me why some of this is relevant. I
11 understand that the Government has alleged in the indictment
12 that he received payments from these people in -- and from
13 these organizations and companies that he report on his
14 return. And so I'm not sure that I see clearly what this has
15 to do -- for example, you asked a question: Do these people
16 have something to gain from giving -- giving this money?
17 I don't see any earthly relevance to that.
18 I mean, I don't ask Mr. Koch or Mr. Soros whether
19 they have anything to gain from contributions they make.
20 These are people that are backing political parties and
21 political factions.
22 So maybe I'm not seeing something and maybe you can
23 explain that to me.
24 MR. ANDRES: These people are not making political
25 contributions in the way that you suggest. They're not

U.S. v. Manafort
1165
1 anything like any Americans. I don't know why you keep
2 singling out these individuals. I don't know anything about
3 their political connections or who they give money to.
4 These people are oligarchs. They are oligarchs.
5 And that means they control a segment of the economy based on
6 the Government's allowing them to do that. The Government,
7 who they support, then provides them with political cover so
8 that they can have a monopoly over certain areas of the
9 economy.
10 Now, Your Honor, and I've done my best --
11 THE COURT: I'm glad you've explained that to me --
12 MR. ANDRES: Yes.
13 THE COURT: -- because that makes it even clearer to
14 me that it doesn't have anything to do with the allegations in
15 this case.
16 I think -- you know, I'm not here to debate with you
17 whether these are good people or bad people. I raised early
18 on about the use of the term "oligarch." I didn't -- it
19 throws dirt on these people. They may deserve it. I don't
20 know and I don't care.
21 What matters is whether he received money and he
22 didn't report it on his income tax. It doesn't matter whether
23 these are good people, bad people, oligarchs, crooks, Mafia,
24 or whatever. It doesn't matter. What matters is that your
25 allegations that he received money that he didn't report on

U.S. v. Manafort
1166
1 his income tax, that's what matters.
2 MR. ANDRES: Respectfully, Judge, that is not what
3 the law is.
4 The law is that what he earned as income matters,
5 not if these people gave it as a gift, I want to make sure
6 that's not clear, not if these people gave it for some other
7 reason and that Mr. Manafort earned it, that he earned
8 income --
9 THE COURT: All right. I see that. I see that.
10 But you don't need to throw mud at these people or the cause
11 they supported or the reasons. In fact, some early -- early
12 witnesses said Mr. Manafort was brilliant and so forth and
13 that it was an important aspect in -- I'm here, Mr. Andres.
14 MR. ANDRES: I'm sorry, Judge, I'm listening.
15 THE COURT: I know. But when you look down, it's as
16 if to say, you know, that's BS. I don't want to listen any
17 more from you.
18 MR. ANDRES: Judge, you continue to interpret our
19 reactions in some way. We don't do that to you and we're not
20 being disrespectful in any way.
21 THE COURT: All right. Well, then look at me.
22 MR. ANDRES: Fine.
23 THE COURT: Don't look down. Don't roll your eyes.
24 Don't --
25 MR. ANDRES: I'm not rolling -- I don't understand

U.S. v. Manafort
1167
1 how --
2 THE COURT: You may not have rolled your eyes, but
3 you're not the only person sitting on that side.
4 MR. ANDRES: I would find it interesting to see that
5 I was both looking down and you notice that I was rolling my
6 eyes, but I --
7 THE COURT: I told you, Mr. Andres, I wasn't saying
8 you rolled your eyes. I did make a comment about your eyes up
9 here, and I stand by that comment.
10 But, anyway, explain to me why it makes a difference
11 whether the payments came from people you think are immoral
12 and oligarchs or whatever other than that he earned the money.
13 I don't think anyone denies that he did work over there, that
14 he was successful, and they paid him millions of dollars.
15 And I think you have shown that it was paid through
16 these companies in Cyprus. And you need to show, as I think
17 you have evidence, that he didn't report that money on his
18 income tax.
19 But I don't see any need to cast aspersions on
20 whether he was doing the Lord's work or some evil work over
21 there, do you?
22 MR. ANDRES: I wasn't suggesting that in any way. I
23 didn't say a word about oligarchs. I didn't say a word about
24 anything. But, Your Honor -- Your Honor --
25 THE COURT: I stopped that early on.

U.S. v. Manafort
1168
1 MR. ANDRES: -- Your Honor then injected that these
2 were political contributions, and they're not really political
3 contributions.
4 THE COURT: Why not?
5 MR. ANDRES: Only with respect to Your Honor
6 injecting a question to the witness about -- because they're
7 not just political contributions, they are these self-serving
8 payments with respect to what the oligarchs are giving to
9 these politicians.
10 THE COURT: You don't think people in the United
11 States when they give --
12 MR. ANDRES: I'm not here to talk about what
13 political people do in a campaign. I'm here to prove a fact.
14 THE COURT: It is political contribution, but it
15 doesn't matter.
16 MR. ANDRES: Fine.
17 THE COURT: What matters is that he received
18 payments and it was for work and, therefore, it's income and
19 he didn't report it. That's what matters.
20 MR. ANDRES: Right. And at every instance when we
21 try to describe the work, that he worked on elections, what he
22 did, Your Honor stops us and tell us to move on. Judge, look
23 at --
24 THE COURT: Oh, the record will reflect I have
25 rarely stopped you in this case.

U.S. v. Manafort
1169
1 MR. ANDRES: I will stand by the record as well.
2 THE COURT: All right. Then you will lose.
3 All right. I want to see this matter tried
4 expeditiously. So I am requiring you and Mr. -- well, Downing
5 and anyone else -- for example, on these passports, I want you
6 to get together. There's no dispute about when this fellow --
7 when this witness was in the Ukraine, and it ought to be a
8 simple piece of paper that you can agree to, a stipulation.
9 Going through the thing page by page is unnecessary.
10 And there are other things that I think -- if you want to show
11 that certain payments were made, and certainly you can do so.
12 What I don't think is necessary -- I haven't been
13 through these hundred-plus exhibits that you plan to go
14 through. There were a couple of these e-mails trails that --
15 chains that you admitted that I don't think have much to do
16 with this.
17 All I'm asking is that you look at what you intend
18 to present and see if you can focus it very sharply.
19 MR. ANDRES: Your Honor, it would be helpful for me
20 to do that if you could identify an e-mail chain that you've
21 admitted as relevant evidence, which is not relevant or how
22 it's not relevant --
23 THE COURT: Well, I've admitted a lot of e-mail.
24 I'm not going to go through those.
25 MR. ANDRES: Just asking for one example of a

U.S. v. Manafort
1170
1 document that you've admitted --
2 THE COURT: I don't have to give you an example. I
3 want you to shorten it.
4 MR. ANDRES: Your Honor, I don't understand how
5 I'm -- this is a trial. We're going to call witnesses. We're
6 going to try to admit evidence. I don't understand how I'm
7 supposed to combine with Mr. Downing so that he can approve
8 the Government's evidence before it's admitted.
9 I'm not casting any aspersions on Mr. Downing. He
10 has his own work to do.
11 THE COURT: He says he offered to do it. You said
12 he didn't; is that right, Mr. Downing?
13 MR. ANDRES: To do what? To do what?
14 THE COURT: What was it that you said you offered to
15 do and they said you didn't?
16 MR. DOWNING: Your Honor, earlier in the case,
17 before all these witnesses were called to the vendors to talk
18 about the personal expenses, we said to the extent you have a
19 chart and you break it down by vendor, give us the detail.
20 We'll look at it. If we don't have any objection to it, you
21 can put it in evidence. So we feel no differently about the
22 issues that are coming up now.
23 He's got a chart that summarizes the payments that
24 came in, who made the payments, and the purpose of it. We
25 will look at it. And if we have no objections --

U.S. v. Manafort
1171
1 THE COURT: Well, didn't you object to a chart that
2 Mr. Asonye offered?
3 MR. DOWNING: I think it was an objection to the
4 timing of a summary coming in.
5 THE COURT: Well, in any event, this case has now
6 gone on -- is this the sixth day, I believe?
7 MR. ANDRES: I think -- I think --
8 THE COURT: I beg your pardon.
9 MR. ANDRES: It might be the fifth.
10 THE COURT: All right. It's -- I think you're
11 right. It is the fifth.
12 But we need to move the matter along.
13 And any way that you can think to do it, Mr. Andres,
14 would be appreciated by the Court, would be appreciated by the
15 jury. And you should cooperate, Mr. Downing.
16 MR. DOWNING: Understood.
17 THE COURT: No reason to -- to extend this. I still
18 am not sure, Mr. Andres, give me another try, tell me why it
19 matters, apart from the fact that whether it's income or a
20 gift, and nobody is going to contend any of this money was a
21 gift, but why it matters for us to go into detail about who
22 these contributors were and so forth.
23 MR. ANDRES: That it prove -- it proves the flow of
24 money. We have to prove where the money came from. And,
25 again, Your Honor, we're all tired. So I don't mean to be

U.S. v. Manafort
1172
1 disrespectful, but this seems to me the very type of evidence
2 that Your Honor was saying we should move on to, and here we
3 are. So we're just trying to prove this. We're trying to
4 prove that these men in the Ukraine, Rinat Akhmetov,
5 Sergei Lyovochkin, Borys Kolesnikov are the payers. They pay
6 the money to the DMP.
7 Now, the way they do it are through companies, not
8 in their name, Cyprus companies, and Mr. Manafort's companies
9 that are in Cyprus, not in his name, and that's where the
10 money sits. So there you have the foreign bank accounts which
11 form the basis of the false tax filing.
12 Okay. That money is then moved to the United
13 States. It's income. It's not reported to his accountants.
14 It's used to pay a whole host of different things, and that's
15 the income that's not reported.
16 THE COURT: Well, I agree with everything you've
17 said.
18 Now, tomorrow if you ask a question about who is
19 this guy and what does he do and how does he benefit from
20 giving this money, you will see why I am confused about why
21 that makes any difference.
22 MR. ANDRES: Again, Your Honor, I was just trying to
23 make the record clear -- Mr. Gates never described these as
24 necessarily or simply as political contributions. So I wanted
25 to complete his answer with respect to that.

U.S. v. Manafort
1173
1 I'm not -- I'm certainly not going to ask any
2 questions I've already asked. It is not going to happen.
3 That's not my goal. I share your interest in moving it along.
4 I will say that I am -- I -- you know --
5 THE COURT: Tell me why these are not political
6 contributions if they're trying to help get a candidate
7 elected and why it makes any difference.
8 The only thing that matters is that they paid
9 Mr. Manafort money that he didn't report. That's what the
10 case is about.
11 MR. ANDRES: I don't fundamentally disagree with
12 that except for the fact that I don't think it's appropriate
13 to not explain to the jury why they are making these payments,
14 right?
15 So why exactly these people are paying millions and
16 millions of dollars, more than $60 million over time to
17 Mr. Manafort.
18 It's not -- it's not extraneous or irrelevant to
19 explain that these people control industry and have the money
20 to make the payments. That's all. It's not ten questions.
21 It's one. So --
22 THE COURT: All right. Well, it occurs to me that I
23 am unnecessarily -- I am unnecessarily extending this by
24 continuing this conversation.
25 But you are both under my firm desire that you

U.S. v. Manafort
1174
1 should do what you can to expedite this matter and not spend
2 time on matters that aren't relevant.
3 MR. ANDRES: I will do that, Judge, but the notion
4 that we're going to meet with Mr. Downing tonight to help him
5 understand what Mr. Gates' testimony is so we can
6 expedite it --
7 THE COURT: I'm not requiring you to meet with
8 Mr. Downing. I am requiring -- the only thing I've said is
9 give him the chart on the things and -- I'm up here.
10 MR. ANDRES: Sorry.
11 THE COURT: Give him a chart that says when he was
12 in the Ukraine. We'll at least get rid of some of those
13 questions. We don't have to have passports in the record.
14 MR. ANDRES: Got it. Past that.
15 THE COURT: Good. See, and if you can see other
16 areas where you can do it, do it. But you're not required to
17 meet with him.
18 I do want you to make every effort to expedite this
19 matter. And if meeting with Mr. Downing and getting him to
20 stipulate something will expedite it, wonderful.
21 MR. ANDRES: We will do that, Judge. You'll
22 remember from the opening statements that's central to the
23 defense case was that this whole -- whole conspiracy was
24 Mr. Gates doing so. I would just ask the Court for a slight
25 bit of leniency in being able to introduce documents which

U.S. v. Manafort
1175
1 corroborate Mr. Gates' testimony, because, obviously, in every
2 case, I'm sure most that you've had, the credibility of a
3 cooperating witness is central.
4 We want to be able to corroborate that with
5 documentary evidence which he had, which we seized from
6 Mr. Manafort's house and the like. So that's why with this
7 witness these documents are critical. I will cut them down --
8 THE COURT: All right. That's a good explanation
9 and I will have that in mind. Anything else you think I
10 should have in mind?
11 MR. ANDRES: That's about it, Judge. We're hoping
12 to finish tomorrow morning and with your instruction, we'll
13 get to moving it along. For sure. And I didn't mean to be
14 disrespectful.
15 THE COURT: Don't worry about it. I'm not concerned
16 about that at all.
17 I remember trying cases. I don't think I ever
18 had -- I had big cases that I thought were important. They
19 were important to me, important to my career. And I remember
20 the stress and I remember the pressure. And so I know that's
21 true for both of you -- I mean all of you.
22 This is a stressful time. So I understand that.
23 But I'm trying to minimize the stress time is all I'm trying
24 to do. And I think we can do it.
25 I don't think this case is as complex as it could be

U.S. v. Manafort
1176
1 made to be. I think it's simpler than that.
2 And you do what you think you have to do. And you
3 object if you think he's getting to this irrelevant stuff.
4 And I'll rule on it.
5 MR. ANDRES: Thank you, Judge. Have a good night.
6 THE COURT: All right. We're in recess until 9:30.
7 (Proceedings adjourned at 5:50 p.m.)
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

1 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER
3 I, Tonia Harris, an Official Court Reporter for
4 the Eastern District of Virginia, do hereby certify that I
5 reported by machine shorthand, in my official capacity, the
6 proceedings had and testimony adduced upon the Jury Trial
7 in the case of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA versus PAUL J.
8 MANAFORT, JR., Criminal Action No. 1:18-CR-83, in said
9 court on the 6th day of August, 2018.
10 I further certify that the foregoing 197 pages
11 constitute the official transcript of said proceedings, as
12 taken from my machine shorthand notes, my computer realtime
13 display, together with the backup tape recording of said
14 proceedings to the best of my ability.
15 In witness whereof, I have hereto subscribed my
16 name, this August 6, 2018.
17
18
19
20
21 ______________________________
Tonia M. Harris, RPR
22 Official Court Reporter
23
24
25
1177
U.S. v. Manafort
1178
2 ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
3 ------------------------------x
:
4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : Criminal Action No.
: 1:18-CR-83
5 versus :
:
6 PAUL J. MANAFORT, JR., :
: August 7, 2018
7 Defendant. : Volume VI - A.M.
------------------------------x
8
9 BEFORE THE HONORABLE T.S. ELLIS, III
10
APPEARANCES:
11
12 United States Attorney's Office
and
14 GREG ANDRES, SAUSA
BRANDON LANG VAN GRACK, SAUSA
15 Special Counsel's Office
16 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
17
18 BRIAN KETCHAM, ESQ.
Suite 620
and
21 THOMAS E. ZEHNLE, ESQ.
Suite 620
and
24 KEVIN DOWNING, ESQ.
Law Office of Kevin Downing
Suite 620
U.S. v. Manafort
1179
and
2 RICHARD WILLIAM WESTLING, ESQ.
Epstein, Becker, & Green, PC
3 1227 25th Street NW
4
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER: TONIA M. HARRIS, RPR
5 U.S. District Court, Ninth Floor
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

U.S. v. Manafort
1180
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
TRIAL
2 WITNESSES
4 Richard Gates (cont'd from 8/6/18)
5 Direct examination by Mr. Andres................. 1185
6 EXHIBITS

Admitted
8
Number 66F............................................... 1190
9 Number 66B............................................... 1198
Number 350............................................... 1209
10 Number 352............................................... 1213
Number 364............................................... 1216
11 Number 370............................................... 1228
Number 427. ............................................ 1232
12 Number 373............................................... 1258
Number 219............................................... 1260
13 Number 375............................................... 1261
Number 375............................................... 1263
14 Number 376............................................... 1264
Number 220............................................... 1268
15 Number 380............................................... 1280
Number 235............................................... 1284
16 Number 237............................................... 1289
Number 240............................................... 1291
17 Number 263............................................... 1291
Number 384............................................... 1293
18 Number 262............................................... 1295
Number 137............................................... 1296
19 Number 389............................................... 1303
Number 388............................................... 1304
20 Number 424............................................... 1306
21 MISCELLANY
22 Preliminary matters...................................... 1181

Certificate of Court Reporter............................ 1310
23
24
25

U.S. v. Manafort
1181
2 (Court proceedings commenced at 9:33 a.m.)
3 THE COURT: All right. The record will reflect that
4 counsel and the defendant are present, prepared to proceed.
5 Anything we need to deal with at the outset,
6 Mr. Andres?
7 MR. ANDRES: Just briefly, Judge. We have had a
8 chance to work with the defense, and we appreciate their
9 cooperation. I understand that they are going to stipulate to
10 any venue issues, so we'll be able to avoid any evidence --
11 THE COURT: Good.
12 MR. ANDRES: -- with exhibits or witnesses. And
13 maybe we can just get that on the record from the defendant.
14 THE COURT: All right. Well, you're both to be
15 complimented for that.
16 Now, there are other things. I've received the
17 Government's briefs on the summaries. The rules are pretty
18 clear on that, as are the cases. The line that sometimes is
19 difficult to discern is an indistinct line is between the
20 presentation of voluminous data by way of charts and advocacy.
21 In other words, it is appropriate for the Government
22 to prepare summary charts. It's not appropriate for the
23 Government to present charts that do that and advocate at the
24 same time by the way the matter is presented. I'm not going
25 to look at all of it. That's your problem.

U.S. v. Manafort
1182
2 THE COURT: So if there's no objection, you need to
3 let me know and counsel for the Government so we can proceed
4 expeditiously.
5 Anything else this morning?
6 MR. ANDRES: If we could just have our colleagues
7 from the defense side put on the record that they have no
8 objection to venue, that would be -- I think complete that
9 issue.
10 THE COURT: I'm sorry, I didn't hear you,
11 Mr. Andres?
12 MR. ANDRES: I just was asking Mr. Downing to
13 confirm that he's not going to object or consent to the venue
14 issue and I think the best way --
15 THE COURT: All right. Well, your representation
16 was sufficient for me.
17 MR. DOWNING: We consent, Your Honor.
18 THE COURT: Yes. Okay. I'm sure he would have
19 popped up if you had said something he didn't agree with. And
20 if you represented to me that it was done that way, I accept
21 the representation of counsel.
22 All right. You may bring the jury in, please.
23 (Jury in.)
24 THE COURT: You may be seated. Of course I can see
25 all of you are present and prepared to proceed. For purposes

U.S. v. Manafort
1183
1 of the record, I will have Ms. Pham call the roll by the
2 numbers and we will proceed.
3 THE DEPUTY CLERK: Ladies and gentlemen, as I call
4 your name, please answer "present" or "here."
5 Juror 0008.
8 THE JUROR: Here.

U.S. v. Manafort
1184
10 THE DEPUTY CLERK: And Juror 0133.
12 THE DEPUTY CLERK: Thank you.
13 THE COURT: Once again, good morning, ladies and
14 gentlemen.
15 And I can understand your haziness on the number.
16 It brings to mind when I forgot my service number when I was
17 first a young member of the United States Navy. And that was
18 a painful experience. And to this day, some 60-some years
19 later, 647251.
21 Now, we'll proceed today. Let me confirm that all
22 of you were able to adhere to the Court's instructions to
23 refrain from discussing the case with anyone or undertaking
24 any investigation.
25 THE JURORS: Yes, Your Honor.

U.S. v. Manafort
1185
1 THE COURT: Good. Thank you.
2 All right. Let's have Mr. Gates return. And,
3 Mr. Andres, you may complete your examination, which I think
4 you indicated would be another --
5 MR. ANDRES: Three to four hours, Judge.
7 Good morning, sir. You'll recall you're still under
8 oath, and you may resume the stand.
9 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
13 (Witness previously sworn 8/6/2018.)
15 BY MR. ANDRES:
16 Q. Mr. Gates, yesterday you testified about a payment
17 structure from businessmen in Ukraine to Mr. Manafort's shelf
18 companies in the -- in Cyprus. Do you remember that?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Okay. With respect to the structure of those payments,
21 did Mr. Manafort tell you why he was paid through Cypriote
22 entities?
23 A. Yes. He indicated that the Ukrainian businessmen wanted
24 to set up Cyprus bank accounts in order to make transfers to
25 Mr. Manafort through entities that he needed to set up in

U.S. v. Manafort
1186
1 Cyprus as well.
2 Q. During the course of that process, were you involved in
3 obtaining those payments from the Ukrainian businessmen?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Okay. And did you learn the names of the Cypriote
6 entities that were controlled by the Ukraine businessmen?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Are you familiar with the name Bedel Ventures Limited?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Who controlled Bedel Ventures Limited?
11 A. It was controlled by a businessman named Mr. Kolesnikov.
12 Q. And where is he from?
13 A. I believe he's from Ukraine.
14 Q. And did he hold a position in the -- in the government in
15 Ukraine?
16 A. He did. In the time that they were in power, he held the
17 position of minister of transportation. That was also a
18 leader in the party.
19 Q. Are you aware of whether there were payments from Bedel
20 Ventures Limited to Mr. Manafort's Cypriote accounts?
21 A. There were.
22 Q. And what were those payments for?
23 A. It was for political work for political campaigns.
24 Q. During the course of your work for Mr. Manafort, did you
25 become familiar with an entity named Dresler Holdings Limited?

U.S. v. Manafort
1187
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. What was Dresler Holdings Limited?
3 A. Dresler Holdings was an entity held by another Ukrainian
4 businessman, Serhiy Tihipko, who helped finance the lobbying
5 campaign in the United States and the European Union.
6 Q. And those payments were made to Mr. Manafort?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Are you familiar with an entity called Firemax
9 Corporation?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. What is Firemax Corporation?
12 A. Firemax Corporation is an entity, again, that was held by
13 Mr. Kolesnikov. It was used for political work.
14 Q. Inlord Sales, LLP, can you tell me what that was?
15 A. Yes. That was an entity, again, held by Mr. Kolesnikov
16 for payments regarding political work.
17 Q. Payments to Mr. Manafort?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. How about Mistaro Ventures Limited?
20 A. Mistaro Ventures was also Mr. Kolesnikov and, again,
21 payments for political work for Mr. Manafort.
22 Q. Novirex Sales, LLP, are you familiar with that entity?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. What is?
25 A. Novirex was held by another businessman named Andriy

U.S. v. Manafort
1188
1 Klyuyev, and it was a payment for political work.
2 Q. You said Andriy Klyuyev.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Was he identified by certain initials on memorandum and
5 otherwise at your company?
6 A. He was.
7 Q. What initials?
8 A. AK.
9 Q. How about Plymouth Consultants Limited, what was that?
10 A. Plymouths Consultants Limited was an entity held by
11 Ukrainian businessman named Victor Pinchuk, and that was in
12 relation to a legal project.
13 Q. How about Sea Chaika Corp., what did you understand that
14 to be?
15 A. Sea Chaika Corp. was related to a non-Ukrainian
16 businessman, and it was in regards to expenses for a different
17 campaign.
18 Q. And those payments were made into Mr. Manafort's Cypriote
19 bank accounts?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. How about Taunton Business Limited, what was that?
22 A. Taunton Business Limited is a company that was held by
23 Serhiy Lovochkin, and it was used for payments for political
24 work and for policy contract later on.
25 Q. And how is Serhiy Lovochkin referenced in the various

U.S. v. Manafort
1189
1 memos from DMP International?
2 A. SL.
3 Q. How about Telmar Investments Limited?
4 A. Telmar was also held by Mr. Lovochkin, and it was
5 primarily used for political and policy work.
6 Q. And who did he make payments to?
7 A. Mr. Manafort.
8 Q. Viewpoint Trade, LLP?
9 A. Viewpoint Trade was a entity by Mr. Kolesnikov, and that
10 was used for political work.
11 Q. Okay. You testified about the various bank accounts and
12 entities used for the payments from the Ukrainian businessmen
13 to Mr. Manafort.
14 Was there a process in place to initiate payment?
15 A. There was.
16 Q. Did that involve the execution of consultancy agreements?
17 A. It did.
18 Q. Did you play a role with respect to the drafting of those
19 consultancy agreements?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Can you explain what the process was?
22 A. Yes. Early on Mr. Manafort would sit with the relevant
23 leaders of the party. They would craft a budget for the
24 political campaign for any given year. They would agree to an
25 amount and typically agree to a payment structure.

U.S. v. Manafort
1190
1 Once that payment structure was agreed to, I would
2 either be contacted by Mr. Manafort or Mr. Kilimnik to put
3 together a draft agreement, which outlined the terms of the
4 contract.
5 And then what they would typically do is we would be
6 given an amount. I would put the amount into the contract.
7 Then we would have our Cypriote agent execute that contract,
8 send it back to Mr. Kilimnik, who would handle the contract on
9 the Ukrainian side.
10 Q. Can I ask you to take a look at Government Exhibit 60 --
11 66F.
13 admit 66F pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3505. They're international
14 business records that have been certified?
15 THE COURT: Any objection?
18 (Government's Exhibit No. 66F
20 BY MR. ANDRES:
21 Q. Mr. Gates, can I ask you to take a look at Government
22 Exhibit 66F? Can you tell me, have you seen those documents
23 before?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Do they include some of the consultancy agreements that

U.S. v. Manafort
1191
1 you were referring to?
2 A. They do.
3 Q. Do they also include loan agreements?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Let me start with Government Exhibit 66F at Page 11 at
6 the bottom.
7 MR. ANDRES: Your Honor, may I publish this exhibit?
9 BY MR. ANDRES:
10 Q. Mr. Gates, can you tell me what's contained in Government
11 Exhibit 66F at Page 11?
12 A. Yes. This is an example of the consultancy agreement
13 that was a template given to us by our Cypriote attorney. We
14 would typically fill in the details regarding the agreement
15 and the parties between which the payment was made and then it
16 would also contain the amount of that specific payment that
17 was going to be made.
18 Q. Okay. If you look at the agreement, can you tell me what
19 the date of the agreement is?
20 A. The date of this agreement is 5 June 2012.
21 Q. And can you identify who the parties are?
22 A. Parties are Black Sea View Limited and Dresler Holdings
23 Limited.
24 Q. What was Black Sea View Limited?
25 A. Black Sea View Limited was an entity held by Mr. Manafort

U.S. v. Manafort
1192
1 in Cyprus.
2 Q. And how about Dresler Holdings Limited?
3 A. Dresler Holdings Limited was an entity held by Serhiy
4 Tihipko.
5 Q. Can I ask you to turn to paragraph 4, which is on
6 Page 13?
7 What's contained in paragraph 4 of this consultancy
8 agreement?
9 A. The amount that was actually paid in the contract. So
10 this did not represent the total contract value, but just
11 actually how much money was being wired from the Ukrainian
12 businessmen.
13 Q. Okay. And how much is listed in this contract?
14 A. In this contract it's $1.1 million.
15 Q. Can I ask you to turn to the page at 66F, Page 15?
16 What was that, Mr. Gates?
17 A. This is another consultancy agreement that was prepared
18 in regards to a payment for a different project.
19 Q. Okay. Do you know what project this is for?
20 A. Since it was Telmar Investments, it was likely either
21 related to the parliamentary election in 2012 or it could have
22 been the policy work that was done as well.
23 Q. Can you tell us what the date of this agreement is?
24 A. 1 June 2012.
25 Q. And who are the parties?

U.S. v. Manafort
1193
1 A. Black Sea View Limited and Telmar Investments Limited.
2 Q. And you previously testified about Black Sea View
3 Limited. What's Telmar Investments?
4 A. Telmar Investments, again, is an entity held by Mr.
5 Lovochkin, a Ukrainian businessmen.
6 Q. And Mr. Lovochkin is referred to as "SL" throughout the
7 company documents?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Can you turn to -- at paragraph 4, and tell us what the
10 amount agreed upon for some portion of this contract was?
11 A. In this particular contract, the fee is for 1 million
12 euros.
13 Q. Okay. And does that constitute the full payment of the
14 contract?
15 A. It does not.
16 Q. Can you turn to Page 12 of the agreement? I think
17 it's -- scratch that. It's at the bottom of Page 21. 66F,
18 Page 21.
19 Do you see the reference there to Chrysostomides &
20 Company?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. What is that?
23 A. Chrysostomides is the company with the law firm that
24 Mr. Manafort employed to set up the various Cypriote entities
25 and which all Cypriote paperwork went to.

U.S. v. Manafort
1194
1 Q. And is that -- was that firm associated with Dr. K?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Can I ask you to turn to Page 25?
4 Can you tell me what this is?
5 A. Again, it's another consultancy agreement for a specific
6 project.
7 Q. And who is this agreement between?
8 A. This agreement is between Black Sea View Limited and
9 Dresler Holdings Limited.
10 Q. And what is Dresler Holdings?
11 A. Dresler Holdings is an entity that was held by Serhiy
12 Tihipko.
13 Q. Okay. And what are his initials?
14 A. ST.
16 Do you see that?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. What's -- is there a consultancy agreement included on
19 Page 37?
20 A. There is.
21 Q. And who are the entities?
22 A. Peranova Holdings Limited and Telmar Investments Limited.
23 Q. And what's the date of the agreement?
24 A. 1 November 2011.
25 Q. And you previously testified that Telmar related to

U.S. v. Manafort
1195
1 Serhiy Lovochkin.
2 What is Peranova Holdings Limited?
3 A. Peranova Holdings Limited is a company that Mr. Manafort
4 set up in Cyprus.
5 Q. And did Peranova Holdings Limited receive income from the
6 Ukraine business -- Ukrainian businessmen?
7 A. It did.
8 Q. Okay. That's the same entity that you -- that you
9 represented -- or was that income ever represented as
10 something else to either Ms. Washkuhn or to the tax preparers?
11 A. It was.
12 Q. What was it classified as?
13 A. It was classified as a loan.
14 Q. Okay. And who classified it as a loan?
15 A. Mr. Manafort.
16 Q. Okay. Why did he do that?
17 A. At the time, I believe that he was trying to decrease the
18 amount of taxable income for that particular tax year.
19 Q. As far as you're aware, was there ever a loan extended
20 from Peranova Holdings?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Okay. And who controlled Peranova Holdings?
23 A. Mr. Manafort.
24 Q. And was there consistently income to Peranova Holdings?
25 A. There was.

U.S. v. Manafort
1196
1 Q. And where did that come from?
2 A. It came from the electoral work that we did in Cyprus.
3 Q. Can I ask you to turn to Page --
4 A. Excuse me, in Ukraine.
5 Q. Can I ask you to turn to Page 64 of Government Exhibit
6 66F?
8 A. Another consultancy agreement.
9 Q. And who's this between?
10 A. Leviathan Advisors and Telmar Investments.
11 Q. Okay. You testified about Telmar. What's Leviathan
12 Advisors?
13 A. Leviathan Advisors is another entity that was set up by
14 Mr. Manafort in Cyprus.
15 Q. Okay. For what purpose?
16 A. It was to receive payments. In this case, it looks like
17 it was related to the policy contract.
18 Q. And what was the purpose of these payments?
19 A. The purpose of these payments was for policy work.
20 Q. Can you turn to Paragraph 4 in the agreement, which is on
21 Page 41?
22 Can you identify for the jury what the terms of this
23 agreement were in terms of payment?
24 A. Yes. It was a fee of 3 million euros.
25 Q. Okay. Why is this contract in euros and not dollars?

U.S. v. Manafort
1197
1 A. At a point in time, the Ukrainian businessmen started
2 using the euro currency as opposed to U.S. dollar currency
3 because, in some instances, it was easier to make payments,
4 and in other instances, the currency exchange rate was better
5 using the euro.
7 Do you see the signature page for this consultancy
8 agreement?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Who signed on behalf of the parties?
11 A. So these are both the Cypriote directors of the companies
12 that represented each of the Cyprus entities.
13 Q. Do you see a reference at the bottom of the page to
14 "Inter Jura CY"?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. What is that?
17 A. Inter Jura CY was a subsidiary company of
18 Mr. Chrysostomides. In Cyprus, you have what they call
19 director companies and they just act as directors for the
20 various companies that are set up. So in this case, Inter
21 Jura pertained to the Leviathan entity.
22 Q. And the entities that were set up on behalf of
23 Mr. Manafort, Leviathan, for example, did they sell any
24 products?
25 A. No.

U.S. v. Manafort
1198
1 Q. Did they have any employees?
2 A. No.
3 Q. What was the purpose of those entities?
4 A. The purpose of the entities was to accept payments and
5 make payments in and out of the companies.
6 Q. Can I ask you to turn to Government Exhibit 66B?
7 MR. ANDRES: Your Honor, the Government admits 66B
8 also pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3505 international bank records
9 that have been certified.
12 (Government's Exhibit No. 66B
14 BY MR. ANDRES:
15 Q. With respect to Government Exhibit 66B, Mr. Gates, can
16 you turn to Page -- at the bottom, it says Page 006?
17 MR. ANDRES: May I publish that, Your Honor?
18 THE COURT: Yes.
19 BY MR. ANDRES:
20 Q. Can you tell me what that is, Mr. Gates?
21 A. This is a -- again, a consultancy agreement between DMP
22 International and Telmar Investments Limited.
23 Q. Okay. And these agreements identified DMP International
24 directly?
25 A. Yes.

U.S. v. Manafort
1199
1 Q. And why have these changed that there's no reference to
2 the Cypriote entity?
3 A. At a point in time, Mr. Manafort had worked with a
4 specific bank, and because of the difficulty in many cases of
5 getting payments from Cyprus to the United States, he
6 approached the bank directly and outlined for them the type of
7 work that he did. As a result, they were willing to take on
8 the risk, if you will, of accepting payments from Cyprus. So
9 then we were able to get the payments directly from the
10 Ukrainian businessmen into the business account in the United
11 States?
12 MR. DOWNING: Your Honor, can I have a moment just
13 to ask a question of the Government?
15 THE COURT: Mr. Downing, I didn't quite hear you.
16 MR. DOWNING: I'm sorry. I just wanted to confer
17 with Government as to where we were in the exhibit. Thank
18 you.
19 THE COURT: All right. You've done so. Proceed.
20 BY MR. ANDRES:
21 Q. And can you turn to Paragraph 4 of this document?
22 And can you identify what the terms of this document
23 were?
24 A. Yes, this is for a payment of $1 million.
25 Q. Okay. And do you -- do you remember which project this

U.S. v. Manafort
1200
1 document -- this contract relates to?
2 A. Yes, this would be in relation to a new political project
3 that Mr. Manafort began working on called the Opposition BLOC.
4 Q. Okay. At the point that the Opposition BLOC began, was
5 President Yanukovych, was he still in power?
6 A. He was not.
7 Q. And what had happened to the Party of Regions?
8 A. The Party of Regions had dissolved for the most part.
9 Q. Okay. And with respect to this document -- let me show
10 you first, there's another one at Page 019 -- yeah, I'm
11 sorry -- yeah, 019.
13 A. Yes. This is a consultancy agreement between DMP
14 International and Telmar Investments.
15 Q. Okay. And what does this project relate to?
16 A. Again, this is related to the Opposition BLOC political
17 work.
18 Q. Okay. If you look at the last page of that contract,
19 031, you testified that the contract is in the name of DMP.
20 Who signs for DMP?
21 A. In this case, because the transfer was occurring from
22 Cyprus, we had our Cypriote director sign it.
23 Q. So even though the agreement is between DMP and Telmar,
24 the payment still goes to Cyprus?
25 A. No, the payment went directly to DMP.

U.S. v. Manafort
1201
1 Q. Okay. And so why is Inter Jura signing on behalf of DMP?
2 A. I have -- I don't know.
3 Q. Okay. But Inter Jura, who controls that entity?
4 A. Inter Jura is controlled by Chrysostomides and company.
5 Q. Okay. I've shown you a series of consultancy agreements.
6 Is it fair to say there are more of these or these are
7 examples of the types of documents you used to get payment?
8 A. Yes, they are.
9 Q. Okay. Let me ask you to turn back to Government Exhibit
10 66F and look at the first page.
12 A. Yes, this is a loan agreement that was constructed in
13 regards to the financial transfer between the two entities in
14 Cyprus.
15 Q. Okay. And what was the purpose of this loan document?
16 A. So in Cyprus you also had to file what were called
17 audits. And in order to ensure that all transactions were
18 recorded, there needed to be some sort of agreements between
19 the various entities that received payments and had outgoing
20 payments. So it was, in essence, a way to make sure that
21 every financial transaction in Cyprus was tracked.
22 Q. So as part of this Cyprus audit, did you track all of the
23 payments from the Ukraine businessmen to Mr. Manafort?
24 A. Our law firm did, yes.
25 Q. Okay. And were you involved in that process?

U.S. v. Manafort
1202
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And was Mr. Manafort?
3 A. He was aware of the process. He wasn't involved from a
4 day-to-day basis.
5 Q. Okay. And in terms of those loan agreements, were there
6 actually loans between the Ukrainian businesses and the --
7 Mr. Manafort's Cypriote account?
8 A. In Cyprus, they were documented as loans. In reality, it
9 was basically money moving among the accounts.
10 Q. Okay. And for the --
11 THE COURT: By that, do you mean they were
12 compensation?
13 THE WITNESS: Yeah, so --
14 THE COURT: For work done?
15 THE WITNESS: Yes, correct, Your Honor.
16 THE COURT: Compensation for work done.
18 THE COURT: By the Manafort group.
21 BY MR. ANDRES:
22 Q. Were you involved -- were those documents, were they
23 dated correctly, the loan agreements?
24 A. They were -- the dates of the agreements are based on the
25 dates of the transactions.

U.S. v. Manafort
1203
1 Q. Okay.
2 A. But these -- a lot of the loan agreements are backdated
3 simply because in Cyprus, you have the ability to file your
4 audits two years after the calendar year in which the work was
5 done. So they give you a little bit of time.
6 Q. You testified earlier about payments from Ukrainian
7 businessmen to Mr. Manafort. Did that include payments for
8 policy work?
9 A. It did.
10 Q. Okay. What type of policy work did Mr. Manafort do in
11 the Ukraine?
12 A. When Viktor Yanukovych was elected president and the
13 Party of Regions took control, Mr. Manafort entered into a
14 policy contract. And we describe it as policy advisory in the
15 sense of once Mr. Yanukovych was elected, he was elected on a
16 platform of issues. So Mr. Manafort worked with the local
17 political officials there to help implement those policy
18 initiatives based on those campaign promises.
19 Q. And was there an agreement for a two-year policy contract
20 or payments over a two-year period of time?
21 A. Well, it was -- it started out as potentially once the
22 president was elected, it was on an annual basis. But the
23 belief was, is that it would be for the duration of the
24 president's tenure.
25 Q. And in terms of the two years, at least, what were --

U.S. v. Manafort
1204
1 what were the terms or the payments? What was the total
2 amount and what were the installment payments?
3 A. Uh-huh. So the total amount was $4 million a year. And
4 I think one year, it was actually changed again from a
5 denomination point of view to 4 million euros, and then the
6 payments were broken up into $1 million quarterly payments.
7 Q. Can I ask you to turn to Government Exhibit 359?
8 Can you tell me what that is when you get there?
9 Excuse me.
10 A. Yes. This is a memo that I prepared for Mr. Manafort in
11 regards to the payments that were outstanding and the payments
12 that had been made related to the policy contract work in
13 2011.
14 Q. Let me just stop you there.
16 admit Government Exhibit 359. Oh, it's in evidence already,
17 Judge. I'm sorry. Excuse me. May I publish it?
19 BY MR. ANDRES:
20 Q. Can we start with the top, Mr. Gates?
21 Can you explain who the document is to, from, the
22 subject, and the date?
23 A. Yes. The document is to SL and YN from Mr. Manafort.
24 The subject is consulting payments. The date is October 11,
25 2011.

U.S. v. Manafort
1205
1 Q. You've testified previously about SL. How about YN, who
2 is that?
3 A. YN was Mr. Lovochkin's sister. Her name was Yulia (ph).
4 Q. Do you know what her last name was?
5 A. Nemovskiy (ph), I think, Nemovskiy.
6 Q. Okay. And who's the -- who's the memorandum from?
7 A. Mr. Manafort.
8 Q. And the subject is consulting payments. What does that
9 refer to?
10 A. This refers to the policy contract work that Mr. Manafort
11 had at this time.
12 Q. Can you read the first paragraph and explain it to the
13 jury?
14 A. (As read): "This document outlines the total fees owed
15 and the fees that have been paid in relation to the consulting
16 agreement between Telmar Investments and Leviathan Advisors
17 for March 2011 to 2012."
18 Q. And what does that mean that the fees that have been paid
19 from Telmar to Leviathan?
20 A. Again, Telmar is an entity that was held by Mr. Lovochkin
21 who was paying the policy contract. So the terms, again, were
22 the four million, in this case, euros a year. And if you look
23 at the document, you can see it's broken down by quarter. So
24 it tracks the actual quarterly payment made.
25 Q. And once the money gets to Leviathan, do you know what

U.S. v. Manafort
1206
1 Mr. Manafort does with it then?
2 A. I don't. I mean, he moved money from Leviathan in some
3 case to the United States. In some cases, he left it in
4 Leviathan.
5 Q. With respect to the Leviathan account in Cyprus, did you
6 ever report that to Heather Washkuhn, Mr. Manafort's
7 bookkeeper?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Did you ever report it to any of his tax preparers at
10 KWC?
11 A. No.
12 Q. There's a chart on the memo in Government Exhibit 359.
13 Can you explain what that is?
14 MR. ANDRES: Your Honor, is that me with the
15 feedback?
16 THE WITNESS: The chart indicates, again, the --
17 both the expenses and the quarterly payments that have both
18 been made and the outstanding balance that is still due.
19 BY MR. ANDRES:
20 Q. And at the bottom where it says, "total contract," what
21 does that refer to?
22 A. That's the total contract value for that year included in
23 the expenses.
24 Q. And in what denomination is that listed?
25 A. This contract is in euros.

U.S. v. Manafort
1207
1 Q. Okay. For the last -- can you just read the last line of
2 the memorandum?
3 A. "I am requesting that this outstanding balance be paid as
4 soon as possible."
5 Q. And what did you understand that to mean?
6 A. That Mr. Manafort was looking for the remaining balance
7 that was due on the contract.
8 Q. With respect to the policy work that Mr. Manafort is
9 being paid for in Government Exhibit 359, did you write memos
10 on behalf of Mr. Manafort to outline that work?
11 A. Yes, in some cases, I did as well as the staff in
12 Ukraine.
13 Q. Okay. And who did those memos go to, for example?
14 A. They would typically go to various members of the party
15 leadership, including Mr. Lovochkin, who, at this time, was
16 the chief of staff to the president, and in some cases, to the
17 president himself.
20 A. This is a memo that was drafted by our two lobbying firms
21 that were hired in the United States, and they put together a
22 memo that went from Mr. Manafort to the president of the
23 Ukraine to describe the activity.
24 Q. And what were those lobbying firms?
25 A. It was Mercury Public Affairs and the Podesta Group.

U.S. v. Manafort
1208
1 Q. And this is part of the work that you were doing for the
2 overall policy project?
3 A. It was labeled as a different project called Engage
4 Ukraine, but it was related to policy, yes.
5 Q. Okay. And in terms of the payment for Mr. Manafort,
6 those were the payments that we just saw in the prior exhibit
7 from Serhiy Lovochkin?
8 A. Some of those payments were, but there was a separate
9 payment specifically for the lobbying work from Mr. Tihipko.
10 Q. I'm referring to the payments to Mr. Manafort, not the
11 payments that were --
12 A. Oh, yes.
13 Q. Okay.
14 A. Payments to Mr. Manafort, correct.
15 Q. And then just in terms -- you mentioned Engage Ukraine.
16 What was that?
17 A. Engage Ukraine became the strategy for helping Ukraine
18 enter into the European Union, and as a result, a public
19 affairs effort was put together both in the EU and the U.S.
20 for that work.
21 Q. Was there also a project referred to as the Hapsburg
22 Project?
23 A. Yes.

U.S. v. Manafort
1209
6 THE COURT: Yes.
7 MR. DOWNING:
8 Q. All right. Zoom in on the top.
9 Just with respect to Government Exhibit 350 that you
10 testified about, can you identify the heading of the memo?
11 A. Yes, it was to the president, Mr. Yanukovych, from
12 Mr. Manafort.
13 Q. Okay. And there's a reference to U.S. consultants
14 quarterly report. What does that refer to?
15 A. This refers to the report that was drafted by the two
16 U.S. consulting firms identified.
17 Q. Okay. I was asking you whether you were familiar with a
18 project called the Hapsburg Project. What was that?
19 A. The Hapsburg Project was a separate initiative that was
20 kind of tied into the overall effort to have Ukraine align
21 with the European Union.
22 The Hapsburg Group used former European politicians
23 to help interface with European politicians to work on that
24 effort.
25 Q. Was there also work that you did together with

U.S. v. Manafort
1210
1 Mr. Manafort that involved hiring of an international law
2 firm?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Okay. What law firm was that?
5 A. Skadden Arps.
6 Q. And work did that relate to?
7 A. Skadden Arps related to a independent legal report that
8 was done in conjunction with a former political official that
9 had a trial in Ukraine.
10 Q. You testified that, at some point, Mr. Manafort's work
11 for President Yanukovych and the Party of Regions came to an
12 end?
13 A. It did.
14 Q. Approximately, when was that?
15 A. The last project we did for the Party of Regions was at
16 the beginning of 2014, and then we picked up with another
17 political project that also went to the end of 2014 in
18 October.
19 Q. With respect to the time frame when President Yanukovych
20 lost power, what effect, if any, did that have on
21 Mr. Manafort's income stream?
22 A. I would say that it decreased the income stream.
23 Q. How?
24 A. Because there was a change in the -- in the power
25 structure and a new political party needed to be created,

U.S. v. Manafort
1211
1 which meant that we had to go through and work to build a new
2 contract.
3 Q. Did you work with the Opposition BLOC?
4 A. I did.
5 Q. And did the Opposition BLOC ever come to power within
6 Ukraine?
7 A. It didn't come to power. It won seats in Parliament.
8 Q. Okay. As a result of work that you and Mr. Manafort did
9 for the Opposition BLOC?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. As a result of it being the minority party, were you able
12 to do additional work for Opposition BLOC?
13 A. The hope was to do additional work for the Opposition
14 BLOC, but because most of the Opposition BLOC or a good
15 portion of it had been aligned with the Party of Regions, they
16 were, in essence, out of power. So the income streams were
17 more difficult to come by.
18 Q. Okay. And did you continue to obtain additional work for
19 Mr. Manafort or obtain additional work for the Opposition
20 BLOC?
21 A. No.
22 Q. At some point, in addition to working for the Opposition
23 BLOC, did you also work on local elections?
24 A. We worked on local elections in the prior year.
25 Q. Okay. And what election did that relate to?

U.S. v. Manafort
1212
1 A. That related to the -- well, there was the presidential
2 election in 2014 that Mr. Manafort worked on very briefly.
3 And then the parliamentary election in 2014, which was at the
4 end of the year.
5 Q. Okay. For the presidential election, who did
6 Mr. Manafort work for?
7 A. He was assisting the current president, Mr. Poroshenko.
8 Q. And was he paid for that work?
9 A. I don't believe he was.
10 Q. Was that work substantial with -- did he have the same
11 position with respect to that campaign that he had for
12 president --
13 A. No, he did not.
14 Q. At some point did your work in the Ukraine come to an
15 end?
16 A. Yes.
18 A. The last election we worked on was the parliamentary
19 election of 2014. And there was no other political campaign
20 work after that time.
21 Q. And with respect to that work for the Opposition BLOC,
22 was Mr. Manafort paid in full?
23 A. He was not.
24 Q. Was he paid -- was part of his bill paid?
25 A. Yes, I believe part of the bill was paid.

U.S. v. Manafort
1213
1 Q. If you can turn to Government Exhibit 352. Can you tell
2 me what that is?
3 A. Yes. This is a memo that Mr. Manafort drafted to the
4 leadership of the Opposition BLOC party following the
5 parliamentary election in 2014.
14 BY MR. ANDRES:
15 Q. With respect to the cover e-mail, can you explain what
16 that is?
17 A. Yes. It's an e-mail from Mr. Manafort to Mr. Kilimnik
18 and myself indicating that he has attached the final version
19 of the memo, which outlines the priorities of the Opposition
20 BLOC strategy moving forward.
21 Q. And this is the work you were describing that was sort of
22 the last work you were doing in the Ukraine?
23 A. Yes. The hope was that this effort would lead to an
24 additional contract.
25 Q. Mr. Manafort writes, "Your opinions on when we should

U.S. v. Manafort
1214
1 circulate the memo, the options are next week for when I
2 arrive in Kyiv on approximately November 10th."
3 Did you have an understanding from this e-mail where
4 Mr. Manafort was when he wrote it?
5 A. I do not.
6 Q. Okay. Is it fair to understand it wasn't in Kyiv?
7 A. Correct.
8 Q. And was Mr. Manafort often able to manage his work in
9 Kyiv when he wasn't there?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And did you -- when you were not in Kyiv, were you able
12 to communicate with people there?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. With respect to the memo that's attached to Government
15 Exhibit 352, can I just ask you to look at the top of that
16 memo?
17 And identify who it's to, who's CC'd, and who it's
18 from.
19 A. Yes. It's to Mr. Levochkin and Mr. Akhmetov who are
20 pretty much leading the new Opposition BLOC that's been
21 formed. And CC'd OB leadership, included a series of other
22 Ukrainian businessmen that were part of the Opposition BLOC
23 party.
24 Q. What role did Serhiy Lovochkin or what role did SL and RA
25 play with respect to the Opposition BLOC?

U.S. v. Manafort
1215
1 A. They were principally the financiers of the new political
2 party.
3 Q. You testified earlier that Mr. Manafort had difficulty
4 receiving payment for his work for the Opposition BLOC. Can
5 you explain what efforts were made to obtain that payment?
6 A. Yes. There were a series of memos that Mr. Manafort had
7 sent to Mr. Kilimnik to translate and deliver. In addition,
8 Mr. Manafort used Mr. Kilimnik to work with the Opposition
9 BLOC leadership to secure the payments.
10 Q. And earlier you had testified about a process involving
11 consultancy agreements to initiate payment from the Ukraine
12 businessmen. Did you follow that same procedure here?
13 A. We did when the payments were made, yes.
14 Q. Okay. And with respect to that process to obtain the
15 payments from the Opposition BLOC, what role, if any, did you
16 play?
17 A. Again, once Mr. Kilimnik or Mr. Manafort confirmed that a
18 payment was going to be made, I worked with the Cypriote law
19 firm to draft the consultancy agreement and then returned it
20 to Ukraine for execution.
21 Q. Can I ask you to turn to Government's Exhibit 364?
22 Do you recognize that?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Are you listed on that e-mail?
25 A. I am.

U.S. v. Manafort
1216
1 Q. And is there attached documents?
2 A. There is.
3 Q. Were you involved in preparing those?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And did these documents in the e-mail relate to the
6 efforts to obtain payment from the Opposition BLOC?
7 A. They did.
8 MR. ANDRES: The Government moves to admit 364, Your
9 Honor.
16 BY MR. ANDRES:
17 Q. Starting with the top e-mail in Government Exhibit 364,
18 can you identify who it's "to" and "from" and the date?
19 A. It's to me from Mr. Kilimnik, and it's dated August 25,
20 2015.
21 Q. Okay. How about the subject?
22 A. Subject is "Contract for 1."
23 Q. Okay. Starting with the e-mail all the way at the
24 bottom, there's an e-mail from Mr. Kilimnik at 11:07 a.m. Can
25 you explain or summarize that e-mail?

U.S. v. Manafort
1217
1 A. Yes. Mr. Manafort and Mr. Kilimnik had been in contact
2 regarding the payment that Mr. Manafort was seeking from the
3 Opposition BLOC. Mr. Kilimnik asked me to send the initial
4 pro forma documents, including the details that he had given
5 me to execute the payment.
6 Q. There's a reference at the bottom that says, "This is to
7 calm Paul down."
8 What did you understand that to mean?
9 A. The payment was well overdue. The campaign occurred in
10 October of 2014. So payment was significantly, you know,
11 overdue and Mr. Manafort was quite upset that the money had
12 not been sent. So Mr. Kilimnik wanted to start the paperwork
13 process in order to, you know, create the -- create the
14 scenario that we were making the effort to get the payment.
15 Q. And what was Mr. Manafort's financial situation in July
16 of 2015?
17 A. It was, I'd say, substantially decreased in terms of the
18 amount of income he had received from prior years.
19 Q. Was he having issues paying his bills?
20 A. He was.
21 Q. And at this time in July of 2015, did Mr. Manafort have
22 any work in the Ukraine?
23 A. No, not in the Ukraine.
24 Q. Did DMP International have any clients?
25 A. No.

U.S. v. Manafort
1218
1 Q. If you turn to the top portion of the e-mail there's a
2 reference that says, "I have no idea where this amount come
3 from, but this is SL's people's request anyway."
4 Can you explain that?
5 A. Yes. So, originally, Mr. Levochkin was going to send a
6 million per the agreement he and Mr. Manafort had entered
7 into.
8 Mr. Kilimnik then responded that the payment, in
9 essence, had been decreased and that they were going to be
10 sending a payment of 500,000 instead.
11 Q. Okay. Can you look at the attachment of Government
12 Exhibit 364? Can you tell me what that is?
13 A. Again, this is the pro forma contract which identifies
14 DMP International and Telmar Investments Limited, which was
15 Mr. Levochkin's entity.
16 Q. And why you were attaching this to -- did you draft this?
17 A. Yeah. The Cypriote attorneys drafted the template. I
18 entered the information in terms of the individual parties.
19 Q. And the Telmar Investments, who controlled Telmar
20 Investments?
21 A. Mr. Levochkin.
22 Q. And if you look back at the e-mail, that's the reference
23 to "SL"?
24 A. It is.
25 Q. And do you know as of the time that you left DMP

U.S. v. Manafort
1219
1 International whether or not this contract was ever paid in
2 full?
3 A. To my understanding, it was not paid in full.
4 Q. You can take that down.
5 When you first began working for Mr. Manafort, did
6 you understand that he had Cypriote accounts?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And do you know who set those accounts up?
9 A. I believe it was Mr. Manafort with the Cypriote attorney.
10 Q. Okay. And who is the Cypriote -- Cypriote -- Cypriotic
11 attorney?
12 A. Kypros Chrysostomides.
13 Q. Okay. For efficiency --
14 A. Dr. K.
15 Q. -- did he have a nickname?
16 A. Dr. K.
17 Q. Okay. Did there come a time when you met, yourself,
18 Dr. K?
19 A. There was.
20 Q. When?
21 A. I met with Dr. K in 2007 with Mr. Manafort.
22 Q. And where was -- where did that meeting take place?
23 A. It occurred in Cyprus.
24 Q. And why were you meeting with Dr. K?
25 A. We were meeting with him for two purposes. Mr. Manafort

U.S. v. Manafort
1220
1 had just met with our investor for the private equity fund and
2 the investor wanted to have Mr. Manafort meet with him to
3 engage in potential political project, and then also to have
4 him coordinate some of the activity on our private equity
5 fund.
6 Q. Did you also meet with Dr. K about opening bank accounts
7 and entities in Cyprus?
8 A. We did.
9 Q. Okay. Did Dr. K explain to you the process involved with
10 opening up the shelf companies?
11 A. He did.
12 Q. What did he say to you?
13 THE COURT: Isn't that hearsay? If there's no
14 objection, I'll permit it. But we ought to avoid just
15 importing hearsay, putting to one side whether it's relevant.
16 MR. DOWNING: Objection, Your Honor, hearsay.
17 THE COURT: You're a little late.
19 THE COURT: Mr. Andres, do you really need it?
20 MR. ANDRES: No, Your Honor. I can work around it.
21 THE COURT: Thank you.
22 BY MR. ANDRES:
23 Q. Based on your meetings with Dr. K, did you come to
24 understand the process for opening the entities in Cyprus?
25 A. Yes.

U.S. v. Manafort
1221
1 Q. And did you understand that there were some level of
2 secrecy involved?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Okay. Can you explain what you understood -- and at
5 these meetings with Dr. K, was Mr. Manafort there?
6 A. He was.
7 Q. Can you explain what you understood the process for
8 setting up these shelf companies?
9 A. Yes. When you set up a shelf company in Cyprus, the
10 individual that was setting it up wasn't necessarily on any of
11 the paper work. You had two directors, which were usually
12 within the law firm that was setting up the entities, and then
13 above that you had what they call two board members. So, in
14 essence, you had four people controlling a Cypriote entity,
15 but the actual individual setting up the company name did not
16 appear on any of the incorporation material.
17 Q. With respect to the companies that were ultimately set
18 up, do you know who was listed as the directors, secretaries,
19 board members?
20 A. Yes. The directors and board members were members
21 generally of Mr. -- Dr. K's firm.
22 Q. So with respect to the Cypriote entities that were set up
23 for Mr. Manafort, did his name appear on any of those
24 documents?
25 A. No.

U.S. v. Manafort
1222
1 Q. Did you come to understand, based on your meeting with
2 Dr. K and Mr. Manafort, what the process was for setting up
3 bank accounts in Cyprus?
4 A. Yes. Dr. K explained that to us as well.
5 Q. Can you describe that for the jury?
6 A. The law firm handled everything with respect to opening
7 the accounts. Initially in the earlier years they designated
8 a point of contact with the bank, but neither Mr. Manafort nor
9 myself had any interaction with the bank. Later on that point
10 of contact came to be known what was an ultimate beneficial
11 owner. And none of the information on the banking forms was
12 publicly disclosed in any way.
13 Q. Was that an issue that was discussed in detail?
14 A. Yes, by Dr. K.
15 Q. And was that important to Mr. Manafort to understand how
16 his name would be represented on those documents?
17 A. I believe he understood that his name would not be
18 represented, nor was mine.
19 Q. Okay. You testified about a variety of different names,
20 Peranova, Leviathan, Global Endeavor. How were those names
21 picked?
22 A. So, again, with the exception of a few of the entities,
23 all of those entities' names were selected by Dr. K's law firm
24 as shelf companies.
25 Q. And with respect to all of the Cypriote entities that

U.S. v. Manafort
1223
1 Dr. K set up, did those companies -- did they exist for some
2 purpose or did they sell any product or provide any services?
3 A. No, but it was very common for them to set up.
4 Q. And what was --
5 A. To conduct various work.
6 Q. What was the sole purpose of those companies?
7 A. In terms of setting them up in general or with respect to
8 Mr. Manafort?
9 Q. Just in terms of what they -- in setting them up for
10 Mr. Manafort, what function did those companies play?
11 A. Oh, they serve to play the role of accepting the money
12 from the Ukrainian businessmen for the political contracts and
13 then for Mr. Manafort to, you know, determine what would be
14 done with that money.
15 Q. And in terms of the bank accounts, were they set up in
16 different denominations?
17 A. They were.
18 Q. What denominations?
19 A. Primarily U.S. dollars and euros.
20 Q. Okay. And do you know what banks in Cyprus those
21 entities were set up at?
22 A. As I recall, there aren't many banks in Cyprus, but it
23 was the Bank of Cyprus, Laiki Bank, and I think Marfin Popular
24 Bank.
25 Q. And the money that was -- that was deposited in those

U.S. v. Manafort
1224
1 accounts for Mr. Manafort, was that income?
2 A. It was.
3 Q. And how did he earn it?
4 A. Through political campaign work in Ukraine.
5 Q. You testified earlier about on one of the contracts there
6 was a reference to Inter Jura. What was Inter Jura?
7 A. An Inter Jura was a subsidiary company of Dr. K's that
8 represented the directors of the Cypriote entities that were
9 assigned to the companies that anybody set up.
10 Q. You testified that Mr. Manafort's name was not on the
11 entity in corporation documents but that it was on some of the
12 Cypriote bank accounts. At some point did he ask that his
13 name be removed from those?
14 A. He did.
15 Q. Do you know why?
16 A. Yes. Mr. Manafort described to me that he was engaged in
17 a lawsuit with somebody from the Ukraine and there was concern
18 that the individual might be able to find some of the
19 information on Mr. Manafort and, specifically, who some of the
20 other Ukrainian businessmen that paid some of those contracts
21 might be.
22 Q. Did you -- was his name removed?
23 A. It was.
24 Q. And did you ask to have your name removed?
25 A. No, not in all cases.

U.S. v. Manafort
1225
1 Q. At some point did you have your name removed?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Why did you want your name removed from the accounts?
4 A. Well, at that time the number of accounts in Ukraine had
5 diminished in 2012 because of the banking collapse. So it was
6 kind of a good time to make sure that most of the entities
7 were closed and our names were removed.
8 Q. Okay. And when there was a banking issue in Cyprus, were
9 the overseas accounts moved to another country?
10 A. They were.
11 Q. Where?
12 A. They were moved to the Grenadines.
13 Q. Is that the same country referred to as St. Vincent in
14 the Grenadines?
15 A. It is, yes.
16 Q. Do you know where that is?
17 A. Somewhere in the Caribbean.
18 Q. Okay. And who -- who facilitated the movement of the
19 Cypriote accounts to St. Vincent in the Grenadines?
20 A. Dr. K.
21 Q. How was he able to do that?
22 A. They have a relationship, apparently, between Cyprus and
23 the Grenadines, and so he was able to both open the entities,
24 which were actually designated in Cyprus, and then the actual
25 bank accounts as well.

U.S. v. Manafort
1226
1 Q. And was the money moved to -- from the Cyprus accounts to
2 St. Vincent in the Grenadines?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Okay. And when the accounts were opened there, do you
5 know the names of those accounts?
6 A. Yes. It was a very limited number. There were only two
7 accounts, as I recall.
8 Q. What were the names?
9 A. Global Endeavor and Jeunet.
10 Q. Do you know what bank or banks they were opened at?
11 A. The name of the bank was Loyal Bank.
12 Q. And whose name was the -- the St. Vincent in Grenadines
13 accounts opened in?
14 A. At that time I believe we designated Mr. Kilimnik as the
15 point of contact for those.
16 Q. Okay. Is Mr. Kilimnik -- is he a U.S. citizen?
17 A. He is not.
18 Q. Were you able to move money from the Cypriote accounts
19 when they were in Cyprus?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And what was the process for moving money from the Cyprus
22 accounts to the United States or elsewhere?
23 A. So, generally, it was all done again by the law firm.
24 The typical practice was that Mr. Manafort would send me a
25 list of wire requests or he would send the wires directly to a

U.S. v. Manafort
1227
1 point of contact that we had at Dr. K's firm. That contact
2 then coordinated with the bank to make the wire distributions.
3 Q. Okay. And do you know who the people were that you
4 contacted at Dr. K's law firm?
5 A. I know the primary person that we used, yes.
6 Q. Who was that?
7 A. Her name was Christina.
8 Q. And would you receive directions from Mr. Manafort about
9 how to move money between the different accounts?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Would you receive instruction from Mr. Manafort about
12 directing payments from Cyprus to vendors in the United
13 States?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. How would that happen?
16 A. Mr. Manafort would prepare an e-mail. There was a
17 template that the law firm had given him to use. It was very
18 minimal information at that time. And Mr. Manafort would put
19 in the name of the vendors that he wanted paid, the amount,
20 and then he would send that either again directly to the bank
21 in some cases or he would send it to me to send over to the
22 bank.
23 Q. Can I ask you to take a look at Government Exhibit 370?
24 Have you had a chance to review that?
25 A. Yes.

U.S. v. Manafort
1228
1 Q. Government Exhibit 370, is that an e-mail chain involving
2 you and Mr. Manafort?
3 A. It is.
4 Q. And does it involve the transfer of funds from Cypriote
5 accounts?
6 A. It does.
8 Government Exhibit 370, Your Honor.
14 THE COURT: Yes.
15 BY MR. ANDRES:
16 Q. Starting with the top e-mail, Mr. Gates, can you tell me
17 who the e-mail is to and from?
18 A. It's from Mr. Manafort to me.
19 Q. Okay. And what's the date?
20 A. The date is November 29, 2011.
21 Q. And what's the subject?
22 A. Subject is "Payments."
23 Q. Okay. Can you start at the bottom e-mail at 22:38:24 and
24 describe to the jury what's -- what you're communicating to
25 Mr. Manafort there?

U.S. v. Manafort
1229
1 A. Yes.
2 (As read): I write, "Mr. Manafort, for your review
3 and approval. Let me know if you have any questions. And
4 then I will transfer the money from the Leviathan account to
5 DMP International unless you direct otherwise."
6 Q. It says, "Levi," L-e-v-i. What's that a reference to?
7 A. Levi is the abbreviation for Leviathan.
8 Q. Okay. And did Mr. Manafort explicitly approve that
9 payment?
10 A. He did.
11 Q. What did he say?
12 A. "Yes, this is approved."
13 Q. Okay. And then there's a reference in the e-mail to
14 transferring money to P for the loan earlier this month.
15 What's the P reference?
16 A. Yes. So the reference to that is at some point we moved
17 money from Peranova to Leviathan and we were returning the
18 money, because, again, even within Mr. Manafort's Cyprus
19 entities, you could move money from one entity to the other,
20 but at the end of the day, it was going to be part of the
21 audit. So it was just an exercise of moving the money back so
22 that we could account where it came from.
23 Q. Okay. Is this e-mail typical of communications between
24 you and Mr. Manafort with respect to the Cypriote accounts?
25 A. Yes. There were hundreds of these.

U.S. v. Manafort
1230
1 Q. During the course of the time that you worked for
2 Mr. Manafort, do you know if he had any bill keepers?
3 A. He did.
4 Q. What bill keepers were you aware of?
5 A. Initially, I was aware that he had been using KWC to do
6 the bills, but that he wanted to make a change. He had hired
7 a gentlemen by the name of Hesham Ali, who at that time was
8 working with Heather Washkuhn; and then later on, Heather
9 Washkuhn directly took over the bill keeping.
10 Q. Okay. In terms of your interaction with Hesham Ali or
11 Heather Washkuhn, can you characterize what your relationship
12 was with the bill payers?
13 A. Yes. I would communicate frequently with them based on,
14 you know, various directions and instructions from
15 Mr. Manafort. There were a number of instances where they
16 would reach out to me that they had received a request from
17 Paul and wanted some assistance in -- in fulfilling that
18 request.
19 Q. Did you have the ability when you were dealing with the
20 bookkeepers to authorize payments?
21 A. I did.
22 Q. Okay. And did you?
23 A. I did.
24 Q. At whose direction?

U.S. v. Manafort
1231
1 Q. And did those payments relate to Mr. Manafort's business
2 accounts or for his personal accounts?
3 A. Business accounts.
4 Q. Okay. And once you authorized those payments, was there
5 a process in place where the banks had to confirm payment?
6 A. Yes. The banks, actually in this case, required a verbal
7 confirmation from any type of money that Mr. Manafort was
8 moving between his accounts. So the typical process is that
9 Heather would put the list of bills together.
10 I would add the DMP bills. And then once the total
11 amount of that wire was calculated, Mr. Manafort would do a
12 verbal approval with his bank.
13 Q. During this time period, did you have access to an
14 electronic signature for Mr. Manafort?
15 A. I did.
16 Q. What's an electronic signature?
17 A. An electronic signature is Mr. Manafort's signature that
18 can be used on PDF documents.
19 Q. And did you use it on PDF documents?
20 A. I did on occasions, yes.
21 Q. What types of documents would you use it on?
22 A. Primarily documents that Mr. Manafort had asked me to
23 sign on his behalf. If he was traveling or needed to get
24 something into a particular entity or organization, he would
25 often ask me to create the document, sign it on his behalf,

U.S. v. Manafort
1232
1 and then send it to him.
2 Q. Can I ask you to look at Government Exhibit 427?
4 A. Yes. It's an e-mail from -- originally from Mr. Manafort
5 to me.
6 MR. ANDRES: Okay. Your Honor, the Government moves
7 to admit Government Exhibit 427.
12 BY MR. ANDRES:
13 Q. With respect to the e-mail, can you -- looking at the top
14 e-mail, can you tell me who the e-mail is chain is between and
15 the date?
16 A. Yes. The top e-mail is from me to Mr. Manafort. The
17 date is February 17, 2016.
19 THE COURT: Yes.
20 BY MR. ANDRES:
21 Q. Focusing on the bottom e-mail where it says "R," can you
22 read that e-mail?
23 A. "I need you to sign my name to another doc and return to
24 me. I will be sending in 5 to 20 minutes. It's on a quick
25 turnaround."

U.S. v. Manafort
1233
1 Q. And who is that from?
2 A. Mr. Manafort.
3 Q. And what did you understand Mr. Manafort to ask you to be
4 doing?
5 A. To take the document and attach his electronic signature
6 to it.
7 Q. Did -- as you sit here today, do you have any idea what
8 that document was?
9 A. I do not.
10 Q. Okay. And did you -- did you agree to sign it?
11 A. I did.
12 Q. And was it common for you to do that?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And would you always seek Mr. Manafort's approval?
15 A. Yes. Usually he reached out to me in order to sign the
16 document, but there were occasions where I reached out to him
17 on documents as well.
18 Q. You testified earlier that Ms. Washkuhn was involved in
19 paying bills for Mr. Manafort.
20 Did you play a role in paying Mr. Manafort's bills?
21 A. There were instances where I would pay some of the bills
22 from the DMP U.S. account. Ms. Washkuhn and I both had access
23 to that account.
24 Q. How about from the overseas accounts?
25 A. Yes.

U.S. v. Manafort
1234
1 Q. Would you frequently make payments for Mr. Manafort from
2 the Cypriote accounts?
3 A. Probably more frequently from the Cypriote accounts, yes.
4 Q. Okay. And when you made those payments, did you alert
5 Ms. Washkuhn?
6 A. I did not.
7 Q. Why not?
8 A. Mr. Manafort had basically requested that we not need to
9 inform Ms. Washkuhn on those payments.
10 Q. And when you paid those bills, do you know the types of
11 bills they were; that is, who were you paying from the
12 Cypriote accounts?
13 A. I just knew them by name because, again, Mr. Manafort
14 would prepare wiring instructions. So it would all be in a
15 document or an e-mail that he provided. So I wouldn't
16 necessarily know what the payment was for, but over time I
17 learned who some of the vendors were.
18 Q. And do you know if Mr. Manafort also paid some of those
19 bills directly himself?
20 A. He did.
22 A. Because in some instances when he had asked me to check
23 on the balances of the account, money had been wired out and
24 they were reflected wire transfers that he had requested in
25 addition.

U.S. v. Manafort
1235
1 Q. And what accounts did he use to make those payments?
2 A. Cyprus accounts. And obviously he made requests for the
3 U.S. accounts as well.
4 Q. Are you familiar with an individual in a business -- an
5 individual named "Steve Jacobson" and the business name
6 "SP&C"?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. What is that?
9 A. That was one of the Mr. Manafort's contractors that I had
10 come to learn about in the process of doing some wires for
11 Mr. Manafort.
12 Q. Okay. And where did that money come from?
13 A. I believe it came from a combination of offshore and U.S.
14 accounts.
15 Q. And do you know what work Mr. Jacobson did for
16 Mr. Manafort?
17 A. I believe it was work related to his New York apartment
18 and Bridgehampton home.
19 Q. Have you ever been to Mr. Manafort's home in
20 Bridgehampton?
21 A. I have not.
22 Q. Are you familiar with a individual named "Joel Maxwell"?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Who is that?
25 A. Joel Maxwell provided audio and visual technical support

U.S. v. Manafort
1236
1 for Mr. Manafort.
2 Q. Okay. And was he paid from the overseas accounts?
3 A. I believe he was, yes.
4 Q. Have you ever sought services or has Mr. Maxwell done any
5 services at any -- at your residence?
6 A. He has not.
7 Q. So you're familiar with an entity named "Alan Couture"?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. What is Alan Couture?
10 A. It's a clothing store that Mr. Manafort had directed me
11 and Ms. Washkuhn to make payments over the year.
12 Q. When you made payments to Alan Couture, where did the
13 money come from?
14 A. It was a combination both from the offshore accounts and
15 the U.S. accounts.
16 Q. And do you know what Alan Couture -- what business
17 they're in?
18 A. I learned over time that they were in the clothing
19 business.
20 Q. Have you ever purchased any clothing from Alan Couture?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Are you familiar with an entity known as "New Leaf
23 Landscaping"?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Did you make payments to New Leaf Landscaping?

U.S. v. Manafort
1237
1 A. Yes, I did at Mr. Manafort's request.
2 Q. For what services?
3 A. I believe that was landscaping services for his home in
4 Bridgehampton.
5 Q. Have you ever contracted or gotten any services from New
6 Leaf Landscaping?
7 A. No.
8 Q. When you made payments to New Leaf Landscaping, where
9 would the money come from?
10 A. I believe, again, it was a combination of the Cyprus
11 accounts and the U.S. accounts.
12 Q. And would you report those to Ms. Washkuhn?
13 A. The U.S. payments were reported to Ms. Washkuhn. The
14 ones from overseas were not.
15 Q. Are you familiar with an entity known as the House of
16 Bijan?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. What is that?
19 A. I believe, again, that was another clothier.
20 Q. And who did -- was Mr. Manafort a customer of House of
21 Bijan?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Did you make payments to that entity?
24 A. I did.
25 Q. And where did that money come from?

U.S. v. Manafort
1238
1 A. Again, I believe that was a combination of offshore and
2 U.S. accounts.
3 Q. Have you ever ordered any clothes from the House of
4 Bijan?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Okay. You testified that both you and Mr. Manafort were
7 wiring money directly from Cyprus to the vendors.
8 Do you know what benefit if any -- how that
9 benefitted Mr. Manafort?
10 A. Well, in not reporting the wires that were done, they
11 were not disclosed on Mr. Manafort's U.S. business records.
12 Therefore, it was, in essence, diminishing the amount of
13 income that should have been reported on the tax return.
14 Q. You testified that at some point the accounts moved from
15 Cyprus to St. Vincent's and the Grenadines; is that correct?
17 Q. The process for moving money from St. Vincent and the
18 Grenadines, was it different than the process you used in
19 Cyprus?
20 A. It was.
21 Q. How?
22 A. The process in the Grenadines was a little more document
23 complex, because it was a different bank. And, again, at that
24 time there were banking issues that had transpired over from
25 Europe into kind of the Caribbean area. So they requested

U.S. v. Manafort
1239
1 much more documentation as evidence to initiate that wire
2 transfer.
3 Q. And the payments from the St. Vincent's and the
4 Grenadines that you made, were they on behalf of Mr. Manafort?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And did you also make payments to yourself from those
7 accounts?
8 A. I did.
9 Q. And those were the unauthorized payments?
10 A. Some were; some were not.
11 Q. You testified that there was additional documentation
12 required for moving money from the St. Vincent's and the
13 Grenadines?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Did you create some of those documents?
16 A. I did.
17 Q. Okay. Can you explain to the jury what you did in terms
18 of creating documents and why you did it?
19 A. So Mr. Manafort had sent -- you know, would typically
20 send me a list of wire transfers. But when we started making
21 the transfers from the Grenadines, because they required
22 additional documentation, I had asked Mr. Manafort for a
23 copies of the invoices.
24 In most occasions he didn't have the original
25 invoices, so we used a template that basically was for the

U.S. v. Manafort
1240
1 legitimate payment of that invoice. But instead of being
2 addressed to Mr. Manafort, it needed to be addressed to the
3 company that the payment was actually coming from. So I
4 edited the template and put the name of the company as opposed
5 to Mr. Manafort's name.
6 Q. And because those payments were coming from St. Vincent's
7 and the Grenadines, what were the companies there that were
8 opened?
9 A. The two companies, they were basically registered in
10 Cyprus but they were offshore.
11 Q. And what were their names?
12 A. Global Endeavour and Jeunet.
14 Exhibit 67A.
15 MR. ANDRES: These are already in evidence, Your
16 Honor.
18 MR. ANDRES: May I publish them?
19 THE COURT: Yes.
20 BY MR. ANDRES:
21 Q. Can I ask you to turn to page 2. Do you recognize this
22 document, Mr. Gates?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Okay. What is it?
25 A. This is an invoice for amount -- a wire amount that

U.S. v. Manafort
1241
1 Mr. Manafort had sent to me. And this is the invoice that
2 went to the actual Grenadines entity where the payment came
3 from.
4 Q. Who created this invoice?
5 A. I did.
6 Q. And based on what information?
7 A. Information that Mr. Manafort had given to me about the
8 wire transfer.
9 Q. Is it fair to say that this is a fake invoice?
10 A. It's a -- yes, it's a modified invoice.
11 Q. Okay. It's fake in terms of the document itself?
12 A. Correct.
13 Q. And how about the payment that's being made, what -- what
14 is -- how would you characterize the payment?
15 A. The payment was legitimate. I mean, again, the effort
16 here was to -- instead of having it billed to -- with the name
17 of Mr. Manafort, because the payment was coming from this
18 company at Mr. Manafort's request, it had to have the name of
19 the company itself.
20 Q. And so where it says "billed to," who's listed?
21 A. Global Endeavour.
22 Q. And having reviewed this now, you realize that there are
23 typographical errors or other errors on these documents?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Okay. And where it says "Alan Couture," who -- who added

U.S. v. Manafort
1242
1 that information?
2 A. I took it off of the information that Mr. Manafort had
3 sent me in the wire request.
4 Q. Okay. Can I ask you to take a look -- and with respect
5 to that -- I'm sorry -- with respect to that second document,
6 what's the total amount of the payment that was made as a
7 result of the invoice that you sent?
8 A. In this one the amount is 42,000.
9 Q. And that's a payment to who?
10 A. Alan Couture.
11 Q. And was there a wire initiated as a result of you
12 submitting this document?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Okay. Can I ask you to turn to, in the same exhibit,
15 Government exhibit, ending in the Bates No. 552?
16 Can you explain what this document is?
17 A. Yes. Again, this is an invoice that Mr. Manafort had
18 requested a payment for. I put in the name of the company
19 Global Endeavour to initiate the wire transfer.
20 Q. And what's Big Picture Solutions?
21 A. I believe that was Mr. Maxwell's company, the audio and
22 visual technician.
23 Q. Okay. And you created this document?
24 A. I did.
25 Q. There's a stamp on the top right-hand side of the

U.S. v. Manafort
1243
1 invoice. What's that?
2 A. That's from the bank.
3 Q. Okay. Now, when you were creating these invoices, would
4 it be one for -- one from an invoice from one of these vendors
5 or did you aggregate them from time to time?
6 A. I don't recall. I believe it was one to one.
7 Q. Okay. And who were you relying on for that information?
8 A. Well, these are based on wire transactions that
9 Mr. Manafort had requested, so I was using the information he
10 provided.
11 Q. And at the time, he didn't have the invoices?
12 A. No.
13 Q. So he provided you a total amount to make a payment?
14 A. Well, yeah. He would send it in the description of how
15 much needed to be paid and who it needed to be paid to.
16 I do believe on some occasions there were invoices
17 that he did provide, but, again, it didn't matter because the
18 invoice to him was in his name and the invoice for the payment
19 needed to be in the company's name.
20 Q. Okay. If you look down a little further in the Big
21 Picture Solutions invoice that you -- that you created, where
22 it says "Description of services," where did that information
23 come from?
24 A. That was usually just generic language that was already
25 either filled in the template or maybe I modified it on some

U.S. v. Manafort
1244
1 occasions.
2 Q. Okay. And, again, the payments for Mr. -- to Big Picture
3 Solutions were on behalf of who?
4 A. Mr. Manafort.
5 Q. And they were for services that were rendered?
6 A. Yes, to my understanding.
7 Q. Okay. And did these invoices themselves -- did they ever
8 go to the vendors?
9 A. No.
10 Q. Who did they go to?
11 A. They went to the bank.
12 Q. Can you look at Government Exhibit -- at the page 636 in
13 the same exhibit? What is that?
14 A. Again, this is another invoice for work done by New Leaf
15 Landscape.
16 Q. Okay. And this is also an invoice that you created?
17 A. It is.
18 Q. Same process?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Okay. And why did you create this invoice?
21 A. Again, because Mr. Manafort wanted a wire transfer
22 initiated for this company.
23 Q. And then, lastly, if you could turn to the last page in
24 the exhibit that ends in 452.

U.S. v. Manafort
1245
1 A. Again, finally, this is another invoice. This time to
2 SP&C.
3 Q. Same process?
4 A. Same process.
5 Q. You created this invoice?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And it was to initiate a payment?
8 A. It was.
9 Q. Mr. Gates, let me direct your attention to July of 2014.
10 Were you interviewed by the FBI at that time?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Okay. Were you represented by counsel?
13 A. I was.
14 Q. At the time of the interview, did you understand why you
15 were being interviewed?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Why?
18 A. We were asked to -- in the words of my attorney, to
19 voluntary help in regards to a forfeiture investigation the
20 Ukrainian Government was working on in conjunction with the
21 FBI.
22 Q. Okay. And at the time when you said "we," was somebody
23 else also interviewed?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Who?

U.S. v. Manafort
1246
1 A. Mr. Manafort.
2 Q. At the time did you understand whether you, yourself, was
3 under -- were under investigation?
4 A. It was my understanding I was not.
5 Q. And did you understand whether Mr. Manafort was under
6 investigation?
7 A. It was my understanding he was not.
8 Q. And how did you learn that Mr. Manafort was also being
9 interviewed?
10 A. He told me.
11 Q. Who was interviewed first?
12 A. I was interviewed first.
13 Q. During the interview were you asked questions about your
14 work in the Ukraine?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And were you asked questions about certain overseas
17 accounts?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. At the time of that interview, what was the status of the
20 Cypriote accounts?
21 A. The majority of the Cypriote accounts had been closed at
22 the time of the interview.
23 Q. And in terms of the order of the interviews, who was
24 interviewed first, you or Mr. Manafort?
25 A. I was interviewed first.

U.S. v. Manafort
1247
1 Q. At some point, prior to Mr. Manafort's interview, did he
2 direct you to take certain action?
3 A. He did.
4 Q. What did he ask you to do?
5 A. He asked me to travel to meet with one of the Ukrainian
6 businessmen to, one, notify him that we were going to be
7 interviewing with the FBI, and then to also determine the
8 status of the Ukrainian businessman's company because a lot of
9 the money came from the one particular company and we didn't
10 really have a lot of background on that company and wanted to
11 learn more.
12 Q. Okay. And who is the Ukrainian businessmen that you went
13 to see?
14 A. Mr. Lovochkin.
15 Q. And where did you go see him?
16 A. In France.
17 Q. And did he agree -- did he answer your questions?
18 A. He did.
19 Q. Okay. Did -- at some point around this time, did you --
20 were you also aware of any negotiations with Mr. Lovochkin
21 about the payments that he was making to Mr. Manafort?
22 A. Well, Mr. Manafort, in another exercise, was trying to
23 move all of his banking directly to one particular
24 institution. So he was trying to have the payments -- the
25 contract payments for the Ukraine political work also sent to

U.S. v. Manafort
1248
1 that bank as well.
2 Q. And did Mr. Lovochkin agree to this arrangement?
3 A. He did.
4 Q. At that point, there was no longer a requirement to have
5 Cypriote or overseas accounts?
6 A. At that time, no.
7 Q. Excuse me?
8 A. Yeah, at that time, no.
9 Q. Mr. Gates, at some point during the course of the time
10 that you worked for Mr. Manafort, did you assist him in the
11 preparation of his tax returns?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Over what time period?
14 A. I think my involvement specifically increased from 2010
15 forward.
16 Q. And during that time period, did you work with
17 Mr. Manafort's tax preparers?
18 A. I did.
19 Q. Who did you understand them to be?
20 A. At the time, it was Mr. Ayliff at KWC, who he later
21 brought on Ms. Cindy Laporta, and then there was some support
22 staff that worked with us as well.
23 Q. How about Naji Lakkis?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Who is he?

U.S. v. Manafort
1249
1 A. Mr. Lakkis was primarily Mr. Ayliff's assistant that
2 worked on the tax efforts in the early years.
3 Q. And during the time starting in 2009 that you helped with
4 the taxes, was there a process in place together with KWC with
5 respect to the preparation of Mr. Manafort's taxes?
6 A. Yes.
8 A. In the -- in the early years, the process started that
9 Mr. Manafort had asked me to sit in some of the meetings with
10 his accountants because the business entities were something
11 that I was involved in and followed. Over time, I was tasked
12 with gathering a lot of the questions and answers that the
13 bookkeepers and the tax accountants had in regards to
14 Mr. Manafort's taxes.
15 So the process would be that they -- the bookkeeper
16 would send the balance sheet and ledger to the accountants.
17 The accountants would review that and then they would prepare
18 a series of questions. Those questions were, in the initial
19 stages, e-mailed to both of us. Later on, they were e-mailed
20 just to me. I would answer the questions that I could answer
21 and then I would typically either speak or meet with
22 Mr. Manafort and ask him for the remaining answers. The
23 answers were compiled and then returned to the accountants.
24 THE COURT: All right. Is this a good time to take
25 our morning break, Mr. Andres?

U.S. v. Manafort
1250
1 MR. ANDRES: Yes, Your Honor.
2 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Gates, you may step
3 down, sir. During the recess, which will be until about
4 11:20, you may not discuss your testimony with anyone.
5 THE WITNESS: Okay.
6 THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, pass your books to
7 the right. Mr. Flood will collect them, maintain their
8 security as usual.
9 During the recess, remember to refrain from
10 discussing the matter with anyone or undertaking any
11 investigation on your own and we will reconvene at 11:20. You
12 may follow Mr. Flood out.
15 Mr. Andres, what's your estimate now of what remains
16 in Mr. Gates' direct testimony?
17 MR. ANDRES: I'd say two hours, Judge.
18 THE COURT: All right. See if you can compress it.
19 I mean, this morning when I asked you, you said three hours.
20 MR. ANDRES: I --
21 THE COURT: Now you've been at it for almost two
22 hours.
23 MR. ANDRES: I understand my math doesn't add up
24 entirely, Judge, but I will do everything I can to expedite
25 it.

U.S. v. Manafort
1251
1 THE COURT: Thank you. Court stands in recess.
2 (Recess.)
3 THE COURT: All right. We're prepared to proceed.
4 Bring the jury in.
5 (Jury in.)
7 All right. And let's have Mr. Gates return, please.
8 Mr. Gates, you'll recall that you're still under
9 oath, sir, and you may resume the stand.
13 BY MR. ANDRES:
14 Q. Mr. Gates, you were testifying about your role with
15 respect to Mr. Manafort's tax returns.
16 What role specifically did you play in interacting
17 with the tax preparers?
18 A. Again, I worked with the tax preparers on answering
19 questions that they submitted based on a balance sheet and
20 ledger that they put together based on what the -- the work
21 that Ms. Washkuhn did.
22 Q. Were there times that you interacted directly with the
23 tax preparers?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Cindy Laporta?

U.S. v. Manafort
1252
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Philip Ayliff?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. How about Mr. Manafort? What did you know about his
5 interactions with his tax preparers?
6 A. I knew he interacted with them. He also reached out to
7 me in regards to requests that he wanted me to seek from the
8 accountants.
9 Q. And with respect to your involvement, did you attend
10 meetings with Mr. Manafort and his tax preparers?
11 A. I did.
12 Q. Do you know what his relationship with Mr. Ayliff was?
13 A. It was very longstanding. It was preexisting before I
14 got there, but they seemed to have a longstanding
15 relationship.
16 Q. Did you have an understanding, based on your discussions
17 with Mr. Manafort, that he understood the details of his tax
18 returns?
19 A. Yes, it was my belief he did.
20 Q. Did you make efforts to reduce the amount of income that
21 was reported on the tax returns?
22 A. We did.
23 Q. Okay. What specifically did you do?
24 A. I would say specifically the idea of exchanging income
25 for loans and putting those on the books enabled Mr. Manafort

U.S. v. Manafort
1253
1 to reduce his overall tax liability.
2 Q. Okay. And did that relate to the Peranova loan?
3 A. It did.
4 Q. How about the Telmar loan?
5 A. It did.
6 Q. Okay. And with respect to the income that was sent from
7 Cyprus to vendors or other locations, was that ever disclosed
8 to the tax preparers?
9 A. It was not.
10 Q. Did you have a discussion with Mr. Manafort about whether
11 those accounts should be disclosed?
12 A. Yes. Over the years, we had various discussions on them.
13 It was never an overt, you know, don't disclose the accounts,
14 but there were issues with the accounts, specifically such as
15 having signature authority, which because the Cyprus law firm
16 had the signature authority on the accounts, Mr. Manafort
17 would tend to use that as the reason for not informing the
18 accountants or the bookkeepers of those accounts.
19 Q. And at any point during the time that those accounts in
20 Cyprus and St. Vincent and the Grenadines were opened, at any
21 time during that period, did Mr. Manafort not have control of
22 those accounts?
23 A. No, he always had control.
24 Q. And whose money was in those accounts?

U.S. v. Manafort
1254
1 Q. You testified yesterday that from time to time, either
2 you or Mr. Manafort would circulate an agenda for meetings
3 that you would attend?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Or phone calls?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Can you explain what those agendas were and what the
8 purpose was?
9 A. Sure. The agendas were a way for Mr. Manafort to catch
10 up or for me to provide updates on a variety of issues related
11 to work in Ukraine, work in the U.S. It could be related to
12 the tax preparation, gathering material for various
13 investments that Mr. Manafort had. It was a wide range of
14 issues.
16 A. Okay.
18 A. In this instance, it's an agenda that was prepared by
19 Mr. Manafort and outlines a number of the issues that we were
20 talking about at that particular time.
22 Government Exhibit 372 -- oh, I'm sorry, Your Honor, it's in
23 evidence. May I publish it?
24 THE COURT: Yes.
25 MR. ANDRES: Excuse me, Your Honor.

U.S. v. Manafort
1255
1 BY MR. ANDRES:
2 Q. Mr. Gates, can you zoom in on the top half, please?
3 Just read the heading of the document.
4 A. Gates agenda, March 21, 2013.
5 Q. Did you draft this or Mr. Manafort?
6 A. Mr. Manafort did.
7 Q. Okay. And there is black writing and -- or typing and
8 red typing. Do you know what the distinction is?
9 A. Yes. So typically, Mr. Manafort would take notes during
10 our calls and outline, in this case, once we had a discussion
11 about an issue, identifying an action item related to that
12 issue and who would carry it out and what the action item was.
13 Q. And does this agenda reflect a meeting on or -- a meeting
14 or a communication with Mr. Manafort on or around March 21,
15 2013?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Okay. If you look at the first category under Ayliff,
18 what's -- who's Ayliff?
19 A. Mr. Ayliff is in reference to Philip Ayliff at KWC.
20 Q. And there's a reference to k1's Global and L DONE. What
21 is that?
22 A. That's in reference to businesses that Mr. Manafort had.
23 Q. And then if you look at Number 2, it says, "do payment."
24 Any idea what that is?
25 A. I don't recall what that might be.

U.S. v. Manafort
1256
1 Q. What about 3, "tax plan for April 15 done"?
2 A. Yes, that's in reference to the tax preparation for that
3 tax year.
4 Q. And Number 4, "Taxes - Assets Allocations"?
5 A. Yes. I don't know if this is -- well, I don't know what
6 that specific reference is for, but related to the tax
7 preparation.
8 Q. During the March 21, 2013 meeting, were you discussing
9 Mr. Manafort's taxes with him?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Was that routine for you to do?
12 A. It was.
13 Q. If you look at the second section under KC, who's -- who
14 is KC?
15 A. KC is Kypros Chrysostomides.
16 Q. Is that the individual we've referred to as "Dr. K"?
17 A. Dr. K, it is.
18 Q. And if you look at Number 2, it says, "update on
19 movements." What's that a reference to?
20 A. Sure. At this time, there are still liquidity issues in
21 Cyprus, so moving money in and out is difficult. So
22 Mr. Manafort wanted an update on what we were doing in order
23 to facilitate faster transfers.
24 Q. At the meeting on March 21, 2013, were you and
25 Mr. Manafort discussing this overseas bank accounts?

U.S. v. Manafort
1257
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Okay. If you look at the bottom, there's a reference to
3 Yanks. What's that in reference to?
4 A. That would be in regards to the Yankees season tickets
5 Mr. Manafort possessed.
6 Q. Was Mr. Manafort a season ticket holder?
7 A. He is.
8 Q. With respect to the New York Yankees?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Okay. Have you ever been a season ticket holder for the
11 New York Yankees?
12 A. No.
13 Q. Have you attended Yankee games using Mr. Manafort's
14 tickets?
15 A. I have.
16 Q. If you look on the next page, there's a reference to
17 Ukraine. And can you tell me, for example, there's a
18 reference to the Gusenbauer trip. What's that?
19 A. Yes, that's in reference to Alfred Gusenbauer who was a
20 member of the project Hapsburg. Mr. Gusenbauer used to be the
21 former chancellor of Austria.
22 Q. I'm not going to go through anymore of this. But having
23 reviewed this document, is it fair to say that in March 21,
24 2013, you're discussing issues relating to Ukraine with
25 Mr. Manafort?

U.S. v. Manafort
1258
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Okay. Could I ask you to take a look at Government
3 Exhibit 373?
4 Can you tell me what that is, 373?
5 A. Yes, it's an e-mail between Mr. Manafort and myself.
6 Q. Okay. And is this -- is -- are there attachments?
7 A. Yes. In this case, Mr. Manafort is attaching a copy of a
8 draft agenda, asking me to review it, and add items, which was
9 a typical process we used.
10 Q. And that's reflected in the cover e-mail?
11 A. Yes.
13 admit 373.
18 Q. At the bottom e-mail at 4:26 on December 13th, what does
19 Mr. Manafort say?
20 A. (As read): "I would like to review the range of
21 outstanding items. I have attached my agenda notes for the
22 call. I am moving around all day, so best time to reach me is
23 8:00 a.m."
24 Q. And is there an e-mail -- is there an agenda attached?
25 A. There is.

U.S. v. Manafort
1259
1 MR. ANDRES: May I publish, Your Honor?
2 THE COURT: Yes.
3 BY MR. ANDRES:
4 Q. If you look at the agenda for December 11th, there's a
5 reference to a No. 3, "Wires to send."
6 What is that a reference to?
7 A. These are typically where Mr. Manafort would either say
8 he had some wires he would send me or he's already sent me and
9 he's looking for updates on the status.
10 Q. Okay. No. 8 refers to 2014 taxes.
11 A. Yes. That would be in reference to either looking at
12 something in preparation for the 2014 tax filing.
13 Q. And No. 13 says, "Kyiv office - budget."
14 What is that a reference to?
15 A. That is the office budget that we had in Kyiv still at
16 this time, indicating how many employees, our rent at the
17 local office, and other items.
18 Q. Were these agendas typical?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. How often would you receive or send an agenda to
21 Mr. Manafort?
22 A. Oh, I mean, it could be, you know, as many as a couple a
23 week. Sometimes they weren't as formal. They were just
24 e-mails about catching up on certain items, but we typically
25 try to group items together, especially depending on travel

U.S. v. Manafort
1260
1 schedules.
2 Q. I would ask you to take a look at Government Exhibit 219.
4 A. This is an e-mail from Conor O'Brien to myself, copying
5 Ms. Laporta and Mr. Ayliff.
6 Q. Who is Conor O'Brien?
7 A. Conor O'Brien works at KWC as well and works for
8 Ms. Laporta.
9 Q. And does this e-mail relate to issues that you're
10 discussing with Mr. Manafort's tax preparers?
11 A. It does.
12 Q. Is Mr. Manafort included on this e-mail?
13 A. He is not.
14 Q. Okay. The Government moves to admit 219.
19 BY MR. ANDRES:
20 Q. Mr. Gates --
21 MR. ANDRES: May I publish, Your Honor?
22 THE COURT: Yes.
23 BY MR. ANDRES:
24 Q. Can you identify the -- who's on the e-mail and summarize
25 the e-mail for the jury?

U.S. v. Manafort
1261
1 A. Yes. The e-mail is from Conor O'Brien to myself and
2 Ms. Laporta -- I'm sorry -- copying Ms. Laporta and
3 Mr. Ayliff. And this is in regards to a 2014 tax issue in
4 which Mr. Manafort believed his taxes were very high and we
5 needed to determine how we could lower the taxes, if at all
6 possible.
7 I was tasked by Mr. Manafort to go to Ms. Laporta
8 and ask her if there are ways in which we could do that, the
9 typical ways that we had been advised by KWC was, as always,
10 to convert income into loans and then also look at, you know,
11 other potential deductible expenses.
12 Q. When you -- in the instances when you converted income to
13 loans, for example, in Peranova, what was that money?
14 A. It was originally income.
15 Q. Okay. And can I ask you to take a look at Government
16 Exhibit 375?
18 A. Yes. This is an e-mail exchange between me and
19 Mr. Manafort regarding his taxes.

U.S. v. Manafort
1262
1 BY MR. ANDRES:
2 Q. With respect to the bottom e-mail on April 15, 2005,
3 can -- can you summarize that e-mail for the jury?
4 A. Yes. So as is standard in our process of meeting with
5 the accountants, they had provided an outline of
6 Mr. Manafort's potential tax impact. I met with them,
7 gathered the information that they had prepared, and then put
8 it in a report to Mr. Manafort.
9 Q. Okay. And this is -- you're communicating those issues
10 to Mr. Manafort?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Again, you're discussing the tax returns with him?
13 A. I am.
14 Q. When he writes back at 4:20, what is his reaction?
15 A. He's not happy.
16 "I just saw this. WTF."
17 MR. ANDRES: May I publish this, Your Honor? I'm
18 sorry, excuse me.
19 THE COURT: Let him finish his answer first.
20 Had you finished?
21 THE WITNESS: I can continue reading, if you want.
22 BY MR. ANDRES:
23 Q. I just asked you to summarize it. Could you finish
24 summarizing it?
25 A. Yes.

U.S. v. Manafort
1263
1 THE COURT: All right. You may publish if he's
2 finished. Did you say you've finished?
3 THE WITNESS: I did, Your Honor, yes.
4 THE COURT: All right. You may publish.
5 MR. ANDRES: Judge, to the extent I hadn't, I move
6 to admit 375.
7 THE COURT: I thought it was already admitted.
9 THE COURT: No objection, is there, Mr. Downing?
14 BY MR. ANDRES:
15 Q. With respect to Mr. Manafort's reaction at 4:20, you
16 testified that he was upset. Why was he upset?
17 A. He was upset because a number of the items that had
18 originally been projected for his potential tax impact for
19 that year were off by the accountants. And this is the first
20 time that, one, I was learning about it and then when I
21 communicated the information, obviously first time he was
22 learning about it as well.
23 Q. And is it typical -- was this the typical process in
24 which you would discuss Mr. Manafort's taxes with him?
25 A. Yes, in the latter years.

U.S. v. Manafort
1264
1 Q. May I ask you to turn to Government's Exhibit 376?
3 A. Yes. This is an e-mail exchange between myself and
4 Ms. Washkuhn.
5 Q. And does it relate to the -- to -- to an incoming wire
6 from Telmar?
7 A. It does.
8 Q. Who is Telmar associated with?
9 A. Telmar is associated with Mr. Lovochkin.
16 BY MR. ANDRES:
17 Q. With respect to this document, can you explain what's
18 happening in your discussion with Ms. Washkuhn?
19 A. Yes. As is typical the case when Mr. Manafort is
20 notified that a wire payment is being made from the Ukrainian
21 businessmen, and at this point the wires are being sent
22 directly to the U.S., we would typically track the payment.
23 So once the payment hits, Ms. Washkuhn had the role
24 of either recording it as income or loan based on, you know,
25 direction of Mr. Manafort.

U.S. v. Manafort
1265
1 Q. Okay. And how is that -- how do you direct Ms. Washkuhn
2 to classify the Telmar payment?
3 A. In this case, we disclosed it as a loan.
4 Q. Okay. And was it a loan?
5 A. It was not.
6 Q. During the time that you worked for Mr. Manafort and he
7 worked in the Ukraine, did Mr. Manafort ever receive a loan
8 from Serhiy Lovochkin?
10 Q. And the payments for Mr. Lovochkin to Mr. Manafort, what
11 were they?
12 A. It was income for political work.
13 Q. With respect -- when you identified the Telmar payment as
14 a loan for Ms. Washkuhn, was there an interest rate on that
15 loan?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Was there documentation?
18 A. There wasn't at this point, but it was asked for later,
19 yes.
20 Q. It was asked for because it didn't exist?
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. And did you create it?
23 A. Ultimately, for this one, yes, we did.
24 Q. You created a loan agreement for a loan that didn't
25 exist?

U.S. v. Manafort
1266
1 A. Correct.
2 Q. Why?
3 A. At Mr. Manafort's direction.
4 Q. Can you turn to Government Exhibit 160?
6 A. Yes. This is an e-mail exchange between me and
7 Ms. Laporta.
8 Q. Is there something attached?
9 A. There is.
11 Government Exhibit 160 -- oh, it's in evidence, Your Honor.
12 Thank you. May I publish it?
14 BY MR. ANDRES:
15 Q. Mr. Gates, can you explain who this e-mail is from, who
16 it's to, and what it relates to?
17 A. Yes. It's to me -- excuse me -- to Ms. Laporta from me.
18 And it's in reference to me sending her a copy of the loan
19 agreement between Telmar and DMP, which she requested.
20 Q. And what discussions are happening with the tax preparers
21 at this time?
22 A. At this stage when the tax preparers saw that the loan
23 was on the books, they were more insistent on having loan
24 documentation to support that particular transaction.
25 Q. Okay. And you drafted this document on behalf of

U.S. v. Manafort
1267
1 Mr. Manafort?
2 A. Yeah. The document was provided by our Cypriote
3 attorneys and then I put in the relevant parties.
4 Q. And in terms of the dates on the e-mail and the date of
5 the loan agreement, when you compare those, what do you find?
6 A. So the loan agreement was executed on the 6th day
7 of March in 2014.
8 Q. And was that, in fact, the day it was executed?
9 A. The loan agreement?
10 Q. Yeah.
11 A. No, it was done at a later date.
12 Q. Backdated it?
13 A. Correct.
14 Q. Because there was no loan?
17 Can you tell me what -- what's included in
18 Government Exhibit 220?
19 A. Yes. This is an e-mail regarding Mr. Manafort's taxes
20 for 2013. Mr. O'Brien is seeking the engagement letter and
21 they are also seeking payment and then have a number of
22 questions regarding Mr. Manafort's tax return.

U.S. v. Manafort
1268
4 BY MR. ANDRES:
5 Q. Can you tell us the date of this e-mail?
6 A. October 7, 2015.
7 Q. Okay. And you said it was from Conor O'Brien. Who is
8 that?
9 A. I'm sorry, it's to Conor O'Brien from me. Conor O'Brien
10 was Ms. Laporta's assistant at KWC.
11 Q. Okay. And was it -- did you from time to time pass on
12 the engagement letters to Mr. Manafort?
13 A. I did.
14 Q. Who signed those letters?
15 A. In some cases, Mr. Manafort did, depending on where he
16 was. In other cases, he had requested me to sign them and
17 submit them to KWC.
18 Q. Okay. And the engagement letters provide information
19 about certain foreign-related reporting requirements?
20 A. I believe, yes, they do.
21 Q. Okay. At this time, had you previously had discussions
22 and interactions with the accountants about those
23 requirements?
24 A. Yes, we had.

U.S. v. Manafort
1269
1 It's already in evidence, Your Honor.
3 BY MR. ANDRES:
4 Q. Can you look at Government Exhibit 206 and tell me what
5 that is?
6 A. Yes. This is an e-mail from Mr. Lakkis to me copying
7 Mr. Ayliff, and it's in regards to Mr. Manafort's 2013 tax
8 return and asking for specific items, along with direction on
9 whether or not there's been a status change to any foreign
10 accounts Mr. Manafort might have.
11 Q. And in the top e-mail, you write to Naji Lakkis. Who is
12 that?
13 A. Naji Lakkis worked for Mr. Ayliff at KWC.
14 MR. ANDRES: May I publish this, Your Honor?
16 BY MR. ANDRES:
17 Q. With respect to the top, can you focus on the top?
18 You indicate, to your knowledge, nothing has
19 changed. What do you mean by that?
20 A. Yes. After having a discussion with Mr. Manafort, I
21 relayed to Mr. Lakkis that nothing has changed with respect to
22 reporting of foreign bank accounts.
23 Q. On June 24, 2013, did Mr. Manafort have foreign bank
24 accounts?
25 A. He did.

U.S. v. Manafort
1270
1 Q. Was this representation accurate -- not as to whether
2 something changed, but accurate as to whether or not there
3 were foreign bank accounts?
4 A. It is not accurate.
5 Q. Okay. And you previously testified that over time you
6 learned from the accountants about various FBAR requirements;
7 is that correct?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Can you look at the bottom e-mail on June 17, 2013?
10 Do you see that?
11 A. I do.
12 Q. You're having a discussion -- or an e-mail -- excuse
13 me -- with Mr. Lakkis. Do you see that?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And who else is included on that e-mail?
16 A. Mr. Ayliff and Mr. O'Brien.
17 Q. And what's the title of the e-mail?
18 A. "Foreign account report due 6/30/13."
19 Q. And in sum and substance, what is Mr. Lakkis asking you
20 about in that bottom e-mail?
21 A. He's summarizing the regulation with respect to reporting
22 foreign bank accounts and then attaches the IRS reg with it.
23 Q. And then with respect to A, can you read A? What does it
24 say?
25 A. "They had a financial interest (see below for

U.S. v. Manafort
1271
1 explanation) in or signature authority (see below for
2 explanation) over accounts outside of the United States."
3 Q. And B?
4 A. "The aggregate value of all foreign financial accounts
5 exceeds 10,000 at any time during 2012."
6 Q. And as of June 2013, did Mr. Manafort have a financial
7 interest signature authority over accounts outside of the
8 United States?
9 A. He did.
10 Q. The aggregate value of those accounts, did it exceed
11 10,000?
12 A. It did.
13 Q. It far exceeded $10,000; isn't that true?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. What was the amount of money in those accounts?
16 A. I can't recall, but I venture to guess it's several
17 million dollars.
18 Q. With respect to --
19 THE COURT: Guesses are not admissible.
20 THE WITNESS: Understood.
21 THE COURT: So that's stricken, but you may ask
22 other questions if you think you can establish a value. But
23 guesses not admissible.
24 MR. ANDRES: Understood, Your Honor.
25 BY MR. ANDRES:

U.S. v. Manafort
1272
1 Q. With respect to 2012, did DMP International,
2 Mr. Manafort, have a contract with the Ukraine?
3 A. In 2012 it did.
4 Q. Did that include a policy contract?
5 A. Well, the policy contract had started earlier, but it was
6 continuing, yes.
7 Q. Were there payments from the policy contract in 2012?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. What was the total amount that was paid on the policy
10 contract in 2012?
11 A. It would have been $4 million.
12 Q. And where did that money go to?
13 A. It went to a Cyprus bank account in Mr. Manafort's
14 control.
15 Q. So in 2012, did Mr. Manafort have money in his Cyprus
16 accounts of at least $4 million?
17 A. He did.
18 Q. With respect to the document from Mr. Lakkis, it says,
19 "Last year we discussed the telecommunications company foreign
20 account as possible being reported."
21 What does that refer to?
22 A. This refers to one of the investments from our private
23 equity fund that Mr. Manafort had. And there was an
24 opportunity whereby Mr. Manafort wanted to exchange some of
25 the shares for loans that he had on his books over the years.

U.S. v. Manafort
1273
1 And we made this known to the accountants so that we could
2 figure out what type of tax impact it might have.
3 Q. And in the course of that discussion about EVO Holdings,
4 was there a discussion about foreign bank accounts?
5 A. There was.
6 Q. And were there regulations explained?
7 A. Yes, I believe they were.
8 Q. Okay. If you'd turn to the next page, Government
9 Exhibit 2585.
10 And if I could ask you to zoom in on the top.
11 What do you understand this to be?
12 A. Based on Mr. Lakkis' e-mail, this was the attachment of
13 the financial regulation regarding ownership of foreign bank
14 accounts.
15 Q. Okay. And during this time period, were you having
16 discussions with Mr. Manafort about the disclosure of any
17 foreign bank accounts?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And did you have a discussion with him and pass on the
20 information from Mr. Lakkis?
21 A. Yes, we did.
22 Q. Okay. I want to ask you to turn to Government
23 Exhibit 195.
25 MR. ANDRES: It's already in evidence, Your Honor.

U.S. v. Manafort
1274
2 THE WITNESS: Yes. This is an e-mail chain from
3 Paul to me and then from me to Cindy.
6 BY MR. ANDRES:
7 Q. Starting with the bottom e-mail on September 15, 2015,
8 can you explain what's happening and summarize this e-mail for
9 the jury?
10 A. Yes. It appears that KWC had sent Mr. Manafort the tax
11 forms to sign. He signed the forms and then sent them to me
12 to forward to KWC.
13 Q. Okay. So these tax returns with respect to the year --
14 what year tax returns are these?
15 A. It's 2014.
16 Q. Okay. It came from Mr. Manafort to you; is that right?
17 A. Correct.
18 Q. And then you sent them on to KWC?
19 A. I did.
20 Q. Do you know why Mr. Manafort didn't just send them
21 directly?
22 A. I don't, but it wasn't unusual for him to just, from a
23 delegation point of view, send me documents to disburse among
24 other individuals.
25 Q. And did you send those along to KWC?

U.S. v. Manafort
1275
1 A. I did.
2 Q. Did you make any changes to them?
3 A. No.
4 Q. Mr. Gates, let me direct your attention to late 2015.
5 Where were you working in 2015?
6 A. At DMP International.
7 Q. Did DMP International have any active clients?
8 A. No. We were attempting to secure a new contract with the
9 Opposition BLOC party in Ukraine, but at that time no new
10 contracts.
11 Q. How about 2016? Did you continue to work at DMP?
12 A. I did.
13 Q. Up until when?
14 A. Approximately, March of 2016.
15 Q. And what did you do in March of 2016?
16 A. I went to work on -- for one of the presidential
17 campaigns.
18 Q. And who hired you for that presidential campaign?
19 A. Mr. Manafort.
20 Q. And was he also working on the presidential campaign at
21 the time?
22 A. He was.
23 Q. With respect to the income that DMP was earning prior to
24 that, was he -- was DMP earning any income in 2016?

U.S. v. Manafort
1276
1 Q. How did you know?
2 A. Ms. Washkuhn would typically prepare monthly
3 reconciliation pages with respect to both Mr. Manafort's
4 business and personal accounts so we'll have a snapshot of the
5 amount due in bills and then Ms. Washkuhn would request
6 funding for those payments.
7 Q. In late 2015 and early 2016, how many people were
8 employed at DMP?
9 A. Two.
10 Q. Who were they?
11 A. Myself and Alex Trusko.
12 Q. And what was Mr. Kilimnik's status?
13 A. He was still working with Mr. Manafort, but, to my
14 knowledge, he was being paid locally from Ukraine.
15 Q. During the time that you worked for Mr. Manafort from
16 2006 to 2016, was Mr. Kilimnik always associated with the firm
17 in some way?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. In 2016, do you -- if DMP wasn't making any money, do you
20 know how Mr. Manafort was paying your salary?
21 A. Yes. The salary and the bills of the company were being
22 paid by savings and investment accounts that Mr. Manafort had
23 at the time.
25 A. Based on information that Ms. Washkuhn had circulated.

U.S. v. Manafort
1277
1 Q. During this time period, were you also -- did you have
2 other businesses that you were involved in?
3 A. I did.
4 Q. Were you involved in a company called Map Global
5 Holdings?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. What was the name of that company?
8 A. Map Global Holdings.
9 Q. And what did that involve?
10 A. It was PR and a movie production company.
11 Q. Okay. And did you make any money from that --
12 A. I did.
13 Q. -- company?
14 A. I did.
15 Q. Steve Brown involved in that company?
16 A. He was.
17 Q. Okay. And that's the instance where you were involved in
18 backdating documents?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. How about ID Watchdog, what was that?
21 A. That was a company that I served as a board of directors
22 for.
23 Q. During this time period in 2015 and 2016, was
24 Mr. Manafort having issues with his expenses?
25 A. Yes.

U.S. v. Manafort
1278
1 Q. What were the issues?
2 A. There were a number of vendors that had reached out to
3 both myself and Ms. Washkuhn, indicating that the bills had
4 not been paid and asking when payment might be received.
5 Q. During this time period, did Mr. Manafort begin applying
6 for bank loans?
7 A. He did.
9 A. He had requested a team of people to begin pulling
10 together an assortment of documents in order for him to apply
11 for the bank loans.
12 Q. Did he apply for one loan or more than one loan?
13 A. It was more than one loan.
14 Q. And what role did you play with respect to those loans?
15 A. It varied depending on the loan. But in large respect, I
16 was the point person for collecting all of the documents from
17 the various individuals and then submitting those to the
18 members of the various banks that Mr. Manafort directed.
19 Q. In the process of doing that, did you provide false
20 information to any of the banks where Mr. Manafort applied for
21 a bank [sic]?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Did Mr. Manafort know that you were doing that?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. How did he know?

U.S. v. Manafort
1279
1 A. Because he had requested certain things be changed in
2 some of the documents.
3 Q. And did you, in fact, alter those documents?
4 A. Yes, we did.
5 Q. Did you alter profit and loss documents?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. How were you able to do that?
8 A. At one point, I was tasked with -- by Mr. Manafort,
9 speaking with Ms. Laporta, to determine whether or not there
10 could be any other sources of income.
11 At the time Ms. Laporta indicated to us that the
12 only way that you can find more income is if you have loans on
13 the books, but in doing so you have to forgive a loan and if
14 you do that, there's a tax consequence with that as well.
15 Q. Okay. But when you altered the P&L documents, physically
16 you changed them from PDF documents to other types of
17 documents?
18 A. Yes, to Word documents.
19 Q. Okay. Let me ask you to turn to Government Exhibit 380.
21 A. This is an e-mail to me from Mr. Manafort.
22 Q. And does this relate to some of the loan applications
23 Mr. Manafort was making?
24 A. It does.

U.S. v. Manafort
1280
6 BY MR. ANDRES:
7 Q. Starting at the top, can you tell us who the e-mail is
8 from and to and the date?
9 A. Yes. It's to me from Mr. Manafort on January 6, 2016.
10 Subject is VIP time sensitive.
11 MR. ANDRES: Your Honor, may I publish this
12 document?
14 BY MR. ANDRES:
15 Q. Okay. And with respect to the document, what's the
16 title?
17 A. VIP time sensitive.
18 Q. Can you summarize the e-mail for the jury?
19 A. Yes. Mr. Manafort had requested me to reach out to
20 Mr. Ayliff in regards to a question that he wanted additional
21 information and was hoping for a specific answer in regards to
22 some of his properties that he was using to apply for the
23 loan.
24 Q. Mr. Manafort said he wants to cash out refinance on the
25 Howard Street property. What did you understand that to mean?

U.S. v. Manafort
1281
1 A. That a cash-out refinance is, if successfully you obtain
2 the mortgage, then part of what you get back is cash.
3 Q. Mr. Manafort says, "For the maximum benefit I'm claiming
4 Howard Street as a second loan."
5 Do you know if Mr. Manafort has ever -- as a second
6 home, excuse me.
7 Has Mr. Manafort ever lived at Howard Street?
8 A. To my knowledge, no.
9 Q. Do you know what his primary residence was?
10 A. At that time it was his house in Florida.
11 Q. And how did you know his house in Florida was his primary
12 residence?
13 A. Because I, along with one of our legal advisors and real
14 estate attorneys, changed the incorporation documentation to
15 have the company listed as a Florida-based company and then
16 Mr. Manafort changed his state of residence to Florida.
17 Q. And the Howard Street property, what city and state was
18 that in?
19 A. That was in New York City, New York.
20 Q. When Mr. Manafort was in New York City, where did he
21 stay?
22 A. He had an apartment on Fifth Avenue.
23 Q. When Mr. Manafort said he -- in order to have a maximum
24 benefit that he's claiming Howard Street as a second home, do
25 you have an understanding what that referred to?

U.S. v. Manafort
1282
1 A. Yes. Just that he was looking for the most favorable
2 terms in the mortgage interest rate.
3 Q. And do you know if there are different terms if the
4 property is a home or an investment property?
5 A. Based on my conversation with Ms. Laporta, yeah, she
6 described that there were.
7 Q. Okay. And then he -- he says he needs to be in touch
8 with David Fallarino. Who is that?
9 A. David Fallarino was the banking representative at
10 Citizens Bank.
11 Q. Okay. And he asked you to get in touch with Mr. Ayliff.
12 Did you ever get in touch with Mr. Ayliff?
13 A. I was not able to get in touch with Mr. Ayliff, but I was
14 able to speak with Ms. Laporta.
15 Q. And what, if anything, did Ms. Laporta -- what did you
16 understand about what actions Ms. Laporta had taken as a
17 result of that conversation?
18 A. Ms. Laporta had given some background information on the
19 various options and then she, I believe, had designated
20 Mr. Manafort to use this as a second home.
21 Q. Can I ask you to take a look at Government Exhibit 235.
23 A. Originally this is an e-mail from Linda Francis in
24 regards to outstanding items she needed to process Paul's bank
25 loan application.

U.S. v. Manafort
1283
1 Q. Who is Melinda Francis?
2 A. She was a banking representative at Citizens Bank that
3 worked with Mr. Fallarino.
4 Q. And do you know where Mr. Manafort was applying for -- or
5 the property -- excuse me.
6 Do you know what property he was seeking a loan with
7 respect to at Citizens Bank?
8 A. Yes. At Citizens I believe it was a property called
9 Union Street and also Baxter Street.
10 Q. Okay. Well, those were the mortgages. With respect to
11 the actual loan, did it relate to Howard Street?
12 A. Oh, yes, Howard Street.
13 Q. So if you look at number -- the e-mail from Mr. Manafort
14 to Ms. Francis on February 21st, can you tell me what that
15 says?
16 A. (As read): "Melinda, I have provided answers to the
17 questions that you posed in your e-mail. My answers are in
18 red. I will provide the requested documentation in the next
19 48 hours."
22 THE COURT: Well, that portion of it I will admit.
23 Any objection to portion of it?

U.S. v. Manafort
1284
4 THE COURT: Next question. And that's an e-mail
5 from Mr. Manafort, so it's clearly admissible. I'm -- I'm not
6 sure you either need or want to have the hearsay testimony
7 from a person who isn't here and testifying.
9 BY MR. ANDRES:
10 Q. With respect to the request for information, was there a
11 request for information about certain mortgages on properties
12 that Mr. Manafort owned?
13 A. There was.
14 Q. Okay. Was there a request for information with respect
15 to the Union Street property?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Okay. And how about the Baxter Street property?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Do you know when Mr. Manafort applied for the loan how he
20 represented the Union Street property?
21 A. He represented that it had no mortgage on the property.
22 Q. And did you understand that it did?
23 A. I later came to learn that it did, yes.
24 Q. Okay. How did you learn that fact?
25 A. From some documentation Mr. Manafort had requested me to

U.S. v. Manafort
1285
1 gather from his insurance representative.
2 Q. Who is that?
3 A. Donna Duggan.
4 Q. And when you called Donna Duggan, what did you ask for?
5 A. I asked her for the current insurance policies that
6 Mr. Manafort had asked me to obtain for him from her.
7 Q. When you spoke to Ms. Duggan, did you ask for the current
8 policy or did you ask for a different copy?
9 A. At the time I asked --
10 THE COURT: The correct question is what did you ask
11 for, because otherwise you're only giving him two choices and
12 it's leading. What did you ask for is the question.
13 THE WITNESS: I asked for the current year policy.
14 BY MR. ANDRES:
15 Q. Okay. And did you later have a discussion with Ms. --
16 did you have a second discussion or interaction with
17 Ms. Duggan?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And what did you ask for then?
20 A. At that point Mr. Manafort had asked me to get the prior
21 year policy.
22 Q. Okay. And did you?
23 A. I did.
24 Q. And what did you do with that document?
25 A. I sent it to Melinda Francis at the bank.

U.S. v. Manafort
1286
1 Q. And what did you represent that to be?
2 A. These were two of the insurance policies Mr. Manafort had
3 asked me to obtain for him, and both of them showed that they
4 were free and clear of any mortgages.
5 Q. And when you sent that document to Citizens Bank, was it
6 accurate?
7 A. It was not.
8 Q. How was it inaccurate?
9 A. Because there was a mortgage listed on the Union Street
10 property.
12 When you sent that inaccurate mortgage document to
13 the bank, did you know it was false?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And was Mr. Manafort involved in those e-mails?
16 A. He was.
17 Q. Can I ask you -- when you look at Government Exhibit 237,
18 can you tell me what that is?
19 A. This is an e-mail from me to Ms. Francis. I copied
20 Mr. Manafort and Ms. Washkuhn. And this is in regard to the
21 some of the outstanding documents that the bank had required.
22 Q. Okay. And you were sending documents back and forth to
23 Ms. -- to Ms. Francis on behalf of Mr. Manafort?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And is there attachment to this document?

U.S. v. Manafort
1287
1 A. There is.
2 Q. And does that -- the attachment, is that the current
3 version of the insurance or is it the older version?
4 THE COURT: Again, you're giving him two choices.
5 MR. ANDRES: Understood, Your Honor. I'm sorry.
6 BY MR. ANDRES:
7 Q. With respect to the attachment, can you describe that to
8 the jury?
9 A. Yes. The effective date on the attachment is 10/12/2015,
10 which would have been the prior year policy.
11 Q. Okay. That document that you sent, what's the date of
12 that? The e-mail, I'm sorry.
13 A. The date of the e-mail is February 23, 2016.
14 Q. Okay. And the policy with respect to the Union Street
15 property, is that included in the document?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Okay. And with respect to the Union Street property,
18 what's the effective date of that policy?
19 A. The effective date is 10/12/2015.
20 MR. ANDRES: Can I have one moment, Your Honor?
23 MR. ANDRES: I'll move on and come back to this
24 document, Your Honor.

U.S. v. Manafort
1288
1 MR. ANDRES: I said I was going to move on and come
2 back to this document, if that's okay.
4 MR. ANDRES: To move things along.
5 BY MR. ANDRES:
6 Q. Can I ask you to take a look at Government Exhibit 240.
7 Actually, I'm sorry, Mr. Gates, can you turn back to
8 the prior exhibit, 235 -- 237.
9 Can you look at the document marked "7526," the last
10 four Bates numbers?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Do you see that?
13 A. I do.
14 Q. What's the property listed there?
15 A. Property listed is 377 Union Street.
16 Q. What's the effective date of that policy?
17 A. 2/1/2016.
18 Q. And this is the document that's attached -- the -- the
19 insurance folders that's attached to Government's Exhibit 237;
20 is that right?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. As far as you understood, how would you describe that
23 version of the policy?
24 A. This was the most current policy that had been submitted
25 by the insurance brokers.

U.S. v. Manafort
1289
1 Q. Can I ask you now to turn to Government's Exhibit 240?
2 MR. ANDRES: Your Honor, I just want to make sure I
3 admit or I move to admit Government Exhibit 237 -- or 240.
4 I'm sorry. 240.
5 THE COURT: Not admitted yet.
6 MR. ANDRES: Move to admit it, Judge.
7 THE COURT: Any objection to 240, which is a -- just
8 a moment -- e-mail chain that includes Mr. Manafort? Any
9 objection.
10 MR. DOWNING: One moment, Your Honor.
11 MR. ANDRES: It's 237, Your Honor.
12 THE COURT: Oh, it was 237?
13 MR. ANDRES: Yes.
14 MR. DOWNING: I thought you said 240.
15 THE COURT: That's an e-mail chain Mr. --
17 THE COURT: No objection. All right. It's
18 admitted.
21 BY MR. ANDRES:
22 Q. Can I ask you to turn to Government Exhibit 240 now?
23 A. Yes.
25 A. This is an e-mail chain involving myself, Mr. Manafort,

U.S. v. Manafort
1290
1 Ms. Washkuhn, and Ms. Francis.
2 Q. Okay. And is Ms. Francis asking a question in this -- in
3 this e-mail?
4 A. She is.
5 Q. Is Mr. Manafort included in these e-mails?
6 A. He is.
7 Q. Okay. And what is she asking?
8 A. She's asking about the properties in question, Union
9 Street and Baxter Street, as being owned free and clear.
10 Their records indicate that one of the properties was not.
11 Q. Has she received conflicting information, as you
12 understood at this time?
13 A. She did.
14 Q. Okay. And what was the conflicting information?
15 A. The conflicting information that she was given the
16 current year policy, which in the case of the one property
17 showed the mortgagee listed on it.
18 Q. Okay. Who had sent her the current policy?
19 A. I'm sorry.
20 Q. Who had sent her the current policy?
21 A. I sent her the current policy.
22 Q. Okay. And is that consistent with what Mr. Manafort
23 listed on his application?
24 A. The current policy was not accurate.
25 Q. Okay.

U.S. v. Manafort
1291
1 A. Excuse me. The current policy was accurate.
2 Mr. Manafort had asked me to submit the prior year policies.
9 BY MR. ANDRES:
10 Q. Can I ask you now to look at Government Exhibit 263?
12 A. This is an e-mail from me to Donna Duggan. Mr. Manafort
13 had requested that I reach out to Ms. Duggan to get some
14 information that he had already spoken to her about.
15 Q. At the -- at the e-mail -- at the bottom e-mail, who is
16 that between?
17 A. At the bottom e-mail is between myself and Ms. Duggan.
19 admit 263.
24 BY MR. ANDRES:
25 Q. And can you summarize for the jury what's happening in

U.S. v. Manafort
1292
1 this e-mail?
2 MR. ANDRES: May I publish it, Your Honor.
4 THE WITNESS: Yes. Mr. Manafort asked that I reach
5 out to Ms. Duggan in order to get the prior year policy after
6 Ms. Francis had indicated that there was a discrepancy in the
7 current year policy.
8 BY MR. ANDRES:
9 Q. And did you e-mail back and forth with Ms. Duggan?
10 A. I did.
11 Q. Did you eventually speak with her?
12 A. I did.
13 Q. And what specifically did you request?
14 A. I requested the copy of the prior year policy per
15 Mr. Manafort.
16 Q. And did she -- why did you do that?
17 A. Because at the time Mr. Manafort had asked me to.
18 Q. And did she provide that?
19 A. She did.
20 Q. I'm going to show you Government Exhibit 384.
22 A. It's an e-mail between me and Mr. Manafort.
23 Q. Okay. And does it relate to this issue that you've been
24 testifying about with Donna Duggan?
25 A. It does.

U.S. v. Manafort
1293
1 Q. And the Citizens Bank loan?
2 A. Yes.
11 BY MR. ANDRES:
12 Q. Can I focus on the e-mail at the bottom at 2:45?
13 Mr. Gates, can you explain that e-mail?
14 A. Yes. It is a follow-up for Mr. Manafort, indicating to
15 him that I was successful in reaching Ms. Duggan and told him
16 that we would have the amended policies very soon.
17 Q. Okay. So there were two insurance policies that you got
18 from Ms. Duggan; is that correct?
19 A. Correct.
20 Q. So with respect to the Baxter Street insurance policy,
21 the policy that was originally sent to the bank, how would you
22 describe that?
23 A. That was accurate.
24 Q. Okay. How?
25 A. In the sense that there was no mortgagee listed on that

U.S. v. Manafort
1294
1 insurance policy.
2 Q. And did you get the right one?
3 A. We did.
4 Q. And what did you do with it?
5 A. Submitted it to her.
6 Q. With respect to the Union Street property, the one that
7 was originally submitted to the bank, was that the -- was that
8 correct?
9 A. It was not correct.
10 Q. Okay. The one that was originally sent to the bank?
11 A. The one that was -- the original policy was accurate. It
12 reflected the mortgagee.
13 Q. And what did you get from Ms. Duggan?
14 A. Ms. Duggan sent us the prior year policy, which we then
15 forwarded to the bank.
16 Q. And was that accurate?
17 A. That was not accurate.
18 Q. Okay. And your e-mail here on February 24, 2016 with
19 Mr. Manafort, what are you discussing?
20 A. Again, I'm updating Mr. Manafort on the status of his
21 request regarding the insurance policies. He then asked me
22 who we're sending these to at Citizens, or if I had sent them
23 to anybody at Citizens, and I said that I would be sending
24 them to Melinda.
25 Q. Okay. Can I show you Government Exhibit 262?

U.S. v. Manafort
1295
2 A. Yes. These are the declaration pages for both Union
3 Street property and Baxter Street, forwarded to Mrs. Duggan to
4 myself and Ms. Azzam at UBS Bank.
10 BY MR. ANDRES:
11 Q. Is this the document that Ms. Duggan sent you after you
12 spoke to her?
13 A. It is.
14 Q. And how would you characterize this policy that she sent
15 to you after you spoke to her?
16 A. This was the prior year policy to the earlier one she had
17 sent.
18 Q. Okay. Can I show you now Government Exhibit 137?
19 What is Government Exhibit 137?
20 A. This is an e-mail from me to Ms. Francis, copying
21 Mr. Manafort and Ms. Washkuhn.
22 Q. Okay.
23 A. In regards to the two properties.
24 Q. And who is Melinda Francis?
25 A. She's the representative at Citizens Bank.

U.S. v. Manafort
1296
1 Q. Okay. And what did you send her?
2 A. I sent her the two previous year policies on the two
3 properties.
4 Q. Where it says, "MC Brooklyn (Carol Gardens)," what's that
5 in reference to?
6 A. That is Union Street.
13 BY MR. ANDRES:
14 Q. With respect to the --
16 BY MR. ANDRES:
17 Q. With respect to MC Brooklyn, Carol Gardens, what property
18 is that?
19 A. The Union Street property.
20 Q. Okay. And what -- how would you characterize the
21 insurance policy that you sent to Melinda Francis on this date
22 with respect to that property?
23 A. So this e-mail attaches the two older policies, which
24 reflect no mortgagees on the properties.
25 Q. Okay. And with respect to Baxter Street, was there a

U.S. v. Manafort
1297
1 mortgage there?
2 A. There was not.
3 Q. Okay. And with respect to Union Street, was there a
4 mortgage there?
5 A. There was.
6 Q. Okay. During the course of the dealings with Citizens
7 Bank, did an issue arise with respect to Peranova?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Okay. And what issue arose with respect to Peranova?
10 A. The issue that arose was regarding the effort of
11 Mr. Manafort to find additional income for the mortgage
12 application. This is when one of the loans that was on the
13 books at DMP had been forgiven and then was treated as income.
14 Q. Okay. So -- and that loan related to what entity?
15 A. Peranova Holdings.
16 Q. And during the course of the time that you worked for
17 Mr. -- what was Peranova?
18 A. Peranova was a Cypriote entity and the controller was
19 Mr. Manafort.
20 Q. During the time that you worked for Mr. Manafort, did
21 Peranova, the Cypriote entity, ever make a loan to
22 Mr. Manafort?
23 A. It did not.
24 Q. Were there payments from Peranova to Mr. Manafort?
25 A. There were.

U.S. v. Manafort
1298
1 Q. What were they?
2 A. Income.
3 Q. Were they always income?
4 A. To my knowledge, yes.
6 MR. ANDRES: It's already admitted into evidence,
7 Your Honor.
8 BY MR. ANDRES:
9 Q. Can you tell me what Government Exhibit 163 is?
10 A. Yes. It's an e-mail exchange initially between David
11 Fallarino and Cindy Laporta, and then later -- yes, and copies
12 Ms. Francis.
13 Q. And with respect -- and you're on the top e-mail?
14 A. I'm on the top and Mr. Manafort is as well.
15 Q. And what's the -- what's the date of the e-mail, the top
16 one?
17 A. February 4, 2016.
18 Q. Okay. Can you look at the e-mail on February 4 at four
19 o'clock where it says, "we qualify for everything," do you see
20 that?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Can you describe what's -- what's being conveyed to
23 Mr. Manafort there?
24 A. Yes. So after submitting a series of documents, the bank
25 came back and indicated areas that we were still lacking in

U.S. v. Manafort
1299
1 documentation. One of the areas that they described is based
2 on the information they received in terms of the
3 differentiating tax years, is there was a liquidity issue with
4 respect to Mr. Manafort's current year income.
5 Q. Okay. And did you solve that problem or was that problem
6 solved in some regard?
7 A. I believe it was, yeah, solved partially.
8 Q. Okay. How?
9 A. By converting the Peranova loan to income, we were able
10 then to treat that as income on the books for 2015.
11 Q. And when you say, "converted," how did you convert that?
12 A. We did a loan forgiveness letter between Peranova and DMP
13 International.
14 Q. And who is Peranova?
15 A. A company controlled by Mr. Manafort.
16 Q. Did a loan forgiveness letter between Mr. Manafort and
17 Mr. Manafort?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And was the -- were the details of that loan forgiveness,
20 the dates, were they accurate?
21 A. They were not.
22 Q. And did Ms. Laporta help you with that process?
23 A. She did.
25 MR. ANDRES: This is already in evidence, Your

U.S. v. Manafort
1300
1 Honor.
2 BY MR. ANDRES:
3 Q. Can you take a look at Government Exhibit 164 and let me
4 know when you've had a chance to read it?
5 A. Okay.
6 Q. Can you look at the e-mail at 3:28 on the first page and
7 explain, summarize that for the jury?
8 A. Yes. Ms. Laporta is reaching out to me and she's says
9 that she will need documentation supporting the 1.5 million
10 loan forgiveness. This is in order so that she can report it
11 to the banker. So this is the letter that I had mentioned
12 earlier that she's requesting to demonstrate the loan.
13 Q. Okay. And how did you respond?
14 A. I responded that I will get her the letter and then she
15 could do the cover letter that Mr. Manafort had requested.
16 Q. At the time that you're discussing writing this letter,
17 had the loan, in fact, been forgiven?
18 A. No.
19 Q. It never existed in the first place?
20 A. Correct.
22 THE COURT: But the money represented, was that
23 actual money paid to Mr. Manafort for services?
24 THE WITNESS: It was.

U.S. v. Manafort
1301
1 BY MR. ANDRES:
2 Q. Can I ask you to turn to Government 165?
3 MR. ANDRES: Which is already in evidence, Your
4 Honor.
6 We're going recess at 12:30, ladies and gentlemen.
7 BY MR. ANDRES:
8 Q. When you look at Government Exhibit 165, can you describe
9 that for the jury, Mr. Gates?
10 A. Yes. This is the draft loan forgiveness letter that I
11 had sent to Ms. Laporta so that she could review and make sure
12 that nothing else needed to be included with it before I got
13 the signatures.
14 Q. And what is the date on the e-mail that you send to
15 Ms. Laporta?
16 A. It is February 8, 2016.
18 THE COURT: Yes.
19 BY MR. ANDRES:
20 Q. Just highlight the date.
21 Where do you see the date on that e-mail?
22 A. Where it says, "sent, Monday, 2/8/2016."
23 Q. And who is the e-mail to?
24 A. To Cindy Laporta from me.
25 Q. And if you look now at the attachment, what is that?

U.S. v. Manafort
1302
1 A. Peranova loan forgive.
2 Q. Okay. And what's the date on the letter?
3 A. June 23, 2015.
4 Q. When you wrote the letter, did you put the right date?
5 A. No. The income needed to be associated with 2015, so we
6 had to secure a date in that year.
7 Q. And, again, the purpose for this document is to do what?
8 A. To forgive a loan in order to treat loan as income in
9 2015.
10 Q. And that was in relation to Mr. Manafort's bank loan
11 application?
12 A. Bank loan application, that's correct.
13 THE COURT: Was the money involved always income?
14 THE WITNESS: It was.
16 BY MR. ANDRES:
18 A. Okay.
20 Honor.
22 BY MR. ANDRES:
23 Q. Can I ask you to take a look at Government Exhibit 166
24 and explain who that e-mail is to and from and summarize it
25 for the jury?

U.S. v. Manafort
1303
1 A. Yes. It's to Ms. Laporta from me and it's in regards to
2 the loan letter that she, in essence, approved. And then she
3 was going to originally do a cover e-mail of -- Mr. Manafort
4 had requested actually a cover letter with the KWC letterhead
5 on it because it was being submitted to the bank. So I'm
6 asking her basically to do a letter instead of an e-mail.
7 Q. Okay. And this, again, relates to the Peranova loan
8 forgiveness issue?
9 A. It does.
10 Q. Okay. Can I ask you to turn to Government Exhibit 389?
11 Can you describe Government Exhibit 389?
12 A. This is an e-mail to Mr. Manafort from me.
13 Q. Okay.
20 BY MR. ANDRES:
21 Q. And can you describe what's happening here in the e-mail
22 from you to Mr. Manafort?
23 A. Yes. After Ms. Laporta approved the letter, I sent it to
24 Mr. Manafort to get his approval and sign off as well in case
25 he wanted to add anything.

U.S. v. Manafort
1304
1 Q. And did he ultimately approve?
2 A. Yes, he did.
3 Q. Okay. Can you turn to Government Exhibit 388?
5 A. Yes. This is a continuation of the previous e-mail.
6 This shows that Mr. Manafort is fine with the letter and it
7 can go forward and he requests that it be on KWC's stationary,
8 and then I indicate that the cover note from Ms. Laporta will
9 be, but that the forgiveness letter would be on Peranova
10 letterhead since Peranova was forgiving the loan.
11 MR. ANDRES: Government moves to admit Government
12 Exhibit 388.
17 BY MR. ANDRES:
18 Q. Mr. Gates, with respect to the income that was at issue
19 in Peranova, there's -- do you know what year that was
20 actually earned?
21 A. I believe it was 2012.
22 Q. Okay. It wasn't 2015; is that correct?

U.S. v. Manafort
1305
1 A. Yes. This is the final letter that I send to Ms. Laporta
2 with the director of the signature from the Cypriote company.
3 Q. Okay. And who is the director from the Cypriote company?
4 A. In this case, it was a woman by the name of
5 Ms. Chrysostomides.
6 Q. Okay. And is that an individual that's associated with
7 Dr. K?
8 A. Dr. K's firm, that's correct.
9 Q. Okay. With respect to the e-mail in 167, what's the date
10 of that e-mail?
11 A. February 9, 2016.
12 Q. Okay. And the -- and the letter that was signed?
13 A. June 23, 2015.
17 Is this an appropriate time? It's now virtually
18 12:30.
19 MR. ANDRES: I have two documents left of this loan,
20 Judge. Could I finish those?
21 THE COURT: All right. Go ahead. You may do it.
22 BY MR. ANDRES:
23 Q. Take a look at Government Exhibit 424.
25 A. Let's see. Yes, this is in reference to the loan.

U.S. v. Manafort
1306
1 Mr. Manafort is on an e-mail exchange with other individuals
2 from Citizens Bank, and this is where the requirement from the
3 bank saying that the letter from Ms. Laporta will need to be
4 on KWC letterhead. So this is where Mr. Manafort is
5 requesting me to make sure that we get that on KWC letterhead.
6 Q. Just to clarify, you said this relates to a loan. It
7 relates to the loan application at Citizens Bank?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And also the --
10 A. The Peranova loan, correct.
11 MR. ANDRES: And the Government moves to admit 424,
12 Your Honor.
17 BY MR. ANDRES:
18 Q. During the process of crafting the letter for the bank
19 and interacting with Ms. Laporta, was Mr. Manafort fully
20 informed of what was happening with respect to the Peranova
21 letter?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And did you include him on e-mails?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And the the e-mail in 424, Mr. Manafort is included in

U.S. v. Manafort
1307
1 that e-mail chain; is that right?
2 A. He is.
3 Q. And if you look at the top e-mail on 424, does it
4 reference a conversation between Mr. Manafort and Ms. Laporta?
5 A. Well, it's a reference to me talking to Ms. Laporta and
6 updating Mr. Manafort.
7 Q. I'm sorry, so that's -- that top e-mail is for you?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Okay. And you were informing Mr. Manafort of what?
10 A. That Cindy would put the letter on the letterhead.
11 Q. Okay. Let me show you Government Exhibit 168, the last
12 document, as it relates to this issue.
14 Honor.
16 BY MR. ANDRES:
17 Q. Can you take a look at the exhibit at 168? Tell me what
18 that is.
19 A. Yes, this is in regard to another issue Mr. Fallarino
20 highlighted for Mr. Manafort and had asked Ms. Laporta to
21 become involved in terms of the ordinary income versus the
22 dividend income in regards to Mr. Manafort's income.
23 Q. Okay. But attached to this string of e-mails, if you
24 look at the last page, it's the forgiveness letter?
25 A. It is.

U.S. v. Manafort
1308
1 Q. Okay. And in this -- is that forgiveness letter now
2 being sent to Citizens Bank?
3 A. Yes, Ms. Laporta sent it with her cover note on the page
4 prior.
5 Q. Okay. And who was CC'd on that cover note?
6 A. Let's see.
7 Q. On the first page at 168?
8 A. Oh, 168. So it was myself and Mr. Manafort.
9 MR. ANDRES: Your Honor, I can stop now if that's
10 appropriate.
11 THE COURT: Yes.
12 All right. You may step down, Mr. Gates. And
13 remember, you may not discuss your testimony with anyone
14 during the luncheon recess.
15 THE WITNESS: Understood.
16 THE COURT: We'll reconvene at 1:35.
17 Mr. Andres, how much more do you anticipate with
18 this witness?
19 MR. ANDRES: Less than an hour, Your Honor.
20 THE COURT: Now, you've listed on your witness list
21 a number of witnesses. We've heard thus far from 15. This is
22 the fifteenth witness and we're not yet finished, and there
23 are twice that number on your list. I assume not all of those
24 you expect to call?
25 MR. ANDRES: That's absolutely true, Your Honor.

U.S. v. Manafort
1309
1 THE COURT: All right. And when do you think you'll
2 finish your case in chief?
3 MR. ANDRES: Your Honor, we're hoping by the end of
4 this week. That's our intention.
5 THE COURT: All right. Pass your books to the
6 right, ladies and gentlemen. You've done that.
7 Remember, during the luncheon recess not to discuss
8 the case with anyone or undertake any investigation on your
9 own. I hope you enjoy your pheasant under glass or whatever
10 else you were able to see on the menu. I've looked pretty
11 hard at Panera's menu, but I've never seen that. So maybe if
12 you do get something engaging, you can tell me about it and
13 I'll take steps to get it.
14 Thank you. We'll resume at -- well, let's resume at
15 1:35.
16 You may follow Mr. Flood out.
18 (Lunch Recess 12:32 p.m.)
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

1 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER
3 I, Tonia Harris, an Official Court Reporter for
4 the Eastern District of Virginia, do hereby certify that I
5 reported by machine shorthand, in my official capacity, the
6 proceedings had and testimony adduced upon the Jury Trial
7 in the case of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA versus PAUL J.
8 MANAFORT, JR., Criminal Action No. 1:18-CR-83, in said
9 court on the 7th day of August, 2018.
10 I further certify that the foregoing 133 pages
11 constitute the official transcript of said proceedings, as
12 taken from my machine shorthand notes, my computer realtime
13 display, together with the backup tape recording of said
14 proceedings to the best of my ability.
15 In witness whereof, I have hereto subscribed my
16 name, this August 7, 2018.
17
18
19
20 ______________________________
Tonia M. Harris, RPR
21 Official Court Reporter
22
23
24
25
1310
1311

ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
------------------------------x
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, . Criminal Action No.
. 1:18-CR-83
versus .
.
PAUL J. MANAFORT, JR., .
. August 7, 2018
Defendant. . Volume VI-P.M.
------------------------------x

BEFORE THE HONORABLE T. S. ELLIS, III
APPEARANCES:

United States Attorney's Office
Alexandria, VA 22314
and
GREG D. ANDRES, SAUSA
BRANDON L. VAN GRACK, SAUSA
Special Counsel's Office
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

BRIAN P. KETCHAM, ESQ.
601 New Jersey Avenue, N.W.
Suite 620
and
THOMAS E. ZEHNLE, ESQ.
Suite 620
(APPEARANCES CONT'D. ON FOLLOWING PAGE)
(Pages 1311 - 1446)
COMPUTERIZED TRANSCRIPTION OF STENOGRAPHIC NOTES
Anneliese J. Thomson OCR-USDC/EDVA (703)299-8595

1312
1 APPEARANCES: (Cont'd.)
2 FOR THE DEFENDANT: KEVIN M. DOWNING, ESQ.

Law Office of Kevin M. Downing
3 601 New Jersey Avenue, N.W.
Suite 620
4 Washington, D.C. 20001
and
5 RICHARD W. WESTLING, ESQ.
Epstein, Becker & Green, P.C.
6 1227 25th Street, N.W.
7
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER: ANNELIESE J. THOMSON, RDR, CRR
8 U.S. District Court, Fifth Floor
(703)299-8595
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

1313
1 INDEX
2
WITNESS EXAMINATION PAGE
3
4 RICHARD GATES (Resumed)

DIRECT 1314
5 CROSS 1361
7
E X H I B I T S
8
Government Exhibit No. 391 was received 1315
9 Government Exhibit No. 392 was received 1316
11
14
17
Defendant's Exhibit No. 14 was received 1411
18 Defendant's Exhibit No. 15 was received 1415
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Gates - Direct 1314
1 A F T E R N O O N S E S S I O N
2 (Defendant present, Jury out.)
3 THE COURT: All right. You may call the jury,
4 please.
5 (Jury present.)
7 Ladies and gentlemen, I hope your lunches were
8 adequate, satisfactory. Good.
9 All right. We'll proceed. Let's bring Mr. Gates
10 back, please.
11 RICHARD GATES, GOVERNMENT'S WITNESS, PREVIOUSLY SWORN, RESUMED
12 THE COURT: You'll recall, sir, you remain under
13 oath.
14 THE WITNESS: I understand, Your Honor.
16 And, Mr. Andres, you may complete your direct
17 examination.
19 DIRECT EXAMINATION (Cont'd.)
20 BY MR. ANDRES:
21 Q. Mr. Gates, did you know whether or not Mr. Manafort was
22 involved in applying for a loan from the Banc of California?
23 A. Yes, he was.
24 Q. Were you involved in providing information to the bank for
25 that loan?

Gates - Direct 1315
1 A. I was.
2 Q. Why were you involved?
3 A. Mr. Manafort asked me to get a team of individuals,
4 including the accountants and bookkeeper, to pull together the
5 relevant documents for the loan application.
7 Do you have that document? What is included in Government
8 Exhibit 391?
9 A. This is an e-mail among myself, Mr. Manafort, and
10 Mr. Yohai in regards to the bank loan and the required
11 documents from the bankers.
12 Q. What bank loan?
13 A. This is for Banc of California.
14 Q. And who's Mr. Yohai?
15 A. Mr. Yohai is Mr. Manafort's son-in-law.
16 MR. ANDRES: The Government moves to admit Government
17 Exhibit 391.
20 (Government Exhibit No. 391 was received in
21 evidence.)
22 BY MR. ANDRES:
23 Q. If you can look at the bottom of the first page with
24 respect to that e-mail, there's an e-mail at 8:24 a.m. Do you
25 see that?

Gates - Direct 1316
1 A. I do.
2 Q. Okay. Mr. Manafort writes: "Rick, you are the
3 quarterback. All information needs to go to you."
4 What did you understand that to mean?
5 A. That means I was the point person designated with pulling
6 together all of the documents from the various individuals.
7 Q. And with respect to this loan from the Banc of California,
8 who's the loan for?
9 A. I understood it to be for Mr. Manafort.
10 Q. Did you -- were you expecting or intending to get any of
11 the funds extended by the bank?
12 A. No.
13 Q. Can you look at Government Exhibit 392? Can you tell me
14 what that is?
15 A. Yes. As part of the document package that needed to be
16 put together, the banks required a response to specific
17 questions about Mr. Manafort's properties. Mr. Yohai, I
18 believe, and myself put this together and sent it to
19 Mr. Manafort for review.
20 MR. ANDRES: The Government moves to admit 392, Your
21 Honor.
23 THE COURT: Yes, it's admitted.
25 evidence.)

Gates - Direct 1317
3 BY MR. ANDRES:
4 Q. This e-mail in 392, it relates to the Banc of California
5 loan, Mr. Gates?
6 A. It does.
7 Q. And the e-mail from Mr. Manafort makes a reference-- the
8 top e-mail, can you tell me who that's from and who it's to?
9 A. Yes. It's to me from Mr. Manafort.
10 Q. At what time?
11 A. 3:55 p.m.
12 Q. And after Mr. Manafort writes, "Rick," can you read the
13 last sentence?
14 A. Yes.
15 "I need to see the P&L and then we are fine."
17 A. This is in reference to the profit and loss statement that
18 was required by the bank as one of the documents.
19 Q. And based on your time at -- working for Mr. Manafort, who
20 created those documents?
21 A. Ms. Washkuhn.
22 Q. May I ask you to take a look at Government Exhibit 140?
23 MR. ANDRES: This is in evidence, Your Honor.

Gates - Direct 1318
2 BY MR. ANDRES:
3 Q. I ask you to take a look at the Government's Exhibit 140.
5 A. Yes. This is an e-mail exchange between myself and
6 Ms. Washkuhn in terms of obtaining the profit and loss
7 statement for 2015.
8 Q. And why are you asking Ms. Washkuhn for the P&L?
9 A. I'm asking Ms. Washkuhn for the P&L because we need to add
10 additional income into the P&L in order to obtain an income
11 level that was equal to or close to prior years.
12 Q. Did you need to alter the document?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And who directed you to get the P&L?
16 Q. Who directed you to alter it?
17 A. Mr. Manafort.
18 Q. Can you look at the last e-mail in the chain from
19 Ms. Washkuhn at March 16th, 7:18 a.m.?
20 Can you read that e-mail?
21 A. Yes.
22 (As read): "Can you send me the Word document
23 version of the 2015 P&L for DMP International before
24 11:00 a.m.? Paul wants me to add the accrual revenue, which we
25 have not received yet, in order to send it to the Banc of

Gates - Direct 1319
1 California. I have the PDF version you sent but it is slanted
2 and not completely clear."
3 Q. When you say a Word version, what does that mean?
4 A. A Word version is a Word document version that can be
5 edited more easily than a PDF document.
6 Q. Okay. And you said accrual revenue. Did DMP have accrual
7 revenue?
8 A. It was accrued revenue from 2014, not 2015. This related
9 to the Opposition Bloc contract that had not been fully paid.
10 Q. And the P&L that you're asking for is in what year?
11 A. The P&L is for 2015.
12 Q. And at that time, did DMP keep its books on a cash basis
13 or accrual basis?
14 A. A cash basis.
15 Q. And what's the difference?
16 A. The difference is that cash basis records revenue the year
17 that you receive it.
18 Q. And if you're keeping your books on a cash basis, can
19 you -- has it ever been your experience that you can add
20 accrual revenue?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Okay. Look at Mrs. -- Ms. Washkuhn's response at 10:21.
23 When you're sending these e-mails, do you know where she is and
24 where you are?
25 A. I believe I'm in Virginia and she's in California.

Gates - Direct 1320
1 Q. Okay. Does -- how does she respond?
2 A. "Hi, Rick. I can resend the PDF, but there is no Word
3 version. These are generated directly from our accounting
4 software."
5 Q. Okay. And do you write back?
6 A. I do.
7 Q. What did you write?
8 A. I said: "The version I have looks to be scanned and then
9 sent which is why it is not clear. If you can send me the
10 original PDF version generated by the system that would be
11 great and work."
12 Q. Okay. And Ms. Washkuhn says that she can send it in about
13 an hour. What's your response to that?
14 A. I say: "I am confused. Why can't you e-mail the version
15 generated by your system? Scanning does not work. Your
16 scanner does not work well. You should be able to send the
17 electronic version by e-mail."
18 Q. And what time are you asking her to send it to you by?
19 A. I had asked her to send it to me by 11:00 a.m. East Coast
20 time.
21 Q. Okay. Were you in a hurry to get these documents?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Why?
24 A. Because Mr. Manafort in the earlier e-mail had indicated
25 that we needed to have all the documents to the bank by

Gates - Direct 1321
1 9:00 a.m. Pacific time.
2 Q. Okay. And how does Ms. Washkuhn respond? She says --
3 where it says, "The system prints," can you read that?
4 A. "The system prints financial statements. From there the
5 only way to e-mail them to you is to scan them and e-mail them.
6 That is our only option unless you want a hard copy in the
7 mail."
8 Q. Okay. And with respect to the -- your response to her,
9 what do you say about the accrued revenue?
10 A. I ask her in any case, if she can't send a PDF version, if
11 she can add the amount of the accrued revenue on her end.
12 Q. And what did she say?
13 A. She says: "Can't make that change on my end. Books are
14 on cash basis, not accrual."
16 A. Meaning that she couldn't take income from either prior
17 year or successive year and actually attribute it to the
18 current year.
19 Q. And did you ultimately get a copy of this P&L?
20 A. Not one that I could use.
21 Q. Okay. When you say "not one that you can use," what do
22 you mean by that?
23 A. Meaning that she had sent the scanned version that I had
24 but that was in no position to be able to be edited. So I
25 created a separate page for this document.

Gates - Direct 1322
1 Q. You ultimately altered the document?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Let me ask you to take a look first at Government
4 Exhibit 138.
5 MR. ANDRES: This is in evidence, Your Honor.
7 MR. ANDRES: May I publish it to the jury?
9 BY MR. ANDRES:
10 Q. What is Government Exhibit 138?
11 A. This is an e-mail from Ms. Lauren Tanner, who worked for
12 Ms. Washkuhn at her firm.
13 Q. Okay. And what does she attach?
14 A. She attaches a copy of the DMP P&L.
15 Q. And this is what you were requesting from Ms. Washkuhn?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Can you look on the 12th page -- is there an attachment?
18 A. There is.
19 Q. What is the attachment?
20 A. The attachment is the statement of assets and liabilities
21 and balance sheet and P&L for DMP.
22 Q. Okay. Can you turn to the 12th page, which records the
23 net income?
24 A. Okay.
25 Q. What is recorded as the net income as of December 31,

Gates - Direct 1323
1 2015?
2 A. Net income is recorded as $400,744.
3 Q. Okay. Can you turn to --
4 MR. ANDRES: The Government moves -- oh, it's in.
5 BY MR. ANDRES:
6 Q. Can you turn to Government Exhibit 139?
7 MR. ANDRES: And this is also in evidence, Your
8 Honor.
10 BY MR. ANDRES:
11 Q. 139. Do you see that document, Mr. Gates?
12 A. I do.
13 MR. ANDRES: May I publish it, Your Honor? May I
14 publish it, Your Honor?
16 BY MR. ANDRES:
17 Q. Okay. Can you look at the top e-mail here?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. What is -- what is the document -- can you tell us who
20 it's from and summarize the document for the jury?
21 A. Sure. It's from me to Lauren Tanner, copying Heather
22 Washkuhn.
23 Q. Okay.
24 A. And then I indicate to her that, based on my previous call
25 with Ms. Washkuhn, the revised P&L had not been updated to

Gates - Direct 1324
1 reflect the accrued income.
2 Q. Okay. And why were you trying to add the accrued income?
3 A. To help bolster Mr. Manafort's income number in that year
4 for the bank application.
5 Q. Okay. And let me ask you to turn to Government
6 Exhibit 298.
7 MR. ANDRES: That's admitted already, Your Honor.
9 BY MR. ANDRES:
10 Q. What's included in Government Exhibit 298?
13 THE WITNESS: This is an e-mail on Mr. Manafort's
14 bankers at Banc of California that ultimately includes me,
15 copying Mr. Manafort and Mr. Yohai, and it attaches the 2015
16 P&L statement.
17 Q. Does it attach the copy of the P&L statement that you
18 received from Lauren Tanner?
19 A. It does not.
20 Q. Can you take a look at the exhibit at 111, the Bates --
21 Government Exhibit 298, Bates stamp 111.
22 A. Okay.
23 Q. And can I ask you to zoom in on the net income?
24 What is the net income that's listed in this
25 document?

Gates - Direct 1325
1 A. The net income is $4.45 million.
2 Q. And is that the same net income that -- or is that the
3 same document that you got from Ms. Washkuhn's firm?
4 A. No, it is not.
5 Q. And how is it different?
6 A. It's a -- it adds approximately $6 million of income.
7 Q. Who added that?
8 A. I did.
9 Q. And how did you come up with that figure?
10 A. That figure included the loan forgiveness of 1.5 million
11 from the Peranova loan, and then it included the accrued
12 revenue of 2.6 million as well.
13 Q. And with respect to the Peranova loan, when was that
14 earned?
15 A. It was actually earned around 2012.
16 Q. So did it belong in the 2015 P&L?
17 A. No.
18 Q. And with respect to the accrued interest, when did that
19 occur?
20 A. The accrued income occurred in 2014.
21 Q. And was it appropriate to add accrued interest into this
22 P&L?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Why not?
25 A. Because the books were on a cashier basis according to

Gates - Direct 1326
1 Ms. Washkuhn.
2 Q. Was the document that you submitted attached to the e-mail
3 on March 16, 2016, to the Banc of California, was it accurate?
4 A. It was not.
5 Q. Was it false?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. With respect to how much in income was it false?
8 A. Yes. Oh, how much? Approximately $6 million.
9 Q. Okay. Let me ask you, with respect to Citizens Bank, did
10 there come a time that Mr. Manafort applied for another loan at
11 Citizens Bank?
12 A. Yes, he did.
13 Q. Did that relate to the Union Street property?
14 A. It did.
15 Q. And was there an issue again with respect to the Peranova
16 loan?
17 A. Yes.
19 MR. ANDRES: This is already in evidence, Your Honor.
23 BY MR. ANDRES:
24 Q. What is included in Government Exhibit 169?
25 A. This is an e-mail string among David Fallarino, Cindy

Gates - Direct 1327
1 Laporta, Mr. Yohai, and Mr. Manafort in regards to information
2 that is needed for that second loan.
3 Q. Okay. And are you included in the e-mail as well?
4 A. Yes. Later I'm added to the e-mail.
5 Q. And what did you understand the issue to be now as to the
6 second loan in Peranova?
7 A. There are two issues. The first, as I understood, was
8 that the -- there was an issue with ordinary business income
9 and distribution income, and then also, again, there was an
10 issue with the amount of income that Mr. Manafort had for that
11 given year.
12 Q. And what did the income have to equal?
13 A. Either kind of equal to or around the prior year.
14 Q. And why is that?
15 A. Because that's what was required by the bank in order to
16 obtain the loan.
17 Q. And in 2016, was DMP's income around or equal to what it
18 was in 2014?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Why not?
21 A. Because DMP had no clients at that time.
24 A. Yes. This is an e-mail string including Ms. Laporta,
25 Mr. Manafort, and myself in regards to the income issue that

Gates - Direct 1328
1 Mr. Fallarino raised, and Ms. Laporta is going to begin the tax
2 preparation for that year, which is required by the bank for
3 the loan application, but the question that arises is the
4 income level. And I write an e-mail to Mr. Manafort indicating
5 that --
6 Q. Let me just stop you there.
7 MR. ANDRES: Your Honor, may I move in Government
8 Exhibit 398?
9 THE COURT: Yes, but let him finish his answer.
10 MR. ANDRES: Sorry.
11 THE WITNESS: Okay. And I indicated to Mr. Manafort
12 that we're not going to have anywhere near the 2014 income
13 level for 2016.
14 THE COURT: All right. Any objection to the
15 admissibility of that exhibit?
19 evidence.)
25 BY MR. ANDRES:

Gates - Direct 1329
1 Q. You testified that Cindy Laporta and others are on this
2 e-mail string.
3 With respect to the top e-mail alone, who's on that
4 e-mail?
5 A. On that e-mail, it's just myself and Mr. Manafort.
6 Q. Okay. And what are you informing Mr. Manafort in this
7 e-mail?
8 A. I'm informing him that we're not even going to come close
9 to the income level of 2014.
10 Q. And, again, why is that?
11 A. Because DMP at that time has no clients.
14 A. This is an e-mail chain between myself and Mr. Manafort.
15 Q. Okay. And it relates to the Citizens Union loan?
16 A. It does.
17 Q. Is there a response to the e-mail in the prior exhibit?
18 A. Yes.
23 evidence.)
24 MR. ANDRES: Can I publish it?

Gates - Direct 1330
1 BY MR. ANDRES:
2 Q. With respect to the top e-mail, does Mr. Manafort respond
3 to your -- your concerns about the level of income?
4 A. He does.
5 Q. Okay. Can you read that e-mail at the top?
6 A. Yes. (As read): "Let's talk around 9 a.m. I sent him an
7 e-mail that there was no way that he would have the 2015 tax
8 filing before October. We can count the account receivables
9 from Ukraine approximately 2.5 million. Send me the P&L that
10 we used for the other refis before we speak."
11 Q. Okay. And, again, the reference to the accounts
12 receivable?
13 A. That's the reference to the money that had been earned in
14 2014 that had not been paid for that contract.
15 Q. And it didn't relate to the 2015 P&L?
16 A. It did not.
19 A. Yes. This is an e-mail response from Mr. Manafort to
20 Mr. Fallarino with regards to a number of documents that need
21 to be pulled together for the loan.
22 MR. ANDRES: The Government seeks to admit Government
23 Exhibit 400.

Gates - Direct 1331
2 evidence.)
4 THE COURT: Yes.
5 BY MR. ANDRES:
6 Q. With respect to the top e-mail, Mr. Gates, what does
7 Mr. Manafort write to David Fallarino?
8 A. (As read): "David, I have asked Rick Gates to call you.
9 Among other responsibilities Rick manages the company and my
10 personal assets. He will work with you to get what you need."
11 Q. Okay. At this time were you managing Mr. Manafort's
12 company?
13 A. I was doing a lot of the administrative day-to-day items.
14 Q. How about his personal assets?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Did you ever have any control over his personal assets?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Okay. With respect to this loan, do you continue to work
19 on gathering information for the bank?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. If you look below, there's an e-mail from Mr. Fallarino to
22 Mr. Manafort. Do you see that?
23 A. I do.
24 Q. Can you read the first paragraph?
25 A. (As read): "Without using 2015 taxes, we will have to get

Gates - Direct 1332
1 creative in terms of income (The K1 income versus distributed
2 income on the DMP returns knocks us down significantly)."
3 Q. And who's writing that e-mail?
4 A. Mr. Fallarino.
5 Q. And where does he work?
6 A. Citizens Bank.
7 Q. Okay. And then what does he say in the second paragraph
8 with respect to Cindy Laporta?
9 A. (As read): "I will get a letter from Cindy stating that
10 the 2015 K-1 income will be equal to the distribution income."
13 A. Yes. This is the letter that Mr. Manafort asked me to
14 draft and send to Cindy in regards to the ordinary versus
15 distribution income.
16 Q. Okay. And this, again, relates to the Peranova loan?
17 A. It does.
18 Q. And this is a different loan application now?
19 A. Correct.
20 Q. Okay.
21 MR. ANDRES: And the Government -- this is in
22 evidence, Your Honor.
25 THE COURT: Yes. Has it already been -- we're not

Gates - Direct 1333
1 reviewing testimony you've already elicited from someone else,
2 are we?
3 MR. ANDRES: I believe Ms. Laporta may have testified
4 to several facts that Mr. Gates has his own information about
5 the loan.
6 THE COURT: All right. Proceed.
7 BY MR. ANDRES:
8 Q. Can you summarize this e-mail for the jury?
9 A. Yes. This is a draft letter that I sent to Ms. Laporta in
10 order to fulfill Mr. Fallarino's request.
11 Q. Okay. And what does the letter -- can I turn to the
12 letter?
13 What can you tell me about the letter?
14 A. Yes. The purpose of the letter is to attest that the loan
15 forgiveness can be counted in the income of DMP.
16 Q. And did you send that letter to Ms. Laporta?
17 A. I did.
18 Q. And what did she do with it?
19 A. She, in the end, actually rewrote the letter and then sent
20 it to Mr. Fallarino.
21 MR. ANDRES: Can I focus on the second-to-last line?
22 Q. With respect to the line for the tax year 2015, is that
23 the part of the letter which Ms. Laporta changed?
24 A. She changed more than just that, but, yes, that's one area
25 she changed.

Gates - Direct 1334
1 Q. She revised the letter?
2 A. She did.
3 Q. Okay. Can you take a look at Government Exhibit 403?
5 A. Again, it's an e-mail chain initially starting with
6 Mr. Fallarino and Mr. Manafort, indicating that the letter has
7 been attached.
8 Q. Okay. And it's now been changed?
9 A. Yes.
11 Exhibit 403.
15 evidence.)
16 BY MR. ANDRES:
17 Q. With respect to the top e-mail, who wrote the top e-mail?
18 A. Mr. Fallarino.
19 Q. The top e-mail at 5-6-2016?
20 A. 5-6-2016.
21 Q. Do you have Exhibit 403?
22 A. 403, yes. I have to Mr. Fallarino, copying Ms. Rodriguez,
23 from Mr. Manafort.
24 Q. Okay. And can you read that e-mail?

Gates - Direct 1335
1 THE COURT: Yes.
2 MR. ANDRES: Focus on the top e-mail.
3 BY MR. ANDRES:
4 Q. Who's writing that e-mail?
5 A. Mr. Manafort is.
6 Q. And what does he say?
7 A. (As read): "Rick, please deal with Fallarino regarding the
8 change he needs in Laporta letter due this morning."
9 Q. Okay. And Mr. Manafort is asking you to do what?
10 A. Seek the change in the letter that he requested.
11 Q. And does that letter provide accurate information to the
12 bank?
13 A. No, it does not.
14 Q. How is it inaccurate?
15 A. It states that I think Mr. Manafort's primary address is
16 different than the one they used.
17 Q. But in terms of the letter from Cindy Laporta, what -- was
18 that letter accurate?
19 A. Yes. She includes the Peranova income in the ordinary
20 income in the letter for that year.
21 Q. Okay. And can I ask you to turn to Government
22 Exhibit 174?
23 What is that?
24 A. This is the letter that Ms. Laporta wrote and sent to
25 Mr. Fallarino.

Gates - Direct 1336
1 MR. ANDRES: This is already in evidence, Your Honor.
3 BY MR. ANDRES:
4 Q. So you've been through the process of revising the letter;
5 is that right?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Mr. -- was Mr. Manafort updated as to each and every
8 effort with respect to that letter?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And then it's sent to the bank?
11 A. It is.
12 Q. And when it's sent to the bank, who sends it to the bank?
13 A. Ms. Laporta sends it to the bank.
14 Q. Can I ask you now to turn to Government Exhibit 405?
15 Can you tell me what Government Exhibit 405 is?
16 A. Yes. It's an e-mail exchange among Mr. Manafort,
17 Ms. Laporta, Ms. Washkuhn, later copying me on the -- asking
18 for them to send Mr. Manafort the 2015 P&L.
20 admit 405.
24 evidence.)

Gates - Direct 1337
2 BY MR. ANDRES:
3 Q. And can I focus on the top e-mail?
4 With respect to the document, you said that
5 Mr. Manafort is seeking the P&L. Do you see on the top e-mail
6 what -- what the date of the P&L is?
7 A. Yes. It's July 31, 2016.
8 Q. And in the top e-mail, does Mr. Manafort make a request of
9 you?
10 A. He does.
11 Q. What does he say?
12 A. He asked me: How do I convert the PDF document into a
13 Word document?
14 Q. And as you understand it, when the P&L comes from
15 Ms. Washkuhn's firm, what form does it come in?
16 A. It comes in a PDF format.
17 Q. When Mr. Manafort said, "How do I convert into non-PDF
18 Word document," what did you understand that to mean?
19 A. That he wanted me to convert it from PDF to a Word format
20 for his use.
21 Q. Can you take a look at Government Exhibit 407?
22 What is this e-mail?
23 A. This is a follow-on e-mail to the previous one in which I
24 respond to Mr. Manafort's e-mail about the document conversion.
25 MR. ANDRES: Okay. The Government moves to admit

Gates - Direct 1338
1 407, Your Honor.
5 evidence.)
8 BY MR. ANDRES:
9 Q. Can I focus on the middle e-mail?
10 When Mr. Manafort writes, "How do I convert into
11 non-PDF Word document," what do you respond?
12 A. I respond that I can do it and will send to him.
13 Q. Okay. And what time did you respond to that?
14 A. 2:01 p.m.
15 Q. And then did Mr. Manafort inquire again?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And what did you say?
18 A. I said, "About 15 minutes. Almost home."
19 Q. Okay. And when you say "almost home," where are you going
20 to at this point?
21 A. In Richmond.
22 Q. Did you ultimately convert this document into a non-PDF?
23 A. I did.
24 Q. And when Mr. Manafort says "non-PDF," what do you
25 understand that to mean?

Gates - Direct 1339
1 A. Understand that to mean that he is going to make some sort
2 of change to it.
3 Q. Okay. You're going to convert it into what form or what
4 type of document?
5 A. Into a Word document.
6 Q. Okay. And that's a word processing-related application?
7 A. Yes, correct.
9 A. Okay.
10 Q. What is contained in Government Exhibit 408?
11 A. This is the 2016 P&L document that I convert from a PDF to
12 a Microsoft Word document and send to Mr. Manafort.
13 Q. This is the original document Mr. Manafort sent to you?
14 A. It is.
15 Q. Okay. And when you convert a document from a PDF to a
16 Word or a word processing document, what, if anything, happens
17 to it?
18 A. In often cases, depending on the complexity of the various
19 fonts and graphics used, the alignments can be messed up when
20 you convert the document. Also, some of the numbers can change
21 to symbols.
23 admit Government Exhibit 408 and asks to publish it.
25 THE COURT: Admitted. You may do so.

Gates - Direct 1340
2 evidence.)
3 BY MR. ANDRES:
4 Q. Focusing on the first e-mail, who is the e-mail from?
5 A. The e-mail is from me.
6 Q. From who?
7 A. From me to Mr. Manafort.
8 Q. And what's attached? Can I show you the first attachment?
9 A. Yes. The attachment is the July 31, 2016, P&L statement.
10 Q. Okay. And there are various parentheses and other letters
11 and numbers mixed together. What's that a result of?
12 A. That's a result of converting it from a PDF to a Word
13 document format.
14 Q. When you look at the net -- have you changed the numbers
15 here at all?
16 A. No.
17 Q. So when you look at the net income or loss, what was the
18 net income or loss of the document when you sent it to
19 Mr. Manafort?
20 A. The net loss was $638,000.
21 Q. Okay. And then this is the document sent to Mr. Manafort?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And in what version is it in?
24 A. Word document.

Gates - Direct 1341
1 What is that?
2 A. This is an e-mail to me from Mr. Manafort in regards to a
3 revised P&L he has attached.
4 Q. And when he says revised P&L, what do -- what do you think
5 he means by that?
6 A. When I saw the document, I saw that he had changed the
7 income number.
12 evidence.)
15 BY MR. ANDRES:
16 Q. Okay. In terms of the first document, when Mr. Manafort
17 writes in all caps, what is he conveying to you?
18 A. That he's attached the revised P&L and to call him and
19 discuss this and other matters.
20 Q. Okay. And can you turn to the next page?
21 And can you focus on net income?
22 What is listed as the net income?
23 A. Net income is $3 million.
24 Q. Okay. And is the format of the document different?
25 A. It is.

Gates - Direct 1342
1 Q. Okay. And as of September of 2016, did DMP International
2 have any clients?
3 A. It did not.
4 Q. Were they making any money?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Was the number that Mr. Manafort included there, was it
7 accurate?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Was it off by how much money approximately?
10 A. About 4.2 million.
12 Can you tell me what's included in Government
13 Exhibit 406?
14 A. Yes. It's an e-mail from Mr. Manafort to me.
15 Q. And --
16 A. Asking to convert the document and send to him.
18 Exhibit 406 and seeks to publish it.
20 THE COURT: You may -- yes, it's admitted. You may
21 do so.
23 evidence.)
24 BY MR. ANDRES:
25 Q. With respect to the top e-mail, who's that from?

Gates - Direct 1343
1 A. Mr. Manafort.
2 Q. What does he ask you to do?
3 A. He's asking me to convert the PDF -- convert the document
4 to a PDF and send to him.
5 Q. And what's attached?
6 A. Attached is the 2016 P&L statement that he modified.
7 Q. Okay. And with respect to the net income, what's listed
8 in the attachment?
9 A. Net income is 3 million.
10 Q. Okay. And is that an accurate statement of DMP
11 International's P&L as of September 2016?
12 A. It is not.
13 Q. I'm going to ask you to turn to page 411 -- Exhibit 411,
14 excuse me, Government Exhibit 411.
15 What is that?
16 A. It's an e-mail to Mr. Manafort from me, reconverting the
17 document and sending to him.
18 Q. Okay. And this also contains the false P&L?
19 A. Yes.
21 admit Government Exhibit 40- -- sorry, Government Exhibit 411.
25 evidence.)

Gates - Direct 1344
2 THE COURT: Yes. You need to -- I assume you need to
3 do so.
4 MR. ANDRES: Yes, Judge, I'm --
6 BY MR. ANDRES:
7 Q. With respect to the document, can you turn to the second
8 page and identify the net income?
9 A. Net income is 3 million.
10 Q. Okay. You can take that down.
11 Mr. Gates, you testified that you were arrested in
12 October of what year?
13 A. 2017.
14 Q. Okay. Prior to the time that you were arrested, were you
15 aware of the fact that you were under investigation?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Had you received subpoenas and other requests for
18 documents?
19 A. I did.
20 Q. Did you receive a subpoena for your overseas bank records?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And did you make a production of those documents?
23 A. I did.
24 Q. Okay. At some point, did you have a conversation with
25 Mr. Manafort about those -- about that production or the

Gates - Direct 1345
1 overseas bank records?
2 A. I did.
3 Q. What, if anything, did he tell you?
4 A. Mr. Manafort indicated to me that he wasn't sure why I was
5 being dragged into the investigation and indicated that he
6 would have a representative signify that I had no ownership or
7 control over those, that I was an employee of DMP and had no
8 ability to have control over those accounts.
9 Q. During the time that you worked for Mr. Manafort, did you
10 delete your e-mails from time to time?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. In what instances did you delete your e-mails?
13 A. I mean, typically, I tried to do a purge of e-mails, you
14 know, throughout the year, just given the volume of e-mails I
15 typically received.
16 Q. Were there instances where you deleted e-mails so that
17 they -- the Government or other entities wouldn't find out
18 about them?
19 A. Yes, there was one instance.
20 Q. Okay. During the time that you communicated with
21 Mr. Manafort, did you ever use encrypted applications?
22 A. We did.
23 Q. What are encrypted applications?
24 A. Well, encrypted applications are supposed to protect the
25 communications between two individuals.

Gates - Direct 1346
1 Q. Okay. Did you frequently use those applications?
2 A. I would say so in the later years, yes.
3 Q. And what are some of the encrypted applications that you
4 used?
5 A. Signal, Viber, I think were the primary two. I think we
6 had used an application called Box at one point.
7 Q. You testified that at some point, you began working for
8 the Trump campaign; is that correct?
9 A. Yes.
11 A. March of 2016.
12 Q. And was Mr. Manafort also working for the Trump campaign?
13 A. He was.
14 Q. What was his position?
15 A. At that moment, he was the convention manager.
16 Q. And did he later have a different position?
17 A. He did.
18 Q. Okay. What position?
19 A. He ultimately became chairman of the campaign.
20 Q. Do you know, did there come a point when Mr. Manafort left
21 the campaign?
22 A. Yes.
24 A. It was in late August.
25 Q. And did you continue on?

Gates - Direct 1347
1 A. I did.
2 Q. Okay. After your work on the campaign, did you have
3 another job with respect to the administration?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. What was it?
6 A. Following the campaign, I went to work for the
7 inauguration.
8 Q. Okay. Let me ask you to look at Government Exhibit 397.
9 A. Okay.
10 Q. Can you tell me what Government Exhibit 397 is?
11 A. Yes. It's an e-mail exchange among a number of the staff
12 in regards to an economic advisory council that we're putting
13 together.
14 Q. Okay. And that's economic advisory council for the Trump
15 campaign?
17 Q. Okay. Can I just focus you on the page, at the bottom it
18 says 3 of 66?
19 A. Okay.
20 Q. Is there an individual named Stephen Calk listed?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Okay. And what is he being nominated to?
23 A. To the economic advisory council for the campaign.
24 Q. And do you know if he ultimately was on that?
25 A. I believe he was.

Gates - Direct 1348
2 Do you see that?
3 A. I do.
4 Q. What is Government Exhibit 399?
5 A. It's an e-mail from Mr. Manafort to me in regards to
6 Mr. Calk.
7 Q. Okay.
9 Exhibit 399.
10 MR. DOWNING: Your Honor, could I have a moment,
11 please?
12 THE COURT: Yes.
13 MR. DOWNING: I don't have that exhibit available to
14 me. I think it was produced electronically this morning. If I
15 could have a copy, I'll take a quick look at it.
16 THE COURT: It was produced when?
17 MR. DOWNING: This morning.
18 MR. ANDRES: I don't think it -- I don't want to
19 respond, Your Honor, but I'm happy to -- Kevin?
20 MR. DOWNING: Oh, do you have a copy? Thank you.
21 No objection.
22 THE COURT: All right. It's admitted.
24 evidence.)

Gates - Direct 1349
1 THE COURT: Yes.
2 MR. ANDRES: 399. I'm going to use the ELMO, Your
3 Honor.
4 BY MR. ANDRES:
5 Q. Mr. Gates, who's this e-mail from?
6 A. From Mr. Manafort.
7 Q. And who is it to?
8 A. To me.
9 Q. And what's the date?
10 A. November 24, 2016.
11 Q. On November 24, 2016, where were you working?
12 A. I was working for the presidential inaugural committee.
13 Q. And where was Mr. Manafort working?
14 A. I don't know.
15 Q. And can you read that e-mail?
16 A. "Rick, we need to discuss Steve Calk for Secretary of
17 Army. I hear the list is being considered this weekend."
18 Q. Is that the same Steve Calk who was previously identified
19 on the economic council?
20 A. Yes.
22 Do you see that?
23 A. I do.
24 Q. What is that?
25 A. It's an e-mail from Mr. Manafort to me in regards to a

Gates - Direct 1350
1 list.
2 MR. ANDRES: And the Government moves to admit
4 Can you pass that?
5 THE COURT: How many more of these are there that he
6 may not have seen?
7 MR. ANDRES: I think this is the last one, Judge.
8 THE COURT: I take it all of this relates to a person
9 who had some contact with the bank these loans were being
10 applied for?
11 MR. ANDRES: That's correct, Your Honor.
16 evidence.)
18 THE COURT: Yes.
19 BY MR. ANDRES:
20 Q. With respect to the e-mail in Government Exhibit 402,
21 what's the date of that e-mail?
22 A. December 23, 2016.
23 Q. And who's it from?
24 A. Mr. Manafort.
25 Q. And who is it to?

Gates - Direct 1351
1 A. To me.
2 Q. And what does it pertain to?
3 A. It pertains to individuals that Mr. Manafort would like to
4 invite to the inauguration.
5 Q. And where were you working at the time?
6 A. At the inaugural committee.
7 Q. Okay. And how about Mr. Manafort?
8 A. I don't know.
9 Q. If you turn to the last page of that, 15 of 26 --
10 actually, the second-to-last page, excuse me, 14 of 26.
11 Second from the bottom, can you read the name there?
12 A. Yes. Stephen Calk and Stephen Calk, Jr.
13 Q. And was Mr. Manafort asking for tickets to the
14 inauguration for Stephen Calk?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Okay. You can take that down.
17 Mr. Gates, you've testified at various times that
18 Mr. Manafort had season tickets to the New York Yankees; is
19 that correct?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Okay. And over what period of time was Mr. Manafort a
22 season ticket holder?
23 A. From at least the time I was there in 2006 to 2016.
24 Q. Okay. Did there come a time when he had difficulty paying
25 for those tickets?

Gates - Direct 1352
1 A. Yes.
3 A. In 2016.
4 Q. Did he task you with -- do you -- did he task you with --
5 THE COURT: What, if anything, did he task you with,
6 with respect to the tickets?
7 BY MR. ANDRES:
8 Q. What, if anything, did he --
9 THE COURT: That means it's not leading.
10 MR. ANDRES: I -- that's a great question, Judge.
11 Thanks.
12 (Laughter.)
13 THE COURT: Now, if they only paid me as much as they
14 pay you.
15 (Laughter.)
16 THE COURT: Next. Go ahead.
17 BY MR. ANDRES:
18 Q. What, if anything, did Mr. Manafort ask you to do with
19 respect to the tickets?
20 A. He asked me to do him a favor. I was still on the
21 campaign at the time, and it was very, you know, work
22 intensive. So he asked me to sign a letter for him that
23 attributed the cost of the Yankees tickets to me instead of
24 him.
25 Q. Okay. And did it -- did the letter make a reference to

Gates - Direct 1353
1 borrowing his credit card?
2 A. It did, I believe, yes.
3 Q. Okay. Did you ever borrow Mr. Manafort's credit card to
4 buy Yankees tickets?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Did you ever purchase Yankees tickets, season Yankees
7 tickets for yourself?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Okay. Were you previously involved in helping to resolve
10 the payment issue?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Okay. I'm going to ask you to turn to Government
13 Exhibit 393.
15 A. Yes. This is an e-mail that Mr. Manafort originally
16 received from the New York Yankees in regards to the payment
17 for his accounts.
23 evidence.)
25 THE COURT: Is it necessary? We're going to get this

Gates - Direct 1354
1 finished soon.
2 MR. ANDRES: It's the last document, Your Honor.
3 THE COURT: All right. And what does this document
4 that you want to publish show that isn't already in evidence?
5 MR. ANDRES: It shows the issue with respect to the
6 payment plan and the communications with the New York Yankees.
7 THE COURT: Didn't he already testify to that?
8 MR. ANDRES: Not to the specifics.
9 THE COURT: All right. Go ahead, publish it.
11 BY MR. ANDRES:
12 Q. Mr. Gates, can you tell me what's described in Government
13 Exhibit 393?
14 A. Yes. It's an e-mail from the New York Yankees regarding
15 Mr. Manafort's payment for season tickets.
16 Q. And do you know approximately what the debt was or what
17 the payment was that was owed?
18 A. I believe at the time, the Yankees tickets usually ranged
19 in kind of the 210- to $225,000 range.
20 Q. And was that -- was that money assessed to a particular
21 credit card for Mr. Manafort?
22 A. It was.
23 Q. And was that credit card paid on time?
24 A. Not at that time.
25 MR. ANDRES: Your Honor, may I have one moment?

Gates - Direct 1355
1 THE COURT: Yes.
2 BY MR. ANDRES:
3 Q. Mr. Gates, you testified that in your plea agreement, the
4 Government promised to write you a 5K letter; is that correct?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Has that letter been written yet?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Have you been sentenced yet?
9 A. No.
10 Q. As you sit here today, do you know what your sentence is
11 going to be?
12 A. I do not.
13 MR. ANDRES: I have no further questions, Your Honor.
14 THE COURT: But in addition, did the Government
15 promise to seek or not to object to a request for probation?
16 THE WITNESS: It did.
18 MR. ANDRES: No, Judge.
19 THE COURT: All right. I'm going to take a recess so
20 you -- give you an opportunity, Mr. Downing.
21 Pass your books to the right, ladies and gentlemen.
22 The court security officer will collect them, maintain their
23 security during the recess, and we will recess until quarter --
24 quarter of three give you enough time, Mr. Downing?

1356
1 THE COURT: All right. Quarter of three. If you
2 need longer, tell Mr. Flood.
3 MR. DOWNING: I will.
4 THE COURT: And I expect you to use any extra time to
5 focus sharply your cross-examination.
7 THE COURT: All right. Remember to refrain from
8 discussing the matter among yourselves or with anyone or
9 undertaking any investigation. Follow Mr. Flood out. Soft
10 drinks are available back there.
11 (Jury out.)
12 THE COURT: Court stands in recess.
13 (Recess from 2:25 p.m., until 3:07 p.m.)
15 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Downing, have you had
16 enough time?
17 MR. DOWNING: I have, Your Honor. Thank you.
18 THE COURT: All right. Let me ask something because
19 I want to see if I can forestall any objections or resolve them
20 first. Do you intend to examine Mr. Gates on what benefits he
21 got from this deal with the Government, that is, what he
22 avoided?
23 MR. DOWNING: Yes.
24 THE COURT: So I take it you intend -- as I
25 understand it, he pled guilty to charges in Washington, not

1357
1 here.
2 MR. DOWNING: Correct.
3 THE COURT: But the charges against him here were
4 dismissed as a result of that deal.
6 THE COURT: Do you intend to go over the charges here
7 that are no longer against him and what -- how many years he
8 faced for all those?
9 MR. DOWNING: I do.
10 THE COURT: And that's -- Mr. Andres, that's
11 perfectly appropriate, isn't it?
12 MR. ANDRES: Perfectly.
14 (Laughter.)
15 THE COURT: Because you've made judgments in other
16 parts of this case not to do that.
17 MR. DOWNING: I did, Your Honor. That's correct. Or
18 we did.
19 One other issue I'd like to address with the Court
20 beforehand: There was a motion -- oh, we need to do that
21 sidebar?
22 MR. ANDRES: Yes.
23 MR. DOWNING: The Government would like a sidebar to
24 talk about it.
25 THE COURT: All right. You may do that.

1358
1 (Bench conference on the record.)
2 THE COURT: Yes, sir.
3 MR. DOWNING: The government raised an issue about if
4 we were going to question --
5 THE COURT: I'm sorry, if you-all could step back a
6 bit?
7 MR. DOWNING: If we were to --
8 THE COURT: My mother smoked when she was pregnant,
9 or I'd be as tall as you are. My father was six-one.
10 Go ahead.
11 MR. DOWNING: The government raised an issue whether
12 or not we were going to cross-examine Mr. Gates about specific
13 acts of marital infidelity. We don't plan on doing that, but
14 we plan on questioning him about what we call his, you know,
15 separate secret life and how --
16 THE COURT: Whose separate secret life?
17 MR. DOWNING: Mr. Gates.
18 THE COURT: Oh.
19 MR. DOWNING: And how it relates to money he had
20 stolen, embezzled, and things that he was doing, but
21 specifically as to infidelity, we do not think we're going to
22 get into that.
23 THE COURT: All right. And is there anything for me
24 to consider and decide in that regard?
25 MR. ANDRES: No. I believe that the issue that we

1359
1 raised originally, Judge, was that the Fourth Circuit has held
2 that if somebody cheats on their wife or whatever, it's not
3 necessarily indicative of truthfulness. Mr. Downing has
4 indicated he's not going to go there, and so we don't have any
5 issue.
6 MR. DOWNING: Well, I want to be clear.
7 THE COURT: Yeah, I --
8 MR. DOWNING: We're not going to go into specific
9 acts of infidelity, but we are definitely implying that he was
10 leading a separate secret life from Mr. Manafort and from
11 others.
12 THE COURT: Well, if that's -- am I right that what
13 you're thinking of doing is you're thinking of showing that he
14 needed money --
16 THE COURT: -- and therefore he took money that
17 wasn't his for another purpose?
19 THE COURT: I don't see anything wrong with that. Do
20 you, Mr. Andres?
21 MR. ANDRES: Yeah, just as long as there's not some
22 suggestion he's spending that money on things that are, that
23 are, you know, would somehow suggest marital infidelity.
24 MR. DOWNING: Well, I think --
25 MR. ANDRES: I mean, I don't know how that's

1360
1 appropriate. They can ask whatever they want about how he's
2 spending his money, but he's got to answer yes to those
3 questions in the first place. I don't know that he will, but
4 putting that aside --
5 THE COURT: You're not going to ask him directly
6 whether he was faithful to his wife?
7 MR. DOWNING: Correct, but I will ask him about
8 keeping an apartment in London and going to fancy restaurants
9 and staying in fancy hotels, stuff like that, but no, I'm not
10 going to ask him about a specific act of infidelity.
11 THE COURT: And so he needed money.
13 THE COURT: And you're going to establish or try to
14 establish that he stole money from Manafort for that purpose.
15 MR. DOWNING: Yes, Your Honor.
16 THE COURT: It seems to me perfectly appropriate.
17 MR. ANDRES: Totally agree, Judge.
18 THE COURT: All right. Anything else we need to
19 discuss?
20 MR. ANDRES: No, Judge. Thank you.
21 MR. DOWNING: Thank you.
22 THE COURT: All right. Let's go.
24 THE COURT: All right. Let's have Mr. Gates return,
25 please.

Gates - Cross 1361
1 Oh, she's wonderful. She's a jewel. Without
2 Ms. Pham, I would fall on my face every day. Bring the jury
3 in.
4 (Laughter.)
5 THE COURT: I just told her supervisor this morning
6 that she's a jewel.
7 (Jury present.)
8 THE COURT: All right. You may be seated. Thank you
9 for your patience, ladies and gentlemen, but I assure you it
10 was necessary. Neither side objected and neither side was
11 responsible for this delay. It's necessary to do it.
12 All right. Now, I'll have Mr. Gates return.
13 Mr. Gates, you'll recall, sir, that you remain under
14 oath.
15 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
17 And, Mr. Downing, you may begin your
18 cross-examination.
21 BY MR. DOWNING:
22 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Gates.
23 A. Good afternoon.
24 Q. I think, as you know, I represent Mr. Manafort, and we're
25 here to ask you some questions about events leading up to your

Gates - Cross 1362
1 testimony here today and your 20-some-odd interviews with the
2 Office of Special Counsel on the way here.
3 THE COURT: You'll have to speak up just a bit,
4 Mr. Downing, for my benefit.
5 BY MR. DOWNING:
6 Q. Mr. Gates, why don't we go back to the period of January
7 of this year?
8 You had occasion to sit down with your lawyer in the
9 Office of Special Counsel to discuss matters surrounding this
10 case?
11 A. I did.
12 Q. And did you meet on more than one occasion with the Office
13 of Special Counsel before entering into a plea agreement?
14 A. We did.
15 Q. Did you meet approximately three or four times before you
16 entered your plea?
17 A. Yes, I'd say that's accurate.
18 Q. And during the three or four times that you met with the
19 Office of Special Counsel, did you provide to them false and
20 misleading information?
21 A. Not at that time, no.
22 Q. Not at that time.
23 A. No.
24 Q. Do you recall when you first started giving false and
25 misleading information to the Office of Special Counsel?

Gates - Cross 1363
1 A. I was charged with a second count that was prior to the
2 plea agreement.
3 Q. The second count was prior to the plea agreement?
4 THE COURT: I don't think that was responsive to his
5 question. Re-ask your question.
6 THE WITNESS: Can you repeat the question, please?
7 BY MR. DOWNING:
8 Q. When did you first start providing false and misleading
9 information to the Office of Special Counsel?
10 A. I didn't provide false and misleading information to the
11 Special Counsel's office.
12 Q. And then why did the Office of Special Counsel have you
13 plead guilty to providing false information to the Office of
14 Special Counsel?
15 A. Under the one instance I did.
16 THE COURT: I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.
17 THE WITNESS: Under the one instance I did.
18 THE COURT: Well, so previously, you said you didn't
19 provide false information.
20 THE WITNESS: That's correct. Your Honor, my
21 information leading up to the one count, up to that point, I
22 had not provided false and misleading information.
24 BY MR. DOWNING:
25 Q. So just to get an idea of timeframe, you pled in February

Gates - Cross 1364
1 of this year?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And you met with the Special Counsel starting in late
4 January of this year?
5 A. I believe that's correct.
6 Q. And prior to you entering your plea, when did you provide
7 false and misleading information to the Government?
8 A. There were instances where I struggled with the
9 interviews, certainly recalling details and facts about various
10 questions that the Special Counsel asked. So there's no
11 question that I struggled to -- to get all the information out.
12 Q. So it sounds to me, as you sit here today, you're not
13 saying you knowingly, intentionally provided false and
14 misleading information. You just had a bad recollection; is
15 that correct?
16 A. To some extent, yes.
17 THE COURT: But I thought you said you pled guilty to
18 providing false information?
19 THE WITNESS: I did, Your Honor, to one count.
20 THE COURT: All right. You just said you just had a
21 bad memory. Did you provide false information or did you have
22 just a bad memory?
23 THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I provided false
24 information to the Special Counsel prior to my plea agreement.

Gates - Cross 1365
1 BY MR. DOWNING:
2 Q. Prior to your plea agreement?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. But not after your plea agreement?
5 A. No.
6 Q. And how many times did you meet with the Office of Special
7 Counsel after you entered into your plea agreement?
9 Q. Now, do you know how the Office of Special Counsel found
10 out that you had provided false and misleading information to
11 them?
12 A. No, I do not.
13 Q. Were you confronted by the Office of Special Counsel in an
14 interview about providing false and misleading information?
15 A. I was.
16 Q. And who confronted you?
17 A. I believe it was Mr. Weissman.
18 Q. And when he confronted you, did he indicate to you that
19 you had -- you had no chance of getting a plea agreement
20 because you had lied intentionally during a proffer session?
21 A. He indicated that in order to move forward with the plea
22 agreement I would have to accept the second charge.
23 Q. And did you have a plea agreement drafted for you at that
24 time?
25 A. I don't recall if it was drafted at that time.

Gates - Cross 1366
1 Q. Did you know the terms and conditions of your plea
2 agreement at that time?
3 A. I was aware of some of them, yes.
4 Q. And when you met with the Office of Special Counsel at
5 each meeting, did they tell you you were required to provide
6 truthful information?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And after they discovered that you had intentionally
9 provided false and misleading information, did they tell you
10 they would not offer you a plea?
11 A. They never made that indication.
12 Q. But, instead, they told you they added a charge; is that
13 correct?
15 Q. Even though you knowingly and intentionally lied?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And subsequent to that, you did sign a plea agreement with
18 the Office of Special Counsel, correct?
20 Q. And that agreement, once again, requires you to provide
21 truthful information?
23 Q. Not to be intentionally false or misleading; is that
24 correct?
25 A. Correct.

Gates - Cross 1367
1 Q. And in your plea agreement, despite the fact that you had
2 a plea to two counts with a total exposure to you of ten years
3 in jail, the Office of Special Counsel agreed that your lawyer
4 could file a recommendation with a judge in Washington, D.C.,
5 to say that even though you had committed these crimes and
6 admitted to it and lied during the process, that you should get
7 probation; is that correct?
8 A. No, they were not responsible for indicating what the
9 sentence might be. That's up to the judge.
10 Q. So let me repeat the question. The terms of your plea
11 agreement let your lawyer argue that you should have probation
12 and no jail time; is that correct?
14 Q. And it would be unopposed by the Office of Special
15 Counsel; is that correct?
16 A. If I fulfilled the requirements in the plea agreement,
17 yes.
18 Q. Even though before you got the plea agreement, you
19 violated the terms and conditions of your proffer with them?
20 A. I don't know all the terms related prior to the proffer.
21 I knew when I signed the plea agreement what the terms were.
22 Q. Well, you did know that the proffer agreement -- the most
23 important term was that you tell the truth?
25 Q. And you violated that before you even got a plea

Gates - Cross 1368
1 agreement?
2 MR. ANDRES: Objection, Judge. That misstates both
3 the proffer agreement and the nature of it.
4 THE COURT: I'll overrule the objection. If he
5 misstates something in his mind, he can testify to it.
6 You may disagree with the accuracy of it, but your
7 mindset is not what's important; it's his.
9 BY MR. DOWNING:
10 Q. So is that correct? That was one of the most important
11 things for you to do, tell the truth?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. So let's talk about some of the information that you
14 provided during your proffers on the fraudulent activity that
15 you were involved in and let's start with Global Sites.
16 Do you want to explain what Global Sites is?
17 A. Yes. Global Sites is a company set up by Mr. Manafort and
18 a partner of his in New York in regards to a high-frequency
19 trading business.
20 Q. And that was a gentleman named Arthur Cohen, correct?
21 A. It was.
22 Q. And "it was" because he's deceased, correct?
23 A. Correct.
24 Q. And he had expertise in the area of high-speed trading?
25 A. He did not, but people affiliated with him did.

Gates - Cross 1369
1 Q. And Mr. Manafort made an investment with Mr. Cohen in
2 Global Sites; is that correct?
4 Q. And there came a time where you got involved with that
5 investment; is that correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And you had represented to Mr. Cohen that of the
8 $1.5 million that Mr. Manafort invested -- he invested 1.5, did
9 he not?
10 A. I don't recall the exact amount. I believe it was more,
11 though.
12 Q. And you represented to Mr. Cohen of the amount of money
13 that Mr. Manafort invested, $250,000 of that was your money?
15 Q. And you represented that it was a bonus?
17 Q. And that's what you told the Office of Special Counsel?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Now, this is in 2012 when this investment took place?
20 A. No, it was in 2011, I believe.
21 Q. 2011. In 2011, what was your salary at DMP?
22 A. I believe it was approximately 240,000.
23 Q. And you, in 2011, received a bonus that year of about
24 $60,000; is that correct?
25 A. I believe that was -- I don't know. I don't have the --

Gates - Cross 1370
1 Q. About 60 to put you at $300,000?
2 A. That would be correct.
3 Q. And you sit here today, and you're telling this jury to
4 believe that on top of the 60,000 that Mr. Manafort allocated
5 another 250,000 to you for a bonus?
7 Q. That's correct? And that that would be your investment
8 with Mr. Cohen?
9 A. The investment with Mr. Cohen was actually through a
10 promissory note as well.
11 Q. Oh, we're going to get to the promissory note. That's
12 next up.
13 But so the first 250, you represented that
14 Mr. Manafort said it was a bonus for you; is that correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And have you seen any e-mails presented to you in any of
17 your meetings with the Office of Special Counsel that
18 Mr. Manafort communicated that you were going to be paid a
19 $250,000 bonus?
20 A. I do not believe there are any e-mails.
21 Q. So let's get to the promissory note, Part 2 of this
22 investment, correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And the second part of the investment is approximately a
25 $700,000 investment split between you and Mr. Cohen; is that

Gates - Cross 1371
1 correct?
2 A. Correct.
3 Q. And I think you represented to the Office of Special
4 Counsel that $350,000 that you provided to Mr. Cohen came out
5 of the Cypriot funds; is that correct?
6 A. It came from the Cypriot funds to my accounts in the form
7 of bonuses and other payments, which, over time, I paid back
8 Mr. Cohen.
9 Q. And in what year did you get the $350,000 bonus?
10 A. It wasn't a singular year. It was over, I think, a period
11 of four years.
12 Q. Four years. So in 2011, you got a $250,000 bonus for one
13 year, but then it took three years to accumulate the 350,000;
14 is that correct?
15 A. Yes, in order for me to repay the promissory note.
16 Q. And as you sit here today, do you want the jury to believe
17 that Mr. Manafort authorized you to take $350,000 out of the
18 Cypriot account?
19 A. I've already admitted to the fact that I took unauthorized
20 funds from Mr. Manafort.
21 Q. So they weren't bonuses?
22 A. No, they were bonuses.
23 Q. Well, how can it be unauthorized?
24 A. I thought you were talking about additional funds that I
25 already admitted to.

Gates - Cross 1372
1 Q. Oh, okay. I can see where the confusion comes from?
2 MR. DOWNING: May I --
3 THE COURT: Hand it to the court security officer.
4 There's a rule that you can't stray from the podium. The court
5 security officer will hand the witness anything the witness
6 needs.
7 BY MR. DOWNING:
8 Q. Now, please take a look at what's been marked Defendant's
9 Exhibit 17.
10 So, Mr. Gates, just take a minute to look over this
11 exhibit, kind of look at the -- the totals for years 2010 to
12 2014. Give me a ballpark total number for all those items, if
13 you could.
14 A. It looks like approximately 2.7, 2.8.
15 Q. It's about $3 million, correct?
16 A. Okay.
17 Q. And about how many entries are contained on this -- this
18 document?
19 A. I'd venture to guess somewhere around 40.
20 Q. Somewhere around 40 entries?
21 And do you recall this document being a compilation
22 of unreported income that you had been initially indicted for
23 in this district?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And included on this -- on this -- in this document are

Gates - Cross 1373
1 some very large dollar entries that are coming out of various
2 Cypriot entities; is that correct?
4 Q. And each and every one of the transactions that was --
5 that's contained on this document, as included in your original
6 indictment here, they were authorized by you; isn't that
7 correct?
8 A. Yes. Some were authorized by Mr. Manafort, but there were
9 unauthorized transfers as well.
10 Q. So what I would imagine is -- can you -- do you recall
11 talking to the Office of Special Counsel about having some
12 unauthorized transfers out of the Cypriot accounts?
13 A. I believe I indicated that to them, yes.
14 Q. And do you recall saying that you thought there were about
15 six that were unauthorized?
16 A. No, I don't have any recollection.
17 Q. Totaling about $420,000, do you remember that?
18 A. I do not.
19 Q. Can you pick out the six that you represented to the
20 Office of Special Counsel were authorized?
21 A. No, I cannot.
22 Q. Can you pick out the 420,000 out of this list that you
23 represented were authorized?
24 A. I cannot.
25 Q. Now, as you sit here today, are you representing that

Gates - Cross 1374
1 particular transactions on here were authorized by
2 Mr. Manafort?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. But you can't recall if it was the six that you
5 represented to the Office of Special Counsel?
6 A. It's actually not the amount. It's for the purpose of
7 what it was for. That's how I can tell.
8 Q. Okay. One moment.
9 Now, Mr. Gates, the transactions that I have in front
10 of you totaling $3 million, can you explain to me what these
11 transactions are for?
12 A. Yes. Some of them were unauthorized transactions, which I
13 admitted to. Others were --
14 Q. So let's slow down. Which were the unauthorized
15 transactions?
16 A. I don't know in general. I'm saying I made that
17 statement.
18 Q. And other than unauthorized transaction, do you have a
19 dollar amount that you can give to the jury were unauthorized
20 out of the 3 million?
21 A. Out of this 3 million, no, I cannot.
22 Q. And in addition to unauthorized ones, do you see
23 transactions that you -- you can identify as being some kind of
24 legitimate amount of money?
25 A. Yes.

Gates - Cross 1375
1 Q. That you were duly owed?
2 A. Correct.
3 Q. Which ones are those?
4 A. The series of transactions from Bletilla Ventures, while
5 not all of these were authorized, many of them were authorized
6 in the form of increased income from Mr. Manafort in regards to
7 the lobbying project that we took on between the years of 2012
8 and 2014, and that also included expenses as well.
9 Q. What kind of expenses?
10 A. In this case, some legitimate, some not.
11 Q. What does that mean? Can you explain that?
12 A. Yes. That means that some expenses had been approved by
13 Mr. Manafort and others had not been approved.
14 Q. And why would they need to be approved by Mr. Manafort?
15 A. Because all expenses at some point needed to be approved
16 by him.
17 Q. And they were unrelated to the business of DMP
18 International; is that correct?
19 A. These expenses?
20 Q. Yes.
21 A. Some were in relation to DMP, but others were not.
22 Q. They were personal, correct?
23 A. Some were personal, yes.
24 Q. A substantial amount of them were personal, correct?
25 A. That's possible, yes.

Gates - Cross 1376
1 Q. Why do you say it's possible?
2 A. Because I don't know the exact breakdown based on this
3 sheet that you indicated -- or that you gave to me in terms of
4 what they exactly are.
5 Q. Did you have a scheme that you developed to put personal
6 expenses as legitimate business expenses and have them paid
7 through these offshore accounts?
8 Was that a scheme you perpetrated?
9 A. It wasn't a scheme. I just added expense numbers to the
10 reports.
11 Q. You added what?
12 A. Numbers to the expense reports.
13 Q. Or did you just submit your total AmEx bill and say, I'll
14 have the whole thing paid, thank you?
15 A. I don't believe it was submitted overseas because we
16 didn't submit that type of documentation.
17 Q. Did you have amounts paid to you in the full amount of
18 your AmEx bill?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. That included substantial personal expenditures?
21 A. Yes, that's possible.
22 Q. What do you mean it's possible?
23 Is that part of your scheme? Did you do that?
24 A. I don't have the AmEx statements in front of me, so I
25 don't know what you're referring to.

Gates - Cross 1377
1 Q. Did you knowingly and intentionally have personal expenses
2 paid for through the Cypriot accounts of DMP International?
3 A. Yes. I've already stated that.
4 Q. And it was part of the scheme that you perpetrated over
5 several years; is that correct?
6 A. I submitted expense reports that were not authorized over
7 several years, that's correct.
8 Q. And this is not something you disclosed to the Office of
9 Special Counsel, did you?
10 A. Yes, it is.
11 Q. Was this the seven times that you were talking about that
12 you had unauthorized transfers?
13 A. No, I don't believe I indicated a number with the
14 Special --
15 Q. Was this the 125,000 you stole out of SunTrust account
16 from Mr. Manafort?
17 A. I don't know what you're referring to.
18 Q. Did you not get questioned by the Office of Special
19 Counsel about closing a DMP SunTrust account?
20 A. I don't recall.
21 Q. You don't recall it having a balance of $125,000?
22 A. No.
23 Q. You don't recall telling the Office of Special Counsel
24 that 100 of it was a bonus for you?
25 A. It's possible.

Gates - Cross 1378
1 Q. It's possible you said it or it's possible it's a bonus?
2 A. It's possible that it's both.
3 Q. And then when you told them the last 25,000 was used to
4 open a PNC bank account, were you confronted by Mr. Weissmann
5 that no such thing ever happened?
7 Q. You know --
8 THE COURT: I'm sorry, what was your answer?
9 THE WITNESS: I said I don't recall.
10 BY MR. DOWNING:
11 Q. Mr. Gates, you seem to have perfect recollection on direct
12 examination. You have such a hard time now having recollection
13 about the same period of time.
14 Why is that?
15 A. Well, I think you're referring to statements that I
16 haven't seen, so I don't know where you're getting the
17 information from.
18 Q. You haven't seen the 302s?
19 A. No, I have not.
20 Q. Have you been confronted with information you provided by
21 the Office of Special Counsel?
22 A. On the 302s?
23 Q. Yes.
25 Q. Have they confronted you with so many lies that you can't

Gates - Cross 1379
1 remember any of it?
2 A. No.
3 Q. No what?
4 A. No, they presented me with -- in the interview sessions, I
5 answered the questions. There was an agent in the room taking
6 notes, but I have never seen the notes in regards to those
7 conversations.
8 Q. Okay. We'll keep going on.
9 So the issue I talked to you about, a scheme where
10 you submit personal expenses to get reimbursed, like from DMP,
11 you did offshore, you did the same thing when you were at the
12 inaugural committee, didn't you?
14 Q. You did not? You did not tell the Office of Special
15 Counsel that you were submitting personal expenses to the
16 inaugural committee and getting reimbursed for it?
17 A. Oh, I'm not sure if I told them that or not. But to my
18 recollection, the inaugural expenses were reviewed very
19 closely.
20 Q. Did you submit personal expenses to the inaugural
21 committee --
23 Q. -- for reimbursement?
24 A. It's possible.
25 Q. Now, during your meetings with the Office of Special

Gates - Cross 1380
1 Counsel, did you have occasion to talk about an entity called
2 Map Global Holdings?
3 A. I did.
4 Q. And -- well, let me go back for one second. I'll just
5 finish on this other issue.
6 So after investing the 250,000 and 350,000 that came
7 from DMP International accounts, you were paid out in two
8 installments on that investment, were you not?
9 A. I was.
10 Q. And you were paid out 800,000 -- half of the first part of
11 the payout, correct?
12 A. I believe that's correct.
13 Q. And 1.7 million on the second payout, correct?
14 A. Well, the 1.7 was split between the two partners.
15 Q. That was the first payment. The second one you got
16 another 1.7, did you not?
17 A. Oh, okay. I don't remember if it was 1.7.
18 Q. So you got $2.5 million. When you got to 2.5 million, did
19 you ever think about paying the money back to DMP or
20 Mr. Manafort?
22 Q. No. What did you do with it?
23 A. We put it into investment accounts.
24 Q. Who's "we"?
25 A. My family.

Gates - Cross 1381
1 Q. And did you take any of that money to pay for anything
2 else?
3 A. The 2.5?
4 Q. Yeah.
5 A. I don't understand the question.
6 Q. Well, you just said you just did an investment. Who is
7 "we"?
8 A. Myself and my wife.
9 Q. You and your wife?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. But there's another Richard Gates, right? Another Rick
12 Gates? The secret life of Rick Gates, where you maintain a
13 separate life in London, in other places throughout the
14 country; isn't that true?
15 A. There was a period of time, almost ten years ago, when I
16 had a relationship, yes.
17 Q. And over that period of time, you used money from these
18 offshore accounts to pay for your lifestyle, your secret life,
19 did you not?
20 A. No. I believe those were payments that resulted in bonus
21 money that I used for that, and I used family money or money
22 from my family account as well.
23 Q. So more bonus money.
24 A. It was, yes.
25 Q. To the tune of $3 million?

Gates - Cross 1382
1 A. No.
2 Q. Do you have a number, as you sit here today, that you
3 would like to provide as a possible number?
4 A. I don't have an exact number because of the figures, but
5 it was far less than 3 million.
6 Q. And as part of your secret life, did you maintain a flat?
7 Is that what they call it in London, an apartment?
8 A. There was a period of time when I was in a flat in London
9 for about two months.
10 Q. And you spent a lot of time flying first class back and
11 forth to London and the United States; isn't that correct?
12 A. Yes. Usually on my transits to Ukraine, correct.
13 Q. And usually those were expenses that went through the
14 offshore accounts for DMP International; isn't that correct?
15 A. No. Those probably went through the U.S. account because
16 Mr. Manafort's card was associated with the U.S. account.
17 Q. Are you sure about that?
18 A. I'm not, but I believe that to be the case.
19 Q. And if we had records that indicated that you submitted
20 the expense reports to the Cypriot accounts and to the accounts
21 in St. Vincent's and the Grenadines, would you be surprised?
22 A. I'd be happy to take a look.
23 Q. Would you be surprised?
24 A. Would I be surprised about the money coming from Cyprus?
25 Q. That you went to the foreign banks, represented that you

Gates - Cross 1383
1 had business expenses when they were not, and had them cut
2 checks or wire transfer money to you?
3 A. No. I've already admitted that I've taken unauthorized
4 expenses --
5 Q. To fund your separate secret life?
6 A. I -- yes, I acknowledge I had a period of time where I had
7 another relationship.
8 Q. And did that also include spending money on fancy hotels
9 and fancy dinners and trips to Vegas?
10 A. I don't believe to Vegas, but there were some trips in
11 Europe, yes.
12 Q. You don't think you had to pay for her to go to Vegas?
13 A. No.
14 Q. How about buying sound equipment, audio equipment, do you
15 think the offshore accounts paid for that?
16 A. No, I don't think so.
17 Q. How about you going to Whole Foods down in Richmond, do
18 you think the offshore accounts paid for that?
19 A. No. That was out of my family --
20 Q. As you sit here today, you're going to deny --
21 THE COURT: You didn't give him a chance to finish
22 his answer.
23 MR. DOWNING: Sorry.
24 THE COURT: You may finish your answer.
25 THE WITNESS: Thank you. In Richmond, it was Whole

Gates - Cross 1384
1 Foods, that's not offshore money.
2 BY MR. DOWNING:
3 Q. And, and you said you wouldn't be -- the offshore accounts
4 wouldn't be -- you wouldn't have submitted false requests for
5 reimbursements for trips to Las Vegas?
6 A. The business trips, there was business trips that I took
7 to Las Vegas to, I believe, meet Mr. Brown, and I don't
8 believe -- I don't know if I expensed those. I believe I
9 expensed those to the U.S.
10 Q. But Mr. Brown is not related to DMP International; isn't
11 that correct?
13 Q. You were conducting separate business and investment with
14 Mr. Brown; is that correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And so it would have been inappropriate -- it would have
17 actually been an embezzlement if you were trying to get
18 reimbursed for those trips through DMP's accounts; is that
19 correct?
20 A. That would be correct.
21 Q. And now let's get to Mr. Brown since you mentioned his
22 name. During your meetings with the Office of Special Counsel,
23 did you have occasion to be confronted with your involvement
24 with Mr. Brown and Map Global Holdings?
25 A. I did.

Gates - Cross 1385
1 Q. And what, if anything, did the Office of Special Counsel
2 confront you with?
3 A. They confronted me first by asking about the relationship,
4 about how the company was structured, and about some of the
5 business deals that Mr. Brown was involved in, and then later
6 on, they confronted me in regards to a letter that I prepared
7 for Mr. Brown.
8 Q. Was Map Global Holdings some type of Ponzi scheme?
9 A. Map was not.
10 Q. What was?
11 A. I don't know what you're referring to. Map was not a --
12 map was a PR and movie production company.
13 Q. And what is it that you were doing for Map that the Office
14 of Special Counsel confronted you with?
15 A. They were interested in two things. One was a project
16 that we had worked on to create a Swiss documentary, and then
17 other questions arose not related to Map but specifically to
18 Mr. Brown about a Ponzi scheme.
19 Q. Weren't there issues with you being involved with putting
20 together falsified financial statements?
21 A. For Mr. Brown, yes. I acknowledged that.
22 Q. And what do you mean for Mr. Brown? What does that mean?
23 A. You're referring to?
24 Q. Was it a personal financial statement? A corporate
25 financial statement?

Gates - Cross 1386
1 A. No. It was a letter that Mr. Brown asked me to prepare
2 for him in regards to an investment he was working on.
3 Q. And what was false and misleading about the letter?
4 A. The letter was a request from Mr. Brown to have a company
5 indicate that it might be interested investing in one of the
6 movies so that he could use it in another negotiation.
7 Q. And it was not true? It was just false?
8 A. The amount of money listed in the letter was not true;
9 that's correct.
10 Q. And how much was listed in the letter?
12 Q. Millions?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And, in fact, did you know how much money was actually
15 involved?
16 A. No. Mr. Brown never indicated to me.
17 Q. And you didn't ask him before you signed the letter?
18 A. No, because I did it as a -- as a favor, similar as I did
19 the letter to Mr. Manafort.
20 Q. So you committed fraud with Mr. Brown as a favor?
21 A. I did. I admitted to that.
22 Q. And there's also another issue that went on with Mr. Brown
23 and his company that involved false entries on the general
24 ledgers. And apparently do you recall --
25 THE COURT: Is that a question?

Gates - Cross 1387
1 BY MR. DOWNING:
2 Q. Yeah, do you recall that?
3 A. Which general ledger? For Map?
4 Q. Map Global Holdings.
5 A. I'd have to look at it to see.
6 Q. Do you recall receiving payments from Map Global Holdings?
7 A. I did for PR work, yes.
8 Q. What kind of amounts did you receive?
9 A. 200,000, roughly.
10 Q. And do you recall that on the ledgers of Map Global
11 Holdings they were recorded as distributions for Steve Brown?
12 A. Not in my -- not my entries. I don't know about
13 Mr. Brown. Mr. Brown had different entries.
14 Q. You didn't make the general ledger entries for Map Global?
15 A. I made the general ledger entries and reviewed with our
16 accountant.
17 Q. And you did not make entries that were recording payments
18 to you as distributions to Steve Brown?
19 A. I wasn't making recordings that gave money to Mr. Brown
20 and indicating that they were mine.
21 Q. So there did not have a -- there was not an occasion when
22 you told the Office of Special Counsel that distributions
23 recorded as distributions to Steve Brown were actually received
24 by you in your bank account?
25 A. The money in the Map, because it was a Map bank account,

Gates - Cross 1388
1 and then the distributions were divided between myself and
2 Mr. Brown.
3 Q. Okay. One more time I have to ask the question, I'm
4 sorry.
5 A. Sure.
6 Q. You did not tell the Office of Special Counsel that
7 payments to you were being disguised on Map Global Holdings'
8 general ledger as distributions for Steve Brown? You did not
9 say that?
10 A. I don't recall saying that, no.
11 Q. Do you recall being confronted with that?
12 A. No, I don't.
13 Q. Now, with respect to Map Global Holdings, was there any
14 discussions with the Office of Special Counsel as to what kind
15 of federal crimes you committed when you signed that letter and
16 provided it for Mr. Brown, the potential investments that he
17 had, I guess?
18 What would you call that type of letter?
19 A. The letter was for a potential investment in a movie
20 project that he was working on.
21 Q. So he was representing that he had certain backing, is
22 that what it was?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Okay. So you're saying, "Hey, we have these investors.
25 You want to invest with us too," correct?

Gates - Cross 1389
1 A. That's what I understood.
2 Q. Is that like a lulling letter? Is that what you would
3 call it?
4 A. He didn't call it that.
5 Q. Would you?
6 A. I don't know, because I wasn't privy to the negotiations.
7 Q. Did the government indicate to you what kind of federal
8 crimes you committed when you did that?
9 A. I think they indicated that it was fraud.
10 Q. It was fraud?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Any securities fraud?
13 A. I don't recall them indicating that.
14 Q. Mail/wire fraud?
16 Q. Any money received with respect to that letter by
17 Mr. Brown?
19 Q. But it wasn't discussed that crimes that would constitute;
20 is that correct?
21 A. Other than fraud, I don't believe so, but I don't recall.
22 Q. And was there any discussion about you pleaing to that
23 fraud?
24 A. It was represented as an additional crime as part of my
25 plea agreement, yes.

Gates - Cross 1390
1 Q. But you didn't need to plea to it?
2 A. No, because as part of the plea agreement, the government
3 agreed that it would not bring -- or would not prosecute for
4 additional charges, and I believe that was one that I raised in
5 addition with them.
6 Q. You don't believe you were confronted with it. You
7 believe you raised it?
8 A. No, no. I mean, the relationship with Mr. Brown I raised.
9 The letter itself, I was confronted with the letter.
10 Q. Now, there's also an issue the Office of Special
11 Counsel -- Office of Special Counsel -- excuse me -- raised
12 with you regarding potential insider trading. Is that --
13 insider trading, do you know what that is?
15 Q. Did they raise an issue with you about potential insider
16 trading?
17 A. They did.
18 Q. Can you explain to the jury what insider trading is?
19 A. Yes. To my understanding, it's when somebody that has a
20 position in a company is able to provide information that's not
21 available to the public.
22 Q. And can that be considered fraud too?
23 A. I don't know that. I don't know the law in that regard.
24 Q. Were you advised by the Office of Special Counsel that
25 there are federal statutes that criminalize insider trading?

Gates - Cross 1391
1 A. I believe they mentioned that there were statutes
2 regarding that, yes.
3 Q. Did they mention that you would be prosecuted for that?
4 A. No, they did not.
5 Q. Now, when you were confronted about this insider
6 trading --
7 THE COURT: Did you understand you could be
8 prosecuted for that?
9 THE WITNESS: Oh, I understood that I could be
10 prosecuted, yes.
12 BY MR. DOWNING:
13 Q. Well, in fact, you had received a letter from the SEC, did
14 you not, making an inquiry about this?
15 A. I did.
16 Q. And did you raise that issue with the Office of Special
17 Counsel or were you confronted with that letter?
18 A. As I recall, I think I acknowledged that I had received a
19 letter. I don't know if they asked it as a question or in the
20 context of talking about that entity, if I -- if I informed
21 them that I had received a letter.
22 Q. And what entity did that involve?
23 A. That was a company called ID Watchdog.
24 Q. And what was the allegation about the insider trading?
25 A. The allegation was in regards to a conversation and

Gates - Cross 1392
1 whether or not it occurred with my brother, who I did not know
2 if he had invested in the company or not.
3 Q. Was there also an issue about you receiving certain
4 warrants on the eve of an IPO for this company or a purchase?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And can you explain what that was?
7 A. Yes. So a number of board directors did not exercise
8 their warrants before the expiration date, but it was very
9 close to the expiration date. And the CFO of the company
10 allowed the various board members, as I recall, to exercise
11 those warrants.
12 Q. And what kind of -- what kind of warrants did you get to
13 exercise?
14 A. I think it was a total of, I think, around 250,000
15 warrants.
16 Q. And what year was that?
17 A. The exercise of the warrants, I believe, was in 2017.
18 Q. And did the Office of Special Counsel indicate whether or
19 not, at the time, there was an ongoing investigation against
20 you regarding insider trading?
21 A. I don't recall if they had an investigation.
22 Q. Did you retain a lawyer to represent you with respect to
23 an ongoing investigation by the SEC?
24 A. No.
25 Q. And did the Office of Special Counsel indicate that you

Gates - Cross 1393
1 would have to plead guilty for your actions with respect to
2 that activity?
3 A. No, they did not.
4 Q. Now, in addition to these various fraud schemes, you also
5 had discussions with the Office of Special Counsel about your
6 failure to report income on your tax returns; is that correct?
8 Q. And one such occasion had to do with an investment you
9 made in a Facebook IPO; is that correct?
11 Q. Do you recall what you disclosed to the Office of Special
12 Counsel about unreported income from various investments?
13 A. I do not.
14 Q. Did you disclose unreported income from various
15 investments?
16 A. I believe I did. It may have been generally, that I
17 indicated that I did not disclose all of my income.
18 Q. Do you recall disclosing to the Office of Special Counsel
19 that you did not report the $2.5 million proceeds from your
20 activities with Mr. Cohen on your original tax returns?
21 A. Well, that would have been on the 2017 tax return, which
22 has not been filed yet.
23 Q. So you didn't represent that you failed to report it on
24 the original return, but you did report it on an amended tax
25 return; is that correct?

Gates - Cross 1394
1 A. I don't think it's been reported yet. It's an action that
2 occurred in 2017. That tax year has not been filed. The
3 original has not been filed.
4 Q. So you did not make any such representation to the Office
5 of Special Counsel?
6 A. I don't believe I did.
7 Q. Did you have occasion to talk to the Office of Special
8 Counsel or disclose that you had filed amended tax returns in
9 the summer of 2017?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And do you recall being confronted by the Office of
12 Special Counsel about falsities in the amended return?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And what were the falsities that you were confronted with?
15 A. At the time, my attorney had indicated that I should put a
16 letter into the tax returns, because at subject was the foreign
17 bank accounts that were controlled by Mr. Manafort. As was
18 stated earlier, Mr. Manafort had accepted that he had control
19 and signature authority over those accounts, but we were not in
20 the position, as I recall, with the Special Counsel to
21 determine whether or not they would accept that position or
22 not.
23 So my attorney had submitted, with the tax return, a
24 letter stating that we would have to investigate the --
25 further, the foreign bank accounts because of the situation

Gates - Cross 1395
1 going on with the Special Counsel's office.
2 Q. So, Mr. Gates, did the Office of Special Counsel state to
3 you they felt that you failed to report offshore bank accounts
4 on your amended tax return?
5 A. They did.
6 Q. And the amended tax returns, if I understand this
7 correctly, the timing of them was that the Office of Special
8 Counsel had been conducting an investigation for some time?
9 A. Correct.
10 Q. And you knew of it, correct?
12 Q. Did you also get confronted with leaving off well over
13 $1 million on your amended tax return?
14 A. I don't recall if that was the number.
15 Q. Do you recall that it was a large number?
16 A. I don't recall what number that they allocated or
17 indicated that I had not paid in taxes.
18 Q. Do you recall what it related to?
19 A. I do not.
20 Q. Do you recall if it related to income from offshore
21 accounts?
22 A. Oh, I'm sorry, yes, it did relate to income from offshore
23 accounts.
24 Q. So you do recall that?
25 A. Now, with you recollecting my memory, yes.

Gates - Cross 1396
1 Q. So I want to go back to the EDVA indictment. The original
2 indictment that I believe you testified, I'll ask the question
3 again, that the --
4 THE COURT: Let me just say EDVA means Eastern
5 District of Virginia.
6 MR. DOWNING: Oh, thank you, Your Honor.
7 BY MR. DOWNING:
8 Q. As part of your plea agreement, the Office of Special
9 Counsel agreed to dismiss the charges against you here in the
10 Eastern District of Virginia; is that correct?
12 Q. And those charges included filing false tax returns for
13 several years; is that correct?
15 Q. And it included failure to file FBARs for several years?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And it included bank fraud charges?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And conspiracy to commit bank fraud, is that correct?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And did the Office of Special Counsel indicate to you that
22 you could be looking at as much as 290 months in jail?
23 A. I don't think they ever indicated a number, but I don't
24 recall.
25 Q. Oh, I stand corrected. It's 290 years.

Gates - Cross 1397
1 Did they indicate to you that you could go to jail
2 for 290 years?
3 A. Same response, but I like your first answer better.
4 (Laughter.)
5 Q. What is the response?
7 THE WITNESS: Sorry, Your Honor. I said that it's
8 the same answer. I don't recall the Special Counsel indicating
9 to me the total number of maximum years that I could serve for
10 the second indictment.
11 THE COURT: Well, what did you understand the maximum
12 years you could be sentenced to?
13 THE WITNESS: It was -- I understood it to be quite
14 significant.
15 THE COURT: All right. Do you -- did you -- can you
16 quantify that? Did you have, in your mind, a number?
17 THE WITNESS: I knew it was in excess of 50 to 100
18 years, yes.
21 BY MR. DOWNING:
22 Q. Now, in terms of your cooperation with the Office of
23 Special Counsel after you took your plea, did you have occasion
24 to be interviewed by other members of the Office of Special
25 Counsel about the Trump campaign?

Gates - Cross 1398
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And were you interviewed on several occasions about your
3 time at the Trump campaign?
4 MR. ANDRES: Objection, Your Honor.
5 THE COURT: All right. Do you need to come to the
6 bench?
7 MR. ANDRES: Please.
9 (Pages 1399 through 1405 filed under seal.)
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Gates - Cross 1406
1 THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen -- ladies and
2 gentlemen, I want to thank you in advance for your patience,
3 because we're going to take another break now, and hope you'll
4 have a soft drink.
5 But it won't be a long break. It will be -- well, it
6 will be -- we'll recess until 4:30 and then go at least until
7 5:30, and we'll see where we are. Thank you for your patience.
8 I can assure you that this is necessary.
9 Pass your books to the right. Mr. Flood will collect
10 them, maintain their security. And remember to refrain from
11 discussing the matter amongst yourselves or with anyone or
12 undertaking any investigation. You may follow Mr. Flood out.
13 All right. Court stands in recess until -- I said
14 4:30.
15 Oh, Mr. Gates, you may step down, sir, but you must
16 remember that you may not discuss your testimony with anyone.
21 THE COURT: Did you have something?
22 MR. DOWNING: No.
23 THE COURT: Mr. Nanavati?
24 MR. NANAVATI: Yes.
25 THE COURT: That's yours. It was delivered to the

Gates - Cross 1407
1 clerks. The marshals opened it. I have not looked at it. I
2 have no idea what it is and don't care.
3 MR. NANAVATI: Thank you, Your Honor.
4 THE COURT: All right. Bring in the jury, please.
5 (Jury present.)
6 THE COURT: All right. You may be seated. Thank you
7 again for your patience.
8 Let's have Mr. Gates return. And we will recess
9 sharply at 5:30.
10 All right. Mr. Gates, you'll recall you remain under
11 oath. You may resume the stand.
13 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Downing, you may proceed.
15 BY MR. DOWNING:
16 Q. Mr. Gates, I'd like you to go back and take a look at what
17 was marked as Defendant's Exhibit 17, the compilation of
18 $3 million in wires from DMP's offshore accounts. Do you have
19 that in front of you?
20 A. I do.
21 Q. And there's a section starting in 2010 -- 2011, I'm
22 sorry -- 9/9/2011, and it says -- the name on it is "Jemina" --
23 is it Jemina? Is that correct?
24 A. Jemina.
25 Q. Jemina, J-e-m-i-n-a, LLC.

Gates - Cross 1408
1 And do you see on 9/9/2011, there was a wire transfer
2 from Peranova for $48,500 to Jemina? Do you see that?
3 A. I do.
4 Q. And then if you go to the next page, and for a series of
5 entries for July 8, 2013, do you see that?
6 A. July 8?
7 Q. Yeah. Do you see that for Jemina LLC, 7/8/2013 from
8 Marziola?
9 A. Yes, I do.
10 Q. In the amount of $72,500?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And there's an entry for September 4, 2013, also from
13 Marziola to Jemina for $89,807?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. There's another entry on 10/22/2013 from Cypriot agent to
16 Jemina for $119,844. Do you see that?
17 A. I do.
18 Q. What is Cypriot agent?
19 A. I don't know.
20 Q. Did you have some side deal in Cyprus where you were
21 getting money funneled to you from a law firm or an accounting
22 firm?
23 A. No, there was no side deal.
24 Q. Well, what is Cypriot agent?
25 A. Oh, Cypriot agent could be in reference to when the

Gates - Cross 1409
1 Cypriot accounts were closed Dr. K had consolidated those
2 accounts into a -- what he called a client account. So that
3 could be in reference to that.
4 Q. And those Cypriot agent, the next three entries are 10/22,
5 11/12, and 12/22/13 -- excuse me -- December 20, 2013, all say
6 "Cypriot agent," correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. 119,844, 80,000, and $90,000; is that correct?
9 A. That is.
10 Q. And can we go down to 2014?
11 There's two more entries for Cypriot agent to Jemina,
12 correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. February 2014 and April for $60,044 and $44,068, is that
15 correct?
16 A. That is.
17 Q. All to Jemina?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And then the last one is 10/6/2014 from Global Endeavour
20 to Jemina for $65,000, correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. So that's several hundred thousand dollars that were going
23 to Jemina, correct?
24 A. Yes, it is.
25 Q. Now, I'd like you to take a look at what's been put in

Gates - Cross 1410
1 front of you and marked as Defense Exhibit 14. Do you see
2 that?
3 A. I do.
4 Q. And -- and what is that document?
5 A. The first one appears to be the wiring instructions.
6 Q. And these are wire instructions from?
7 A. It appears to be from -- I'm sorry -- it's a confirmation
8 statement from Loyal Bank.
9 Q. And for which account?
10 A. This would be Global Endeavour.
11 Q. And that's what it says on the bottom right-hand side,
12 correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And this is a wire transfer for $65,000?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And where is it headed?
17 A. It appears to Jemina.
18 Q. And what is the date of that?
19 A. It's way at the bottom. It looks like 8/9/2014.
20 Q. And can you turn to the next page? And what is that
21 document?
22 A. This says, "Checklist for Confirmation of Wire Request."
23 Q. And is that a corresponding document for the front page
24 for the wire transfer?
25 A. Yes, it appears to be.

Gates - Cross 1411
1 Q. And it's the same bank, correct?
2 A. It is.
3 Q. And on the next page?
4 A. This is a pro forma invoice that I -- that I drafted in
5 regards to the documentation needed from Global Endeavour.
6 Q. And for the total of six- -- excuse me -- $65,000,
7 correct?
9 Q. And can you turn to the next page? What is that document?
10 THE COURT: Do you plan to offer this document?
11 MR. DOWNING: I do.
12 THE COURT: All right. Any objections to it?
15 (Defendant's Exhibit No. 14 was received in
16 evidence.)
17 THE COURT: So let's see if we can move it along.
18 THE WITNESS: It appears to be applicant check
19 details.
20 THE COURT: What's the question to Mr. Gates?
21 MR. DOWNING: I was just asking if he understood what
22 the next document was, if he knows what it is.
23 THE WITNESS: No, I've never seen it.
24 BY MR. DOWNING:
25 Q. And the next page?

Gates - Cross 1412
1 A. This is the consultancy agreement that was required by the
2 account of the bank in order to make a wire transfer.
3 Q. Okay. This says it's Global Endeavour, Inc., and Jemina;
4 is that correct?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Jemina.
7 And what is this supposed to be, a consultancy
8 agreement?
9 A. Yes. The bank required supporting documentation, so they
10 required both an agreement and a invoice.
11 Q. So when you say the bank required it, what do you mean?
12 What does that mean? I don't understand.
13 A. It means that the bank, in order to make the wire transfer
14 effective, required the two pieces of supporting documentation.
15 Q. And the supporting documentation is false and misleading,
16 is it not?
17 A. The -- in order to do the wire, yes, it was.
18 Q. There was no consultancy agreement between Global
19 Endeavour and Jemina?
20 A. That's correct. It was in order to get the wire
21 transacted out of the account.
22 Q. And did you have occasion to discuss Jemina with the
23 Office of Special Counsel?
24 A. I'm not -- I don't recall if they discussed that or not.
25 THE COURT: Mr. Gates, is that your signature at the

Gates - Cross 1413
1 end of this document? At the end of the so-called consultancy
2 agreement?
3 THE WITNESS: No, it is not.
4 THE COURT: Do you recognize the signature?
5 THE WITNESS: Yes. These were the signatures for
6 Global Endeavour, and it appears some of that I had signed on
7 behalf of Jemina from the Cyprus law firm.
8 THE COURT: So you did sign it?
9 THE WITNESS: I personally didn't sign it, but I had
10 a representative sign it, yes.
12 BY MR. DOWNING:
13 Q. So the invoice attached for $65,000, it says, "For
14 professional fees," is a false document, correct?
15 A. Yes, it is.
16 Q. And the consultancy agreement is a false document,
17 correct?
18 A. Yes. They were supporting documentation in order to get
19 the wire transaction.
20 Q. And the account to which the wire went to for Jemina,
21 that's your account, is it not?
22 A. It is.
23 Q. And all the transfer we just talked about for Jemina were
24 similar to this, correct?
25 A. I don't know which accounts they came from but --

Gates - Cross 1414
1 Q. Well, we went through that before but they're all under
2 the same consultancy agreement, correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. A fake and phony consultancy agreement?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And the original -- the consultancy agreement itself is
7 something you drafted?
8 A. No, that was drafted by the -- the template was drafted by
9 the Cyprus law firm and then that was the same one I've used to
10 edit other things.
11 Q. So you've asked them to update it for this particular
12 false and misleading information?
13 A. No, I updated it. I used their template.
14 Q. And you sent it to them?
15 A. Correct.
16 Q. Now, getting back to Exhibit 17, Defense Exhibit 17, I
17 draw your attention to the last page. For November 25, 2014,
18 there's a transfer from Global Endeavour to Bade LLC for
19 $120,000.
20 Do you see that?
21 A. I do.
22 Q. Now, can you look at what's been marked Defense
23 Exhibit 15? 15.
24 MR. DOWNING: And, Your Honor, we move Defendant's
25 Exhibit 15 into evidence.

Gates - Cross 1415
1 MR. ANDRES: None. No objection.
4 evidence.)
6 BY MR. DOWNING:
7 Q. The first page, can you explain to the jury what the first
8 page is of Defendant's Exhibit 15?
9 A. The first page is a wire confirmation request.
10 Q. For $120,000?
11 A. It is.
12 Q. And it's set to go to Bade LLC; is that correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And the attached invoice from Bade LLC, do you see that?
15 A. I do.
16 Q. And it says it's for professional fees for $120,000?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And Bade LLC, is that an entity that you set up?
19 A. It is.
20 Q. And that's a bank account that you're the holder of?
21 A. It is.
22 Q. And this invoice is a false and phony invoice, correct?
23 A. It is.
24 Q. And there were no professional services provided with
25 respect to receiving 120,000, correct?

Gates - Cross 1416
1 A. Correct. These were more expenses.
2 Q. These are for what?
3 THE COURT: Where did the money come from?
4 THE WITNESS: The money came from Global Endeavour,
5 one of the offshore accounts.
6 THE COURT: And -- but where did the money come from?
7 THE WITNESS: Oh, the money came in conjunction to
8 expense reports that I created in order to get the money wired
9 out of the account.
10 THE COURT: Yeah. That tells me how you got the
11 money, you say by -- by using these false expense reports, but
12 I want to know whose money it was.
13 THE WITNESS: Oh. In this case it was Mr. Manafort's
14 money.
16 BY MR. DOWNING:
17 Q. It's one of the -- the money -- the account that it came
18 out of, Global Endeavour, was one of DMP International's
19 offshore accounts, correct?
20 A. Yes. It's one of the accounts controlled by Mr. Manafort.
21 Q. So I want to see if I can understand this. You're saying
22 $120,000 are expenses?
23 A. Well, it was a series of -- as I recall, there were two
24 different payments. The invoice is broken down. So the
25 description on the invoice was not necessarily consistent with

Gates - Cross 1417
1 what the, you know, payment may have been for.
2 Q. Are these payments for your secret life?
3 A. No, they're not.
4 MR. ANDRES: Your Honor, can the witness answer the
5 question?
6 THE COURT: Yes, he can.
7 MR. DOWNING: I thought he did.
8 THE COURT: What's the answer to the question?
9 THE WITNESS: The answer is: No, they're not.
10 BY MR. DOWNING:
11 Q. So what exactly are you telling us these expenses are to
12 the tune of $120,000?
13 A. As I said, at least one of them -- I, you know, could go
14 back and try to refresh, but one of them is fabricated. It's
15 not a true expense report. For example, one of the entries, I
16 think you showed me, was a bonus from Mr. Manafort, and I
17 believe this one to be one as well.
18 Q. Okay. One more time.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. First, you said it was reimbursement for expenses.
21 A. For both, correct.
22 Q. And now you're saying it's a bonus.
23 A. Yes. One -- there's -- you have two entries on here, on
24 the invoice.
25 Q. And the entries say, "Professional fees"?

Gates - Cross 1418
1 A. That's correct. That was the notation used to actually
2 transact the wire from the bank in the Grenadines.
3 Q. So why exactly would it not say, "Reimbursement for
4 expenses," attach an invoice for DMP International-related
5 business expenses?
6 A. As I said, I fabricated the invoice.
7 Q. Why?
8 A. Because I was -- in essence, I was living beyond my means.
9 I was -- it was a difficult time. I was living, you know, more
10 than I should have. I, you know, I regret it, clearly, and,
11 you know, I'm taking responsibility for it, but I made a
12 mistake.
13 Q. So -- so this truly is not related to DMP International's
14 business. This is related to your secret life. That's what
15 this is about?
16 A. It's not a secret life since this went to an account that
17 my wife is aware of but --
18 Q. Was she aware of your secret life, too?
19 A. She was.
20 Q. So, Mr. Gates, just to be clear, because you've said it
21 several different things, but it is truly just an embezzlement,
22 correct?
23 A. This is money that I've taken from Mr. Manafort that was
24 unauthorized. I've already indicated that. I've said that.
25 Q. It's not authorized?

Gates - Cross 1419
1 A. I said it's unauthorized, that's correct.
2 Q. It's an embezzlement, is it not?
3 A. You can choose -- sure. You can choose whatever word
4 you'd like.
5 Q. Well, why don't you use the word? It's an embezzlement?
6 A. It is an unauthorized transaction that I took from
7 Mr. Manafort.
8 Q. Why won't you say "embezzlement"?
9 A. What difference does it make?
10 Q. Why won't you say "embezzlement"?
11 A. It was embezzlement from Mr. Manafort.
12 THE COURT: I've admitted 15, 17 -- not 17. I've
13 admitted 14 and 15; is that correct?
14 MR. DOWNING: That's correct, Your Honor.
16 MR. DOWNING: Not 17.
17 THE COURT: Not 17 as yet.
18 BY MR. DOWNING:
19 Q. Mr. Gates, I'd like to ask you a few questions about your
20 activities with respect to DMP International and these -- you
21 know, DMP's offshore bank accounts. You came -- I think you
22 indicated earlier that you left DMP for a few years and you
23 came back.
24 Do you recall when you came back to DMP?
25 A. I'm not sure what you mean by leaving DMP.

Gates - Cross 1420
1 Q. You went off on some business venture, didn't you?
2 A. You'd have to give me more information. I'm not sure what
3 you mean.
4 Q. Well, I thought you testified the other day that you
5 worked at Davis Manafort for a while and then you went off to
6 some tech company.
7 Didn't you testify to that?
8 A. What's the name of the tech company?
9 Q. I don't know. G-something?
10 MR. ANDRES: Judge, could we have questions and
11 answers as opposed to a discussion here?
12 THE COURT: I don't see that as an objection. I'll
13 overrule it.
14 Go ahead, Mr. Downing.
15 BY MR. DOWNING:
16 Q. Was there a period of time when you left working for
17 Mr. Manafort and went off to some tech venture?
18 A. I don't -- you have to give me more information. I'm not
19 sure what you mean.
20 THE COURT: Well, just with that information, can you
21 give an answer?
22 THE WITNESS: Yeah. I mean, I've never left the
23 employ of Mr. Manafort from 2006 to 2016.
24 BY MR. DOWNING:
25 Q. No, I asked before that. G-Tech?

Gates - Cross 1421
1 A. Oh, I'm sorry, yes. Yes. That was my second job after
2 going to Black, Manafort, Stone and Kelly.
3 Q. And how many years did you spend at G-Tech?
4 A. I believe it was about four years.
5 Q. And then you came back in 2006 to Davis Manafort, correct?
6 A. No. Actually, I came back, I went to work for Business
7 Strategies & Insight, then Scientific Games. And then from
8 Scientific Games, I came to Davis Manafort Partners.
9 Q. In 2006?
10 A. In 2006.
11 Q. Okay. Here we are in 2006. I'm going to ask you some
12 questions about 2006.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. When you came back in 2006, was Davis Manafort a smaller
15 operation than it had been before you left?
16 A. It had approximately nine employees when I joined in 2006.
17 Q. And before when you worked there?
18 A. So I started with DMP --
19 MR. ANDRES: Objection, Judge. It misrepresents --
20 THE COURT: Just a moment.
21 MR. DOWNING: I'm just asking when --
22 THE WITNESS: I started with Davis Manafort --
23 MR. ANDRES: I'm objecting to the question.
24 THE COURT: Wait just a moment. What's your
25 question, Mr. Downing?

Gates - Cross 1422
1 BY MR. DOWNING:
2 Q. Before you left to go off with G-Tech, how big was Davis
3 Manafort?
4 THE COURT: All right. Before you answer, what's the
5 objection?
6 MR. ANDRES: Yeah. There was no Davis Manafort
7 before that time. There was Davis Manafort --
8 THE COURT: Well, you can't testify. What's your
9 objection?
10 MR. ANDRES: He's misrepresenting the entities that
11 existed. They were two entirely different --
12 THE COURT: Well, he will have to answer the
13 question. If something is wrong with the question, presumably
14 he'll know that, but you can't get up and tell the Court -- I'm
15 addressing you.
16 MR. ANDRES: I'm sorry.
17 THE COURT: You can't simply tell the Court in your
18 view what's right. This is for the witness.
22 BY MR. DOWNING:
23 Q. Before you went off to work for G-Tech, the entity that
24 you were working about with Mr. Manafort, what was it called?
25 A. That was Black, Manafort, Stone and Kelly.

Gates - Cross 1423
1 Q. Okay. So that company that you were working for back --
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. -- back in that day, was that a larger company than what
4 you had joined Manafort again in 2006?
5 A. It was.
6 Q. Okay. How much smaller was it?
7 A. How much smaller was Davis Manafort?
8 Q. Yes.
9 A. It was significantly smaller. I mean, Davis Manafort was
10 a offshoot of Black, Manafort, Stone and Kelly by some of the
11 partners.
12 Q. And when you returned in 2006, I think you indicated on
13 your direct you took on more responsibilities.
14 A. Over the years, that's correct.
15 Q. Over the years. And can you give a little detail of the
16 types of responsibilities that you took on over the years?
17 A. Yes. It started out as being more engaged in the
18 political campaigns. I was asked to help set up the private
19 equity fund, as I mentioned. It also included a number of
20 administrative responsibilities. I think, as I stated, as the
21 number of employees decreased over the years, more
22 responsibilities were split with the few staff that remained.
23 Q. And in terms of the administrative responsibilities, can
24 you explain what types of administrative responsibilities you
25 took over?

Gates - Cross 1424
1 A. Yes. It was a series of things such as managing the
2 company's healthcare, some of the information with the
3 accountants that I've stated, working with the bookkeeper as an
4 example, and also doing some of the other things that
5 Mr. Manafort assigned, including working with some of his real
6 estate attorneys.
7 Q. And in addition to these -- these responsibilities that
8 you had, there was also some travel that came along with your
9 job?
10 A. There was.
11 Q. And can you explain what kind of travel you did? Did you
12 do travel within the United States?
13 A. I did travel within the United States as well as
14 international travel.
15 Q. And where in the United States did you travel to?
16 A. I know a lot in New York, because Mr. Manafort would meet
17 up there, and then also in kind of around the Washington, D.C.,
18 area. And then depending on if there were various meetings
19 that Mr. Manafort wanted me to attend, in some cases I would
20 join him.
21 Q. And how about international?
22 A. Internationally, it was primarily Cyprus and Ukraine, and
23 then, again, there were a host of other countries that we had
24 meetings in that we would go to.
25 Q. And when did you -- when you came back in 2006, when did

Gates - Cross 1425
1 you start getting involved with the offshore -- Davis
2 Manafort's offshore accounts?
3 A. I believe it was started in late 2007, when I met with
4 Mr. Chrysostomides, and then additional responsibilities were
5 assigned to me, you know, over the subsequent years.
6 Q. And as you came up to speed and you were working on Davis
7 Manafort's international accounts, were you also working with
8 the accountants year in and year out in terms of getting tax
9 returns ready and prepared for Davis Man- -- DMP, DMP
10 International, and Mr. Manafort?
11 A. Yes. I was working with the accountants and the
12 bookkeeper.
13 Q. And year in and year out, the questions seem to come out
14 about offshore bank accounts; is that correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And in 2013, or go ahead a little bit, there was an issue
17 that popped up about an EVO Holdings account.
18 Do you remember that?
19 A. I do.
20 Q. And the question was whether or not an FBAR had to be
21 filed by Mr. Manafort for his investment in EVO Holdings.
23 A. I do.
24 Q. And that particular inquiry you happened to be involved
25 with with accounts over at KWC?

Gates - Cross 1426
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And the issue that developed was a bit of a complicated
3 issue, was it not?
4 A. I would say so, yes.
5 Q. And the issue that came up had to do with whether or not
6 Mr. Manafort had the requisite control to be required to file
7 an FBAR; is that correct?
8 A. Yeah. Actually, that year it was about foreign shares,
9 not foreign bank account.
10 Q. Foreign shares, ownership.
11 A. Yes, yes.
12 Q. And there was a question about how to determine if he had
13 control, correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And the question was difficult enough that the folks at
16 KWC had to get an expert involved, correct?
17 A. I don't recall who the expert was.
18 MR. DOWNING: Would you please bring up Exhibit 201?
19 It's already been in evidence.
20 May we publish, Your Honor?
21 THE COURT: Which exhibit?
22 MR. DOWNING: Yes, 201.
23 THE COURT: And it's already in evidence?
24 MR. DOWNING: It is.

Gates - Cross 1427
1 BY MR. DOWNING:
2 Q. Mr. Gates, please take a look at Government Exhibit 201.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And if we can flip to the second page, please? Thank you.
5 A. Oh, so there's no additional expert. This is KWC.
6 Q. Right. It's someone in their tax department, correct?
7 A. Yes. This is Naji Lakkis.
8 Q. Okay. And they got someone with some tax expertise in
9 this area involved to determine that, in fact, an FBAR did not
10 have to be filed; is that correct?
11 A. Yes, it appears that's their recommendation.
12 Q. And, Mr. Gates, you don't have any expertise in the area
13 of FBAR, do you?
14 A. I do not.
15 Q. Have you ever read any of the IRS regulations on them?
16 A. I have not read them in full, but I've seen them, yes.
17 Q. You've seen parts of them, correct?
18 A. Correct.
19 Q. And when you were presented with KWC's expert opinion on
20 this, they have asked you a question about whether or not this
21 would be the same for another year, correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And you respond, "I will call you tomorrow, but based on
24 the structure, as I've learned today, we do not need to file
25 for Paul."

Gates - Cross 1428
1 Is that correct?
2 A. Can you show me where that is?
3 Q. It's in the top. It's in the box.
4 A. Yes, I see it.
5 Q. On page 1. Do you see that?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And what did you mean when you said, "I will call you
8 tomorrow, but based on the structure, as I learned today"?
9 What did you mean by that?
10 A. Yes. I believe that was initially the structure that had
11 been proposed to KWC in which they looked at the ownership
12 percentage of EVO Holdings.
13 Q. But you weren't making any decisions on whether or not the
14 FBAR had to be filed. KWC was, correct?
15 A. With respect to the foreign taxes. However, there was an
16 associated bank account with EVO Holdings that Mr. Manafort had
17 control of.
18 Q. But the question here, you weren't making the decision as
19 to whether or not an FBAR had to be filed, correct?
20 A. Not an FBAR on EVO Holdings. This related to the shares.
21 Q. Maybe I'll be clearer. You weren't making the decision
22 here. It was KWC that was making the decision; is that
23 correct?
24 A. Yes. Based on a previous e-mail, I believe, that's not
25 here, once KWC asked the questions about it, I contacted the

Gates - Cross 1429
1 accountants in -- or the law firm in Cyprus to ask them the
2 complete structure of EVO Holdings.
3 Q. Okay. Can you turn to page 2 again?
4 And that's an e-mail from -- is it Lakkis?
5 A. Naji Lakkis, yes.
6 Q. Lakkis. To you, correct, dated June 26, 2012?
7 A. Correct, copying Mr. Ayliff and Mr. O'Conor (sic).
8 Q. And they're both employees of KWC, correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Okay. And it says, "Hello, Rick." And can you read the
11 "Based on our conversation"?
12 A. (As read): "Based on our conversation, the only foreign
13 financial account that Paul may need to report on the FBAR is
14 the telecommunications entity. If this is incorrect, please
15 let me know."
16 Q. And did you ever let him know if he thought it was
17 incorrect?
18 A. No. Because at Mr. Manafort's request, he asked me not to
19 disclose the other foreign bank accounts.
20 Q. And do you have an e-mail in which Mr. Manafort told you
21 that?
22 A. There is an e-mail where he is asked directly the same
23 question and he responds no.
24 Q. I'm asking you: Communication between you and
25 Mr. Manafort?

Gates - Cross 1430
1 A. No. A lot of our communication occurred verbally,
2 especially on subjects like this.
3 Q. Actually, it's interesting you raise that question.
4 Because in direct, every time you wanted to say something that
5 would make Mr. Manafort be involved with your activity, you
6 said, "We had discussions." Every single time.
7 A. Correct.
8 Q. And there's no record of any such discussions, are there?
9 A. I think there's a strong record that there are a number of
10 discussions that occurred, but for the most part, Mr. Manafort
11 would employ both phone and e-mail in those discussions.
12 Q. So with respect to every time you said "discussions" on
13 direct, this jury is supposed to just believe you; is that
14 correct?
15 A. Yes, they are.
16 Q. Uncorroborated believe you?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. After all the lies you told and fraud you've committed,
19 you expect this jury to believe you?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Uncorroborated?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Do you hope the Office of Special Counsel thinks the same
24 way?
25 A. Yes.

Gates - Cross 1431
1 Q. Because they're the ones that are going to write you the
2 5K1 letter?
3 A. They will.
4 Q. They're the ones that are going to let your lawyer say you
5 get probation unopposed?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Even if you lie?
8 A. But I haven't, and I'm here to --
9 Q. And the jury is supposed to believe that?
10 A. Yes. Because I'm here to tell the truth. I'm here
11 because I made a decision to take responsibility for my
12 actions. Mr. Manafort had the same path. I'm here.
13 Q. Responsibility? Probation is responsibility for your
14 conduct?
15 A. I don't know the sentence.
16 Q. That's your responsibility, probation?
17 A. The sentence is decided by the judge.
18 Q. It seems like the government agreed you can get probation?
19 A. The government doesn't decide.
20 Q. For all your crimes, for all your fraud, that's your
21 responsibility?
22 A. I have accepted responsibility. I'm taking it and I'm
23 trying to change, yes.
24 Q. Have you returned any of the money you stole from
25 Mr. Manafort and his entities?

Gates - Cross 1432
1 A. I have not.
2 Q. When you filed a financial disclosure form after you were
3 arrested, did you indicate on the form that you have money
4 stashed away in investments?
5 A. I don't recall filing a financial form, but if I did, I
6 would accurately report that information.
7 Q. Do you recall representing to the Court or Pretrial
8 Services that other than your home, you really have very few
9 assets?
10 A. No. We included all the assets that I have.
11 Q. Did you include the assets that you invested from your
12 embezzlement?
13 A. I'm not sure what you mean.
14 Q. The monies we just talked about you were unauthorized to
15 take from DMP International's accounts or Mr. Manafort.
16 A. Most of those went into my personal account.
17 Q. And where are they now?
18 A. Well, those were spent over the years.
19 Q. Oh, so you can't return it to Mr. Manafort, can you?
20 A. No, I cannot.
21 Q. So you're really not taking responsibility, are you?
22 A. On that subject, no.
23 Q. What about on the insider trading? What about the
24 ill-gotten gains you got in insider trading? Did you return
25 those?

Gates - Cross 1433
1 A. First, they weren't ill-gotten gains, and I paid for those
2 out of bonuses and payments that I worked off a promissory note
3 over years.
4 Q. The $2.5 million from the investment from stolen money
5 from Mr. Manafort, any intent to return that to Mr. Manafort?
6 A. No, because it wasn't stolen.
7 Q. Mr. Gates, are there other frauds that you've committed
8 for which you cannot reimburse or get restitution for their
9 victims as you sit here today?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Now, with respect to these offshore accounts and the
12 accountants, KWC, there was testimony from Ms. Laporta that she
13 had conversations with you about the offshore accounts, the
14 Davis Manafort offshore accounts. Is that correct?
15 Do you recall having conversations?
16 A. Yes. Several people at KWC had discussions with me and
17 Mr. Manafort.
18 Q. And she stated that when she had talked to you, that you
19 had stated that the accounts were set up in a manner to not
20 have to be reported in the United States.
21 Do you recall telling her that?
22 A. I may have, but I don't recall.
23 Q. You don't recall that, either?
24 A. No. Well, specifically what I recall telling KWC is the
25 information that Mr. Manafort and I discussed is that it was

Gates - Cross 1434
1 unnecessary to report foreign accounts because, in his view, he
2 did not have signature authority over the account.
3 Q. And do you recall telling the Office of Special Counsel
4 that same thing?
5 A. Yes. Initially in my discussions with them, I indicated
6 to them that is why Mr. Manafort did not file his foreign
7 accounts.
8 Q. And how many times did you say you met with the Office of
9 Special Counsel to prep for trial?
11 Q. No, to prep the trial. Was it 20 trial preps or was it
12 trial prep closer to this trial?
13 A. I think it was about 20 hours.
14 Q. Twenty hours.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And in the 20 hours, did the Office of Special Counsel
17 prep you at all with respect to your conversation with
18 Ms. Laporta?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Show you any documents?
21 A. I was shown documents, yes.
22 Q. About that conversation?
23 A. I don't recall. If you have a copy, I can look at it.
24 Q. And is that why you don't recall a conversation? You
25 weren't prepped?

Gates - Cross 1435
1 A. No. If you'd just show me a copy, I'd be happy to tell
2 you.
3 Q. I asked you a different question.
4 A. Repeat the question.
5 Q. If you weren't prepped by the Office of Special Counsel,
6 have you been prepped to say, "I don't recall"?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Mr. Gates, in -- you gave direct testimony that as an
9 initial matter, you learned that the Cyprus accounts were set
10 up for ease of transfers from the folks in the Ukraine that
11 were going to pay for consulting services; is that correct?
12 A. That's what Mr. Manafort indicated, yes.
13 Q. And over time, a lot of activity went on through those
14 accounts in Cyprus with respect to money being paid for
15 consulting services; is that correct?
17 Q. Now, you had testified on direct that all of the money
18 that came in was the income of Mr. Manafort or DMP or DMP
19 International; is that correct?
20 A. Of the income that was asked, yes, that's correct.
21 Q. I'm sorry, can you --
22 A. Yes. What I mean is when we went through the documents
23 indicating the values of the contracts, those contracts were
24 specifically for the majority of political work.
25 Q. Majority of political work.

Gates - Cross 1436
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And do you know what other amounts were for?
3 A. Well, yes. For example, there was one amount that was for
4 the lobbying effort that the firm undertook for the European
5 Union and the U.S.
6 Q. And there was also considerable amounts of money that came
7 in that were supposed to be paid out to other consultants,
8 correct?
10 Q. And -- and millions of dollars, not small amounts of
11 money, correct?
12 A. Correct.
13 Q. And so all the money that came in was not the income of
14 DMP International. It actually was the income of a lot of
15 different consultants; isn't that correct?
17 Q. And there were transfers made through those accounts into
18 the United States to a lot of those consultants, correct?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And to other parts of the world to consultants, correct?
22 Q. And millions of dollars.
23 In addition to facilitating this flow of funds from
24 Cyprus, did there come a time where Mr. Manafort and DMP were
25 having difficulties banking in the United States?

Gates - Cross 1437
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And what do you know about that?
3 A. As I understood, in some of the wire transfers from
4 Cyprus, over a period of time, some of the U.S. banking
5 institutions reached out to the firm, me and Mr. Manafort,
6 indicating that the accounts would be closed because of, I
7 think, what was -- they never really reported. They just said
8 that they have the option of closing the account, but it was
9 quickly learned that the reason they did not keep the accounts
10 open was because the money was coming from Cyprus.
11 Q. And it was a difficult issue, correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. I mean, not knowing whether or not your bank is going to
14 honor a transaction or transfer money can make banking and
15 doing business very difficult, correct?
16 A. Yes, it can.
17 Q. Now, when it came to dealing with payments out of Cyprus
18 into the United States, were there any procedures that were put
19 in place to prevent amounts from being bounced back from U.S.
20 bank accounts?
21 A. There were no protections that I'm aware of. We followed
22 the wiring -- or the instructions by the Cypriot law firm that
23 requested specific information about a wire, and then either
24 Mr. Manafort or I would send those wire requests to the Cyprus
25 banks. They would then make the subsequent wire transfer.

Gates - Cross 1438
1 Q. With respect to sending the request to the Cypriot banks,
2 did you have occasion to make up invoices that weren't the
3 invoice of, let's say, a contractor that was getting paid?
4 A. Yes. As I disclosed earlier, that's correct.
5 Q. You did. And can you explain why you did that?
6 A. Yes, because in that instance, as I said, the invoice
7 couldn't be in the name of Mr. Manafort. It had to be in the
8 name of the company.
9 Q. But you didn't just -- if a $375,000 invoice came in the
10 door, you didn't just make up a $375,000 invoice, did you?
11 A. If that was the wire request from Mr. Manafort, yes, we
12 did.
13 Q. And would there be a reason to take a $375,000 invoice and
14 break it down into five separate invoices?
15 A. Yes. There was a period of time, I think, as I disclosed
16 earlier, beginning in 2012 through part of 2013, when Cyprus
17 had experienced a banking collapse. So within the country,
18 internally, they put what were called liquidity restrictions.
19 So you were only allowed to withdraw a certain amount of money
20 from the country over a defined period of time. So that's why
21 the invoices were broken up into various amounts.
22 Q. And you testified on direct that you actually had a
23 template and you'd make it look like it was an outside vendor's
24 invoice, but you were doing it for that very reason?
25 A. No, that was related to the Grenadines. Cyprus was

Gates - Cross 1439
1 different. Cyprus had a much simpler process, for the most
2 part. It was one that they had given to Mr. Manafort and I
3 regarding five lines of information that were required.
4 Q. And what was the -- what was the procedure in the
5 Grenadines? And that would be Global Endeavour, correct?
6 A. Correct. And Global, the process in the Grenadines, as I
7 explained earlier, you had to have more documentation
8 associated with the account. I will say, though, in Cyprus,
9 after the banking collapse in 2012, there, as I recall, was a
10 more substantial requirement in terms of documentation.
11 So there could possibly be invoices that were
12 created, i.e., breaking down the payments for the banks in
13 Cyprus.
14 Q. And with respect to your signature authority on accounts,
15 were you instructed by Mr. Manafort at the end of 2011 to no
16 longer be a signatory on the accounts in Cyprus?
17 A. Mr. Manafort had requested me to remove him in 2012.
18 Q. And yourself?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. But you didn't?
21 A. I removed myself from some of the accounts; that's
22 correct.
23 Q. But not all?
24 A. Not all of them.
25 Q. And was that so you can continue to maintain authority to

Gates - Cross 1440
1 be able to embezzle funds from DMP International's accounts
2 offshore?
3 A. No. And let me go back. Mr. Manafort never requested I
4 take my name off. It was his request to take his name off and
5 have his name expunged from the records.
6 Q. So you did not tell the Office of Special Counsel in an
7 interview that in 2012 Mr. Manafort told you to remove yourself
8 as a signator, but you did not?
9 A. I don't recall telling them that I was to remove myself.
10 The request was to remove Mr. Manafort, and then Mr. Kilimnik
11 and myself split the various accounts that were still open.
12 But at that point in 2012, a number of the accounts were
13 closed.
14 Q. So on direct, you were -- excuse me one second.
15 On direct, you briefly talked about an account
16 called -- or an entity called "Pompolo"?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. What is that entity?
19 A. Pompolo was an entity that we created in the UK after
20 conversing with Mr. Manafort about the problems in Cyprus with
21 moving money from Cyprus to the United States and having some
22 of those banks close. We conferred with our attorneys down in
23 Cyprus to see if there was a better way that we could get money
24 over to the United States without having the U.S. bank account
25 closed.

Gates - Cross 1441
1 Because Cyprus has a relationship with the U.K., it
2 was recommended to us to set up an entity in the U.K. and then
3 transfer the money from Cyprus to the U.K. and then U.K. to the
4 U.S.
5 Q. And did you, in fact -- was -- in fact, was a company set
6 up?
7 A. Yes, it was.
8 Q. Pompolo?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And what bank in the U.K. was that account set up with?
11 A. That was set up at HSBC.
12 Q. And at the same time an account was set up at HSBC in
13 London, was an account also opened in HSBC in New York?
14 A. It was, yes. Well, I take that back. I think we already
15 had the HSBC account in New York opened. The one in the UK was
16 an addition.
17 Q. And was the idea that being interbank at HSBC might be
18 easier to get the money into the country?
19 A. Yes, at that time.
20 Q. And did you -- were attempts made to do that?
21 A. As I recall, yes.
22 Q. And were they successful?
23 A. I believe so, yes.
24 Q. Now, when I asked you earlier about what Cypriot agent
25 was, I think your explanation after saying, "I don't recall,"

Gates - Cross 1442
1 was that it had something to do with Dr. K, we'll call him?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And him consolidating amounts that were from the offshore
4 accounts, DMP's offshore accounts that were closed, is that
5 correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And you mentioned that you think that -- those were the
8 amounts that were transferred to you, correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And can you -- can you explain -- or what did you explain
11 to Dr. K as to why you would be entitled to get these kind of
12 payments? Did you talk to him?
13 A. No. Dr. K never requested any information about the
14 payments, Mr. Manafort or I had sent through the wire
15 transfers. If any documentation was needed, somebody in his
16 accounts department would reach out to either me or
17 Mr. Manafort. But Dr. K specifically never had any inquiries.
18 Q. So with respect to Dr. K, you didn't really deal much with
19 him directly, did you?
20 A. Over the years, it was less frequent. He also had another
21 gentleman, another lawyer in his firm, that was working with
22 him.
23 Q. And who was that?
24 A. I believe his name was George Ioannou.
25 Q. And with respect to initiating wire transfers, I think you

Gates - Cross 1443
1 indicated you dealt with Dr. K's daughter?
2 A. No, his -- he had an accounts department. His daughter
3 was actually an attorney.
4 Q. His accounts department. Who did you deal with in the
5 accounts department?
6 A. The woman I recall is Christina. I don't -- she had a
7 long last name.
8 Q. And with respect to initiating a wire transfer, you
9 clearly, with Dr. K's firm, had the complete authority to make
10 any transfer that you had requested?
11 A. Yes. Mr. Manafort had given me the authority at the
12 beginning with Dr. K, so that's correct.
13 Q. And with respect to the transfers that you've made, and
14 especially from Defendant's Exhibit 17, the $3 million, you
15 were never questioned about making those transfers, were you?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Not until you came here?
19 THE COURT: Questioned by whom?
20 BY MR. DOWNING:
21 Q. By anybody?
22 A. Well, I mean, we were asked for supporting documentation,
23 but no specific inquiries into any of the amounts that were
24 wired.
25 Q. And Mr. Manafort wasn't keeping after you on this stuff,

Gates - Cross 1444
1 was he?
2 A. Mr. Manafort, in my opinion, kept fairly frequent updates
3 on the information from the accounts. Mr. Manafort was very
4 good about knowing where the money is and knowing where to
5 spend it.
6 Q. So it's pretty --
7 THE COURT: Well, he missed the amounts of money you
8 stole from him, though, didn't he?
9 THE WITNESS: Yes, that's correct.
10 THE COURT: So he didn't do it that closely.
11 (Laughter.)
12 THE COURT: How much more do you have with this
13 witness?
14 MR. DOWNING: Quite a bit, Your Honor.
15 THE COURT: All right. I think, ladies and
16 gentlemen, I promised you we would cease sharply at 5:30
17 because one of you has child care responsibilities. Pass your
18 books to the right. We'll do it now.
19 Mr. Gates, you may step down, sir, and you will
20 recall you must refrain from discussing your testimony with
21 anyone, and we will convene tomorrow morning at 9:30.
22 (Witness stood down.)
23 THE COURT: And give me a quantitative estimate,
24 Mr. Downing.
25 MR. DOWNING: One moment, please.

1445
1 I was going to try to hedge my bet, but my colleagues
2 say if I tell you I should get done in an hour, it looks like
3 we can do it.
4 THE COURT: All right. Good.
5 Remember to refrain from discussing the matter with
6 anyone. Don't look at TV or anything else on this case. Put
7 it out of your mind. Don't do any investigation. I'll see you
8 tomorrow morning at 9:30.
9 Have you filled in your menus?
11 THE COURT: It doesn't get any more exciting, does
12 it?
13 (Laughter.)
14 MR. DOWNING: You mean the menu?
15 THE COURT: Yes, and -- that's right, the menu
16 doesn't.
17 (Laughter.)
18 THE COURT: But if it's not suitable to you, you'll
19 have to stand behind me in lines at Panera. You may follow
20 Mr. Flood out.
21 (Jury out.)
22 THE COURT: All right. Court will stand in recess
23 until 8:30 tomorrow in another matter, and I'll stand -- start
24 this matter at 9:30. Court stands in recess.
25 MR. ANDRES: Thank you, Your Honor. Have a nice

1446
1 night.
3 MR. ANDRES: I said have a nice night. Thank you,
4 Your Honor.
5 THE COURT: Oh, thank you. You-all do the same.
6 (Recess from 5:20 p.m., until 9:30 a.m., August 8, 2018.)
8 CERTIFICATE OF THE REPORTER
9 I certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript of
10 the record of proceedings in the above-entitled matter.
11
12
13 /s/
Anneliese J. Thomson
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

1447

ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
------------------------------x
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, . Criminal Action No.
. 1:18-CR-83
versus .
.
PAUL J. MANAFORT, JR., .
. August 8, 2018
Defendant. . Volume VII-A.M.
------------------------------x

BEFORE THE HONORABLE T. S. ELLIS, III
APPEARANCES:

United States Attorney's Office
Alexandria, VA 22314
and
GREG D. ANDRES, SAUSA
BRANDON L. VAN GRACK, SAUSA
Special Counsel's Office
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

BRIAN P. KETCHAM, ESQ.
Suite 620
and
THOMAS E. ZEHNLE, ESQ.
Suite 620
(APPEARANCES CONT'D. ON FOLLOWING PAGE)
(Pages 1447 - 1566)
COMPUTERIZED TRANSCRIPTION OF STENOGRAPHIC NOTES

1448
1 APPEARANCES: (Cont'd.)
2 FOR THE DEFENDANT: KEVIN M. DOWNING, ESQ.

Law Office of Kevin M. Downing
3 601 New Jersey Avenue, N.W.
Suite 620
and
5 RICHARD W. WESTLING, ESQ.
Epstein, Becker & Green, P.C.
6 1227 25th Street, N.W.
7
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER: ANNELIESE J. THOMSON, RDR, CRR
8 U.S. District Court, Fifth Floor
(703)299-8595
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

1449
1 INDEX
2
WITNESS EXAMINATION PAGE
3
4 RICHARD GATES (Resumed)

CROSS 1453
5 REDIRECT 1459
RECROSS 1502
6
MORGAN MAGIONOS
7 DIRECT 1537
9
E X H I B I T S
10
Defendant's Exhibit No. 17 was received 1484
11 Government Exhibit Nos. 66A, 66C, 66D, 66E, 66G, 1542
67B, and 67C were received
Government Exhibit Nos. 447A thru 447Q and 456 1549
13 were received
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

1450
3 THE COURT: All right. This is U.S. against Paul
4 Manafort. It's 18-CR-83. The record will reflect that counsel
5 and the defendant are present and prepared to proceed.
6 Let's see. We were in the midst of your
7 cross-examination?
8 MR. DOWNING: We're almost done, Your Honor.
9 THE COURT: All right. Let's bring the jury in.
10 I'll ask you in front of the jury how much more you have, and
11 then I'll ask you how much you have by way of redirect.
12 Can you give me the news now?
13 (Laughter.)
14 THE COURT: That will save -- that will save me from
15 grimacing or some other facial -- go ahead, sir.
16 MR. ANDRES: I would say less than 30 minutes, Your
17 Honor.
18 THE COURT: Ah. Maybe you want that.
19 (Laughter.)
20 THE COURT: All right. You may bring the jury in.
21 Thank you, Mr. Andres.
22 THE COURT SECURITY OFFICER: One of them is
23 indisposed.
24 (Jury present.)

1451
1 Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. As always, we
2 will commence the day with the calling of the roll by numbers.
3 THE CLERK: Ladies and gentlemen, as I call your
4 number, please answer "present" or "here."
5 Juror 0008.
7 THE CLERK: Juror 0037.

1452
10 THE CLERK: And 0133.
12 THE COURT: All right. Good morning, again, ladies
13 and gentlemen, and let me begin again by asking you to confirm
14 to me that you were successful in following the Court's
15 instructions to refrain from discussing the matter among
16 yourselves or with anyone or undertaking any investigation.
19 All right. We're in the midst of the
20 cross-examination of Mr. Gates, and, Mr. Downing, your estimate
21 of how much more, I think, was about a half an hour or 45
22 minutes?
23 MR. DOWNING: I think I might even get down to
24 15 minutes, Your Honor.
25 THE COURT: All right. And, Mr. Andres, your

Gates - Cross 1453
1 prediction as to how much redirect you would have was?
2 MR. ANDRES: Less than a half-hour, Your Honor.
3 THE COURT: Less than a half-hour, good.
4 All right. Bring Mr. Gates in, please.
5 RICHARD GATES, GOVERNMENT'S WITNESS, PREVIOUSLY SWORN, RESUMED
6 THE COURT: Mr. Gates, you'll recall, sir, you remain
7 under oath. You may resume the stand.
9 CROSS-EXAMINATION (Cont'd.)
10 BY MR. DOWNING:
11 Q. Good morning, Mr. Gates.
12 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Downing, you may proceed
13 and I'll give you some latitude for continuity purposes.
15 BY MR. DOWNING:
16 Q. Mr. Gates, on direct examination from the Government, you
17 were asked some questions about an interview that you gave in
18 July of 2014. Do you remember that?
19 A. I do.
20 Q. And it was an interview with FBI agents, correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And at that interview were also lawyers from the
23 Department of Justice, correct?
25 Q. And you were brought into that interview to discuss

Gates - Cross 1454
1 payments that had come out of the Ukraine into DMP's offshore
2 accounts; is that correct?
3 A. Yes, that was one of the topics.
4 Q. And overall, the investigation you were told was about
5 monies that Mr. Yanukovych may have inappropriately taken out
6 of the Country of Ukraine; is that correct?
7 A. That was what was described to us, yes.
8 Q. And both you and Mr. Manafort met with the FBI; is that
9 correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And both you and Mr. Manafort disclosed to the FBI the
12 offshore accounts in Cyprus that we've been discussing,
13 correct?
14 A. I don't know what was in Mr. Manafort's interview, but I
15 did disclose some of the accounts, yes.
16 Q. And you also disclosed that there were also accounts in
17 St. Vincent's and the Grenadines, correct?
19 Q. And this interview took place in July of 2014?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And when you met with Mr. Manafort, before having this
22 interview, did Mr. Manafort tell you that you should disclose
23 the activity in the Cypriot accounts?
24 A. He indicated that we should be open and provide the
25 information about the questions that were asked of us.

Gates - Cross 1455
1 Q. So I'm going to ask you to take a look at what's been
2 marked Defendant's Exhibit 22.
3 And if you could turn in to Page 3? And take a
4 minute and read through that.
5 THE COURT: This is a number of pages. Do you want
6 him to read the whole thing?
7 MR. DOWNING: I asked him to pay attention to Page 3,
8 Your Honor.
10 BY MR. DOWNING:
11 Q. And the first two paragraphs on Page 4, please, Mr. Gates.
12 A. Okay. Okay.
13 Q. So, Mr. Gates, as part of the FBI interview, you had
14 disclosed that DMP and Mr. Manafort had been hired as
15 consultants to assist in campaigns in the Ukraine, correct?
17 Q. And you also disclosed that payments that came into
18 accounts that were set up in Cyprus were for the offshore
19 consulting in the Ukraine; is that correct?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And you also disclosed to the FBI that you had been told
22 or Mr. Manafort had been told to open accounts in Cyprus for
23 the ease of payment from the Ukraine; is that correct?
24 A. Yes, that was one of the reasons.
25 Q. And you also indicated that invoices -- you had prepared

Gates - Cross 1456
1 invoices for campaign assistance that were also paid into the
2 accounts that were held in Cyprus by DMP International,
3 correct?
5 Q. And you identified accounts such as Lucicle, correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. You identified Bletilla Ventures?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. You identified Leviathan Advisors?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Yiakora was also identified by you?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And LOAV, correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And all of these -- you also identified Global Endeavours
16 as something that was set up in St. Vincent's, correct?
17 A. Yes. The entity itself was set up in Cyprus. The bank
18 account was in the Grenadines.
19 Q. So you and Mr. Manafort agreed to be open and truthful
20 about the activities in Cyprus and in the Ukraine, correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And you felt that the interview you gave in 2014 was a
23 truthful interview about the operations of DMP in the Ukraine
24 and in Cyprus, didn't you?
25 A. Yes.

Gates - Cross 1457
1 Q. Did you have occasion to talk to Mr. Manafort after your
2 interview?
3 A. I did.
4 Q. And after his interview?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And did he indicate to you that he was also truthful with
7 the FBI in his interview?
8 A. To the extent of my recollection, yes.
9 Q. Now, there were some questions of you about some loans and
10 the activities in acquiring loans in the 2015-2016 time frame?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Do you recall that?
13 And there were -- there were some questions of you
14 about decreasing income and DMP International's activities; is
15 that correct?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And that a lot of the campaigns had been done and were
18 finished; is that correct?
19 A. Yes. The last campaign was October of 2014.
20 Q. Now, I believe you --
21 THE COURT: I'm sorry. I didn't hear that.
22 THE WITNESS: Oh, sorry, Your Honor. The last
23 campaign was in October of 2014.
25 BY MR. DOWNING:

Gates - Cross 1458
1 Q. I believe you also testified that there was some
2 outstanding monies that were due to DMP for one of the
3 campaigns that DMP ran?
4 A. For the last campaign, correct.
5 Q. And who was the gentleman, Porochkin? Poroshenko, is that
6 right?
7 A. The outstanding amount was related to the Opposition Bloc.
8 Q. The Opposition Bloc?
9 A. It was a parliamentary election.
10 Q. Thank you. And the outstanding amount was approximately
11 $2.4 million?
13 Q. And there were efforts by Mr. Manafort and others to try
14 to collect that money; is that correct?
16 Q. And those efforts continued through 2016; is that correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And with respect to Mr. Manafort's overall financial
19 picture, were you aware in the 2015-2016 time frame, that
20 Mr. Manafort had a net worth of around $20 million?
21 A. No. I was not privy to his personal assets.
22 Q. Did you have any idea?
23 A. I had some idea from some of the accounting statements
24 that Ms. Washkuhn had sent over, but that related more to the
25 business.

Gates - Redirect 1459
1 Q. And where would you -- if at the time you were looking at
2 these accounting records, where -- in 2015 and '16, where did
3 you think his net worth was?
4 A. Net worth, I don't know because of the value of the
5 properties. I thought somewhere in the realm of 6 to 10
6 million.
8 THE COURT: Any redirect?
12 BY MR. ANDRES:
13 Q. Now, Mr. Gates, Mr. Downing asked you on cross-examination
14 about some -- about your interview with the FBI in July 2014.
16 A. I do.
17 Q. Okay. And at the time of that interview, did you
18 understand that you were under investigation?
19 A. I understood that we were not under investigation.
20 Q. And did you understand that Mr. Manafort was under
21 investigation?
22 A. I understood he was not under investigation either.
23 Q. And you were interviewed by FBI agents; is that correct?
24 A. We were.
25 Q. Was anyone from the IRS there?

1 A. No. I believe it was DOJ.
2 Q. Were you asked to produce your tax returns?
3 A. No.
4 Q. Was Mr. Manafort, if you know, asked to produce his tax
5 returns?
6 A. I don't know.
7 Q. Okay. At the time of the interview, were the Cypriot
8 accounts closed?
9 A. The majority of the Cypriot accounts were closed, yes.
10 Q. Okay. And at the time of the interview, had Mr. Manafort
11 asked you to take certain action?
12 A. He did.
13 Q. What did he ask you to do?
14 A. He asked me to go meet with one of the Russian -- excuse
15 me, the Ukrainian businessman and to inform him of the FBI
16 interview.
17 Q. And why did he ask you to do that?
18 A. He asked me to do that because he wanted to know more
19 information about one of the entities that was paying
20 Mr. Manafort and to understand if that entity was viewed as a
21 clean entity, meaning that it had only been used to make
22 payments to Mr. Manafort.
23 Q. And during that interview, there was a reference to
24 various of the Cypriot accounts; is that correct?
25 A. Yes.

1 Q. Do you remember the names of any of those accounts?
2 A. I do. It was similar to the names that I testified to on,
3 I guess, Monday. It was Leviathan, Bletilla, Actinet,
4 Peranova, Global Highways, Serangon, Lucicle, and then there
5 was an additional list that I provided to the FBI that day of
6 accounts that they did not have.
7 Q. Did you tell the FBI that there was hidden income in those
8 accounts?
9 A. No, I did not.
10 Q. Did you tell the FBI that you didn't -- or were you asked
11 by the FBI whether or not you identified those accounts on your
12 tax return?
13 A. I don't recall if we were.
14 Q. And do you know if Mr. Manafort was asked those questions?
15 A. No, I don't.
16 Q. And when you pled guilty in front of the judge in
17 Washington, D.C., did your guilty plea relate to those
18 accounts?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Your guilty plea to conspire --
21 A. Oh, to the Cyprus accounts?
22 Q. Yes?
23 A. Yes, I did. Sorry.
24 Q. How did your guilty plea relate to the Cyprus accounts?
25 A. The guilty plea related to the Cyprus accounts to the

1 extent that I was wiring money for Mr. Manafort from those
2 accounts and then not reporting the income in the United States
3 nor the foreign bank accounts.
4 Q. Okay. And after this FBI interview, was there any
5 follow-up?
6 A. No, there was not.
7 Q. Okay. And you weren't present during Mr. Manafort's
8 interview, were you?
9 A. I was not.
10 Q. And you're not aware -- are you aware from the details of
11 which accounts he was asked about?
12 A. I was not.
13 Q. Okay. Would you be surprised if he -- if you learned that
14 he said he only had a recollection about certain accounts?
15 A. I don't know how many accounts Mr. Manafort recalls.
16 Q. But to be clear, the subject matter of that interview was
17 the subject matter of your guilty plea in large respect?
18 A. It was, yes.
19 THE COURT: Well, what was the subject of his guilty
20 plea is recorded in the plea agreement.
21 Were you charged in the District of Columbia with --
22 how many counts?
23 THE WITNESS: I believe it was 12 counts, Your Honor.
24 THE COURT: And all of those counts with the
25 exception of the one or two that you pled guilty to, I think

1 one, were dismissed as a result of your plea; is that right?
2 THE WITNESS: I believe so.
3 THE COURT: So you pled guilty to two counts, one of
4 which was in the indictment in the District of Columbia, and
5 the other one related to conduct outside of that.
6 THE WITNESS: That is correct.
8 BY MR. ANDRES:
9 Q. With respect to the Count 1 conspiracy against the United
10 States that you pled guilty to, did that relate to the foreign
11 Cypriot accounts?
12 A. It did.
13 Q. And did it relate to the filing of a false tax return for
14 Mr. Manafort?
15 A. It did.
16 Q. And did it relate to the filing of a false tax return as
17 it related to income?
18 A. It did.
19 Q. And was that income hidden in the accounts in Cyprus?
20 A. It was.
21 Q. And did it relate to a false filing as it related to the
22 failure to disclose foreign bank accounts?
23 A. It did.
24 Q. And did that relate to the Cypriot accounts?
25 A. Yes.

1 Q. And did you plead guilty to conspiring to fail to file
2 FBAR accounts for Mr. Manafort's foreign bank accounts?
3 A. I did.
4 Q. And did that relate to the overseas accounts in the
5 Cyprus?
6 A. They did.
7 Q. On cross-examination, Mr. Gates, you were asked about your
8 guilty plea and whether or not you made false statements to the
9 FBI. Do you remember that?
10 A. I do.
11 Q. Mr. Gates, did you make false statements to the FBI?
12 A. Only the one second count.
13 Q. And that, that was a false statement that you made to the
14 FBI?
15 THE COURT: You're leading now.
16 THE WITNESS: Oh, to the FBI? No, it was not to the
17 FBI.
18 THE COURT: This jury is not going to know what
19 question you asked. Re-ask your question.
20 MR. ANDRES: Sure. Certainly, Judge.
21 BY MR. ANDRES:
22 Q. You pled guilty to making a false statement to the FBI; is
23 that correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. You were asked about that on cross-examination by

1 Mr. Downing?
2 A. Correct.
3 Q. What did you say to the FBI and the Government that was
4 false?
5 A. I indicated to them that I had been aware of a meeting
6 that Mr. Manafort attended with a United States Congressman and
7 had met with Mr. Manafort in 2016 regarding that meeting.
8 When the FBI confronted me with a document that
9 showed that Mr. Manafort had, in fact, met with the Congressman
10 and discussed a specific issue, I had not informed the FBI of
11 that, and I was under oath, and I made a mistake, and I regret
12 it.
13 Q. And that statement was false?
14 A. It was.
15 Q. You knowingly and intentionally made a false statement to
16 the FBI?
18 Q. As you sit here today, do you have any doubt in your mind
19 as to whether that was a false statement?
20 A. No.
21 Q. You were asked questions about your plea agreement on
22 cross-examination by Mr. Downing. Do you remember that?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Do you remember that Mr. Downing asked you about the
25 possibility of getting probation?

1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And do you remember that Mr. Downing asked if the terms of
3 your plea agreement let your lawyer argue that you should have
4 probation and no jail time? Do you remember that?
5 A. I do.
6 Q. And Mr. Downing asked you if such a motion would be
7 unopposed by the Special Counsel's Office? Do you remember
8 that?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. With respect to the promises that have been made with your
11 plea agreement, are they all contained in your written plea
12 agreement?
13 A. They are.
14 Q. Okay. And you testified about your written plea agreement
15 during your direct examination; is that right?
16 A. I did.
17 Q. I'd like to ask you to turn to Government Exhibit 2F,
18 which is already in evidence.
19 MR. ANDRES: Can I publish that, Your Honor?
21 BY MR. ANDRES:
22 Q. Can you tell me what Government Exhibit 2F is?
24 Q. Okay. And this contains all of the promises in it from
25 the Government; is that correct?

2 Q. And all the promises that you made to the Government?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And this document was entered into the docket in the
5 District Court in Washington, D.C.; is that correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Can I ask you to turn to Paragraph 9 on Page 6?
8 A. Okay.
9 Q. On Paragraph 9, what is the title of Paragraph 9?
10 A. "Government's Obligations."
11 Q. Okay. And -- okay.
12 And Paragraph 9 starts on Page 6; is that right?
13 A. Yes, it does.
14 Q. And it continues onto Page 7?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Okay. With respect to the first full sentence on Page 7,
17 can you read that to the jury?
18 A. Yes. "The Government will bring to the Court's attention
19 at the time of sentencing the nature and extent of your
20 client's cooperation or lack of cooperation."
21 Q. I'm sorry, Mr. Gates, on Page 7?
22 A. Oh, sorry.
23 Q. The first full sentence that starts with "Defendant."
24 A. "Defendant will then be free to argue for any sentence
25 below the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range calculated by

1 the Probation Office, including probation."
2 Q. And read the next sentence.
3 A. "Depending on the precise nature of the defendant's
4 substantial assistance, the Office may not oppose defendant's
5 application."
6 Q. Did the, did the Government agree in this document to not
7 oppose a sentence of probation?
8 A. No, it did not.
9 Q. Okay. When Mr. Downing was questioning you on
10 cross-examination, did he show you this document?
11 A. No, he did not.
12 Q. Has the Government made any promise to you about what your
13 sentence will be?
14 A. No, it has not.
15 Q. On cross-examination, you were asked questions about your
16 stealing money or embezzlement from Mr. Manafort. Do you
17 remember that?
18 A. I do.
19 Q. Have you ever been charged with any crimes relating to
20 that money?
21 A. I have not.
22 Q. In your first indictment in Washington, were you charged
23 with any crimes?
24 A. No.
25 Q. How about here in the Eastern District of Virginia?

1 A. No.
2 Q. Did Mr. Manafort ever confront you about that?
3 A. He did not.
4 Q. As far as you understand, your understanding, how did the
5 Government know that you embezzled money from Mr. Manafort?
6 A. I told the Government that I did.
7 Q. And how did Mr. Downing know, to the best of your
8 understanding, that you -- that you embezzled money from
9 Mr. Manafort?
10 A. As I understood, Mr. Downing received the 302 reports from
11 the FBI during my interviews, so that he was able to gather the
12 information from that document.
14 MR. DOWNING: Objection, Your Honor. Speculation.
15 THE COURT: That's not an objection.
16 MR. DOWNING: How would he know how I learned of this
17 fraud?
18 THE COURT: The proper way to have proceeded is when
19 he asked the question, you should have objected. He's asked
20 and answered the question, and I'm going to overrule the
21 objection.
22 But you don't know, one way or the other, how he
23 learned of it, do you?
24 THE WITNESS: I do not.
25 THE COURT: All right. That takes care of it.

1 BY MR. ANDRES:
3 MR. ANDRES: May I continue, Your Honor? I'm sorry.
5 BY MR. ANDRES:
6 Q. With --
7 THE COURT: But finish.
8 BY MR. ANDRES:
9 Q. With respect to the funds that you took from Mr. Manafort,
10 how did you charge those?
11 A. When you say "charge," what do you mean?
12 Q. Did you charge them as expenses?
13 A. Yes, the majority, yes.
14 Q. Okay. And with respect to expenses, how were those paid
15 for?
16 A. The expenses, across the board for the company, for the
17 most part, were ultimately reimbursed to the Ukrainian clients.
18 Q. So Mr. Manafort wouldn't have noticed any loss in his
19 money or income because the money was passed on to --
20 THE COURT: The question is now leading.
21 BY MR. ANDRES:
22 Q. With respect to those funds, who paid for them?
23 A. The Ukrainian businessman.
24 Q. During the cross-examination, you were asked questions
25 about the FBAR filings and KWC. Do you remember that?

1 A. I do.
2 Q. And you pled guilty to -- to conspiring with Mr. Manafort
3 to fail to file FBARs; is that correct?
5 Q. And that related to overseas accounts?
6 A. It did.
7 Q. And what foreign countries were those accounts in?
8 A. Cyprus, the Grenadines, and one in the United Kingdom.
9 Q. And they involved bank accounts?
10 A. They did.
11 Q. Mr. Gates, did you need to -- did you need to consult with
12 an expert to know that Cyprus was a foreign country?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Did you need to consult with an expert to know that those
15 were bank accounts?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Did you need to consult with an expert to know that the
18 money Mr. Manafort earned from the income in foreign bank
19 accounts in Cyprus had to be disclosed on your tax returns?
20 A. No.
21 Q. With respect to your own conduct, you were charged with
22 respect to failing to file FBARs for your own accounts as well;
23 is that correct?
25 Q. And where were those accounts located?

1 A. United Kingdom.
2 Q. Did you consult with an expert to know that the United
3 Kingdom was a foreign country?
4 A. No, I did not.
5 Q. And did you consult with an expert --
6 THE COURT: This is all irrelevant to this case.
7 MR. ANDRES: He was asked -- I'm sorry. Your Honor,
8 I'll move on.
9 THE COURT: Yes, you will.
10 BY MR. ANDRES:
11 Q. With respect to EVO Holdings, you were asked questions
12 about EVO Holdings on cross-examination. Do you remember that?
13 A. I do.
14 Q. Can you explain to the jury what EVO Holdings is?
15 A. EVO Holdings is a Cyprus-based company that was set up to
16 hold an asset that was purchased through Mr. Manafort's private
17 equity fund.
18 Q. Okay. Were there any bank accounts related to EVO
19 Holdings?
20 A. There was.
21 Q. What bank accounts?
22 A. It was an EVO Holdings bank account in Cyprus.
23 Q. Okay. During the discussion about the EVO Holdings
24 issues, there were communications with Mr. Manafort's tax
25 accountants; is that right?

1 A. Correct.
2 Q. The accountants at KWC?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And Mr. Downing asked you about that on cross-examination?
5 A. He did.
6 Q. Okay. During the discussion about EVO Holdings, did
7 anyone disclose to the tax accountants or the tax preparers
8 that there was a foreign bank account related to EVO Holdings?
9 A. No. The only piece of information that was disclosed was
10 that there were foreign shares.
11 Q. And at any time during the time that you worked on
12 Mr. Manafort's taxes, did either you or Mr. Manafort disclose
13 to the tax preparers that there were foreign accounts?
14 A. No.
15 Q. And if you give false information, Mr. Gates, to tax
16 preparers, can you expect appropriate advice?
17 A. No.
18 Q. You were asked questions on cross-examination about your
19 trial preparation. Do you remember that?
20 A. I do.
21 Q. Mr. Downing asked you if anyone from the Special Counsel's
22 office told you how to answer any questions; is that right?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Were you told how to answer any questions?
25 A. The only answer I was told is to tell the truth.

1 Q. You were shown a series of exhibits by Mr. Manafort -- I'm
2 sorry -- by Mr. Downing. Do you remember that?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. You were shown Defense Exhibit 14.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Do you have that up there?
7 A. I do.
8 Q. What does that relate to, Defense Exhibit 14?
9 A. It relates to a wire transfer request from one of the
10 offshore accounts.
11 Q. And for what account?
12 A. Global Endeavour.
13 Q. Who set up Global Endeavour?
14 A. Our lawyers in Cyprus.
15 Q. Who specifically?
16 A. At the direction of Mr. Manafort.
17 Q. And what money was included in the Global Endeavor
18 account?
19 A. Funds from the Ukrainian political elections.
20 Q. And that's a foreign bank account; is that right?
22 Q. And Mr. Manafort had money in it?
23 A. He did.
24 Q. Did he disclose that on his taxes?
25 A. To my knowledge, no.

1 Q. And that's what you pled guilty to as part of the Count 1
2 conspiracy; is that correct?
4 Q. Can you look at Government Exhibit -- I'm sorry -- Defense
5 Exhibit 15?
6 THE COURT: And avoid leading.
7 MR. ANDRES: Yes, sir.
8 THE WITNESS: Okay.
9 BY MR. ANDRES:
10 Q. What is Defense Exhibit 15?
11 A. It's another wire request form for an offshore account.
12 Q. What offshore account?
13 A. Again, it's Global Endeavour.
14 Q. And who set up Global Endeavour?
15 A. It was at the direction of Mr. Manafort.
16 THE COURT: He didn't ask you whose direction. He
17 asked: Who set it up?
18 THE WITNESS: Okay. The Cypriot attorneys set it up.
20 BY MR. ANDRES:
21 Q. And what funds were included in that?
22 A. Funds from the work from political campaigns.
23 Q. Okay. Do you have Defense Exhibit 17 there as well?
24 A. No.
25 Q. It's a chart.

1 A. No, I do not.
2 MR. ANDRES: Do you have it, 17? Oh, it's right
3 here. Can I use that?
4 MR. DOWNING: Yeah, sure.
5 MR. ANDRES: Okay. Mr. Flood, can I ask you --
6 MR. DOWNING: Your Honor, we don't object to
7 Defendant's Exhibit 17 being admitted into evidence at this
8 time.
9 MR. ANDRES: It's not admitted, Your Honor. We're
10 not asking to admit it.
11 THE COURT: You don't want to admit it?
12 MR. ANDRES: No, I'm not asking to admit it.
13 MR. DOWNING: Your Honor, we would move it in as a
14 1006 summary that's been authenticated as accurate by the
15 United States Government.
16 THE COURT: All right. I think I've heard a 1006
17 argument in another context. Do you oppose its admission?
18 MR. ANDRES: Your Honor --
19 THE COURT: I'm just asking. Yes or no?
20 MR. ANDRES: Yes. It's not complete.
22 MR. DOWNING: Your Honor, I believe that is an
23 inaccurate representation by the United States Government.
24 That came directly out of a charging instrument that this
25 Government returned in this district. That's what this is.

1 It's a copy of that. It is definitely complete.
2 MR. ANDRES: Your Honor, I'm happy to respond or come
3 to the sidebar, whatever Your Honor pleases.
4 THE COURT: You do want to use this document?
5 MR. ANDRES: I'm going to use it in the same way
6 defense did, by asking the defense -- the witness to look at
7 it. But --
9 MR. ANDRES: -- this is a copy of the --
10 THE COURT: But they're now offering -- they're going
11 to offer it, so I'll have to consider whether I admit it, and
12 the allegation -- I'll have you come to the bench, but the
13 allegation is that the document came from the Government, was
14 attached to a charging document.
15 Come to the bench.
17 THE COURT: Mr. Downing, where do you think the
18 document came from?
19 MR. DOWNING: This is a line-by-line copy of what was
20 contained in the indictment that was returned here in the
21 Eastern District of Virginia.
22 THE COURT: This exact document --
24 THE COURT: -- or did somebody copy it?
25 MR. DOWNING: Copy, an exact copy.

1 THE COURT: She's got to get all of us --
2 MR. DOWNING: Sorry.
3 THE COURT: -- and if we're both talking, she can't
4 get us.
5 Is this a verbatim, exact copy of something that was
6 attached to the indictment?
7 MR. DOWNING: Yes. We represent it is.
8 THE COURT: All right. And you want to offer it?
9 MR. DOWNING: Yes, as a summary. This is the
10 $3 million that we questioned Mr. Gates about in his
11 embezzlement.
12 THE COURT: And you also want to question this
13 witness about this?
14 MR. ANDRES: Not if it's going to be admitted as an
15 exhibit, Your Honor. I'm happy to wait, but I'd like to
16 address that.
17 THE COURT: Yes, go ahead.
18 MR. ANDRES: Okay. First of all, I'm on questioning
19 now, and I'm not aware that defense is allowed to admit
20 exhibits while I'm there. Putting that aside, I think the
21 indictment --
22 THE COURT: I think you should put it aside because I
23 am going to get a request to have it admitted --
24 MR. ANDRES: Fair enough.
25 THE COURT: -- so I need to deal with it.

1 But you're correct to point out that this isn't the
2 time to admit a piece of evidence on behalf of the defendant.
3 I understand that.
4 MR. ANDRES: This is from the indictment, Judge. If
5 you're going to send the indictment back to the jury --
6 THE COURT: I'm not.
7 MR. ANDRES: Well, this is the --
8 THE COURT: At the moment, I'm not. I'm going to
9 give you an opportunity and you an opportunity to address
10 whether I should. I'm inclined not to. I'll give you a
11 preview of what I'm thinking, and you can address it. You may
12 want it; you may not want it. I don't know.
13 There's a great deal in the indictment that's sort of
14 argument. It's the government's argument about these sleazy
15 people, and I'm not inclined to admit anything other than the
16 exact counts and none of the previous paragraphs. On the other
17 hand, I'm inclined to leave it all out. I expect you've given
18 enough information. But this isn't the time to decide whether
19 I'm going to send something back with the jury. I will give
20 you an opportunity to tell me what you think about that, and I
21 will give you an opportunity to tell me as well.
22 Now, what -- Mr. Andres is correct, this isn't an
23 opportunity for you to offer because he's in the midst of his,
24 but if I'm going to admit it, if I were Mr. Andres, I'd like to
25 know that now before I am questioning a witness.

1 Wouldn't you?
3 THE COURT: All right. So I'm going to consider it
4 now.
5 MR. ANDRES: My argument, Judge, is this is part of
6 the indictment, and if Mr. Downing wants to include it, he
7 should have to include the entire indictment. Snipping pieces
8 out of it are misleading.
9 I don't doubt at all --
10 THE COURT: You mean what you attached makes the
11 indictment misleading?
12 MR. ANDRES: No, it's not attached.
13 THE COURT: I'm not moved by an argument that he
14 either has to swallow the whole pill or none of it. All I'm
15 interested in is whether if he offers -- you're going to offer
16 it.
17 MR. DOWNING: Yes, Your Honor.
18 THE COURT: And if you're going to object to it,
19 let's resolve that now.
20 MR. ANDRES: That was my argument, Judge. If you're
21 going to -- if that's unpersuasive to you, then I'm ready to
22 proceed, and I don't have any objection to it being admitted,
23 and that's that. I just don't think it's -- listen, I have
24 objected. I don't doubt that Mr. Downing took this from the
25 indictment. That's fine. We can check it afterwards.

1 THE COURT: Well, I hope somebody from the government
2 checked it before they attached it to an indictment.
3 MR. ANDRES: It's not attached, Judge. It's in the
4 indictment.
5 THE COURT: Oh.
6 MR. ANDRES: It's not an attachment. This is the
7 body of the indictment. That's the problem.
8 THE COURT: I see. I see.
9 MR. ANDRES: The indictment -- and the reason -- I'm
10 sorry, the reason why I raised the question of whether you're
11 going to admit the indictment is this is tantamount to
12 including the indictment and sending it back to the jury,
13 because it's part of the indictment.
14 THE COURT: Well, I assume, though, that the
15 government would have checked something. They wouldn't put
16 something false in an indictment.
17 MR. ANDRES: That's not the issue.
18 THE COURT: Well, it's an issue for me.
19 MR. ANDRES: No, the question isn't whether there's
20 something inaccurate in the indictment. I'm saying I didn't
21 take what Mr. Downing has marked as Government (sic) Exhibit
22 17, which we got for the first time last night, I haven't
23 checked that against the indictment to see if it matches up.
24 I'm not doubting that it --
25 THE COURT: Well, I will give you that opportunity if

1 I admit it. You may certainly go and check it.
2 Go ahead.
3 MR. ANDRES: That's it. This is the indictment.
4 This is excerpts from the indictment, and that's what my
5 objection is, is it's only part of the indictment, and
6 that's -- unless Your Honor is going to send the whole
7 indictment back, I think it's misleading.
8 THE COURT: All right. What's your view?
9 MR. DOWNING: The chart itself was in the indictment
10 as a --
11 THE COURT: The chart. You're referring to --
12 MR. DOWNING: This is the chart.
13 THE COURT: -- these three pages?
14 MR. DOWNING: Correct. Appear in the indictment as a
15 summary of the transfers that came from the offshore accounts
16 of DMP International that went to Mr. Gates and to Mr. Gates'
17 account for which he did not report on his tax return. That's
18 exactly what I asked him about yesterday.
19 It also represents items that we believe are
20 embezzlement. We also questioned about that.
21 That's the purpose of this, using this chart. That's
22 it.
23 THE COURT: I'll give you an opportunity to look and
24 ensure that it is complete and that they haven't omitted
25 something, but -- and, of course, you have an opportunity --

1 your case isn't closed yet. You may do as you wish.
2 MR. ANDRES: Okay.
3 THE COURT: But I don't have it in the record yet.
4 We'll have to do that on recross if you -- yes?
5 MR. ASONYE: We were just consulting with each other.
6 THE COURT: All right. If you do that, please ask --
7 please say you need an opportunity to consult. Then you can
8 consult with him. And I'm talking, and it interrupts me. You
9 understand that. I think you would feel the same way.
10 Do you need an opportunity to consult?
11 MR. ASONYE: No. No, we don't. I said my piece,
12 Your Honor.
13 THE COURT: Anything further, Mr. Downing?
15 THE COURT: All right. We had this bench conference.
16 I'm not clear that I have any issue in front of me. If you
17 wish to offer this as an exhibit at the appropriate time, I'll
18 consider it. You may state your objection then, and I will
19 rule on it.
20 As of this time, there's -- at this moment, I don't
21 think I have a question before me.
22 MR. ANDRES: Your Honor, I don't object to its
23 admission since you're going to admit it, and we might as well
24 do it now because if he's going to get to admit it and show it,
25 I think to avoid a re-redirect examination, we might as well

1 get it over with.
2 So if Mr. Downing wants to admit it now, that's fine.
3 I'm going to ask to publish it, and I'll ask Mr. Gates about
4 it.
5 MR. DOWNING: So, Your Honor, I move Defense Exhibit
6 17 into evidence.
7 THE COURT: 17, all right. I'll overrule the
8 objection and admit it.
10 evidence.)
11 MR. ANDRES: Thank you, sir.
12 THE COURT: You'll be entitled to ask him questions
13 on re-redirect.
14 MR. ANDRES: Oh, so not now?
15 THE COURT: Yes.
16 MR. ANDRES: Oh, yeah. This is just the first
17 redirect. I'm not -- the point was to avoid all the rest of
18 it.
19 THE COURT: All right. Well, that's right, because
20 you're in the midst of redirect.
21 MR. ANDRES: Just the first one, Judge. I know it
22 feels like the fifth one.
23 THE COURT: I hope it's the last one.
24 MR. ANDRES: I'm trying.
25 THE COURT: Go ahead.

4 MR. ANDRES: Okay.
5 THE COURT: For the record, I have admitted Defense
6 Exhibit 17 over the objection of the Government. Proceed.
9 BY MR. ANDRES:
10 Q. Mr. Gates, do you have document Defense Exhibit 17?
11 A. Not yet.
12 Q. You don't have it?
13 A. No.
14 MR. ANDRES: Do you have another copy?
15 THE COURT: He has it in front of him on the screen.
16 MR. ANDRES: Oh, fine.
17 THE COURT: Or at least one screen of it. It's three
18 pages.
20 BY MR. ANDRES:
21 Q. Mr. Gates, the -- the chart in Government's 17 includes
22 charges that were brought against you in the Eastern District
23 of Virginia; is that correct?
24 A. It does.
25 Q. And with respect to those charges, they relate to your

1 income taxes?
2 A. They do.
3 Q. And the failure for you to declare income?
5 Q. With respect to those charges, were you guilty of all
6 those charges?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And do they also relate to your failure to, to disclose
9 foreign bank accounts on your tax returns?
10 A. They do.
11 Q. And were you guilty of all those charges?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Mr. Downing asked you questions about these various
14 transfers. Those were identified by the Government; isn't it
15 true?
17 Q. And they were included in your indictment?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Can I ask you to look at the chart, the first entries for
20 Serangon -- I may be mispronouncing it, so excuse me --
21 Serangon Holdings Limited?
22 Do you see that?
23 A. I do.
24 Q. And what does it say about the country of origin?
25 A. Cyprus.

1 Q. And what is Serangon Holdings Limited?
2 A. It was an entity set up in Cyprus.
3 Q. Okay. By who?
5 Q. And whose money was in it?
6 THE COURT: Well, he didn't ask you that. He asked
7 you: Who set it up?
8 THE WITNESS: The Cypriot attorneys set it up.
10 BY MR. ANDRES:
11 Q. Who asked the Cypriot lawyers to set it up?
12 A. In this account, I don't know specifically, but either
13 Mr. Manafort asked the Cypriot attorney or he asked me to ask
14 the Cypriot attorney.
15 Q. During the time that you were dealing with Mr. Manafort's
16 tax preparers, did either you or Mr. Manafort disclose Serangon
17 Holdings?
18 A. No, we did not.
19 Q. There's another listing a few down before the shading for
20 Global Highway Limited. What is Global Highway Limited?
21 A. Global Highway Limited is another entity in Cyprus.
22 Q. And who controlled that?
23 A. Mr. Manafort.
24 Q. And whose money was in that?

1 Q. Did you disclose that account to Mr. Manafort's tax
2 preparers?
3 A. We did not.
4 Q. And below that --
5 THE COURT: I'm sorry, what was your answer?
6 THE WITNESS: We did not, Your Honor.
7 THE COURT: Are you saying "we" or "I"?
8 THE WITNESS: I did not.
10 BY MR. ANDRES:
11 Q. Do you know if Mr. Manafort disclosed that to your tax --
12 to his tax preparers?
13 A. To my knowledge, no, he did not.
14 Q. Below that is Peranova.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. What is Peranova?
17 A. Peranova is another Cyprus attorney that was used for
18 political work.
19 Q. And who controlled that?
20 A. Mr. Manafort.
21 Q. Did you disclose that to Mr. Manafort's tax preparers?
22 A. I did not.
23 Q. Why not?
24 A. Because Mr. Manafort had asked us not to -- said we did
25 not need to disclose the foreign accounts to the accountants.

1 Q. Okay. And then for Peranova there are two entries. One
2 is for $48,000. Is that money you drew from that account?
3 A. It is.
4 Q. Okay. And the other was for $100,000; is that right?
6 Q. And what year is that in?
7 A. That is tax year 2011.
8 Q. And that money was income to Mr. Manafort; is that
9 correct?
10 A. This actually was income to me.
11 Q. Income to you, but the money when it first went to
12 Peranova, what was that?
13 A. That was income from the political work.
14 Q. And that was never a loan, right?
16 Q. There was no loan from some businessman in the Ukraine to
17 Mr. Manafort --
18 THE COURT: You're leading.
19 BY MR. ANDRES:
20 Q. Was there ever a loan from a businessman in the Ukraine to
21 Mr. Manafort that you were aware of?
22 A. No.
23 Q. Okay. Just one more. At the bottom there it says,
24 "Bletilla Ventures." What is that?
25 A. Bletilla is another company that was incorporated in

1 Cyprus.
2 Q. Okay. And who controlled that?
3 A. Mr. Manafort.
4 Q. And did you disclose that to Mr. Manafort's tax preparers?
5 A. I did not.
6 Q. Why not?
8 MR. ANDRES: Can I just have one moment to look at
9 the chart, Judge?
11 MR. ANDRES: I'm just trying to speed this along.
12 Just one or two more questions about the chart.
13 BY MR. ANDRES:
14 Q. Do you see a reference to Pompolo Limited?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. What is that?
17 A. Pompolo Limited is an entity that was set up in the United
18 Kingdom.
19 Q. Okay. And who controlled that entity?
20 A. That was controlled by me and Mr. Manafort.
21 Q. Okay. And did you disclose that to your tax preparer?
22 A. I did not.
23 Q. Under that is Lucicle.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. What is Lucicle?

1 A. Lucicle is a company based in Cyprus.
2 Q. Okay. And who controlled that entity?
3 A. Mr. Manafort.
4 Q. Under that Mr. Downing asked some questions about Cypriot
5 Agent. Do you see that?
6 A. I do.
7 Q. You didn't have your own lawyer in Cyprus, did you?
8 A. I did not.
9 Q. You didn't have your own accounts in Cyprus, did you?
10 A. No.
11 Q. At some point, the accounts moved from Cyprus to the
12 Grenadines, St. Vincent and the Grenadines?
13 A. Correct.
14 Q. And was there a transition period?
15 A. There was.
16 Q. What happened in that transition period?
17 A. In terms of?
18 Q. In terms of where the money was put, what accounts, where
19 was the money held?
20 A. The money -- oh, the remaining money was held in the
21 Cypriot Agent account in Cyprus.
22 Q. By Dr. K, is that right?
24 Q. The Cypriot Agent account is not yours, is it?
25 A. No. It was actually an internal account that actually

1 designated by the company that the money remained in that
2 company, so it was simply a list of all the companies that we
3 had had prior to Cyprus and the remaining balance in those
4 companies.
5 Q. Do you remember that Mr. Downing asked you questions about
6 Mr. Manafort having trouble moving the money from Cyprus to the
7 United States?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And he asked you if that caused difficulties?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And it caused problems for Mr. Manafort's business?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Do you know why banks in the United States wouldn't accept
15 Mr. Manafort's money from Cyprus?
16 THE COURT: Wouldn't this be hearsay?
17 MR. ANDRES: It's his understanding.
18 THE COURT: His understanding isn't relevant.
19 MR. ANDRES: Well, that's what he was asked about.
20 MR. DOWNING: Actually, his answer was yes, he was --
21 the banks didn't tell him why. That was his statement
22 yesterday, Your Honor, but objection. Calls for hearsay.
23 MR. ANDRES: But he asked the exact same question,
24 Your Honor.
25 THE COURT: His understanding isn't really relevant,

1 is it?
2 MR. ANDRES: It is.
3 THE COURT: Mr. Downing?
4 MR. DOWNING: Your Honor, I believe yesterday when I
5 asked Mr. Gates if he knew why the accounts were closed, he
6 said the banks did not indicate. They just closed the
7 accounts.
8 So I don't think he's got a personal understanding of
9 why the banks closed the accounts. That was his testimony
10 yesterday.
11 MR. ANDRES: We could ask him.
12 THE COURT: All right. I'll permit it, although it
13 leaves open the question of why he didn't answer it in the
14 first place when he was asked the question.
15 BY MR. ANDRES:
16 Q. Mr. Gates, do you have an understanding as to why U.S.
17 banks wouldn't accept Mr. Manafort's money from Cyprus?
18 A. It wasn't Mr. Manafort's --
19 THE COURT: Do you have an understanding?
20 THE WITNESS: I have a response from one of the banks
21 that we banked with, yes, Your Honor.
22 THE COURT: I thought you answered Mr. Downing's
23 question that the banks didn't tell you.
24 THE WITNESS: That's correct, that was the answer.
25 THE COURT: Now, you're remembering that one bank

1 told you.
2 THE WITNESS: No, no. The one bank had indicated to
3 us that they are able to --
4 THE COURT: Just a moment. Now you're telling that
5 the bank had indicated something to you?
6 THE WITNESS: Yeah. It follows with my answer
7 yesterday, Your Honor.
8 THE COURT: All right. That would be hearsay, so
9 I'll exclude that. Continue.
10 BY MR. ANDRES:
11 Q. Did anything about the fact that Mr. --
12 THE COURT: By hearsay, ladies and gentlemen, I mean
13 that if I permitted a witness to testify as to what that
14 witness had been told by somebody else, that somebody else
15 couldn't be cross-examined here in court, so that's why it's
16 excluded.
17 Proceed, Mr. Andres.
18 BY MR. ANDRES:
19 Q. Did anything about the fact that Mr. Manafort had a hard
20 time moving his money from Cyprus to the United States, did
21 anything about that prevent him, as you understand it, from
22 disclosing his overseas accounts to his tax payers?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Yesterday, Mr. Downing asked you some questions about a
25 relationship that you had.

2 A. I do.
3 Q. How long did that last?
4 A. Approximately five months.
5 Q. And have you discussed that with your wife?
6 A. I have.
7 Q. How long ago was that?
8 A. Almost ten years ago.
9 Q. When it happened, did you -- did you tell Mr. Manafort?
10 A. I did.
11 Q. And was he supportive?
12 A. He was.
13 Q. Did he fire you?
14 A. He did not.
15 Q. Mr. Downing asked you some questions about bonuses that
16 you received.
18 A. I do.
19 Q. Where did those bonuses -- how were they made?
20 A. They were paid from Cyprus.
21 Q. Okay. And those bonuses weren't disclosed to the tax
22 preparers, were they?
23 A. No. I failed to report those on my income tax.
24 Q. Did Mr. Manafort report it to his tax payers?
25 A. He did not.

1 Q. That was his secret, right?
2 A. As I understand, yes.
3 Q. Did he report it to Ms. Washkuhn?
4 A. He did not.
5 THE COURT: Just a moment.
6 MR. DOWNING: Objection, Your Honor. There is no
7 evidence that Mr. Manafort knew that he was taking this money.
8 This is embezzlement. This isn't a bonus. How could he ask
9 him what --
10 THE COURT: That's not the question that's being
11 asked. The question that's being asked is whether Mr. Manafort
12 reported bonuses that were paid to him.
13 MR. DOWNING: That's not what I understood the
14 question --
15 THE COURT: Is that your question, Mr. Andres?
16 MR. ANDRES: Yeah.
19 THE COURT: All right. Be careful about that. This
20 is not an informal proceeding.
21 MR. ANDRES: Understood. With --
22 THE COURT: I'm not done yet. There's an objection
23 pending. So what's your objection?
24 MR. DOWNING: My objection, I thought he was asking a
25 question about was the money he took out of these offshore

1 accounts that was unknown to Mr. Manafort that he calls
2 bonuses, that were reported by Mr. Manafort on tax returns.
3 That's what I understood the question.
4 THE COURT: That was the question, wasn't it,
5 Mr. Andres?
6 MR. ANDRES: Yes.
9 THE COURT: All right. I'll overrule the objection.
10 He may answer.
11 THE WITNESS: Sorry, can you repeat the question?
12 BY MR. ANDRES:
13 Q. With respect to the --
14 THE COURT: He wants to know whether the monies that
15 were paid to Mr. Manafort as bonuses were reported on his
16 income taxes, if you know.
17 THE WITNESS: The money that was paid to Mr. Manafort
18 was not reported as income.
20 BY MR. ANDRES:
21 Q. Mr. Downing asked you some questions about your indictment
22 here in the Eastern District of Virginia. Do you remember
23 that?
24 A. I do.
25 Q. He said that you might be facing a substantial amount of

1 jail time for that.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 200 years in jail?
5 A. Correct.
6 Q. Is that your understanding that you were facing that
7 amount of time?
8 A. No. I thought it was a lower amount.
9 Q. Are there --
10 THE COURT: What was the lower amount that you
11 thought?
12 THE WITNESS: I thought it was somewhere in the range
13 of a hundred years, Your Honor.
14 THE COURT: A hundred years. Next question.
16 THE COURT: Go ahead, Mr. Andres.
18 BY MR. ANDRES:
19 Q. That indictment has been dismissed?
20 A. It has.
21 Q. Are there circumstances under which that indictment can be
22 brought again?
23 A. There are.
24 Q. What are they?
25 A. If I fail to tell the truth here today, the Special

1 Counsel can claim a breach of the plea agreement, and they can
2 indict me on those charges.
3 Q. And if you were indicted on that, how much time would you
4 be facing?
5 A. A significant amount.
6 Q. Hundred years by your account.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. With respect --
9 THE COURT: I'll strike that. That's your testimony,
10 but you may ask him.
11 BY MR. ANDRES:
12 Q. So how much time are you facing?
13 A. To my knowledge, up to a hundred years.
14 Q. Okay. And with respect to the charges in the Eastern
15 District of Virginia indictment, you were guilty of all those
16 charges, right?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And if you had lied here today and those charges were
19 brought again, would you have any defense to those?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Mr. Downing asked you some questions --
22 THE COURT: Just so we're clear -- no, go ahead,
23 Mr. Andres.
24 BY MR. ANDRES:
25 Q. Mr. Downing asked you some questions about your

1 sentencing. Do you remember that?
2 A. I do.
3 Q. And you're going to be sentenced by a federal judge in
4 Washington, D.C.; is that correct?
6 Q. With respect to all of the things that you've testified
7 today, will that judge know about all of the criminal activity
8 you're involved in?
9 A. She will.
10 Q. Okay. With respect to the embezzlement from Mr. Manafort,
11 will that judge know about that?
12 A. She will.
13 Q. And with respect to your own failing to file tax returns,
14 will the judge know about that?
15 A. Yes, she will.
16 Q. How will she know about that?
17 A. Because the government prepares a letter which indicates
18 all of the criminal activity conducted.
19 Q. And will that judge have access to this transcript?
20 A. I assume so, yes.
21 Q. Okay. And so at the time of sentencing, is it your
22 understanding that the judge will take into consideration the
23 totality of your conduct?
24 A. Yes. That's what is expressed to me.
25 Q. That includes your criminal conduct?

1 A. It does.
2 Q. And your cooperation?
4 Q. And as you sit here today, do you have any idea what your
5 sentence will be?
6 A. None.
7 Q. As you sit here today, Mr. Gates, do you have any doubt in
8 your mind, if you lied, that the Special Counsel's Office would
9 rip up your plea agreement?
10 A. No doubt at all.
11 MR. ANDRES: Judge, may I have a moment?
13 MR. ANDRES: Just one other quick area, Your Honor.
14 If I could go back to Defense Exhibit 17?
15 14. Defense Exhibit 14.
16 BY MR. ANDRES:
17 Q. Do you have that in front of you, Defense Exhibit 14?
18 A. I do.
19 MR. ANDRES: Okay. May I just have one moment, Your
20 Honor?
21 THE COURT: Yes.
22 MR. ANDRES: I'm finished, Your Honor. Thank you.
24 MR. ANDRES: I'm finished with my examination. Thank
25 you.

Gates - Recross 1502
1 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Downing?
3 Can I get a copy of the plea agreement?
4 RECROSS EXAMINATION
5 BY MR. DOWNING:
6 Q. Can we go back to Defense Exhibit 17?
7 Mr. Gates, you've had an opportunity to look at
8 what's been marked as Defense Exhibit 17, haven't you?
9 A. Yes, I have.
10 Q. Today and yesterday?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And I think you ballparked yesterday --
13 THE COURT: Well, have you seen this chart before?
14 THE WITNESS: Yesterday, yes, Your Honor.
15 THE COURT: Before yesterday, have you seen it?
16 THE WITNESS: Before yesterday? Yes, I did see it in
17 the indictment, Your Honor.
19 BY MR. DOWNING:
20 Q. The indictment here in EDVA, correct?
22 Q. And yesterday you ballparked that the total amount of
23 these wire transfers to your accounts was somewhere between 2.7
24 and 3 million dollars, correct?
25 A. I believe that's correct, yes.

1 Q. And this is all monies that you directed from DMP
2 International's offshore accounts to your personal accounts,
3 correct?
5 Q. And these monies are part of what we discussed yesterday,
6 your embezzlement from DMP and Mr. Manafort, correct?
8 Q. And they come from various entities in Cyprus as well as,
9 I believe, Global Endeavour is there for St. Vincent and the
10 Grenadines, correct?
11 A. I don't see Global Endeavour here, but I think on that
12 previous page, yes, that's correct.
13 Q. Okay. And it spans from what years, 2010 to 2014?
14 A. I don't have the last page, but I think that's correct.
15 Yes, November 2014.
16 Q. Okay. Not to rehash too much of yesterday, but I believe
17 Mr. Andres has made a big fact of the point that if you don't
18 tell the truth, that they can tear up your plea agreement?
19 A. That's true.
20 Q. Who prepped you for trial?
21 A. My attorney.
22 Q. And from the Government?
23 A. I met with -- I met with Special Counsel.
24 Q. Who?
25 A. Mr. Andres and various FBI agents.

1 Q. Any other lawyers from the Office of Special Counsel you
2 met with for trial prep?
3 A. For trial prep? I don't recall if there are any others.
4 Q. And about on how many occasions did you meet with
5 Mr. Andres to prep for trial?
6 A. Approximately 20.
7 Q. How many?
8 A. Approximately 20.
9 Q. And in your trial preparation, this issue came up about an
10 extramarital affair that you may have had, correct?
11 A. It did.
12 Q. And when I asked you yesterday about your secret life, you
13 said you had made a mistake, correct?
14 A. I did.
15 Q. And that it was a short period of time and you rectified
16 it?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Do you recall telling the Office of Special Counsel that
19 you actually engaged in four extramarital affairs?
20 MR. ANDRES: Objection, Your Honor. Relevance.
21 MR. DOWNING: It's going to go to you ripping up his
22 plea agreement for lying yesterday.
23 MR. ANDRES: Your Honor, if we're going to testify,
24 maybe we could come to the sidebar?
25 THE COURT: Yes, I think you're right, Mr. Andres.

2 THE COURT: All right, there's an objection on the
3 basis of relevance. Let me hear you, Mr. Andres.
4 MR. ANDRES: Well, Judge, as a procedural matter,
5 Your Honor said that we weren't going to discuss any of this
6 stuff. In fact, Your Honor ruled there would be no mention of
7 extramarital affairs without a bench conference.
8 Mr. Downing has violated that, obviously, but what is
9 the possible relevance of whether or not Mr. Gates had other
10 extramarital affairs? What's the possible relevance of that?
11 MR. DOWNING: I'm just throwing out the fact that
12 yesterday, first of all, Mr. Gates volunteered that he had the
13 affair. I did not directly ask that, so I did not violate any
14 court order or agreement.
15 MR. ANDRES: I would disagree with that.
16 MR. DOWNING: Second of all --
17 THE COURT: I'll be the judge of that.
18 MR. ANDRES: I understand. I'm just letting --
19 THE COURT: That's not really what I need to pay
20 attention to now. The question is whether this question is
21 relevant. You said it isn't, and you've explained why you
22 think it isn't relevant, and I understand you want to make
23 clear that you think he's violated the Court's order.
24 That's not what I'm concerned with now. What I'm
25 concerned with right now is whether this question is relevant.

1 Why do you think it's relevant?
2 MR. DOWNING: Well, yesterday, he offered up that he
3 had an affair, one affair. It was a short period of time.
4 We've, we've alleged and the basis for questioning about this,
5 we called it the secret life of the affair, that it stretched
6 over a period of time and it explained why he was embezzling
7 all of this money.
8 He, in fact, did not have one affair. He told the
9 Office of Special Counsel he had multiple affairs, which goes
10 to the very issue of why we started questioning about this, his
11 lifestyle that he was leading, his secret life. But, in fact,
12 it also goes to his credibility. He lied on the stand
13 yesterday about it.
14 THE COURT: Well, I think it is true that the
15 cross-examination referred to it as a secret life, and you did
16 not elicit that it was an affair. It was pretty obvious that
17 it was. Just now, you've raised it without coming to the
18 bench. You should have come to the bench.
19 It's no secret. The real question is whether -- the
20 multiple affairs question, and you contend that that's relevant
21 because there's been a great deal of testimony about whether
22 the -- if he's lied, he loses his immunity, and you want to
23 bring out that he's lied? Is that what you want?
25 THE COURT: Where is it he's lied?

1 MR. DOWNING: He said he had an affair, one affair.
2 THE COURT: Who said that?
3 MR. DOWNING: Yesterday, Mr. Gates said it. He,
4 unsolicited by me, he blurted it out, and that it was over a
5 short period of time.
6 It was not one affair. He told the Office of Special
7 Counsel it was multiple affairs and it took place over a period
8 of time, which goes to the motivation, his secret life, for
9 embezzling the money. So it all ties into that.
10 THE COURT: Yes, but that's not really -- the only
11 thing that's relevant is this whole thing is about whether or
12 not he's going to lose the benefit of his plea agreement if he
13 doesn't tell the truth. That's what you've been asking. And
14 did you want to establish that he didn't tell the truth in this
15 case?
17 THE COURT: Well, the problem with that is he wasn't
18 asked a question directly: How many affairs did you have? He,
19 I think you're correct, blurted out that he had an affair.
20 Consistent with my instructions to you, you didn't ask him,
21 because you weren't permitted to --
23 THE COURT: -- how many affairs did you have?
24 MR. DOWNING: And, Your Honor, I apologize because I
25 thought since he opened the door to it by blurting it out

1 unsolicited, that it wasn't a violation of our agreement, so I
2 apologize.
3 THE COURT: Well, that wasn't a violation. That
4 wasn't a violation. What Mr. Andres says is a violation is
5 what you said here in open court, but I'm not concerned with
6 that now.
7 I think the question about multiple affairs is not
8 relevant, and I'm not going to permit it. It's not relevant
9 because I don't see how it bears on his credibility here.
10 In other words, well, you might argue, I suppose --
11 that's what interests me, is how does the multiple versus one
12 affair lead to this jury's consideration of whether he's been
13 truthful?
14 MR. DOWNING: So I think overall what he was trying
15 to do was minimize the reason or the basis which caused him to
16 decide to embezzle the funds. He made it sound like it was a
17 very short period of time and that it was over.
18 What I'm trying to say is he embezzled funds from
19 2010 to 2014, and those affairs span that period of time. It
20 wasn't a short, five-month period.
21 THE COURT: Well, I'll tell you what I think you can
22 do, but let me inquire of Mr. Andres.
23 I'm here.
24 MR. ANDRES: I'm looking.
25 THE COURT: He wants to show that this person is not

1 worthy of credibility, of course, and he did testify on direct
2 testimony that he had a secret life -- that's the term used --
3 he admitted that and he said -- I don't know whether he
4 admitted one affair, but it sort of sounded like that, and I
5 think what Mr. Downing wants to do is to point out that that
6 wasn't truthful.
7 The problem, Mr. Downing, is he wasn't asked: Did
8 you only have one affair, because I wouldn't have permitted it.
9 What I will permit now is for you to establish that his secret
10 life spanned years.
12 MR. ANDRES: Your Honor, I object to that for the
13 following reason.
15 MR. ANDRES: I don't know the parlance of "affairs"
16 and "sexual encounters" --
17 THE COURT: Good.
18 MR. ANDRES: Thank you. And the like. I don't think
19 Mr. Gates would say that he had another affair, and I don't
20 think Mr. Downing can prove that, and he can bring up the 302
21 and the other document that said that.
22 THE COURT: Well, the only thing I'm letting him,
23 letting him bring out is how long this secret life spanned.
24 MR. ANDRES: Well, so if I could finish, Mr. Gates
25 had, I don't know what to call it, but he had sex with other

1 women aside from his wife more than once. That is not
2 something that's relevant in any way.
3 Mr. Gates --
4 THE COURT: It is relevant if it's inconsistent with
5 any other testimony he's given because this jury has to decide
6 whether or not to believe this witness. So if he has been less
7 than candid, less than truthful in his testimony, they have an
8 opportunity to bring that out.
9 You have a wonderful brow furrowing --
10 MR. ASONYE: I'm just, Your Honor --
11 MR. ANDRES: Your Honor, the problem that Mr. Downing
12 is going to say is: You had four affairs.
13 And he's going to say: No, I didn't.
14 THE COURT: No, I didn't permit him to ask that.
15 What I'm permitting him to ask is did his secret life span a
16 number of years, and that's all.
17 MR. DOWNING: I got it.
18 THE COURT: That's all. Now, what's your objection
19 to that?
20 MR. ANDRES: My objection is that Mr. Downing never
21 tied any of the payments that he alleges, and only him, have
22 anything to do with the, quote-unquote, secret life. Mr. Gates
23 said that he didn't use any money from Mr. Manafort for that,
24 so what's --
25 THE COURT: I don't care. What I care about is

1 whether there is information from which a jury can make a
2 judgment about whether to believe this witness. So I'm going
3 to permit that.
4 MR. ANDRES: Can I just understand what specifically
5 you're going to permit?
6 THE COURT: Yes. I've said it; I'll say it again:
7 I'm going to permit Mr. Downing to inquire whether his secret
8 life, that's one question --
9 MR. DOWNING: Yes.
10 THE COURT: -- spanned whatever years it is.
12 THE COURT: And that's it.
13 MR. ANDRES: And there's not going to be follow-up or
14 there's not going to be --
15 THE COURT: Unless you do it.
16 MR. ANDRES: Okay. Thank you.
17 THE COURT: I mean, you-all seem to be good at that.
18 He wanted an exhibit admitted. I admitted it, and it turned
19 out that he used that. Maybe -- be careful what you ask for.
20 MR. DOWNING: I agree. I'll make it brief.
23 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Downing, you may proceed
24 in accordance with the Court's ruling at the bench.
25 BY MR. DOWNING:

1 Q. Mr. Gates, I asked you some questions about Defendant's
2 Exhibit 17 and the time frame over which it spanned. It was
3 from 2010 to 2014.
4 Yesterday, I referred to your secret life, and I
5 believe you testified yesterday that you were spending beyond
6 your means, and there was a reason for your taking this
7 money --
8 THE COURT: Well, never mind summarizing his
9 testimony. Get to the question.
10 BY MR. DOWNING:
11 Q. Well, the question is: The secret life that we were
12 talking about spanned this period of time that's evidenced in
13 Exhibit 17?
14 A. Mr. Downing, I'd say I've made many mistakes over many
15 years, and I regret them.
16 THE COURT: This isn't the time for that. Just
17 answer his question directly.
18 THE WITNESS: I understand. Yes, it did.
19 BY MR. DOWNING:
20 Q. It is?
21 A. Yes.
23 THE COURT: Anything further?
24 (No response.)
25 THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

1513
1 Anything further, Mr. Andres?
3 THE COURT: Mr. Gates, you may step down.
4 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor.
6 THE COURT: All right. Who is the next witness,
7 Mr. Andres?
8 MR. ANDRES: Forensic Accountant Morgan Magionos,
9 from the FBI.
10 THE COURT: All right. Now, do I have something that
11 you submitted that I need to decide before that witness
12 testifies?
14 THE COURT: All right. Pass your books to the right,
15 ladies and gentlemen. The court security officer will collect
16 your books and maintain their security.
17 Remember to refrain from discussing the matter among
18 yourselves or with anyone or undertaking any investigation on
19 your own. We will reconvene -- I have this issue to consider
20 and we will reconvene at -- how long is this next witness?
21 MR. ANDRES: Two hours.
22 THE COURT: All right. We'll reconvene at 11:30 --
23 at, yes, let's make it 11:25 -- 11:30, and I'll resolve it.
24 Follow Mr. Flood out.
25 (Jury out.)

1514
1 THE COURT: Mr. -- just a moment.
2 Mr. Andres, would you give me a brief summary of this
3 witness and this -- you submitted a memorandum relating to
4 this. I don't believe I received anything from the defendants
5 in response.
6 MR. WESTLING: You did not, Your Honor.
7 THE COURT: All right. But your -- is it your
8 witness?
9 MR. WESTLING: It is, Your Honor.
10 THE COURT: All right. You can respond orally.
11 MR. WESTLING: I'll be happy to.
12 THE COURT: Do you have any objection to the
13 admissibility?
14 MR. WESTLING: Well, I think that as a practical
15 matter, Your Honor, we don't have objections to the use of
16 summaries. There's some issues in some of these charts
17 regarding information that's being put in related to domestic
18 expenditures that we're not entirely clear of the relevance of
19 that, because we understand those were actually captured and
20 put on the tax returns.
21 In addition, Your Honor, there are some exhibits the
22 Government has listed for this witness that relate to e-mails
23 and other things that I don't think fit under sort of the
24 general mantle of a summary witness. It's one thing to say I'm
25 going to come and summarize transactions and other things.

1515
1 It's another to say I'm going to refer to other testimony or
2 the e-mails that have already been admitted into evidence, and
3 so that would be our concern with this witness.
4 THE COURT: Well, let me go and read Mr. Andres'
5 brief that was submitted.
6 I think I mentioned earlier, Mr. Andres, that, of
7 course, summaries of voluminous data can be summarized if the
8 admissible evidence is submitted and available to the Court and
9 opposing counsel, but it isn't a device through which a party
10 can summarize its arguments; in other words, you can't use it
11 as a means of doing that. But do you have the charts that you
12 want this witness to testify to as exhibits listed?
14 THE COURT: What are they so that I may look at
15 those? Are they listed in your brief and attached to it?
16 MR. ANDRES: I believe they are, Judge, but if it's
17 faster, we can just e-mail them as soon as we take a break.
18 That might be the most expeditious way to do it.
19 THE COURT: All right. All right.
20 MR. ANDRES: Can I -- can I suggest just two other
21 things?
22 THE COURT: Yes.
23 MR. ANDRES: I'm happy to, if Your Honor is
24 interested, in giving a quick overview of the testimony.
25 THE COURT: Yes.

1516
1 MR. ANDRES: And then I think if I could work with
2 Mr. -- with defense counsel in terms of understanding their
3 objections, then we could try to work that out because we do
4 not intend to --
5 THE COURT: Excellent idea.
6 MR. ANDRES: -- admit other testimony or other, other
7 e-mails.
8 I'm not sure I understand that, but I'm happy to
9 clarify. So Morgan Magionos is a forensic accountant with the
10 FBI, been involved in this investigation for some time. She's
11 done tracing work to trace the payments from the Ukraine to
12 Cyprus to the United States to the vendors in a variety of
13 different ways, and that's principally what she'll testify
14 about is all of the movement of the money. And those are the
15 charts that we provided.
16 There were a series of charts that related to the
17 purchase of real property. Some of those had pictures of the
18 real property on them. We now have two versions, one with
19 pictures and one without. To the extent that there's an
20 objection, I don't think listing the photographs of the houses
21 is necessarily prejudicial, but in either case, we're not
22 arguing that. So that's A, let's call that Part A of her
23 testimony.
24 Secondly, during the course of reviewing those
25 materials, which involve a substantial number of foreign bank

1517
1 accounts, as well as bank account information that Mr. Manafort
2 produced pursuant to a Title 31 subpoena, there are a handful
3 of e-mails that Mr. Manafort included that are his statements
4 that relate to the tracing exercise that she'll testify to, and
5 those, again, are his statements. So all of that, again, I put
6 in Category A.
7 Category B are Mr. Manafort's e-mail statements that
8 are admissible as his statements, that is a different project,
9 if you will, than simply her tracing project. But they involve
10 a range of issues in the case, whether it's the bank frauds or
11 other things, but they're defendant's statements.
12 That brief has more recently come to Your Honor, I
13 think, in the last day or two and is the issue that hasn't been
14 involved. The 1006 issue has been resolved, and I certainly
15 appreciate the difference between a summary witness --
16 THE COURT: I'm sorry, you say it has been resolved?
17 I don't recall ruling on the 1006 issue.
18 MR. ANDRES: You did, Your Honor, and with the
19 admonition that we're not to use it as a summation.
20 THE COURT: Oh, I see.
21 MR. ANDRES: I understand the difference between a
22 summary witness. I'm not going to give my closing witness
23 through this witness.
25 MR. ANDRES: The issue about whether to read her

1518
1 e-mails -- the e-mails that -- of Mr. Manafort as his
2 statements is something we briefed. I'm not sure what the
3 defense position is, but our position are there's a stipulation
4 that they're authentic and these are the defendant's
5 statements. So there's a handful that we seek to read through
6 Special Agent --
7 THE COURT: Yes, that's, I think, the objection as I
8 understood it. You can have the document admitted and it's
9 admitted, but you can't have a witness read it who doesn't know
10 anything about it other than that she's an FBI agent.
11 MR. WESTLING: That's the objection, Your Honor.
12 MR. ANDRES: Well, Judge, if I could address that,
13 agents take statements from witnesses all the time, and they
14 don't have to know all the background. Drug agents seize drugs
15 all the time. They don't have to have personal knowledge of
16 the drugs that they seize in order to testify.
17 THE COURT: And that's quite true.
18 MR. ANDRES: Right? So --
19 THE COURT: But this is merely a means of conveying
20 to the jury through the mouth of an agent -- these -- she had
21 nothing to do with -- is it a woman?
23 THE COURT: She had nothing to do with this. In
24 other words, it isn't -- these aren't statements Mr. Manafort
25 made to her. They're statements he made, and I'll think about

1519
1 that. None of cases you've cited thus far is that, but if I've
2 missed it, I want you to call my attention to it.
3 MR. ANDRES: I think we did cite a case in
4 particular, Judge, that allows for the reading of the e-mails.
5 The question is not -- we'll do it in any way that's
6 appropriate. We're not trying to prejudice, but again, the
7 issue is to get the evidence in front of the jury.
8 THE COURT: Well, the documents would be admitted
9 because they're statements of the defendant. It's clearly
10 admissible. But using an agent to make the case is not,
11 because these statements weren't made to an agent, and all the
12 agent is doing is testifying to the -- what it says.
13 Tell me what case you're relying on.
14 MR. ANDRES: I'm obviously getting some help here,
15 Judge, but there's a Sixth Circuit case, United States v.
16 Kilpatrick, that says agents are free to read aloud from
17 admitted documents, and then there's another case, and this
18 one's in the Fifth --
19 THE COURT: Well, I'll look at that, but, you know,
20 you're cherry-picking that statement. Who knows whether that
21 agent could read aloud from it because that agent was involved
22 in some other part of the investigation where that statement,
23 that admission by a party was important. I'll look at the
24 case.
25 Certainly, the exhibit is admissible. It does become

1520
1 part of the record. I'll just look at whether the appropriate
2 way to do it is simply to admit it. You, in your argument, can
3 direct the jury: You know, I think you ought to look
4 specifically at this, and so forth, rather than -- what she's
5 doing is simply repeating what you want her to do. She's
6 reading those documents.
7 And I'm going to look at the -- what you say is the
8 Sixth Circuit case, but I'm not inclined to do it, but I may.
9 But as I said, you do get the documents to come into the
10 record. They're perfectly admissible. You do get to argue
11 them. That's perfectly appropriate.
13 Just before you leave, Bucket 3 for Forensic
14 Accountant Magionos is just to admit some telephone records.
15 Again, as a custodian, they're business records that are coming
16 in, and she's going to identify certain of the telephone
17 records that are relevant to another part of the case.
18 Again, the telephone records themselves are
19 voluminous, and she has a chart that identifies. I'm not going
20 to ask her as to what they relate to or anything else, but
21 rather just to identify those phone calls.
22 THE COURT: All right. Let's do this: We're going
23 to take the recess. I want you to look at all of the charts
24 that are being offered --
25 MR. WESTLING: Yes, Your Honor.

1521
1 THE COURT: -- as summaries of data under 1006,
2 because voluminous data can be presented to a jury by way of a
3 chart if the chart is not argumentative.
4 If it simply portrays in an organized fashion the
5 data that is admissible and if you're satisfied and don't have
6 an objection as to its accuracy, you get a chance to look at
7 it.
8 So number one, I want you to look at that and tell me
9 whether you have any objection to these charts that Mr. Andres
10 wants to introduce under 1006. He has to introduce all of
11 the -- or make available all of the underlying data that would
12 be admissible, and then you can determine whether or not it's
13 an accurate summary.
15 THE COURT: But obviously, it's got to be neutral.
16 In other words, you can't offer a summary that has some numbers
17 in black and some numbers in red and some numbers with stars by
18 it, because that's an argument. They can do that in closing
19 argument. You can, you can do that, but it won't go back to
20 the jury room. It'll be a demonstrative then.
21 Okay. So that's the first thing I want you to do. I
22 want to know whether there's any objection.
23 Second, do you know what exhibits Mr. Andres intends
24 to introduce through this witness because you provided that,
25 Mr. Andres?

1522
2 THE COURT: I want to know if there's any objection
3 to those. I think, for the most part, they're all
4 Mr. Manafort's statements, are they not?
6 THE COURT: So there's no objection on the basis of
7 hearsay, but there may be some other objection, and I want to
8 know that.
10 THE COURT: And I want to resolve it.
11 There was a third -- oh, yes, and you were going to
12 get together with Mr. Andres to see if you could agree on if
13 you have an objection, give him notice of that, so I can hear
14 informed argument.
15 Now, tell me once again, what that Sixth Circuit case
16 was?
17 MR. ANDRES: Your Honor, if I could hand up, I'm
18 happy to brief it, but I'm happy to provide you with a copy.
19 It does have highlighting, but it --
20 THE COURT: No, I'll look it up. Just give me the --
21 MR. ANDRES: Okay. Sure, here it is. United States
22 v. Kilpatrick, 798 F.3d 365, 383 (6th Cir. 2015).
23 THE COURT: All right. I'm sure somebody helpfully
24 wrote that down.
25 MR. ANDRES: I'm happy to -- I'm happy to repeat it.

1523
1 (Laughter.)
2 THE COURT: No, that's fine. All right. Anything --
3 MR. ANDRES: It's not a -- it's not a secret.
4 THE COURT: Now, Mr. Flood will have to tell the jury
5 that we'll probably be a little later. Let's make it 11:45 we
6 will reconvene.
7 Anything further at this time? Are we clear now?
9 THE COURT: Let's proceed.
10 MR. ANDRES: Okay. Thank you, Your Honor.
12 (Recess from 11:08 a.m., until 11:43 a.m.)
13 (Jury out.)
14 THE COURT: All right. All right. When we recessed,
15 I did not have any sense of the scope. I now have it, and I
16 need some more clarification, but I want to give you some
17 guidance as well.
18 The focus, my focus was these charts that I received
19 a two- or three-page memorandum on, maybe it was two, no
20 specific charts were referred to, but you did give me an out --
21 not an outline but a -- as you've been doing, Mr. -- yes -- as
22 you've been doing, Mr. Andres, you've given me a chart of this
23 witness and the exhibits you want to offer through her. She's
24 a forensic accountant. So I've looked at some of those.
25 And, Mr. Wesley, I don't know what you're objecting

1524
1 to. So you need -- just a moment -- what you're objecting to,
2 so that's what I expected you and Mr. Andres to review. There
3 may be no objections; there may be a slew of them. I just
4 don't know.
5 Now, let me give you some guidance that might resolve
6 it. I told Mr. Andres that I would admit, of course, documents
7 under -- charts under 1006, if they are a way of conveying to
8 the jury in a neutral manner the content of voluminous
9 documents, but that they couldn't be disguised advocacy, that
10 is, as evidence.
11 So I began to look at some of these charts, and it
12 seemed to me, Mr. Westling, that they did that. I didn't see
13 any problem with them. For example, Exhibit 61, all it says is
14 the names of certain foreign entities, a date created, and a
15 corporation location, and these are names that I think all have
16 been mentioned in the record. So I would assume this forensic
17 accountant determined, Mr. Andres, where these people were
18 created, when they were created, and then on the basis of
19 admissible records, and where they are incorporated.
20 Am I right about that?
22 THE COURT: So that seems to me that that would be
23 admissible under 1006, and I don't know if there's an
24 objection, but at some point --
25 MR. WESTLING: There is not as to that one, Your

1525
1 Honor.
2 THE COURT: Well, I'm not surprised. But then I go
3 on and there's this much, and at some point I needed to have
4 some guidance on what's really at issue between the parties.
5 Now, that's one issue. I'll come back to it.
6 The second issue is whether this witness could read
7 e-mails that are otherwise admissible into the record. The
8 answer to that is, yes, in some instances, but not in all. In
9 other words, you can't have someone who's an agent come in and
10 read e-mails that that agent has nothing to do with other than
11 to read, and if she -- he or she was involved in the
12 investigation, but if in preparing her testimony, this
13 witness -- and in making these charts she used this evidence,
14 assuming it's admissible, in other words, a statement by
15 Mr. Manafort which is admissible, she could certainly read
16 that, but, of course, nobody would doubt that I can't go in and
17 find one of these nice people off the street in the morning and
18 say, "Come in, I want you to read a bunch of e-mails for me,"
19 of course not. Even though the e-mails may be admissible, they
20 have to have some context. Remember, the defendant can't -- or
21 you can't cross-examine most of these anyway because maybe
22 there are other people on the e-mail and so forth.
23 But anyway, so those are the two questions. One is
24 these charts, clearly charts that summarize voluminous
25 information in a neutral way to present to the jury that's

1526
1 appropriate under 1006. It's up to you, Mr. Westling, whether
2 the predicates are met; namely, whether the documents have been
3 admitted in evidence, that is, the underlying data, and whether
4 the chart is accurate in its representation of that data. I'm
5 not going to go through it; that's your problem. And then I
6 need to know what the, what the objections are.
7 And for the second thing, you've got a list,
8 Mr. Westling, of all the documents Mr. Andres intends to
9 introduce through this witness. If you have an objection to
10 those, I expected you and Mr. Andres to talk about it and see
11 if you could obviate the necessity for us to have yet another
12 bench conference, which I dearly wish to avoid.
13 MR. ANDRES: Can I -- can I try first, Your Honor?
14 THE COURT: Yes, of course.
15 MR. ANDRES: So here's my understanding, and
16 Mr. Westling can correct me. As to the 1006 charts, there's
17 a -- one issue was cumulative, which Mr. Westling will handle,
18 but, otherwise, there's not an objection to the admission.
19 There are --
20 THE COURT: Except for cumulativeness?
21 MR. ANDRES: Mr. Westling will handle that. I'll
22 leave that. I think -- and I don't want to speak for him, but
23 generally there's not an objection with respect to one
24 exception. There are flow charts that cover the property that
25 was purchased. So it shows the movement to the various

1527
1 accounts. They're different than the charts. We've agreed
2 that the -- we'd be allowed to show it so that Forensic
3 Accountant Magionos can describe her tracing activity, but
4 we're not going to admit those as exhibits.
5 THE COURT: All right. So it's a demonstrative in
6 effect?
7 MR. ANDRES: For this witness.
8 MR. WESTLING: That's correct, Your Honor.
9 MR. ANDRES: Correct. And then there's --
10 THE COURT: Then you may use it in closing argument,
11 if you wish.
12 MR. ANDRES: That would be wonderful.
13 THE COURT: But the jury will be told you're not
14 going to have it in the jury room and it is not itself
15 evidence.
16 MR. ANDRES: Understood. And then there's a fourth
17 chart that also falls into that category with respect to
18 FARA -- the FARA filing, and it has -- it does summarize
19 voluminous evidence, but it also makes the comparison, which
20 there is some arguments that that could be argument, and we
21 don't want to fight about that, and we're going to put that
22 chart in as well as demonstrative evidence. So --
23 THE COURT: What chart is that?
24 MR. ANDRES: It's called the FARA chart. I don't
25 know offhand --

1528
1 MR. WESTLING: I believe it's Exhibit 80, Your Honor.
2 THE COURT: Just a moment. Let's see if I -- all
3 right. I do have Exhibit 80. Go on.
4 MR. ANDRES: So half of that chart summarizes
5 voluminous evidence. I think it's the right side that goes
6 through all of the things that are in the general ledger, all
7 of the things that are in the bank account. That is truly
8 voluminous evidence.
9 On the opposite side of that is a summary of what's
10 in Mr. Manafort's FARA filing, which is a document that is not
11 voluminous. We don't contend it is, and to the extent that the
12 defense is arguing that this is some sort of argumentative
13 summation point, we're not going to seek to admit that as
14 evidence but rather have the accountant explain what she did
15 and the comparison that she made. And like the other charts,
16 it will come in as a demonstrative exhibit but it won't be
17 admitted.
19 MR. WESTLING: And we have no problem with that, Your
20 Honor.
21 THE COURT: All right. That's a sensible resolution.
22 Now, your objection as to cumulativeness, of course,
23 we've heard testimony about how -- about the payment to the
24 clothiers, payment to the landscapers and other entities, and
25 we've heard these people who actually received payment testify

1529
1 that, yes, I sent that bill, yes, I got that payment, and the
2 payment came to me from this entity.
3 And is it your argument that we don't need to hear
4 that evidence again?
5 MR. WESTLING: That is my argument, Your Honor.
6 THE COURT: Well, it was fairly clear. What is it
7 that you intend to offer about that? There were lots of
8 payments. I mean, I just said clothiers and landscapers.
9 There were other payments, and I think the evidence showed they
10 came from Cyprus. Am I correct?
11 MR. ANDRES: Yes, Your Honor. The point of Forensic
12 Accountant Magionos is to -- and we're not going to spend a lot
13 of time on this. I'm really hoping it's not going to take two
14 hours. I think we can get through it much quicker, but it is
15 to put together the whole picture. So she -- they put it in
16 one part of the picture, which is the domestic half. She's
17 going to put in the foreign half and she'll reference the
18 domestic half as well to show the connection between the
19 domestic payments and the foreign payments, and this is --
20 THE COURT: Well, the domestic payments came from a
21 foreign bank.
22 MR. ANDRES: Correct. But what the, what the -- she
23 can trace the wire remittance from those foreign accounts, and
24 Your Honor will remember that when, when Your Honor asked that
25 we not admit the domestic chart payments through the, through

1530
1 the vendors, that you said through an appropriate FBI agent,
2 this is that appropriate FBI agent.
3 So it's not cumulative in the sense that it puts the
4 whole picture together. And again, we are not -- we are
5 absolutely not going through every entry but rather to
6 summarize the charts so that the evidence is -- is in properly.
7 THE COURT: All right. What's your -- why is that
8 cumulative, Mr. Westling?
9 MR. WESTLING: Well, Your Honor, I guess simply
10 because we've heard it all before, and so I don't think that
11 it's appropriate to have this witness get on the stand and
12 repeat for each vendor the specific transactions, sort of
13 transaction by transaction, which is at least what the charts
14 seem to suggest is going to happen and would have to happen for
15 the charts to be admitted.
16 THE COURT: Well, do you intend to argue to the jury
17 that there was no evidence that the payments for his clothes
18 came from a Cyprus bank account?
19 MR. WESTLING: We do not intend to argue that, Your
20 Honor.
21 THE COURT: There was evidence of that, I think.
22 MR. WESTLING: There was.
23 THE COURT: Well, I'm looking for a way, Mr. Andres,
24 that you-all could shorten this matter. You know, one way is
25 the accountant could be asked: Did you examine the records to

1531
1 see whether any payments were made to Clothier A from Cyprus
2 bank accounts between this time period?
3 Yes, I did.
4 And how much was that?
5 And then you're done, right?
6 MR. ANDRES: Judge, I don't -- we're putting on a --
7 not an expert but a forensic accountant whose done a tremendous
8 amount of work. I think it's important the jury understand her
9 work. I'm not going through every transaction, even close.
10 THE COURT: Look, it isn't relevant if she spent her
11 life doing it. I'm not going to spend my life doing it,
12 neither is the jury. So the amount of work she's done is not
13 really relevant to us.
14 What I'm looking for is a means -- and you can
15 express your gratitude to her, and so can the Department of
16 Justice.
17 (Laughter.)
18 THE COURT: But we need to find a way to focus
19 sharply. I think your use of charts helps.
20 MR. ANDRES: Your Honor, I think the compromise is to
21 not go through every transaction, which was never our intent,
22 but it's important to show that the transactions, the domestic
23 transactions match the foreign transactions. And we're not
24 going to go through every one. We're absolutely not intending
25 to do that.

1532
1 THE COURT: All right. I do remember some testimony,
2 I don't remember all of it in detail, but I think you did
3 elicit testimony that the clothing bills, the landscaping
4 bills, the other bills were paid from wire transfers from an
5 account in Cyprus. Was that elicited?
6 MR. ANDRES: A substantial number of those witnesses
7 said that they didn't know whose accounts those were.
8 THE COURT: Oh, I agree with you. You can show that.
9 But one chart shows that. In fact, that's 60 -- that's 61,
10 although, it doesn't say whose accounts that is, but that --
11 I'm sure you've got other charts that does that.
12 That was my goal, Mr. Andres, is not to repeat things
13 and not to -- and I think you share that view.
14 MR. ANDRES: I do, Your Honor. And I don't intend to
15 repeat things, but I don't think it's -- that means that the
16 subject matter itself won't come up, that is, where the
17 payments resulted. I'm not going to ask these people about --
18 I'm not going to ask this -- this agent -- or this accountant
19 about all of the transactions or even close to all of them.
20 I'm just going to ask for a summary so that she can establish
21 the work that she did.
22 I wasn't suggesting that we all be thankful for the
23 work that she did. I was suggesting that it's important that
24 the jury understand what she did so that the charts -- she can
25 explain her process with the charts. That's really all. And,

1533
1 again, I don't think this is going to be voluminous. I
2 certainly don't think it's going to be cumulative.
3 THE COURT: Mr. Westling, have you looked at all of
4 these charts?
5 MR. WESTLING: I have, Your Honor, and I'll give the
6 Court an example. If you look at No. 72, I think this is an
7 example of a proper summary. It seems to include a summary of
8 all of the transactions that are foreign transactions that paid
9 vendors on one page as compared to the numerous charts that are
10 sort of vendor by vendor.
11 THE COURT: I'm looking at 72. All right. It does
12 it by year, payments to vendors, how much. What's missing,
13 however, Mr. Westling, is whether these vendors were paid by
14 wire transfers from Cyprus accounts.
15 MR. WESTLING: Well, I suspect, Your Honor, that the
16 testimony of the witness would be that's what she gathered to
17 come up with these numbers.
18 THE COURT: Well, another one-page chart could take
19 care of that. I think the better way to put it, Mr. Andres, is
20 you want -- it's not a matter of gratitude for all the work the
21 witness has done, but you want to impress on the jury that
22 there's no doubt about the path of this money.
23 I agree that you may do that. On the other hand, I
24 have to take into account the fact that they're not
25 disagreeing, they're not disputing it, and as a concession to

1534
1 the shortness of life, we need to get it done. I take your
2 representation that you don't plan to go through it transaction
3 by transaction. I'm glad to hear that. I don't know that I'd
4 permit it, but in any event, I'm glad to hear that.
5 Have you gone through all these exhibits,
6 Mr. Westling?
7 MR. WESTLING: I have, Your Honor.
8 THE COURT: Now, which ones do you say are cumulative
9 and why?
10 MR. WESTLING: Well, I guess I would say that all of
11 the charts that relate to vendors, which include 65A, 65B, 65C,
12 65D, 65E, 65F, 65G, 65H, 65I, 65J, 65K, 65L, and 65M, which are
13 summaries of all of the transactions on a per-vendor basis,
14 which we've heard about from many folks on the stand or through
15 stipulations, are cumulative, Your Honor.
16 I will say, to be fair to my conversation with
17 Mr. Andres in trying to work this out, that we also note that
18 some of those we believe are proper summaries. I still think
19 they are cumulative, but there's a number that have five or
20 less than ten transactions, which I think Mr. Andres has said
21 he probably is not going to use in an effort to shorten the
22 witness. So we have made an effort to kind of work through
23 this.
24 THE COURT: Yes, and I appreciate that, but now we
25 need to bring it to a close and it's lunchtime. I take it you

1535
1 were -- the two of you were under way in your effort to see if
2 you could focus this sharply.
3 MR. ANDRES: Judge, I wouldn't agree with that at
4 all. We've been focused sharply for a long time. These
5 exhibits have been with the defense for at least a month.
6 We're not delaying this trial. We're not spending any more
7 time --
8 THE COURT: I didn't say that you are delaying it. I
9 asked whether you were in the process with Mr. Westling of --
10 of seeing if you could reach agreement on these many exhibits.
11 MR. ANDRES: I think we're largely in agreement and
12 we're ready to proceed, with the exception, I don't -- we don't
13 agree that they're cumulative. We're not going to spend a lot
14 of time on them. But, again, it's important, and Your Honor
15 said previously that the charts that we tried to admit through
16 the vendors will more appropriately come through an FBI agent.
17 We've now done that, and we're now going to walk through this
18 in what I think would be an expeditious fashion.
19 And it's important to tie those specific receipts to
20 specific payments. It's not enough to simply do a chart with
21 all of the payments. You have to show the relationship between
22 the receipts and the payments.
23 The other thing, Your Honor, is --
24 THE COURT: If there's a dispute, you do. Otherwise,
25 you wouldn't.

1536
1 MR. ANDRES: Well, Judge, again -- again, I apologize
2 if this is argumentative, but if the defense has not stipulated
3 to anything, which they haven't, not a single thing in terms of
4 these charts --
5 THE COURT: Do you want to stipulate to anything here
6 in these charts, Mr. Westling?
7 MR. WESTLING: I think we're willing to stipulate to
8 the information in Chart No. 72, Your Honor.
9 MR. ANDRES: Judge, I'm not -- I'm at a loss. We've
10 prepared our case. We're ready to go. We're not taking any
11 more time. You tell us constantly we need to focus sharply.
12 Here we are ready to go and the defense now wants to stipulate.
13 Who's going to write up a stipulation? It would be quicker to
14 put the witness on and get started.
15 THE COURT: He's stipulating to what -- the
16 information on 72; is that correct?
18 THE COURT: All right. What we're going to do is
19 we're going to get the jury in. You can proceed. Do it
20 quickly. Every time an objection is made, I'm going to have
21 you at the bench, and neither side is going to profit from
22 that. I generally -- judges should be patient. They made a
23 mistake when they confirmed me.
24 (Laughter.)
25 THE COURT: I'm not very patient, so don't try my

Magionos - Direct 1537
1 patience either.
2 Bring the jury in.
3 And if the e-mail does not relate to the work that
4 she did, she's not going to read it.
5 MR. ANDRES: Judge, I'd like to address that after,
6 after lunch. I'm not going to -- in this session won't raise
7 that, but I'd like to address that at some point.
8 THE COURT: You've already submitted a brief on it.
9 MR. ANDRES: I understand, but I --
10 THE COURT: And the brief was two pages, said a Sixth
11 Circuit case, which I've gone and read. That's a throwaway
12 line.
13 (Jury present.)
15 All right. Call your next witness, Mr. Andres.
16 MR. ANDRES: Your Honor, the Government calls
17 Morgan Magionos, a forensic accountant from the FBI.
18 THE COURT: All right. Come forward and take the
19 oath, please, ma'am.
20 MORGAN MAGIONOS, GOVERNMENT'S WITNESS, SWORN
21 THE COURT: All right. You may proceed, Mr. Andres.
23 BY MR. ANDRES:
24 Q. Please state your name and spell it for the record.
25 A. Morgan Magionos, M-a-g-i-o-n-o-s.

1 Q. Are you currently employed?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Where are you employed?
4 A. The FBI.
5 Q. And what's your title at the FBI?
6 A. Forensic accountant.
7 Q. Did you receive training from the FBI for this position?
8 A. I did.
9 Q. What training?
10 A. I attended a six-week training session where we studied
11 forensic accounting investigative techniques and legal studies.
12 Q. And how long have you been a forensic accountant at the
13 FBI?
14 A. Eight years.
15 Q. Have you been assigned to the investigation of
16 Paul Manafort?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And what was your role on that investigation?
19 A. The financial analysis.
20 Q. Did that involve tracing?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. What is tracing?
23 A. Tracing is following a transaction from origination to the
24 ultimate destination.
25 Q. And over the course of your career in the FBI, how many

1 tracing and financial investigations have you been involved in?
2 A. Over 25 investigations.
3 Q. Can you briefly describe your educational background?
4 A. Yes. I have a Bachelor of Music in Cello Performance from
5 Manhattan School of Music, and I studied accounting at Portland
6 State University's postbaccalaureate program.
7 Q. With respect to the program at Portland State University,
8 can you describe what that entailed?
9 A. Yes. It entailed taking 68 credit hours of accounting and
10 business-related courses, such as economics, statistics, and
11 finance.
12 Q. And what was the purpose of that course?
13 A. It allowed me to take the credit hours necessary to sit
14 for the CPA exam.
15 Q. What is the CPA exam?
16 A. It's a four-part exam that is one of the steps in becoming
17 licensed as a CPA.
18 Q. During the time that you were in school at Portland State,
19 did you also work?
20 A. I did.
21 Q. Where did you work?
22 A. I worked for a local architecture and engineering firm.
23 Q. Okay. And did you also work at an accounting firm at some
24 point?
25 A. I did.

1 Q. What accounting firm?
2 A. Deloitte & Touche.
3 Q. What's Deloitte & Touche?
4 A. It's an international audit, tax, and consulting firm.
5 Q. And over what period of time did you work there?
6 A. From 2007 to 2010.
7 Q. And can you describe your responsibilities?
8 A. Yes. I audited the financial statements of for-profit and
9 not-for-profit entities.
10 Q. Did you hold any professional licenses or certificates?
11 A. I do.
12 Q. What license or certificates do you hold?
13 A. I'm a certified public accountant and a certified fraud
14 examiner.
15 Q. And with respect to the certified public accountant
16 license, what did you have to do to earn that license?
17 A. It requires educational experience, such as a bachelor's
18 degree and additional coursework in accounting. It requires
19 passing a four-part examination, at least one year of practical
20 experience, and then continuing professional education.
21 Q. And what year did you receive your CPA license?
22 A. 2009.
23 Q. Are you required to complete annual training to maintain
24 that license?
25 A. Yes.

1 Q. What does that involve?
2 A. It requires 40 hours of continuing professional education
3 every year.
4 Q. And have you maintained that license in good standing
5 since 2009?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. You also testified that you're a certified fraud examiner.
8 What does it mean to be a certified fraud examiner?
9 A. The certification denotes experience in investigating and
10 preventing fraud.
11 Q. What -- what are the requirements?
12 A. It requires educational and professional experience as
13 well as taking a -- and passing a four-part examination.
14 Q. And what year did you obtain your certified fraud
15 certificate?
16 A. 2011.
17 Q. Are you required to complete annual training to maintain
18 that designation?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. What -- what did that require?
21 A. It requires 20 hours of continuing professional education.
22 Q. And have you maintained that designation since 2011?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. You testified that as part of the Manafort investigation
25 you did a financial analysis. What was the purpose of that

1 review?
2 A. The purpose of the review was to determine sources of
3 funds into foreign bank accounts and then also determine the
4 ultimate destination of transfers from those foreign bank
5 accounts.
6 Q. As part of that review, did you rely on particular
7 documents?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. What documents?
10 A. I relied on documents from foreign -- foreign accounts as
11 well as domestic bank accounts, title records, vendor records,
12 business records, tax records, and accounting records.
13 MR. ANDRES: Your Honor, at this point, the
14 Government moves to admit Government Exhibit 66A, 66C, 66D,
15 66E, 66G, 67B, and 67C, all of which are foreign financial
16 records, and we move to admit them pursuant to Title 18, United
17 States Code, 3505.
18 MR. WESTLING: No objection, Your Honor.
20 (Government Exhibit Nos. 66A, 66C, 66D, 66E, 66G,
21 67B, and 67C were received in evidence.)
23 BY MR. ANDRES:
24 Q. Let me ask you to take a look at Government Exhibit 63.

1 A. This is a chart that lists foreign bank accounts.
2 Q. Okay. And what information did you rely on to create this
3 chart?
4 A. I relied on bank account applications and account opening
5 documents from Cyprus, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, and from
6 HSBC U.K.
7 Q. Okay. And how did you obtain those documents?
8 A. I obtained the records from Cyprus, St. Vincent and the
9 Grenadines through an MLAT, a mutual legal assistance treaty,
10 and the records from HSBC U.K. were provided via subpoena.
11 Q. And were the documents that you relied on in creating the
12 chart in Government Exhibit 63, were they voluminous?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Okay.
15 MR. ANDRES: Your Honor, the Government would -- let
16 me --
17 BY MR. ANDRES:
18 Q. Before I do that, let me ask you to turn to Government
19 Exhibit 66, 66C.
20 What's included in Government Exhibit 66C?
21 MR. ANDRES: Mr. Flood?
22 THE COURT SECURITY OFFICER: We have five volumes
23 here.
25 THE COURT SECURITY OFFICER: Do you know which one

1 it's in?
2 MR. ANDRES: I believe it's in the first volume.
3 THE WITNESS: They're the MLAT records.
4 MR. ANDRES: 66C?
5 THE COURT: Is it a chart?
6 MR. ANDRES: No, it's the underlying records. Do you
7 have those?
8 THE WITNESS: Not up here.
9 THE COURT: Have they been admitted?
10 MR. ANDRES: I just admitted them, Your Honor.
11 THE COURT: All right. And what --
12 MR. ANDRES: Yes.
13 THE COURT: -- is the question before this witness?
14 What is the question before this witness?
15 MR. ANDRES: The question was to have her turn to the
16 exhibit that's been admitted.
17 THE COURT: What is the question you're going to put
18 to her?
19 MR. ANDRES: I'm going to ask her what the records --
20 what the document is.
21 THE COURT: All right. You may show that to the
22 witness. And let me state so the record is clear: There was
23 an objection as to cumulative. I'll overrule that objection,
24 but you may reassert it as to a specific matter.
25 MR. WESTLING: Thank you, Your Honor.

1 THE COURT: Proceed.
2 MR. ANDRES: If I may, I just want to make sure I
3 have the right exhibit, Your Honor. Can I have a moment?
4 THE COURT: Yes, you may -- you may.
5 MR. ANDRES: Your Honor, may Mr. Binder go and
6 facilitate looking for the exhibit in those boxes?
9 THE COURT: Can you go to something else while he
10 does that?
12 BY MR. ANDRES:
13 Q. Government Exhibit -- in the course of the -- creating the
14 chart in 66C, did you rely on bank records from abroad?
15 A. I did.
16 Q. What bank records?
17 A. I relied on records provided by Cyprus, St. Vincent and
18 the Grenadines, and HSBC U.K.
19 Q. And did that include bank account records?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Okay. And did you also get records from the particular
22 banks?
23 A. I did.
24 Q. Okay. And did you include that information in 66C?
25 A. Yes, 63. Yes, I did.

1 Q. 63, yes. And --
2 THE COURT: You were saying 66. Which exhibit is it?
3 THE WITNESS: 63, sir.
4 THE COURT: Is that the summary that you prepared?
5 THE WITNESS: Yes.
6 THE COURT: And is that based on these exhibits that
7 Mr. Andres has asked you about?
8 THE WITNESS: Yes.
9 THE COURT: I've admitted the 63, haven't I,
10 Mr. Andres? I think I have.
11 MR. ANDRES: I didn't move to admit it yet, but I'll
12 do that now, Your Honor.
13 MR. WESTLING: No objection, Your Honor.
15 (Government Exhibit No. 63 was received in evidence.)
19 BY MR. ANDRES:
20 Q. Can I ask you to turn to Government Exhibit 63, the chart?
21 You testified that you relied on overseas bank
22 records. Did that include records from HSBC?
23 A. Yes, it did.
24 Q. And what records came from HSBC?
25 A. A bank account opening document and wires and bank

1 statements for Pompolo Limited.
2 Q. Okay. Did you also rely on documents provided by
3 Mr. Manafort?
4 A. Yes, I did.
5 Q. And that was pursuant to a subpoena?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Okay. With respect to those documents from Mr. Manafort,
8 Government Exhibit 447A through Q, what did -- what are those
9 documents?
10 A. Those documents include account opening documents, bank
11 statements, and wires.
13 Exhibit 447A through Q.
14 MR. WESTLING: I think, assuming you're going to put
15 in the stipulation, no objection.
17 THE COURT: I didn't hear that.
18 MR. WESTLING: There's a -- there's a related
19 stipulation, Your Honor, that I wanted to be ensured the
20 Government was going to be offering, and with that proviso, we
21 have no objection to the records.
22 THE COURT: What's the stipulation, Mr. Andres?
23 MR. ANDRES: The stipulation relates to those
24 records, Your Honor. I'm happy to offer it now, I just need to
25 find it. I'm sorry, I apologize.

1 It's Government Exhibit 456.
2 THE COURT: What's the number of the stipulation?
3 MR. ANDRES: 456. I'm going to hand up a copy to
4 Mr. Flood.
5 THE COURT: No, I have it here. I should have it
6 here.
7 No, I don't. Mine goes to 451, so hand that to the
8 court security officer.
10 THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, the parties
11 stipulate that in August and September of 2017, the United
12 States served several federal subpoenas for records, including
13 foreign bank records on Paul Manafort and DMP International.
14 In response, on October 20, 2017, the documents in
15 Government Exhibits 447A through Q were produced, and the
16 parties stipulate that the documents, Exhibits 447A through Q,
17 are admissible as trial exhibits.
18 On October 20, 2017, a duly-appointed agent also made
19 the following representation to the Government concerning the
20 documents described in Exhibit 2 with respect to the offshore
21 bank account information that we produced -- the "we" means
22 that these entities have produced the documents -- produced.
23 These are accounts of DMP International.
24 Mr. Rick Gates had no control over, no financial
25 interest, and ownership interest in these accounts. He was not

1 a trustee as defined by U.S. law. He was merely an employee of
2 DMP International and only had authority to act as an employee
3 with respect to these accounts.
4 Anything further?
5 MR. ANDRES: Your Honor, the "we" references the
6 parties in No. 1, which is not just the entities. It's also
7 Mr. Manafort.
8 THE COURT: I see. Yes, that's correct.
10 THE COURT: You may proceed. And 456 is admitted.
11 (Government Exhibit Nos. 447A thru 447Q and 456 were
12 received in evidence.)
14 BY MR. ANDRES:
15 Q. Forensic Accountant Magionos, can you look at the chart in
16 Government Exhibit 63 and explain what that is?
17 A. Yes. This chart summarizes account opening documents as
18 provided by accounts in Cyprus, St. Vincent and the Grenadines,
19 and the United Kingdom. The first column lists the account
20 name and account number as well as the financial institution
21 where the account is located.
22 The second column lists the account opening date or
23 the balance forward date.
24 The third column lists the account close date or the
25 final transaction date.

1 The next column lists the beneficial owner listed on
2 the bank account application.
3 And then the last column lists the authorized signers
4 listed on the bank account application.
5 Q. And how many accounts are listed in this chart?
6 A. Thirty-one.
7 Q. Okay. And those charts -- those accounts, you received
8 information about those accounts through your investigation?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Okay. And listed on the accounts are the beneficial
11 owners. Where did that information come from?
12 A. That information came directly from the account opening
13 documents and bank account applications.
14 Q. Okay. And what denomination are the different accounts in
15 that you identify in your chart?
16 A. They're either in U.S. dollar, euro, or British pound.
17 Q. And how are you able to distinguish between those two
18 currencies?
19 THE COURT: There were three currencies.
20 THE WITNESS: It depended on the account number,
21 so --
22 THE COURT: She said three currencies.
24 THE COURT: But that's all right.
25 Go ahead, Mr. Andres.

1 BY MR. ANDRES:
2 Q. How were you able to distinguish between those three
3 currencies?
4 A. It depended on the account number. The second digit for
5 the Cypriot accounts denoted either a 32 or an 11. 32 shows a
6 U.S. dollar account, the 11 shows a euro account.
7 Q. And without going through each account, can you tell us
8 the names -- so, for example, when you look at the entry in
9 No. 1, it says "Actinet"; is that correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And there's more than one account for Actinet?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. How do you -- how can you explain that?
14 A. There were two accounts, a U.S. dollar account and a euro
15 account at Bank of Cyprus; and then there were two accounts at
16 Hellenic Bank, again, a U.S. dollar account and a euro account.
17 Q. Okay. And without going through each of the accounts in
18 terms of the banks and denomination, can you identify for the
19 jury the names of each of the entities that had bank accounts
20 that are in the chart in Government Exhibit 63?
21 A. You want me to read the names?
22 Q. Yes.
23 A. Actinet Trading Limited; Black Sea View Limited; Bletilla
24 Ventures Limited; Global Highway Limited; Leviathan Advisors
25 Limited; LOAV Advisors Limited; Lucicle Consultants Limited;

1 Marziola Holdings Limited; Olivenia Trading Limited; Peranova
2 Holdings Limited; Serangon Holdings Limited; Yiakora Ventures
3 Limited; Pompolo Limited; Global Endeavour, Inc.; and Jeunet
4 Limited.
5 Q. Okay. And when you look at those -- the names in those
6 accounts, did you compare them to the documents produced by
7 Mr. Manafort?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And what did you find?
10 A. I found that all of the accounts listed in this exhibit
11 were included in Mr. Manafort's production except for the
12 Peranova Holdings euro account and then the Pompolo Limited
13 account.
14 Q. Okay. And how were those different?
15 A. They just were not provided by Mr. Manafort.
16 Q. Okay. But you received documentation from overseas
17 relating to those entities?
18 A. I did.
19 Q. And with respect to the accounts in the chart, what
20 countries are those accounts located?
21 A. They're located in Cyprus, St. Vincent and the Grenadines,
22 and the United Kingdom.
23 Q. Okay. In Column No. 5, you have the beneficial owner
24 listed. Without going through each of the accounts, who were
25 the individuals that are identified as the beneficial owners?

1 A. It was either Mr. Manafort, Mr. Gates, or Mr. Kilimnik.
2 Q. Okay. And where did you determine that information from?
3 A. By reviewing the account opening documentation.
4 Q. Okay. And then in the final column, it's listed
5 authorized signatures listed on the bank account application.
6 Where did that information come from?
7 A. That information came from the bank account opening docs
8 that we received.
9 Q. And again, without going through each and every account,
10 who are the names listed on those -- on those accounts?
11 A. Either Mr. Manafort and Mr. Gates or a group of
12 individuals located in Cyprus: Eleni Chrysostomides,
13 Chrystalla Pitsilli Dekatris, Myrianthi Christou, Evelina
14 Georgiades, or Georgoula Mavrides.
15 Q. I'm not even going to try to pronounce those, but in the
16 course of your investigation, those individuals that you just
17 mentioned, did you understand that they were associated with a
18 particular entity?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. What entity?
21 A. They were associated with Dr. Kypros Chrysostomides' law
22 firm.
23 Q. Is he also known as Dr. K?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Okay. And how did you decide what accounts to include in

1 your chart in Government Exhibit 63?
2 A. I included accounts that actually had transactional
3 activity or were relevant to the investigating --
4 investigation, meaning they had transfers into their accounts
5 from other foreign entities, and they made transfers to vendors
6 for real estate purchases to DMP International or Davis
7 Manafort Partners or Mr. Manafort, his family, and related
8 entities.
9 Q. Okay. And over what time period did you -- did that
10 relate to?
11 A. 2010 through 2014.
12 Q. Okay. You testified that you've gotten these records.
13 Can you identify now the banks that are listed in your chart?
14 A. Yes. The banks are Bank of Cyprus, Hellenic Bank, Loyal
15 Bank, and HSBC U.K.
16 Q. Okay. Can I ask you to look at the entry in No. 1 and 2
17 and identify who the beneficial owner is?
18 A. Yes. The beneficial owner is listed as Mr. Manafort, and
19 then as of January 21, 2013, Mr. Kilimnik.
21 Exhibit 66D, which is in evidence, and tell me what that is?
22 A. This is an account opening document and bank account
23 application.
24 Q. Okay. And can you take a look at Government Exhibit 4385
25 and tell me what that is?

1 A. Yes. This shows the beneficial owner for Actinet Trading
2 Limited, and it shows Mr. Manafort as the beneficial owner.
3 Q. Okay. I'm sorry, who's listed as the beneficial owners?
4 A. Mr. Manafort.
5 Q. Okay. And can you turn to 4395 and tell me what that is?
6 A. This is a signature card.
7 Q. And who's listed on that document?
8 A. Eleni Chrysostomides, Chrystalla Pitsilli Dekatris, and
9 Myrianthi Christou.
10 Q. Can I ask you to turn to Government Exhibit -- to page
11 4401 of Government Exhibit 66D?
12 A. Okay.
13 MR. ANDRES: Your Honor, can I publish this document?
14 THE COURT: Is it admitted?
15 MR. ANDRES: Yes.
17 BY MR. ANDRES:
18 Q. Is there a page number listed on the bottom of there? The
19 Bates number is 4401?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. What's the page number listed?
22 A. It's the last page.
23 Q. Okay. Okay. Can you tell me what was included in the
24 bank records that you received in Government Exhibit 66D at
25 4401?

1 A. Yes. This is a copy of Mr. Manafort's passport.
2 Q. And where did you find that document?
3 A. In the account opening documents.
4 Q. And where did those come from?
5 A. From Cyprus.
6 Q. Okay. You testified that with respect to the banks,
7 Hellenic Bank was one of the banks that provided documents.
8 Was there a correlation between the dates of the
9 first transaction and those records and the relevant dates at
10 the Bank of Cyprus?
11 A. Yes.
13 A. So when the accounts at the Bank of Cyprus closed, soon
14 after, there were transfers from those accounts directly to
15 Hellenic Bank.
16 Q. Okay. And did you -- was there -- did you find that the
17 opening -- or the opening balance and the dates of the first
18 transaction or the opening dates of the records at Hellenic
19 Bank, that they matched up or there was some issue between
20 those?
21 A. As far as Hellenic Bank goes, they did not provide the
22 account opening date or closing date, like the bank of Cyprus
23 did, and as a result, I used the balance forward date that was
24 listed on the statements as the account opening date, and then
25 I used the final transaction date as the date of the account

1 closing.
2 Q. Okay.
3 THE COURT: When you say, "they did not provide,"
4 you're referring to the bank?
5 THE WITNESS: That's correct.
7 BY MR. ANDRES:
8 Q. With respect to Item 7 on Government Exhibit 63, can you
9 tell me what that is?
10 A. This is a summary of the account opening documents for
11 Bletilla Ventures Limited.
12 Q. Okay. And with respect to those documents -- to that
13 account, can I ask you to look at Government Exhibit 66D and
14 turn to Page 4480?
16 A. This is a page that lists the beneficial owner for
17 Bletilla Ventures Limited.
18 Q. Okay.
19 MR. ANDRES: May I publish that, Your Honor?
20 THE COURT: You may. It's been admitted, hasn't it?
21 MR. ANDRES: Yes.
22 BY MR. ANDRES:
23 Q. Do you see in the middle of the page, at the bottom, what
24 the number is?
25 A. It's 4480.

1 Q. It's -- not the Bates number, I'm sorry. The -- in the
2 middle of the bottom, there's a number that says 66D-page and
3 the page number. Do you not see that?
4 A. No.
5 MR. ANDRES: Okay. I'll move on, Your Honor.
6 BY MR. ANDRES:
7 Q. What is that document that you have?
8 A. This lists the beneficial owner for Bletilla Ventures
9 Limited.
10 Q. And what's the date of that?
11 A. It is February 1, 2012.
12 Q. Okay. Can I ask you to look at Entry 14 on your chart?
14 A. This summarizes the account opening docs for LOAV Advisors
15 Limited.
16 Q. Okay. Can I ask you to look at Government Exhibit 66D and
17 the Bates No. 5105?
19 A. Yes. This lists the beneficial owner and comes from the
20 bank account opening docs.
21 Q. Okay. And who's listed as the beneficial owner?
22 A. Mr. Gates and Mr. Manafort.
23 Q. Okay. And is that the information you relied on with
24 respect to creating the chart in Government Exhibit 63?
25 A. Yes.

1 Q. And what's the date of the document 5105?
2 A. The date is October 8, 2007.
3 Q. Okay. Can I ask you to look at the entries at 15 and 16?
4 Tell me what those are.
5 A. Yes. These summarize the account opening documents for
6 Lucicle Consultants Limited.
7 Q. Okay. And with respect to the signature cards for those
8 accounts, 15 and 16, can you take a look at Government
9 Exhibit 66D and Page 4248?
10 Tell me what that is.
11 A. Yes. This is a signature card for Lucicle Consultants
12 Limited.
13 Q. Okay. And can I ask you to turn to Page 4239?
14 What's included there?
15 A. It's a copy of Mr. Manafort's passport.
16 Q. Okay. And where did you receive that document?
17 A. From the account opening documents provided by Bank of
18 Cyprus.
19 Q. And what account was that related to?
20 A. Lucicle Consultants Limited.
21 Q. Okay. Can I ask you to take a look at the entry at
22 No. 20?
24 A. This summarizes the bank account opening docs for Marziola
25 Holdings Limited.

1 Q. And you testified earlier that the individuals listed on
2 the column on the far right were associated with Dr. K. How
3 did you learn that?
4 A. Through the investigation, reviewing e-mails.
5 Q. Okay. And with regard to entry No. 26, Serangon Holdings,
6 where did the information in the chart come from as it related
7 to Government Exhibit -- with respect to No. 26?
8 A. It was from the bank account opening documents from Bank
9 of Cyprus.
10 Q. Okay. And is it fair to say that in the context of
11 reviewing these records, you found other instances where
12 Mr. Manafort's passport was included?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And that was produced as part of the account opening
15 documents?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Do you know generally when the date was that the -- that
18 the accounts in Cyprus was closed?
19 A. They were closed in 2013.
20 Q. Okay. And during the course of the investigation, did you
21 learn that Mr. Manafort was interviewed at some point?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And when did that interview take place?
24 A. In July of 2014.
25 Q. And did you also learn that Mr. Gates was interviewed at

1 some point?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And when was that?
4 A. In July of 2014.
5 Q. That was after the accounts in Cyprus were closed?
6 A. Yes.
7 THE COURT: When we finish with this exhibit, we'll
8 recess for lunch.
9 MR. ANDRES: Okay. Thank you, Judge. Just one other
10 question.
11 BY MR. ANDRES:
12 Q. You testified that Mr. Manafort produced certain documents
13 pursuant to a Title 31 subpoena; is that correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 MR. WESTLING: Your Honor, I just want to object. I
16 don't think that's what the stipulation says. I think it says
17 they were produced by DMP International.
18 MR. ANDRES: Your Honor, the stipulation, it
19 obviously stands for itself. I'll rephrase the question.
21 BY MR. ANDRES:
22 Q. There were documents produced by Mr. Manafort and his
23 entities; is that correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And you relied on those at some point?

1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And that involved -- or that included bank records from
3 Cyprus; is that correct?
5 Q. Do you know when Mr. Manafort made that production?
6 MR. WESTLING: Again, objection. Same objection,
7 Your Honor.
8 THE COURT: What's the objection?
9 MR. WESTLING: It's misstating what's in the
10 stipulation, which clearly states these were produced by DMP
11 International.
12 THE COURT: All right. Go on. I'll overrule the
13 objection. Answer the question.
14 BY MR. ANDRES:
15 Q. I'm just asking for the approximate date of the
16 production.
17 A. The date of the production was October 20, 2017.
18 THE COURT: And so far as you know from the
19 documents, was that production by DMP International?
20 THE WITNESS: I don't know.
21 THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen --
22 you're done now?
24 THE COURT: All right. Pass your books to the right.
25 The court security officer will collect them, maintain their

1 security. Remember to refrain from discussing the matter among
2 yourselves or with anyone or undertaking any investigation on
3 your own.
4 Your lunches should be there. I hope they are
5 adequate. You may follow the court security officer out.
6 (Jury out.)
7 THE COURT: All right. You may be seated for a
8 moment.
9 Mr. Westling, I think you are aware of -- oh, I beg
10 your pardon. Ms. Magionos, you -- did I pronounce your name
11 correctly?
13 THE COURT: You may take the luncheon recess.
15 THE COURT: You may step down. During your recess,
16 you may not discuss this -- your testimony with anyone,
17 including lawyers.
18 THE WITNESS: Okay. Thank you.
19 THE COURT: You may depart.
20 (Witness stood down.)
21 THE COURT: Mr. Westling, you have the benefit of
22 receiving, I think, notice of what exhibits the Government
23 intends to offer through this witness. Am I correct?
25 THE COURT: If you have any objections to those

1564
1 exhibits, I want you to disclose to Mr. -- well, yes, I want
2 you to disclose to Mr. Andres what your objection is to a
3 specific exhibit, see if you can reach accommodation. If not,
4 I'll rule on it, but we want to move along fairly expeditiously
5 if we can.
6 Is that clear?
8 THE COURT: And the other thing is I don't know,
9 Mr. Andres, whether you intend to have her read e-mails. She
10 may read admissible e-mails if they pertain to her
11 investigation, but you may not read -- have her read e-mails
12 that she didn't use, if they weren't part of her -- that's not
13 the way to present evidence. Am I clear?
14 MR. ANDRES: You are, Your Honor. I just -- just for
15 the record, I understand your ruling. It's the Government's
16 position that agents can read evidence that's admitted, so our
17 basis for asking that the other --
18 THE COURT: She's not even an agent.
19 MR. ANDRES: If what Your Honor is suggesting is
20 that --
21 THE COURT: I'm suggesting that if you want -- I told
22 you that it's admissible, and I don't know whether you've
23 already offered it, but it would be admitted, if it's an
24 admission and there's no other objection to it.
25 What I find problematic, troublesome is that you are

1565
1 going to have a witness read it, a witness who didn't use it in
2 her investigation, and she's just reading something that's in
3 the record. You do that in your closing, if you want to, after
4 I admit it.
5 MR. ANDRES: Understood, Judge, but does that mean
6 that an agent who was involved in those aspects of the
7 investigation could read that or --
8 THE COURT: Yes, it does.
9 MR. ANDRES: Okay. Thank you. That's very helpful,
10 Judge.
11 THE COURT: But you can't get somebody who has
12 nothing to do with it to sit there and read it.
13 MR. ANDRES: I completely understand, Your Honor.
14 THE COURT: And how in the world could a defendant
15 cross-examine this? It's very difficult to anyone, but that
16 would make it impossible if the witness would simply say, "I
17 don't know. I was just given this to read."
19 THE COURT: All right. We will, we will recess
20 until -- let's make it 1:35, and then we'll continue.
21 How much more do you anticipate, Mr. Andres?
22 MR. ANDRES: At least another hour, Your Honor.
23 THE COURT: I thought we were shortening it.
24 MR. ANDRES: Well, we were. We started -- I don't
25 think I've been speaking for much longer than 15 or 20 minutes,

1566
1 but I'm sure there's a record of that somewhere.
2 THE COURT: I'm not limiting it. I'm merely asking
3 that you make an effort to shorten it even more if you can.
4 MR. ANDRES: Enjoy your lunch, Judge.
8 CERTIFICATE OF THE REPORTER
9 I certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript of
10 the record of proceedings in the above-entitled matter.
11
12
13 /s/
Anneliese J. Thomson
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Exhibit 2
1801
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2
3 United States of America, ) Criminal Action

) No. 19-CR-125
4 Plaintiff, )
) JURY TRIAL
5 vs. ) DAY 9 - Morning
) Public Transcript
6 Gregory B. Craig, ) Washington, DC
) August 22, 2019
7 Defendant. ) Time: 9:30 a.m.
___________________________________________________________
8
TRANSCRIPT OF JURY TRIAL - DAY 9 - MORNING
9 HELD BEFORE
THE HONORABLE JUDGE AMY BERMAN JACKSON
10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
____________________________________________________________
11
A P P E A R A N C E S
12
For Plaintiff: Fernando Campoamor-Sanchez
13 Molly Gulland Gaston
U.S. Attorney's Office FOR THE
14 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
555 Fourth Street, NW
(202) 252-7698
16 Email: Fernando.campoamor-sanchez@usdoj.gov
Email: Molly.gaston@usdoj.gov
17 Jason Bradley Adam McCullough
18 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
19 (202) 233-0986
Email: Jason.mccullough@usdoj.gov
20
For Defendant: William James Murphy
21 William W. Taylor, III
Adam B. Abelson
22 ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER, LLP
100 East Pratt Street
23 Suite 2440
Baltimore, MD 21202
24 (410) 949-1146
Email: Wmurphy@zuckerman.com
25 Email: Wtaylor@zuckerman.com
Email: Aabelson@zuckerman.com
1802
1 Paula M. Junghans
Ezra B. Marcus
1800 M Street, NW
3 Suite 1000
4 (202) 778-1814
Email: Pjunghans@zuckerman.com
5 Email: Emarcus@zuckerman.com
6 ____________________________________________________________
7 Court Reporter: Janice E. Dickman, RMR, CRR, CRC

Official Court Reporter
8 United States Courthouse, Room 6523
333 Constitution Avenue, NW
202-354-3267
10
11
12 INDEX
13 Witness:
14 Richard Gates
15 Direct Examination By Mr. Campoamor-Sanchez..........1812
16 Cross-Examination By Ms. Junghans....................1893
17 * * *
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 643-2 Filed 12/10/19 Page 4 of 285 1803
1 THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: All rise. The United States
2 District Court for the District of Columbia is now in session,
3 the Honorable Richard --
4 THE COURT: Do I look like the Honorable
5 Richard Leon? I don't think so.
6 All right. All right.
7 THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: It's only 9:30.
8 THE COURT: Have everybody put their names on the
9 record, and then we can --
10 THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Your Honor, this is Criminal
11 Case Number 19-125, the United States of America v. Gregory B.
12 Craig.
13 Counsel, please approach the lectern and identify
14 yourself and your colleagues for the record.
15 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ: Good morning, Your Honor.
16 Molly Gaston, Jason McCullough, and
17 Fernandez Campoamor for the United States. And with us is
18 paralegal specialist Amanda Rohde.
19 THE COURT: Good morning.
20 MS. JUNGHANS: Good morning, Your Honor.
21 Paula Junghans, Bill Murphy, Bill Taylor and
22 Adam Abelson and Ezra Marcus for Mr. Craig.
24 MS. JUNGHANS: And Mr. Craig is present.
25 THE COURT: Good morning, everybody. I think

1 you've -- the parties have both been informed, we -- Mr. Haley
2 received a note from a juror yesterday evening, or earlier this
3 morning, asking to be excused. We don't have any further
4 information. My intention would be to bring him in, let him
5 sit in the witness stand, ask him if it's a matter that he
6 would prefer to discuss in private at the bench, or not.
7 If he says it is, then we'll do it at the bench. It
8 will be on the record, though. And if he's comfortable sitting
9 there, then we'll let him sit there. And we'll find out what
10 it is before we figure out what to do about it. But if some
11 discussion is required, we will have him step out before we
12 discuss it.
13 Does anybody else think we should do anything else?
14 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ: No, Your Honor.
15 MS. JUNGHANS: No, Your Honor.
17 Can you bring in the juror, Mr. Haley, and ask him to
18 have a seat.
19 (Whereupon the juror enters the courtroom.)
20 THE JUROR: Good morning, Your Honor.
21 THE COURT: Good morning, sir.
22 I understand that Mr. Haley received an email from
23 you, asking if you could be excused from jury service.
24 Are you the one that sent the email to Mr. Haley?
25 THE JUROR: Yes, ma'am.

1 THE COURT: All right. Now, I would like to ask you
2 the circumstances behind your request. If it's very personal
3 and you would like to come to the bench with the husher on, we
4 can accommodate that.
5 THE JUROR: Yes, ma'am.
6 THE COURT: There would still be a public record
7 being transcribed of what you're saying. So, is it something
8 that you can discuss from there, or would you prefer to come to
9 the bench?
10 THE JUROR: I would prefer to come to the bench, if I
11 may, ma'am.
12 THE COURT: All right, sir.
13 Can I have somebody from both sides?
14 (Bench discussion:)
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10
11
12
13
14
15 (Whereupon the juror exits the courtroom.)
16 (Open court:)
17 THE COURT: That portion of the transcript will be
18 sealed, given the fact that it contained the jurors's personal
19 medical information. And the juror is not going to be excused
20 at this time.
21 All right. Are we ready to bring the jury in to
22 start this morning's proceedings?
23 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ: Yes. Do you want me to bring
24 the witness in?
25 THE COURT: Yeah. You can have him ready to go.

1 I'll have you call him when the jury is seated.
2 Thank you.
3 (Whereupon the jury enters the courtroom.)
4 THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: All present, Your Honor.
5 THE COURT: All right. Good morning. I note
6 everyone is present. And when I arrived this morning, I could
7 hear that many of you were here early, so I very much
8 appreciate that.
9 I take it that everyone has managed to follow the
10 instructions and not do have any research or have conversations
11 about the case overnight.
12 Okay. Everybody is nodding their heads.
13 There has been, you may notice, a little bit of a
14 seating rejiggering this morning. It is just for the physical
15 convenience of one of the jurors, and it has nothing to do
16 with -- it is -- no negative inferences should be drawn about
17 any of you for any reason. We just changed the seats to
18 convenience one of you. And we thank you for your flexibility
19 about that.
20 All right. You can call your next witness.
21 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ: Thank you, Your Honor.
22 The government calls Richard Gates.
23 RICHARD GATES,
24 was called as a witness and, having been first duly sworn, was

1 THE COURT: You can proceed.
4 BY MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ:
5 Q. Good morning, sir.
6 A. Good morning.
7 Q. Can you please tell us your name and spell it for the
8 record?
9 A. Yes. Richard W. Gates, G-A-T-E-S.
10 Q. How old are you, sir?
11 A. I am 47 years old.
12 Q. Without telling us where you live -- or without telling us
13 your specific address, where do you live?
14 A. In Richmond, Virginia.
15 Q. Are you married, sir?
16 A. I am.
17 Q. Do you have kids?
18 A. I do. I have four kids.
19 Q. Can you please tell us your educational background?
20 A. Yes. I received a bachelor of arts from the College of
21 William & Mary, and then I received my master's of arts in
22 public policy from George Washington University.
23 Q. Sir, do you have any military experience?
24 A. I do.
25 Q. What is that?
1 A. I served in the Virginia Army National Guard for six and a
2 half years.
3 Q. Did you receive an honorable discharge?
4 A. I did.
5 Q. Now, sir, are you currently unemployed?
6 A. I am.
7 Q. We're going to get back to that in a few minutes.
8 But, first of all, do you know a man by the name of
9 Paul Manafort?
10 A. I do.
11 Q. How is it that you know Mr. Manafort?
12 A. I worked for Mr. Manafort for approximately ten years, at
13 his firm.
14 Q. And what time span was that, those ten years,
15 approximately?
16 A. That was from 2006 until 2016.
17 Q. In what type of work was Mr. Manafort engaged during that
18 time period, just generally?
19 A. Yeah. There were two things that I was primarily working
20 on: One was a private equity fund that his firm had set up,
21 and the other was, Mr. Manafort had done a lot of work in
22 political consulting, both in the United States and
23 internationally.
24 Q. And that was going to be my next question.
25 So were some of those political projects overseas?

1 A. Yes, they were.
2 Q. Where?
3 A. Primarily Ukraine, but there were other projects in
4 Montenegro, in Cyprus, in Pakistan, and a number of other
5 countries as well.
6 Q. And did you, yourself, travel and work in Ukraine?
7 A. I did.
8 Q. Approximately what period of time did you work in Ukraine?
9 A. From 2007 to about 2014, was the last project.
10 Q. What kind of work -- if you could tell the ladies and
11 gentlemen of the jury, what kind of work were you doing in
12 Ukraine, generally?
13 A. Um-hum. So, primarily in Ukraine, we were doing party
14 building and political campaigns for various candidates. So,
15 in the period of 2007 to 2014, I helped by managing the
16 consultants that were hired in the United States that helped
17 with various parts of the election campaign.
18 So that could be anything from grassroots efforts,
19 which entailed a lot of working on the ground. There was
20 election integrity, in terms of bringing groups from other
21 parts of the world to come and monitor the elections. And then
22 there was also the media and advertising components which we
23 worked on for the various candidates.
24 Q. And how would you describe your role, vis-à-vis
25 Mr. Manafort?
1 A. Yes. So I was an employee of Davis Manafort. Mr. Manafort
2 was the principal. We had a series of different consultants
3 through the years and a couple of employees. But, the firm was
4 relatively small, and we hired different consultants for
5 different work that we needed.
6 Q. If I can direct your attention now, briefly, to 2012.
7 Okay. Can you give us a brief description of what
8 was the political situation in Ukraine in 2012?
9 A. Um-hum. The primary issue for Ukraine at that time was to
10 gain entry into the European Union. Ukraine is an interesting
11 country, in terms of its geography and where it's located,
12 right on the border with Europe and with Russia. So, there was
13 kind of a constant tug and pull over which direction it would
14 go.
15 So, at the time in 2010, when we ran a campaign for
16 the president that was elected that year, the primary issue was
17 moving Ukraine to the west and getting them into the European
18 Union.
19 Q. And were there any -- in 2012, any significant roadblocks
20 to sort of helping Ukraine move to the west --
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. -- or the European Union?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. What was that?
25 A. Ukraine was a young democracy. It had, at that time, I

1 think, just three presidents that were elected by the people.
2 In one situation, a former prime minister was put on trial for
3 various criminal charges that she participated in while she was
4 prime minister.
5 As a result, that created some political tension in
6 Europe with respect to many of the European leaders believing
7 it was a politically motivated event. So it was difficult for
8 Ukraine to kind of, you know, think about the idea of moving
9 into the European Union. But, then, also, the idea that they
10 needed to look at criminal justice reform, and in that context
11 politically targeting, you know, previous leaders in the
12 country.
13 Q. And was the criticism of Ukraine about that issue limited
14 to Europe?
15 A. No, it was global. But, it was primarily Europe and the
16 United States that were the main two -- you know, I would say,
17 proponents of making sure this issue was resolved.
18 Q. Now, who was the president of Ukraine in 2012?
19 A. At that time, it was a gentleman by the name of
20 Viktor Yanukovych.
21 Q. Did you and/or Mr. Manafort play any role in
22 Mr. Yanukovych's election?
23 A. Yes. We ran Mr. Yanukovych's election in 2010, when he ran
24 for president.
25 Q. You and Mr. Manafort helped to get him elected?

1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Was Mr. Manafort and, therefore, you also working for -- or
3 still working for Mr. Yanukovych in 2012?
4 A. Yes, we were.
5 Q. And what was -- what was the role or what was the work that
6 you and Mr. Manafort were doing in Ukraine in 2012?
7 A. Yeah. So there were a number of efforts ongoing. One,
8 obviously, was the effort to get Ukraine into the EU, so that
9 had many different components to it.
10 Another effort that we worked on was a project that
11 included the law firm of Skadden Arps in doing a -- what we
12 call the Tymoshenko Report. It was a review of the trial of
13 Mrs. Tymoshenko.
14 And then we were also consulting on various policy
15 issues at the time that were relatively localized matters.
16 Q. So, I think you mentioned the law firm Skadden.
17 So what kind of companies or consultants were you and
18 Mr. Manafort employing in 2012 for these purposes?
19 A. Yep. So, in addition to Skadden, a public relations firm
20 called FTI Consulting was hired. And then later on, we hired
21 two additional firms in Washington. And a number of firms in
22 Europe were also hired for the project.
23 Q. Now, why was Skadden Arps hired in 2012?
24 A. So, Skadden was viewed as a very reputable law firm. It
25 was the belief that a Western oriented law firm was needed
1 to --
2 MS. JUNGHANS: Objection. It's not clear whether the
3 witness is speaking from his personal knowledge or if he's
4 conveying views or opinions of others.
6 Were you involved in the decision to bring Skadden
7 Arps on to write this report?
8 THE WITNESS: No, ma'am.
9 THE COURT: Do you know who made the decision?
10 THE WITNESS: Yes. The decision was made by
11 Mr. Manafort.
12 THE COURT: Okay. And who explained to you why the
13 decision was made?
14 THE WITNESS: Mr. Manafort.
16 Do you still have an objection?
17 MS. JUNGHANS: I do.
18 THE COURT: All right. Can we approach the bench?
20 MS. JUNGHANS: Well, I think this is the problem we
21 anticipated, is that he didn't do most of these things himself.
22 What he knows he knows because he was told by Manafort. Even
23 though this is maybe sort of general background, I think it's
24 on the same point, the same principle.
25 THE COURT: All right. Well, the question is, he is

1 talking about something that he learned from out-of-court
2 statements of Mr. Manafort. But, I'm not sure that they're
3 asking him for any statement that goes to the truth of some
4 matter asserted. I think he's saying that he understood that
5 he picked Skadden for other reasons. I believe Mr. Schoen has
6 testified why they picked Skadden. So, I'm not sure that we're
7 getting into some hearsay statement.
8 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ: Yeah. If --
9 MS. JUNGHANS: I'm sorry.
10 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ: I didn't want to interrupt.
11 MS. JUNGHANS: As I said, Your Honor, I appreciate
12 this particular statement may not be momentous, but, I think
13 we're launching into a recitation of what we did. And "we"
14 didn't; Manafort did, and he only knows about it because
15 Manafort told him.
16 THE COURT: I think he was the foot soldier for a lot
17 of things that were done. And I think -- as we move into more
18 specifics, I think it's important to say -- ask him what he
19 personally did as opposed to what David -- Mr. Manafort did.
20 And you can ask him, Did you do it at anyone's direction?
21 And he can say he did it at Manafort's direction, or
22 was it his own initiation. But, he can certainly say, as other
23 witnesses have said -- I think people have testified, I did X.
24 And so it's a direction.
25 And did you speak to so and so?

1 Yes.
2 As a result of that, what did you do?
3 I did X, Y, and Z.
4 I think we can try to limit how much of what
5 Mr. Manafort said comes in. But, I think, since he was acting
6 at a person's direction, in and of itself, doesn't violate
7 hearsay.
8 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ: And can I --
9 MS. JUNGHANS: Sure. Sorry.
10 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ: Thank you.
11 So -- yeah. So, I'm not trying to suggest -- and I
12 think what the witness was making reference to is, Manafort is
13 making the decisions. But he is part of the team that is
14 implementing all these things, and this is -- I'm just
15 literally setting up the background about whether we're going
16 to --
17 THE COURT: This particular decision, after I talked
18 to him, it seems to have been pretty -- he wasn't consulted,
19 Mr. Gates wasn't consulted --
20 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ: Correct.
21 THE COURT: -- because of Manafort. I think he was
22 told why. And I think he was told why, Manafort says why he
23 did what he did, isn't particularly objectionable. But I do
24 take your point that you don't want to open the door to have
25 just everything Manafort says comes in as a Manafort exception

1 to the hearsay rule. It may happen. Precisely.
2 MS. JUNGHANS: Precisely.
3 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ: I'm not trying to do that.
4 I'm just trying to lay the background for the --
5 THE COURT: As we move forward, I think it's going to
6 be very important to say, you know, What did you do, as opposed
7 to, What did Davis Manafort do, and then it will be clearer.
8 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ: Right.
9 MS. JUNGHANS: Thank you.
11 (Open court:)
13 Q. Did you know -- and please tell us where you know this
14 from -- but, did you know what the purpose was of hiring
15 Skadden Arps --
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. -- in 2012?
18 A. Yes, I do. And the information was conveyed to me by
19 Mr. Manafort. The purpose of Skadden being hired was --
20 MS. JUNGHANS: Objection.
21 THE COURT: I'm sorry. I think that we just ruled
22 that he could testify why he understood, based on what
23 Mr. Manafort said, that they were choosing -- they were hiring
24 that firm with respect to this issue.
25 All right. Go ahead.

1 A. There were two components to it: One, Skadden was viewed
2 as a very credible Western firm. And number two, Mr. Craig was
3 a very experienced and credible attorney that would give the
4 project visibility globally. And given his success, both
5 inside and outside of the law, it was very relevant to have
6 somebody of that stature associated with the Report,
7 particularly for the Western leaders to believe that it was an
8 independent and credible report.
10 Q. If you know, why would an independent report help Ukraine?
11 A. An independent report would help Ukraine for a number of
12 reasons. The primary one was, this could not have been a
13 Ukrainian report. Ukraine, kind of, evaluating its own
14 judicial system, especially at that time, given the -- that it
15 was a young democracy, was not very effective.
16 So, you needed, particularly with the EU involved and
17 the United States, a Western-oriented firm to be able to lead
18 this effort, particularly one that had experience doing this in
19 the past.
20 Q. Did you, personally, have a role regarding the Skadden
21 engagement?
22 A. I did.
23 Q. And what was your role?
24 A. I was primarily the intermediary for a number of people
25 that were associated with Skadden and FTI. We had a small team
1 of people in Ukraine that dealt with local issues. I primarily
2 liaised with one lawyer in particular from Skadden.
3 Mr. Manafort typically managed my delegation.
4 So, I was an intermediary for various parts of the
5 Skadden Report.
6 Q. And did you have any involvement in the PR strategy rollout
7 for the Skadden Report?
8 A. Yes, I did.
9 Q. What was, just generally, your role for that process?
10 A. I was the primarily link between our firm and FTI. In that
11 capacity, I worked with Jonathan Hawker, who was the primary
12 point of contact for us in regards to an overall media and a
13 government relations plan related to the rollout of the Report.
14 Q. All right. Mr. Gates, before we get to the specifics, what
15 transpired in 2012, I want to go back to the issue of your
16 current unemployment.
17 Why are you currently unemployed?
18 A. I'm currently unemployed. I was indicted in 2017 in
19 relation to a larger investigation. Since that time, I have
20 largely been unemployed.
21 Q. And, sir, are you currently pending sentencing for a number
22 of charges?
23 A. I am.
24 Q. All right. And let's take a look at what's already in
25 evidence as Government's Exhibit 625. Hopefully, you have a

1 copy of that in front. But, if not, we'll also put the first
2 page on the screen.
3 Do you recognize what's Government's Exhibit 625?
4 A. Yes, I do.
5 Q. What is it?
7 Q. Okay. And --
8 A. With the government.
9 Q. And if we can take a look at -- under charges.
10 And let me just ask you, first of all, sir, did you
11 plead guilty, in the case referenced in your plea agreement, to
12 conspiracy against the United States?
13 A. I did.
14 Q. And was this plea part of a cooperation agreement?
15 A. It was.
16 Q. And did you also plead guilty, sir, to making a false
17 statement to the Special Counsel's Office, Robert Mueller's
18 office?
19 A. I did.
20 Q. Let me ask you, first of all, what is the maximum penalty
21 you can receive for the charge of conspiracy?
22 A. Up to five years.
23 Q. How about for the penalty for making a false statement to
24 the Special Counsel's Office?
25 A. That's up to five years, as well.

1 Q. And are you familiar with what is called the estimated
2 guidelines range?
3 A. Yes, I've learned.
4 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ: If we could take a look now
5 at page 3, at the bottom. Zoom in.
6 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ:
7 Q. And what is the calculated and estimated guidelines range
8 of your sentence for the charges you pled guilty to?
9 A. The estimated range is from 57 to 71 months.
10 Q. So, Mr. Gates, under a cooperation agreement, what is it
11 that you agreed to do?
12 A. So, I agreed to tell the truth. I agreed to provide
13 documents and other material to the United States government.
14 And agreed to help them in any cases or trials that they were
15 working on.
16 Q. Have you, in fact, testified in a different trial for --
17 pursuant to this cooperation agreement?
18 A. I have.
19 Q. Did you, in fact, provide evidence to government
20 investigators about what they were looking for?
21 A. Yes, I did.
22 Q. Have you met with government investigators?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And answered their questions?
25 A. Yes, I have.
1 Q. About how many times, if you know?
2 A. Over the course of almost two years, probably, you know, at
3 least 40 times. Probably more.
4 Q. Now, what is the most important --
5 THE COURT: Is that with respect to more than one
6 matter or is that just with respect to this matter?
7 THE WITNESS: No, ma'am, that was multiple matters.
10 Q. Yeah. I did not mean to suggest that you met with the
11 government 40 times on this case.
12 Sir, what is the most important thing you are
13 required to do under this cooperation plea agreement?
14 A. To tell the truth.
15 Q. Now, did the government also make you some promises under
16 this agreement?
17 A. It laid out some conditions in the agreement, yes.
18 Q. All right. So, let's take a look at some of those.
19 If we can look at page 2, the heading under
20 Additional Charges.
21 What was one of the things the government agreed to
22 do?
23 A. One of the things the government did was, they agreed to
24 drop additional charges that were brought in 2017.
25 Q. So another separate case?

1 A. Yes.
2 Q. In another jurisdiction?
3 A. Correct.
4 Q. All right. And did the government also agree not to
5 prosecute you for other charges?
6 A. It did.
7 Q. What are we talking about there?
8 A. Those were charges related to some previous activity in
9 regards to taxes, tax returns, FARA registration, and other
10 activities.
11 Q. And as part of this cooperation agreement, were you
12 required to sort of inform the government about other things
13 that may have been crimes that you committed?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. All right. So, in addition to the charges, did the
16 government also make you other promise with regards to your
17 cooperation?
18 And if we can look at page 5.
19 You can explain to the ladies and gentlemen of the
20 jury what else the government agreed to do.
21 A. Yes. I think this is actually what I agreed to. But,
22 the -- the government also agreed to, upon my cooperation --
23 Q. Oh, no, you're right.
24 A. Yeah.
25 Q. Thank you. You're correcting me and you're absolutely

1 right.
2 If we can go to page 6, paragraph 9.
3 A. The government agreed to write what was called a 5K1
4 letter, which outlines everything I've done right, everything
5 I've done wrong. And the 5K1 letter would be a document that
6 would kind of codify all of my activity in cooperation for the
7 judge's review.
8 Q. And what does that 5K letter -- if the government provides
9 one, what would that do?
10 A. It could potentially reduce the sentence that was on the
11 previous page.
12 Q. So, sir -- and let me ask you, anything else that the
13 government specified or provided?
14 A. Yeah. The government also agreed not to oppose my motion
15 to request probation, if we -- you move in that direction.
16 Q. Is that located at the top on page 7, where I'm reading,
17 "Depending on the precise nature of the defendant's substantial
18 assistance, the office may not oppose defendant's application"?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. All right. So, there's not a guarantee, but, assuming that
21 you cooperated, that's what the government agreed to do?
22 A. Correct.
23 Q. All right.
24 Now, sir, we've been talking about the government and
25 what it promised you. But, who, ultimately, is responsible for

1 sentencing you?
2 A. The judge in my case.
3 Q. What do you think will happen to you if the judge in your
4 case decides that you're not being truthful?
6 THE COURT: He can answer the question.
7 A. I think the judge would find it not good. And also the
8 government could tear up my, you know, plea agreement if I'm
9 not telling the truth.
11 Q. And who is the judge that will sentence you in this case?
12 A. She's right here, next to me, Mrs. -- Judge Jackson.
13 Q. All right. Mr. Gates, let's move on, then.
14 Can you please tell the ladies and gentlemen of the
15 jury, what is the first task you actually remember
16 accomplishing with regards to the Skadden engagement?
17 A. The first task that I was given was to make a wire transfer
18 to the Skadden law firm as the beginnings of the Report. In
19 that process, Mr. Manafort described to me in a little --
21 THE COURT: All right. Just -- your task was to send
22 a wire transfer?
23 THE WITNESS: Yes, ma'am.
24 THE COURT: All right. At Mr. Manafort's direction?

1 THE COURT: Okay.
2 So, ask your next question.
3 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ: Yes.
5 Q. And how was it that you process or arranged -- not
6 "process."
7 How do you accomplish that task?
8 A. Yes. Mr. Manafort described to me --
9 THE COURT: I think the concern is, there's just
10 general rules about people on the witness stand saying what
11 somebody else said when the somebody else isn't here and only
12 you're here. So, if he asks you a question about what you did,
13 if you could just answer what you did, without offering up what
14 you were told by Mr. Manafort, unless the question specifically
15 calls for what you were told by Mr. Manafort, that might ease
16 the interruptions.
17 THE WITNESS: Okay. Sure.
18 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ: And, Your Honor, would it be
19 possible for him to describe the instructions he received as to
20 how to accomplish the payment? Would that be acceptable to the
21 Court?
22 THE COURT: Well, just that it had to be wired to X,
23 Y, Z place?
24 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ: Yes, I believe, and through a
25 particular method, a particular company.

1 THE COURT: Why don't we just find out what he did.
2 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ: Okay.
4 Q. What did you do?
5 A. Yes. So, I was tasked by Mr. Manafort to make a wire to
6 Skadden. And in that process, I was told that we would be --
7 that our firm would be receiving a --
9 THE COURT: All right. Just, what happened? What
10 did you do?
11 THE WITNESS: Um-hum. So, I -- I sent a wire to
12 Skadden through a -- an account that belonged to Mr. Manafort
13 that had received an incoming transfer by a Ukrainian business
14 man in order to make that payment to Skadden.
16 Q. And what was the name of the account that was used to make
17 that payment to Skadden?
18 A. Black Sea View Limited.
19 Q. And where was that account located?
20 A. In Cyprus.
21 Q. Let me ask you, from your own knowledge, was the Skadden
22 Report or the Skadden engagement limited to writing the Report
23 on the Tymoshenko prosecution, or did it include something
24 else?
25 A. No. There was other activity that Skadden was working on

1 in relation to another case.
2 Q. And what was that other case you're making reference to?
3 A. The other case was another case involving the former prime
4 minister, Yulia Tymoshenko, and her trial.
5 Q. Was that a case that also happened in the past, or was that
6 a case that was upcoming in the future?
7 A. That was a case that was upcoming.
8 Q. So, let me ask you, did -- I believe you told us, but now
9 that you sort of started with the engagement, what were your
10 responsibilities, if any, regarding public relations as it
11 relates to the Skadden Report on the Tymoshenko trial?
12 A. Sure. So one of the additional tasks that I was given was
13 to help find a PR firm that had expertise in legal matters.
14 And we started -- I started working with an attorney from
15 Skadden who had a company that the firm had used -- which was
16 FTI -- in other matters. And it was a firm that we vetted and
17 looked at to use in this project.
18 Q. And who was the attorney at Skadden that you were dealing
19 with related to that?
20 A. At that time, it was a gentleman by the name of
21 Alex van der Zwaan.
22 Q. Were there any issues with regards to the contracting
23 process or hiring of FTI to do that work?
24 A. Yes. There were -- early on there were -- just kind of as
25 the project kicked off, I like to say, there were a lot of

1 cooks in the kitchen. And there was some discussion about how
2 Skadden --
4 A. -- excuse me, how FTI --
5 THE COURT: Wait. Let him just -- he can say that a
6 topic was discussed and that it was an issue.
7 So what was the issue bringing FTI on board, without
8 saying exactly what Mr. Manafort -- what was the nature of the
9 problem?
10 THE WITNESS: Yeah. The nature of the problem is,
11 given the client and -- meaning, the Ukrainian government --
12 the nature of the issue was who FTI was going to be
13 subcontracted under. There were a number of parties that we
14 were trying to get FTI organized under. And that was, in
15 essence, the issue.
17 Q. Okay. And did that issue ultimately get resolved?
18 A. It did.
19 Q. Did it resolve quickly or did it take some time?
20 A. No. It took quite a bit of time.
21 Q. So was FTI paid, ultimately, for their work?
22 A. They were.
23 Q. Were they paid in full, though, for all their expenses?
24 A. No, they were not.
25 Q. And why was that?

1 A. At the time FTI started, they had deployed a pretty
2 significant team on the ground. They had not technically been
3 approved by the client, but it was in the works. It took some
4 time in order to get everything lined up, in terms of their
5 contract and the payment mechanism of who would actually pay
6 them.
7 They were ultimately paid, but, in fact, it was
8 Mr. Manafort who advanced FTI their fees and dealt with the
9 client behind the scenes to help get that payment taken care of.
10 Q. In addition to FTI, were, ultimately, other firms involved
11 with the public relations campaign associated with the rollout
12 of the Skadden Report in the United States?
13 A. Yes. In the United States, there were two specific firms
14 that were originally not hired for the Skadden Report, but it
15 became one of their tasks as kind of an overall strategic plan
16 for consulting in Washington, D.C.
17 Q. Let me show you what's been admitted as Government's
18 Exhibit 166. Should be on your screen, but, hopefully, you
19 also have it in front of you.
20 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ: And if we can zoom in. Thank
21 you.
23 Q. What are we looking at in Government's Exhibit 166?
24 A. This is an email from me to most of the individuals from
25 both teams here in the U.S., and then it also includes some of
1 our European firms that were hired.
2 Q. Who were the teams in the U.S. that you were dealing with
3 here?
4 A. The two in the U.S. were Mercury consulting and the Podesta
5 Group.
6 Q. And you said there were some Europeans in here as well?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And what kind of firm or group were they associated with?
9 A. So, in Europe we used a series of bigger firms,
10 Burson-Marsteller, FleishmanHillard. And they were tasked with
11 the same thing but just doing it in Europe.
12 Q. And how about Ms. Ina Kirsch? Who was she with?
13 A. Ms. Ina Kirsch was the executive director of an
14 organization called the European Centre for a Modern Ukraine.
15 Q. And why was she being copied on this?
16 A. Ina was part of the kind of governing group that hired the
17 European consultants on behalf of the client.
18 Q. So taking a look at the actual body of the email that you
19 wrote. You write here, at the bottom of the first paragraph,
20 "The names you provide will be potentially put into direct
21 contact with the lawyers working on the case for background
22 information, Q&A, and interviews/meetings."
23 Can you explain what you were trying to convey in
24 that sentence?
25 A. Yes. At that time, we were going through kind of different

1 iterations of how we would run a public relations and
2 government relations campaign. Part of the original plan,
3 although it changed, was that lawyers from Skadden would do
4 background briefings on their report and their work. And the
5 reasoning for that was that there would be no better group to
6 be able to talk about their work than the group that actually
7 did the work.
8 Q. Now, you mentioned public relations and government
9 relations. Are those two separate things?
10 A. Yes. Kind of in the way that we set up the strategic plan,
11 there were kind of two components. There was clearly the
12 public relations component. But, just as important was the
13 government relations component, and that was ensuring that,
14 particularly leaders in the west, in Europe, were apprised of
15 the Report and knew of its findings and conclusions.
16 Q. And, if you know, what was the idea behind using these
17 companies for this purpose?
18 A. Yeah. These companies had contacts, both in the public
19 relations world, they knew journalists, some had actually
20 worked for some of the publications that we were looking at.
21 So, it was a way of setting up kind of a very methodical way of
22 reaching out to people, both in the public relations world and
23 the government relations world, with some built-in
24 relationships to help foster the project through.
25 Q. And, finally, is the date of this email June 24th, 2012?

1 A. Yes, it is.
2 Q. All right.
3 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ: You can take that down.
5 Q. Now, let me ask you, Mr. Gates, during this project, did
6 you have much contact with Mr. Greg Craig?
7 A. No, I didn't have much direct contact. I think I met with
8 Mr. Craig a total of five times, sometimes in different
9 matters. But, that was, I think, the extent of it. And then
10 some emails and communications.
11 Q. Okay. And would you recognize him, though?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And do you see him in the courtroom here today?
14 A. I do.
15 Q. Can you tell us where he's seated and what he's wearing?
16 A. He is a wearing a blue suit and -- it looks like a sort of
17 red tie. He's sitting right over there (indicating.)
18 THE COURT: All right. The record will reflect he's
19 referring to the defendant.
21 Q. If you know, who was the main contact between your firm and
22 Mr. Craig?
23 A. Mr. Manafort.
24 Q. Okay. Now, without telling us about the actual statements,
25 would you find out about those contacts that Mr. Manafort had
1 with Mr. Craig?
2 A. Yes. The ones that he informed me of, I did.
3 Q. So he would brief you on them?
4 A. Yes, he would.
5 Q. And why were you briefed on those?
6 A. I was briefed because a lot of the conversations between he
7 and Mr. Craig resulted in action items that I and other people
8 on the team had to carry out.
9 Q. And I think you said it, but just to be clear. So, who was
10 your main point of contact at Skadden, if you had one?
11 A. Mine, it was Alex van der Zwaan, who is an attorney for
12 Skadden.
13 Q. And for FTI, who would have been your main point of
14 contact?
15 A. FTI, it was Jonathan Hawker.
16 Q. Now, let me ask you, did you, personally, have some
17 opportunities to discuss the media rollout plan with Mr. Craig?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Tell us about that.
20 A. Sure. The first was early on in the project, in which we
21 had a very general discussion about a potential media plan and
22 government relations plan in terms of what Mr. Craig might do
23 specifically. It was broad in nature. Although --
24 MS. JUNGHANS: Objection. Leading. Time and place.
25 THE COURT: Well, he's talking about at the first

1 meeting. The direct is allowed to conduct its direct.
2 All right. You can continue your answer.
3 A. Okay. Timeframe, I think it was June, July.
4 The -- following that, there was a second meeting in
5 September, in New York, which I was part of a group that met
6 Mr. Craig; and at which time, we also had discussions on public
7 relations and government relations.
9 Q. Okay. So, let me ask you, first, do you have a
10 recollection of the defendant ever suggesting that a reporter
11 be used as part of the media rollout plan?
12 A. I do.
13 Q. Tell us about that recollection.
14 A. Yeah. The first recollection is that Mr. Craig had named a
15 reporter from The New York Times as somebody that might be
16 interested in writing this and that he had a specific
17 relationship with that could -- he could reach out to and help
18 with that effort.
19 Q. Did he explain to you how he knew that reporter?
20 A. He just said, historically.
21 Q. And do you recall the name?
22 A. The name was David Sanger.
23 Q. And in terms of when you first heard Mr. Craig mention
24 that, is that in relationship to the second meeting at the
25 Harvard Club? Or was that in relation to the first meeting

1 earlier, that you just were talking about?
2 A. The first mention was at the first meeting. And then it
3 came up in more detail in the second meeting, in December.
4 Q. When Mr. Craig mentioned Mr. Sanger for the first time, did
5 you do anything about it?
6 A. Yes. Later on I looked up Mr. Sanger, because one of the
7 things that both our firm and FTI were trying to determine, how
8 good of a reporter Mr. Sanger was, and kind of the general
9 areas of topics that he covered in his reporting.
10 Q. And when you say you looked him up, what does that mean?
11 A. Sure. Basically, did a Google search, just to see, you
12 know, who he was and kind of his expertise.
13 Q. Okay. And do you recall anything else that Mr. -- I'm
14 sorry -- that Mr. Craig said about Mr. Sanger about why he
15 could be a good reporter for this?
16 A. He said that Mr. Sanger is a tough reporter but a fair
17 reporter, and that we wouldn't necessarily get a positive
18 article, but we would get a good article, and he was very
19 credible in the space. And that would, you know, obviously,
20 help with our PR strategy.
21 Q. Moving on to a slightly different topic.
22 Was there a specific strategy about how the Report
23 would be released?
24 A. Yes. The idea behind our PR strategy is -- it was that if
25 we were able to get a first article, and not knowing if the

1 article was going to be positive or neutral, the idea was that
2 most of the other reporters would follow the lead off of that.
3 And that's kind of a very common practice. Journalists
4 typically don't like to do all of their own legwork, so they
5 borrow from other reporters.
6 And by getting a story in there that could actually
7 capture the essence of the Report, at least in a neutral way,
8 would be great for us and the client, because then the other
9 journalists would likely cover in that same fashion.
10 So it was kind of like a domino effect, where if you
11 get one good article, then a lot of the other articles would
12 follow suit.
13 Q. Now, Mr. Gates, who was the reporter that was ultimately
14 selected, in the United States, to be the person to get this
15 article?
16 MS. JUNGHANS: Objection. Selected by whom?
17 THE COURT: He gets to ask his questions. There's
18 no -- that's not an objectionable question.
19 Overruled.
20 Who was the reporter selected. If he asks him who
21 selected him, and if he doesn't know, then he won't be able to
22 answer. But, he can ask the question he asked.
23 Who was the reporter selected to be the one in the
24 United States?
25 THE WITNESS: The reporter selected was David Sanger

1 from The New York Times.
3 Q. Who made the decision to use Sanger of The New York Times?
4 A. Mr. Manafort.
5 Q. And --
6 MS. JUNGHANS: Objection. Move to strike. Hearsay.
7 THE COURT: Can you approach the bench?
9 THE COURT: You can talk, but we're just going to
10 talk up here.
12 THE COURT: It's not bringing in a statement of
13 Mr. Manafort for the truth of the matter asserted.
14 MS. JUNGHANS: Well, actually, I think it is. It's
15 him saying Manafort told him he chose David Sanger.
16 THE COURT: He is allowed to say, if he was at
17 meetings where decisions were made, that Mr. Manafort made the
18 decision.
19 MS. JUNGHANS: Well, but he didn't say he was at a
20 meeting where Mr. Manafort made a decision. He just said it
21 happened and he learned about it.
22 THE COURT: What's your response to that?
23 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ: So, he is in a lot of
24 meetings with Mr. Manafort. And, actually, I thought they
25 would like to hear that from his perspective, the person that
1 made the call that that would be the reporter that the story
2 would be seeded and leaked to was Mr. Manafort. That's who
3 made the call. And that's the instructions he received.
4 He's the one that -- we're going to get to the plan,
5 right, where Mr. Sanger is included. I'm going to get to the
6 document, and he's going to say, Yeah, I put that there, and I
7 put that there because Mr. Manafort told me. But I am going to
8 have some follow-up questions as to when that happened
9 time-wise. It's an instruction he received.
10 Who selected him?
11 Manafort did.
12 MS. JUNGHANS: No. No. An instruction is do
13 something. It's -- I mean, it may be right on the Report, but
14 to say Manafort told me to write this on the Report is one
15 thing. To say Manafort made the decision to choose the
16 reporter is a different thing.
17 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ: It's not a different thing.
18 MS. JUNGHANS: I think it is.
19 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ: He knows that because he had
20 the conversation. Somebody told him to do it and he did it.
21 THE COURT: All right. All right. I'm going to ask
22 if he was at a meeting where Manafort said, I made the
23 decision. This is my decision to do this, or if Manafort
24 simply told him that a decision had been made.

1 THE COURT: And then we'll go on from there. All
2 right.
3 MS. JUNGHANS: Okay. I mean, I'm trying not to jump
4 up. But, at the same time, I think we're getting a lot of
5 hearsay that's sort of sneaking in because he says -- you know,
6 he doesn't frame it, at least at first blush, as a hearsay
7 statement.
8 THE COURT: I think he's trying to frame it properly,
9 and sometimes the witness is answering the way a normal person
10 would answer, as opposed to a witness bound by the hearsay
11 rules.
12 MS. JUNGHANS: I understand that.
13 THE COURT: And so I think everybody is doing the
14 best they can here, and I don't think there's anything
15 nefarious going on. And with respect to objections, I think
16 some of them are relative to him and some aren't, and we're
17 trying to move along. And I will try to get to the bottom of
18 this particular objection before he's allowed to speak further
19 about it.
21 MS. JUNGHANS: Thank you, Your Honor.
22 (Open court:)
23 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Gates, just try to answer
24 my questions as directly as you can.
25 Were you at a meeting at which Mr. Manafort made a

1 decision about this issue?
2 THE WITNESS: I don't recall if it was a meeting or a
3 phone call, but he told me the decision.
4 THE COURT: So he told you what to do?
6 THE COURT: That Mr. Sanger would be the person?
7 THE WITNESS: Yes.
8 THE COURT: So you can't say, from your personal
9 knowledge, whether he made that decision or someone else told
10 him to do it and then he was carrying it on to you?
11 THE WITNESS: That is true, yes.
13 Ask your next question.
15 Q. All right. And, Mr. Gates, when Manafort gave you that
16 instruction, was that after Mr. Craig had suggested the name of
17 David Sanger previously?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Before the defendant mentioned Mr. Sanger, to your
20 knowledge, had Mr. Sanger ever been considered to be the
21 journalist to seed the Report?
23 Q. All right. Let's move on.
24 In the months before the release, was there more than
25 one PR plan produced?

1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Why were there multiple plans produced?
3 A. There were a lot of false starts with the release of the
4 Report. There were issues on multiple sides. And then as we
5 continued to get close to each release of the Report, the
6 Report was refined. There were additional firms added. So,
7 there was more skill sets brought to the overall strategic
8 effort. So it continued to kind of morph. It was kind of a
9 living, breathing document that we continued to work on.
10 Q. Now, through all of these multiple plans that you
11 described, did the strategy change, ever, about seeding the
12 Report to a journalist?
13 A. No, the strategy never changed about seeding the Report.
14 Q. All right. You told us a little bit about a meeting that
15 happened in New York.
16 A. Um-hum.
17 Q. Let's talk about that. Was that a meeting that you had in
18 person with the defendant and others?
19 A. It was.
20 Q. And do you recall approximately when that happened?
21 A. That was in late September.
22 Q. And where did that meeting take place?
23 A. It took place at the Harvard Club in New York City.
24 Q. What was the purpose of that meeting?
25 A. The purpose of the meeting was, in large part, to level set

1 on several issues.
2 THE COURT: Now you're using PR speak.
3 What is "level set"?
4 THE WITNESS: Sorry. Sorry.
5 It was a meeting that was called in order to review a
6 number of the topics that related both to the Report, the
7 Tymoshenko Report, in terms of its content, and then also for
8 the media and government relations rollout plan.
10 Q. Before the meeting took place, did you receive an updated
11 media rollout plan? Yeah. Before the meeting, did you receive
12 an updated media plan?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Let's take a look at Government's Exhibit 254 that is
15 already in evidence.
16 We can take a look at the top.
17 THE COURT: Is it 284 or 254?
18 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ: 2-5-4, Your Honor.
19 THE COURT: Okay.
21 Q. Do you recall this email, Mr. Gates?
22 A. I do.
23 Q. And what is this email?
24 A. This was an email sent by Mr. Hawker after a conversation
25 with Mr. Manafort and myself in regards to getting all the

1 documents out in advance of the meeting.
2 Q. And is Mr. Craig one of the recipients of Government's
3 Exhibit 254?
4 A. He is.
5 Q. If we can please take a look at page 2 of the exhibit.
6 What are -- and I'll zoom in.
7 But, what are we looking at here, if you recognize,
8 sir? Or do you want me to zoom in right now?
9 A. Yeah. This document is an agenda that was drafted by
10 Mr. Hawker, with help and input from me.
11 Q. And was this agenda followed at the meeting at the Harvard
12 Club?
13 A. Yes. I don't know if it was followed exactly by number,
14 but all the topics were covered at the meeting.
15 Q. And if you know from personal knowledge, was there a
16 meeting that took place before the Harvard Club meeting with
17 the other people that attended?
18 A. There was.
19 Q. And who was that meeting between?
20 A. Mr. Manafort and Mr. Craig.
21 Q. And when did that meeting happen?
22 A. That meeting happened prior to our meeting. It happened --
23 I believe it was the night before.
24 Q. Were you at that meeting?
25 A. I was not at that meeting.

1 Q. So you don't know what was discussed at that meeting?
2 A. I do not.
3 Q. All right. Do you know what the purpose was of having that
4 meeting?
5 A. Yes. Part of the purpose --
6 MS. JUNGHANS: Objection. Objection. Foundation.
7 THE COURT: Were you part of the planning of why
8 there -- why or whether there should be such a meeting?
9 THE WITNESS: Yes.
10 THE COURT: So, what did you understand the purpose
11 of the meeting to be?
12 THE WITNESS: The purpose of the meeting was for Paul
13 to talk to Mr. Craig in relation to some of the issues that had
14 come up that were raised by Mr. Hawker with respect to PR
15 specifically, and then also some of the content of the Report.
16 THE COURT: All right. I don't think we can talk
17 more about the meeting --
18 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ: No.
19 THE COURT: -- that he didn't attend. Okay.
20 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ: I do not intend to.
22 Q. All right. So, let's take a look at the agenda here.
23 And what is Point Number 1? What does that relate
24 to?
25 A. Point Number 1 is kind of an overall update on the status

1 of the actual report that was being prepared by Skadden.
2 Q. How about Point Number 2?
3 A. Point 2 was something that Mr. Hawker prepared. It was
4 called a -- just a message review. It was a series of
5 documents that went to explain to people externally what the
6 Report is about and what the conclusions were.
7 Q. How about Point Number 3?
8 A. Three was the PR plan, and that related to specific roles
9 of different parties.
10 Q. And as we look at Point B, what parties does that relate
11 to?
12 A. It relates to Skadden and Mr. Craig's roles.
13 Q. So what does that mean, when we see this in this -- when we
14 see this in the agenda as "PR Plan B, SKA/GC role"?
15 A. So, as we got closer to the rollout of the Report, we had
16 to refine and kind of nail down a number of the actions item in
17 the Report. And so part of the purpose of the meeting was to
18 specifically ask, you know, Mr. Craig what he was going to be
19 doing with respect to both the PR and GR portions of the Report
20 rollout.
21 Q. And if we could go a little further down. Points 4 and 5.
22 And when it reads "Ukraine activity," what does that
23 relate to?
24 A. So, the Ukraine activity was what was going to happen
25 internally from Ukraine, in terms of all the players that were

1 involved and what they would be doing in relation to the Report
2 rollout.
3 Q. And specifically -- now, let's talk about 5 and 5.B.
4 What does that relate to?
5 A. 5.B relates to the role that we were going to conduct with
6 respect to, kind of, the other Western groups. An
7 international plan that was a component of the overall
8 strategy.
9 Q. And if we could move down to Point 6.
10 Just generally, when it says "Skadden Arps reaction,"
11 what does that relate to?
12 A. So there were a number of issues that had come up with
13 respect to Skadden's contract with the Ministry of Justice, and
14 then specifically on the independence of the Report and how it
15 was going to be viewed by the international community.
16 So part of the action items that Jonathan prepared --
17 or, excuse me -- some of the documents he prepared were kind
18 of -- just kind of Q&A, questions and answers, of if certain
19 things came up, how would any of us respond to those questions.
20 Q. And where it says in 6.B "fees," what does that relate to?
21 A. Yes. There was an issue early on with respect to the way
22 that the government was looking at contracting with Skadden.
23 It had a procurement process that it had to abide by. And as a
24 way to not address that, they lowered the Skadden fees
25 considerably early on, and there were issues with respect to

1 external parties that thought the fees were too low. And, so,
2 that became a talking point --
4 THE COURT: There's been a lot of testimony about
5 this already and documents about this. He asked him what the
6 issue was, and he's saying the issue was that external people
7 were complaining about it. I think he can say that. I don't
8 think he can --
9 MS. JUNGHANS: Well, Your Honor, I think he's just
10 citing an awful lot of information.
11 THE COURT: All right. Let's talk at the bench.
13 MS. JUNGHANS: He said -- he just began to say,
14 "External parties thought." He's -- I'm trying not to
15 interrupt, but he's recounting everybody's opinions, everybody
16 else's views. And I don't think he should be doing this.
17 THE COURT: He's saying this is an issue, this is an
18 issue because external parties were complaining about it and
19 being public about the complaints about it, all of which is
20 already in the record in great detail, and which Skadden
21 witnesses have testified about.
22 MS. JUNGHANS: Well, actually, they haven't; they've
23 just read a bunch of documents.
24 THE COURT: No. It came up with Mr. Haskell. He
25 didn't just read documents. It's come up. It's out there. I
1 don't think -- I think it was just about -- the end of the
2 point was that there were issues where people externally had
3 expressed concerns about the fees. Those documents are in
4 evidence.
5 And all he can say is, We were figuring out how we
6 were going to address the issue, and I don't think that's
7 hearsay. It doesn't get to the truth of the matter. It's a
8 fact that people were talking, and that they had to figure out
9 what they were going to do about it.
10 MS. JUNGHANS: Well, if he wants to say it that
11 way --
12 THE COURT: That's what he said.
13 MS. JUNGHANS: I'm sorry, Your Honor. I'm not
14 hearing it that way.
15 THE COURT: All right. I heard it that way. Well, I
16 don't think he -- he wasn't speaking for the truth of what
17 Mr. Vlasenko complained about. He just said people had
18 complained.
19 MS. JUNGHANS: Right. But then he's saying, you
20 know, decisions were made to structure the arrangement in a
21 certain way, decisions that he didn't make, that, apparently,
22 he's trying to convey what other people wanted to do and the
23 purpose for what they wanted to do it.
24 THE COURT: Where it's set up, where we were at, they
25 were dealing with this issue. So, I think we can -- I mean,

1 again, The dispute about the size and the nature of the fees
2 was something that you wanted to discuss at the meeting? He
3 can ask that leading question, and then we can go on.
4 MS. JUNGHANS: Very well. Thank you.
6 (Open court:)
8 Q. Mr. Gates, was the issue of Skadden fees and how was that
9 perceived or talked about, was that one of the issues that was
10 planned to be discussed at the Harvard Club meeting?
11 A. It was.
12 Q. All right. So let's move on to the master control grid
13 that was also sent to you by Mr. Hawker.
14 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ: We can look at page 3 from
15 the exhibit, and the top of page 4 -- yes -- 6, 7, and 8.
17 Q. So, Mr. Gates, when we're looking at line 7, "2000 project
18 team engagement with Bloomberg," and then below that, "GC/SKA,"
19 what does that mean?
20 A. So, at that time, we had looked at using a couple of
21 different reporters, including Mr. Sanger and Bloomberg. We
22 had put this, in this case, into the grid, that Mr. Craig and
23 Skadden would engage with them to, basically, do a kind of
24 pre-briefing on the Report.
25 Q. And was that one of the items that was discussed at the
1 Harvard Club meeting?
2 A. It was.
3 Q. And what do you recall Mr. Craig saying at the Harvard Club
4 meeting?
5 A. Prior to the meeting, and part of the reason for the
6 meeting, Mr. Craig had showed some concern about doing media
7 events. When we got to the meeting on the 23rd, we were
8 looking at a very detailed plan, in terms of the exact number
9 of reporters and politicians that Mr. Craig might be doing
10 engagement with.
11 Q. Okay. And what do you recall the defendant saying about
12 that issue at the meeting?
13 A. At that time, he was -- in the end, he was willing to do
14 David Sanger, but wanted to significantly reduce the amount of
15 contact he had with, primarily, media.
16 Q. So what was your perception of the defendant at the
17 meeting, in terms of his willingness to help with the PR?
19 THE COURT: All right. What did he say about whether
20 he was willing or not?
21 THE WITNESS: He was willing on specific things, but
22 not nearly the number of things that we had hoped and planned
23 for.
25 Q. Did you take some notes at the meeting?

1 A. I did take notes.
2 Q. And what was your focus when you were taking notes at the
3 meeting?
4 A. The -- we knew the meeting -- or, I knew the meeting was
5 going to be complex, given the agenda. So, I wanted to make
6 sure that we tried to codify, as much as possible, both related
7 to the content of the Report and any action items that were
8 going to result from discussions on PR and other matters.
9 Q. All right. Let's take a look at Government's Exhibit 258.
10 It's already in evidence.
11 And then we can look first at the bottom part of the
12 email.
13 What are we looking at there?
14 A. This is an email from Jonathan Hawker to me, requesting if
15 he could see the notes that I had taken at the meeting.
16 Q. And do you respond to Mr. Hawker?
17 A. I did.
18 Q. And what did you tell him?
19 A. I said, "Here you go. You might not understand all of it,
20 but this is my shorthand."
21 Q. So let's take a look at page 2 of this exhibit.
22 And are these some of the notes that you took?
23 A. Yes, they are.
24 Q. Okay. Let's focus first on the top.
25 THE COURT: Were you typing at the meeting or did you

1 type up handwritten notes after the meeting?
2 THE WITNESS: I was typing at the meeting.
4 Q. And the top reads, "Tymoshenko Report." And then it says,
5 "media strategy."
6 So, what is this section we're looking at here?
7 A. So, this specific section actually goes a little bit beyond
8 media. But, the idea was for Jonathan and I specifically to
9 capture as much action-oriented material about the PR plan,
10 because we were continuing to update it and we needed to refine
11 it. And, again, even from this point it changed multiple
12 times. But, we wanted to make sure that we captured as much as
13 possible from Mr. Craig at the meeting.
14 Q. And when you say "from Mr. Craig" -- so, when you write
15 "The single biggest issue for us," and what follows, who was
16 saying that?
17 A. So that piece, I believe that was Mr. Craig had made
18 that -- or, you know, had made a comment that I -- I took notes
19 on right here.
20 Q. How about the second issue? "The other issue is the
21 witness issue"?
22 A. Mr. Craig, as well.
23 Q. How about the third line? "This was not 'selective and/or
24 political' prosecution"?
25 A. I believe that was Mr. Craig, as well.

1 Q. And when it says "GC, he has a preamble that 'Ukraine did a
2 good job overall in the trial process,'" who was saying that?
3 A. That was Mr. Craig.
4 Q. Well, let me ask you, do you recall any of these that were
5 not Mr. Craig's?
6 A. Yes. Let's see.
7 Q. Want you to focus in on the middle of the page?
8 A. Yeah. I'm sorry. I can't read.
9 What exhibit is it?
10 Q. It says 258. You should have a hardcopy in front of you,
11 as well.
12 A. All right. The line with "The new CPC will fix a number of
13 these issues," I believe that was Mr. Manafort. CPC related to
14 their criminal procedure code. They were going through a
15 series of judicial reforms, and this was one of the items that
16 was discussed.
17 Q. Okay.
18 A. The next line, "We need a list of hypothetical Q&As," was
19 Mr. Hawker.
20 Q. And, I'm sorry. Which line is that?
21 A. Sorry. "We need a list of hypothetical Q&As to address
22 major issues."
23 Q. The very next line after the one you were just reading?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. So that was Mr. Hawker?

1 A. Mr. Hawker.
2 I'm not quite certain about the next line. I believe
3 that was Mr. Craig, but can't be certain.
4 Q. The one that days --
5 A. Yeah. "Yulia Tymoshenko got two witnesses that were not on
6 the witness list."
7 Q. Okay.
8 A. "The key is to know the facts of the case and to
9 structure," again, that was my shorthand for things that
10 Mr. Craig was saying about the Report.
11 The next line, "She was behaving the way she did for
12 political and PR purposes of Mr. Craig."
13 Same with the next line, "Opposition politicians have
14 been on trial."
15 And then the next line, I believe, was Mr. Manafort.
16 "We need to use the facts of the Report to define and fill the
17 holes that Yulia Tymoshenko had created via a PR campaign."
18 Same with the next line, it was Mr. Manafort. "Not
19 using Ukraine law, but using Western thinking and standards
20 to -- to address the Report."
21 Q. Okay.
22 A. And then, I think it -- I believe it picks up back with
23 Mr. Craig. "The absence of a jury trial does not diminish the
24 case and is not required for a fair trial."
25 Q. Let's look at -- you have an item that says just "Issues."

1 What is -- at the bottom.
2 What is that about. What are those issues about?
3 A. Yep. So these issues, again, were in the context of the
4 meeting, and things that needed to be fixed with the Report.
5 In one case, it was a translation. And then we needed to
6 review the four conclusions in the Report. And then there were
7 some ideas discussed. One of them was looking at, you know, in
8 terms of how the Report could, you know, cause a review of the
9 judge, the lawyer to file an application in the case.
10 Q. Can we go to the next page?
11 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ: Zoom in.
12 Thank you.
14 Q. What are we looking at here under the title PR Items?
15 A. Yeah. So this was a meeting -- at the point of the meeting
16 where we were able to refine the PR section of the Report and
17 how we talked about it. So, out of that came a number of
18 action items that we took away from the meeting and began
19 inputting into both the Report and, you know, executing the
20 action items.
21 Q. So are these potential action items you are listing below?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. So the first line says, "Hawker, RG-AVZ to link up SA PR
24 person."
25 What does that mean?

1 A. Yep. One of the items that we had agreed to, as you can
2 see in the next line, was to put the Report online, on the
3 Skadden website. So, the task was for myself, Mr. Hawker, and
4 Mr. van der Zwaan to link up with the designated Skadden Arps
5 PR communications director and coordinate when that report
6 would go up online.
7 Q. In the next it says, "September 27, GC will be in Cairo for
8 the week."
9 What does that have to do with PR items?
10 A. Yeah. So, we had talked about the rollout of the Report,
11 and specifically focusing on debriefings that Mr. Craig would
12 give, both with some reporters and some politicians. And I
13 made note of that because we were trying to coordinate with his
14 travel schedule, to see if he could do some of those meetings
15 in Europe, on his way back from Cairo.
16 Q. Well, let's go for a second to the last line. It says, "GC
17 to possibly meet with Fule in transit to Europe."
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. What is that?
20 A. Yeah. So, Stefan Fule was in charge of the committee that,
21 basically, processes requests to join the European Union. So,
22 one of the meetings that we wanted -- or, Mr. Manafort wanted
23 to set up for Mr. Craig was to have him meet and debrief
24 Mr. Fule. An opportunity to do that was going to be in
25 transit, when Mr. Craig was coming back from Cairo.

1 Q. And the line that says "KK to get Hawker the information on
2 the financing of SA by MOJ," what does that relate to?
3 A. Yeah. So, "KK" refers to a colleague on the ground that
4 worked for Mr. Manafort. And this was in relation to that fees
5 issue. KK was the point person on the ground in Ukraine
6 dealing with the Ministry of Justice to try to fix the
7 contractual language with respect to Skadden and the contract
8 with the Ministry of Justice.
9 Q. That related to the fees?
10 A. It related to the fees, yes.
11 Q. And let me ask you --
12 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ: We can zoom out now.
14 Q. There is no mention of either Sanger or any other
15 journalist in this list.
16 A. Correct, not in the notes.
17 Q. And why not?
18 A. We had discussions. It was -- I was aware of Sanger and
19 Mr. Hawker was aware of Sanger. There was no need to put it
20 into the notes specifically. You know, we tend to keep it
21 updated in the grid. The key for us from that meeting was to
22 determine how much and to what extent Mr. Craig would be
23 willing to take on some of the roles that we had outlined.
24 Q. And after the meeting, was Mr. Craig willing to do some of
25 those?
1 A. He was.
2 Q. And what was that?
3 A. Well, specifically, he continued to reach out to
4 Mr. Sanger. And then he agreed to certain key politicians in
5 Europe, but had significantly reduced the number of people that
6 we had wanted him to reach out to.
7 Q. Now, sir, do you know if Mr. Craig changed his mind after
8 the Harvard Club meeting?
9 A. I do not.
10 Q. And this relates to something I asked you earlier. But,
11 after the Harvard Club meeting, were additional media plans
12 prepared?
13 A. There were.
14 Q. And was that for the same reasons you outlined previously?
15 A. Yes. So, again, as we continued to go through different
16 iterations, and until the Report was released, we just kept
17 making changes to it.
18 Q. So, in addition to FTI, were other firms at this time
19 working to potentially help out with the Skadden release?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Who were those?
22 A. In the United States, it was Podesta and Mercury; and then
23 in Europe, it was a series of firms that we had hired.
24 Q. Let's look at Government's Exhibit 281, already in
25 evidence.
1 What is this email, sir?
2 A. So, this is a document that I had requested of the two U.S.
3 firms specifically, and had sent this document to Mr. Hawker.
4 Q. Okay. And the subject line says, "Matrix-actions." And
5 then attachments, "D.C. consultants plan 9-28-1012."
6 What does that -- we see "D.C. consultants plan."
8 A. As we got closer to the release of the Report, I was
9 directed to Mr. Manafort to reach out to both firms, ask them
10 who they thought should get a copy of the Report, and
11 potentially be debriefed by, you know, somebody either at
12 Skadden or the government or somebody collectively involved in
13 the project.
14 So, it pertained specifically to, basically, the
15 relationships that the two firms in D.C. had, both in the PR
16 sphere and in the government relations sphere.
17 Q. And why did you send this to Mr. Hawker?
18 A. I sent it to Mr. Hawker because he was keeping the master
19 control grid. So, this was just, again, kind of additional
20 information that we had collected from the consultants that was
21 going to go into the overall strategic plan.
22 Q. Can we then take a look at Page Number 2.
23 And what are we looking at at the top, where it says,
24 "Engage Ukraine, project map, Washington, D.C. consultants"?
25 A. So, the Engage Ukraine was kind of a bigger banner for

1 spearheading a project that would kind of target both U.S.
2 legislators and U.S. media with respect to Ukraine's overall
3 effort. So it went beyond the Skadden Report, but the Skadden
4 Report was a component of it.
5 Q. An there is an item line to the left that says, "Skadden
6 Report," and then it has some action items. Do you see?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. It reads, "Finalize report release strategy for the U.S.
9 Identify key reporter and outlet that can 'leak' story,
10 possibly Bloomberg, but this needs to be vetted and ensure we
11 get a balanced piece."
12 What does that relate to? What does that mean?
13 A. Yep. So, at this point in the project, Mr. Manafort had
14 directed me and Mr. Hawker to keep the idea of potentially
15 using David Sanger off any material that was going back and
16 forth between the two D.C. firms. We had not, you know, fully
17 finalized the plan yet. And just as a precaution, Mr. Manafort
18 didn't want it to leak out that we might --
20 THE COURT: All right. He told you not to put the
21 name?
25 Q. I just want to make sure we're clear.

1 So, without telling us what somebody else told you,
2 was there a reason that Sanger's name was not included here?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And who gave you that instruction?
5 A. Mr. Manafort.
7 THE COURT: Well, he just -- it's repeated.
8 But, all right. Ask your next question.
9 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ: Yes, Your Honor.
11 Q. Now, do you recall, as you sit here today, when the Sanger
12 name first made it into any of the media plans?
13 A. I recall it was later in the game, in terms of actually
14 getting onto paper.
15 Q. You're not sure?
16 A. I'm not sure of the specific date.
17 Q. Do you know a woman by the name of Lucy-Claire Saunders?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Who is she?
20 A. Lucy-Claire Saunders was a -- or, is a -- was an associate
21 with one of the firms that we used, Mercury Consulting.
22 Q. Okay. And who was the principal at Mercury that you worked
23 with?
24 A. Vin Weber.
25 Q. And did Ms. Saunders have any responsibility for the

1 Skadden Report?
2 A. Yes. Ms. Saunders was tasked as the point person for
3 Mercury that would coordinate the Mercury activity for the
4 Skadden Report.
5 Q. And if we can look at Government's Exhibit 306, already in
6 evidence.
7 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ: And if we can zoom in on the
8 top part of the document.
10 Q. Do you recognize this document?
11 A. I do.
12 Q. What is it?
13 A. This is a document that Ms. Saunders prepared on behalf of
14 representing the European Centre for a Modern Ukraine, in terms
15 of the rollout of the Skadden Report and how strategically it
16 would work, in terms of the first article. And then the
17 subsequent actions that we took.
18 Q. And is Sanger's name included here?
19 A. It is.
20 Q. As well as Mr. Hunt?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. As you sit here today, do you know whose idea it was to
23 suggest Al Hunt of Bloomberg?
24 A. I do.
25 Q. Who was it?

1 A. It was Mr. Weber.
2 Q. All right.
5 Q. Let's move on to the Report release.
6 Do you recall, sitting here today, when was it that
7 you notified others about the release of the Report?
8 A. I think we notified them on multiple times because we
9 thought there were going to be different releases. But,
10 ultimately, it was the end of November, at which point we had
11 tentatively been given the green light to release in early
12 December.
13 Q. Okay. Can we take a look at Government's Exhibit 316,
14 already in evidence.
15 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ: And can we focus in on the
16 bottom part?
18 Q. Do you recognize that, sir?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And what is it?
21 A. This is an email from me to members of the PR team. And it
22 was to set up a conference call because we had been given the
23 green light to release the Report. So, we were actually going
24 to, finally, take action.
25 Q. And who gave you the green light to notify others that the
1 Report was coming?
3 Q. And -- I'm sorry?
4 A. Mr. Manafort.
5 Q. Okay.
6 And, did the media rollout, at this point, still rely
7 on seeding as a strategy?
8 A. It did.
9 Q. And at this point, who was the reporter that was going to
10 be used in the U.S. for that seeding strategy?
11 A. At this point, to my knowledge, it was Mr. Sanger.
12 Q. Let's take a look at Government's Exhibit 322.
13 Do you recognize 322?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And what is this email?
16 A. So, as we built out the plan, at the time of the release,
17 we had to get very specific. So, this is an email that
18 Mr. Hawker sent to me in regards to what we considered Phase
19 One. And that was kind of the immediate, first contact with
20 the reporter. And then from there, it would expand to the
21 other journalists that we had identified.
22 Q. And when you say "Phase One," what does that mean?
23 A. Phase One, we believed that there were going to be multiple
24 phases to this project, to the PR plan. So Phase One, again,
25 was the immediate, first contact with that first reporter. And
1 then there was a tier of select reporters in key jurisdictions
2 that we identified that we wanted to make sure that we got to
3 very early in the process.
4 Q. If you look at the second page of this exhibit.
5 What are we looking at here?
6 A. So, this is that first waive of, Here are the key reporters
7 in each of the jurisdictions, and publications that we were
8 going to reach out to once the Report was launched.
9 Q. And for the United States, who's now listed as being that
10 reporter?
11 A. David Sanger.
12 Q. And if we go back to the email, that is as of which date?
13 A. The date is December 6.
14 Q. Let me ask you, sir, did the defendant have a role to play
15 in the media rollout plan that you were -- well, let me ask you
16 this first: What was your role now for the actual rollout?
17 What were you charged with doing?
18 A. So, my role was to coordinate the activity between FTI and
19 then with some of my colleagues on the ground in Ukraine, in
20 terms of the other agencies. And then, also, it had to deal
21 with the two D.C. firms, Podesta and Mercury, that I had to
22 coordinate with as well.
23 Q. Okay. And as part of -- as part of your role, did you come
24 to know whether the defendant himself had a role to play in the
25 media PR plan?
1 A. I did.
3 THE COURT: Well, did you know whether he had a role
4 to play in the PR plan that you were coordinating?
5 THE WITNESS: Yes.
6 THE COURT: Ask your next question.
8 Q. What was the role?
9 A. That role was to pre-brief the reporter from The New York
10 Times, David Sanger, on the Report, at which point it would be
11 an embargoed article. But, it would be the first article out
12 of the gate for the project.
13 Q. All right. And --
14 THE COURT: What does "embargoed" mean?
15 THE WITNESS: Embargoed means that you give the
16 reporter material in advance of putting it out publicly, and
17 then you allow that reporter a period of time to write a story
18 before anybody else can write the story. So, it gives them
19 kind of first crack at writing that story.
21 Q. All right. And, Mr. Gates, did you expect the
22 on-the-record interview by Mr. Craig to be this glowing
23 endorsement of Ukraine?
25 THE COURT: Overruled.

1 A. No, we didn't, actually.
3 Q. Why? Why not?
4 A. Mr. Craig made very clear that, you know, he didn't know
5 how David Sanger might write the Report. He was a tough
6 reporter, he described. It didn't necessarily mean we were
7 going to get a positive report, but we would hopefully get a
8 neutral report. But, given the credibility of The New York
9 Times and Mr. Sanger, it was worth the risk to look at using a
10 credible reporter like that.
11 Q. And were some of your consultants, to your knowledge,
12 opposed to the idea of releasing the Report?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And why was that?
15 A. One of the --
17 THE COURT: All right. Okay.
18 Approach the bench.
20 THE COURT: I think he can say whether anyone
21 objected to the release. If they objected to him, that's not a
22 statement of fact, that's a statement of an opinion, "I
23 object."
24 So, if he has personal knowledge that anyone didn't
25 think it should be released, why can't he say that?

1 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ: And, Your Honor, and to add
2 to this, part of the reason I'm asking this question is, the
3 defense has made it abundantly clear that they intended to ask
4 Mr. Gates about the fact that others at Mercury and/or Podesta
5 had opposed the public relations report because, according to
6 them, it was such a glowing endorsement of the pro-Tymoshenko
7 camp.
8 And, so, I'm getting out the fact that he knew about
9 that and, still, the decision went forward to release the
10 Report.
11 MS. JUNGHANS: That's true. But when I tried to --
12 THE COURT: But the decision to release the Report
13 wasn't necessarily his decision to make, so --
14 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ: It was not. But --
15 THE COURT: So the question you asked initially was:
16 Did you -- did you know -- did you expect that the Sanger
17 article was going to be a glowing endorsement?
18 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ: Correct.
19 THE COURT: And then the next question was: Did you
20 know whether any consultants objected to releasing the Report?
21 And I think he can say whether he did or he didn't
22 and whether they did or they didn't. I don't think he can
23 opine as to their reasons because --
24 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ: Right. I'm not intending to
25 ask about the reasons.

1 MS. JUNGHANS: Right, I agree that they can't. But,
2 when we tried to elicit testimony, even if there was objection,
3 we were precluded from offering it.
4 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ: That's not true.
5 MS. JUNGHANS: I don't think so.
6 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ: That is not true. That is
7 not correct.
8 MS. JUNGHANS: Well, then I will be able to explore
9 with him, I assume, not only that they objected, but why they
10 objected.
11 THE COURT: So you're going to ask for all the
12 hearsay you just --
13 MS. JUNGHANS: Well, I don't want to. But -- but, I
14 mean, I -- there's obviously an effort going on here to make
15 Mr. Gates's testimony as short and nondescriptive as possible.
16 THE COURT: There's nothing wrong with that. But,
17 okay.
18 MS. JUNGHANS: Well, that's neither here nor there.
19 And I just think that, you know, if we're not going
20 to air these issues altogether, we shouldn't air them at all.
21 THE COURT: You have injected them into this trial,
22 in great detail. You've actually called your own witnesses
23 during the course of the government's case to make sure that
24 this issue got fully vetted. So, the fact that the Report
25 wasn't a glowing endorsement of the Yanukovych regime and the

1 Tymoshenko trial is a significant --
2 MS. JUNGHANS: It is.
3 THE COURT: -- part of your case. So, to say he
4 can't ask this question now, and perhaps taking the sting out
5 of what's coming, is a pretty legitimate thing to do.
6 MS. JUNGHANS: Right. Right.
7 THE COURT: And I think the question was -- and he
8 can bring it without saying what they said -- were you aware
9 that any consultants objected to the release of the Report at
10 all, and then go on to the next question.
11 MS. JUNGHANS: All right. Thank you.
12 (Open court:)
14 Q. Mr. Gates, without telling us why or what they said, were
15 some of the consultants opposed to the release of the Skadden
16 report?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Were those opinions communicated to Mr. Manafort?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Was a decision made to go forward anyway?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Now, who, if anybody, was responsible for notifying
23 Mr. Craig that the Report had gotten a green light and was
24 about to be released?
25 A. My recollection was Mr. Hawker.

1 Q. Do you know or do you remember if Mr. Hawker did that?
2 A. He did.
4 A. Because I was copied on an email that he sent.
5 Q. All right. We're going to get to some of those emails.
6 But, let me first ask you about Government's Exhibit 327, also
7 in evidence.
8 And what are we -- well, let's look at the bottom
9 part first.
10 Is that an email from you on December the 10th?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. The subject reads what?
13 A. "Master grid."
14 Q. What is this document that is attached to this email as
15 master grid?
16 A. So, this is a document that Mr. Hawker had largely created,
17 the document that we continued to refine over many months. And
18 this was the final grid prior to release date that we then
19 circulated to some of our other PR consultants.
20 Q. And did you, yourself, help to sort of craft or create this
21 document?
22 A. I did.
23 Q. All right. Let's first look at what's on the side.
24 And what is it?
25 A. The right-hand side is a legend that we just prepared

1 because we knew this grid was now going to be viewed by other
2 parties. So, it was just simply a way to explain to them which
3 groups were responsible for which actions.
4 Q. And this master control grid, is this sort of the last one
5 before the release?
6 A. I believe it is, yes.
7 Q. And that -- I mean, if you want to look at it, December the
8 10th is when you sent it?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Is that on or about --
11 A. Yeah, that would be the last one.
12 Q. All right. We can come out.
13 And let me focus, now, your attention on lines -- oh,
14 I'm sorry -- starting on December the 12th, Wednesday, through
15 the end of the page.
16 What are we looking at here, this part of the
17 document?
18 A. So, this is -- announcement day is A Day. So, that was
19 going to be Thursday morning. And then this reflects the
20 pre-briefing of Mr. Sanger and the embargo of the article prior
21 to the Report actually being publicly released.
22 Q. And, so, when we look at the 1300 hours, when it says "FTI
23 and GC," can you read what it says?
24 A. Yes.
25 "The Report will be given to David Sanger of The New

1 York Times, who will have an exclusive on the material for 24
2 hours."
3 Q. And if we go look at the next line, 1900.
4 What are the initials there?
5 A. "GC" is Greg Craig.
6 Q. Okay. And what does it say?
7 A. It says, "Greg Craig will give a on-recorder interview with
8 The New York Times."
9 Q. Is that a misspelling?
10 A. I think that was Mr. Hawker, yes.
11 Q. Okay.
12 And then what does it say under that?
13 A. "Sanger will write an article to be placed in The New York
14 Times that will be released Thursday morning, midnight."
15 Q. And then when was the release supposed to take place?
16 A. The release was supposed to take place at 7 a.m.
17 Q. So, above that, where we were reading, it says, "List to
18 include the following individuals: Barosso, Fule, Schultz,
19 Obama, Boehner, Reid," and then it lists those.
20 Did that happen?
21 A. To my knowledge, the -- not all of them did.
22 Q. Which actually happened, if you know?
23 A. The only one I'm aware is Mr. Fule.
24 Q. Okay. Was somebody actually supposed to talk to
25 President Obama at the time?

1 A. I think it was more of his staff. I don't think it was him
2 directly.
3 Q. So not President Obama himself?
4 A. The representative of the Obama administration.
5 Q. Okay. All right.
8 Q. All right. Did Mr. Craig carry on those tasks as
9 identified in the media -- in the master control grid?
10 A. Some of them.
11 Q. Okay. Well, specifically as it relates to Mr. Sanger and
12 The New York Times?
13 A. Yes, that did occur.
14 Q. Had other tasks been assigned, according to the master
15 control grid, to Mr. Craig?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. What were those?
18 A. A good number of them were for Mr. Craig to pre-brief
19 politicians -- key politicians, primarily in Europe. And, to
20 my knowledge, none of those occurred.
21 Q. Now, did anybody from Skadden serve in as a stand-in for
22 Mr. Craig related to those efforts?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Who was that?
25 A. Mr. van der Zwaan.

1 Q. And who did Mr. van der Zwaan talk to?
2 A. He talked to a gentleman, Aleksander Kaczynski, who is the
3 former president of Poland.
4 Q. And what was Mr. Kaczynski's role at the time?
5 A. At the time, he was a large proponent of Ukraine entering
6 into the European Union. And he was also tasked with writing
7 a, kind of, independent report on behalf of Europe to the
8 European Commission on Ukraine, and its ability to get into the
9 European Union.
10 Q. And why was it important to brief him about the contents of
11 the Skadden Report?
12 A. He played a key role. So, out of all the European
13 politicians, maybe outside of Mr. Barosso, who was president at
14 the time, it was extremely important get to Mr. Kaczynski
15 because he had a significant role in discussing the future of
16 Ukraine in the European Union.
17 Q. Was Mr. Craig aware of the fact that Mr. van der Zwaan was
18 going to be doing this briefing of this high-ranking
19 politician?
20 A. Yes, he was.
21 Q. Let's take a look at Government's Exhibit 331, which is in
22 evidence.
23 Let's start with your email.
24 First of all, this is an email from you?
25 A. It is.
1 Q. All right. What's the date?
2 A. The date is December 11th.
3 Q. And who was this email to?
4 A. To Mr. Craig.
5 Q. So, let me ask you, first, were you in contact, from time
6 to time, with Mr. Craig during this media rollout plan?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. This is one of those examples?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. All right. And what are you asking Mr. Craig here?
11 A. One of the issues that came up was to, obviously, pre-brief
12 some of the politicians. Mr. Craig had indicated that he was
13 not going to be engaging in that activity. So, I was requested
14 by Mr. Manafort to ask if Alex van der Zwaan could do the
15 briefing instead.
16 Q. And why is the subject "Update"?
17 A. It's an update because we're getting ready to release the
18 Report. And we knew, I think at this point, that Mr. Craig was
19 pulling away from briefing the politicians. But, we needed to
20 find kind of a stopgap to make sure that somebody from Skadden
21 was briefing key members of these delegations.
22 Q. And I'll read the last lines. Let me know if I read it
23 correctly.
24 "Ideally, we use Alex to do briefings, which would
25 happen tomorrow in Warsaw. I wanted to run it by you in case

1 you were interested in handling personally, but I am
2 speculating that might not be the case. Please let me know if
3 we can proceed or if you would like to discuss further. Thank
4 you."
5 And did Mr. Craig respond to your email?
6 A. He did.
7 Q. What did he say?
8 A. He said, "I cannot go to Poland tomorrow."
9 Q. And then you respond to him?
10 A. Yes. "Okay. I figured that might be the case. I will let
11 the Ministry know, and tell them to work with Alex."
12 Q. When you say "and tell them to work with Alex," what do you
13 mean?
14 A. Alex van der Zwaan.
15 Q. And then you thanked him for it?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And did, in fact, Mr. van der Zwaan conduct the briefing,
18 as requested, in Warsaw?
19 A. He did.
20 Q. Now, were you, sir, responsible for sort of keeping tabs on
21 the progress of the media rollout plan?
22 A. I was.
23 Q. And why were you?
24 A. I was tasked with putting together kind of a summary of
25 events, primarily for Mr. Manafort, so that he could

1 communicate it to the client.
2 Q. And how were you keeping tabs on what was going on with the
3 seeding with regards to Mr. Sanger of The New York Times?
4 A. With respect to Mr. Sanger, Mr. Hawker was keeping me
5 updated on that progress.
6 Q. Now, let me ask you, if Mr. Sanger had elected not to
7 proceed with this piece, was there a backup plan in place?
8 A. Tentatively, yes.
9 Q. And what was that backup plan?
10 A. The backup plan was to use Bloomberg.
11 Q. Okay. All right. Were you copied on some of the
12 communications between Mr. Hawker and Mr. Craig related to the
13 seeding of Mr. Sanger?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Let's look at Government's Exhibit 360.
16 THE COURT: Mr. Campoamor-Sanchez, I was hoping that
17 we would finish the direct before we had a break, but, we're a
18 little past our usual break time. So, I wondered,
19 approximately how much more direct do you have?
20 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ: About ten minutes. Maybe I
21 can cut it down a little more, but maybe it makes sense to take
22 a little break. But, I really have between five and ten
23 minutes left.
24 THE COURT: All right. Okay. The back row is
25 definitely in a Let's keep -- well, the front row, too.

1 All right. Well, since everybody seems to be
2 suggesting we complete the direct before the break, that's what
3 we'll do. But, if a juror decides that that timing is not
4 working for them personally, as you know, you can just raise
5 your hand, and I will try to take note of it.
6 You can proceed.
8 And I will try to be brief.
10 Q. All right. Let's look at 360. And if we look at the
11 bottom two emails.
12 Below, we see the email from Mr. Craig to Mr. Hawker
13 about electronic delivery.
14 Well, let me ask you, first, was Mr. Hawker actually
15 keeping you updated about what was happening with Mr. Sanger
16 and The New York Times?
17 A. He was.
18 Q. All right. And this is an email from Mr. Hawker, and he
19 copied you, Re: Electronic delivery. And it reads, "Thanks,
20 Greg, that's great, and I've shared with Rick."
21 Had Mr. Hawker actually shared that with you?
22 A. He did.
23 Q. The fact that there had been a delivery to Mr. Sanger?
24 A. Um-hum.
25 Q. You have to say Yes or No.

1 A. Yes.
2 Q. All right.
3 "We're both keeping our fingers crossed for David and
4 thank you for your efforts here, especially handling the
5 Report. Although we understand that he needs to run it by the
6 Deputy for ED, Rick has pointed out that if the meeting in
7 which this is discussed is at 11 a.m., it would leave us little
8 time to take the Report to your contact at the Post, or to
9 Al Hunt, if the Times decided to go with it."
10 Did you, in fact, point that out to Mr. Hawker at the
11 time?
12 A. I did.
13 Q. Were you concerned about that?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Why were you concerned?
16 A. Because, as always, you make great plans, but sometimes
17 those plans change. If certain time metrics hadn't been met,
18 we were going to be in a difficult position of trying to get
19 that initial seeded article out.
20 Q. And how would that impact you if that did not happen?
21 A. That would have stunned us, to say the least.
22 Q. And then he finishes.
23 "Did you get a view of how keen David was to run
24 this, and his confidence in getting to print, based on your
25 conversation? Rick is wondering whether we should wait until

1 David reports back before engaging with the Post. What are
2 your thoughts?"
3 Now, what do you recall about potential engagement
4 with the Post?
5 A. My recollection of that is that Mr. Craig had another
6 contact. It wasn't as significant as Mr. Sanger at the Times.
7 I don't even recall the name of it. We'd never really
8 considered it. Mr. Hunt, however, came from another
9 consultant, so we had a little more background and information
10 on him as a backup.
11 Q. And the timing of this is on December 11th, 2012?
12 A. It is.
13 Q. And was that before the Report had been released by the
14 Ministry of Justice?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Do you also inform others -- or, were you keeping others
17 informed of the progress of the media rollout plan as it
18 related to what was going on with The New York Times?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Let's take a look at Government's Exhibit 361, also in
21 evidence.
22 If you can get some context, and you can look at,
23 first, this email, second email from the top.
24 It's an email from Mr. Sager to you and others -- or,
25 to Mr. van der Zwaan, copying you and others; is that right?
2 Q. It says, "Warsaw."
4 A. Warsaw was in reference to the trip Mr. van der Zwaan was
5 going to make to brief Mr. Kaczynski.
6 Q. And there was a below email there from Mr. van der Zwaan,
7 reporting that after speaking with Greg, he has approved the
8 briefing of politicians, but had not approved discussions by
9 him with the media; is that right?
11 Q. So what is Mr. Sager asking you here to do?
12 A. Mr. Sager is asking me if we can limit the kind of
13 pre-briefing by Mr. Craig to one specific reporter.
14 Q. And that is ANSA?
16 Q. And let's look at your response to the email at the top.
17 What do you respond?
18 A. I said that "We are waiting for Greg to finish dealing with
19 The New York Times right now, but we'll plan to have him do it
20 tomorrow. I will be sending him an email first thing Kyiv
21 time."
22 Q. All right. Do you even know if you actually sent him an
23 email or not?
25 Q. But, what are you conveying here, that you were waiting for
1 him to finish dealing with The New York Times?
2 A. Yeah. So, we, again, wanted to hold off. And if the
3 interview with Mr. Sanger was, in fact, going to happen and
4 could be completed, then we didn't want to jeopardize the rest
5 of the strategy. So, we were willing to wait a little bit to
6 see if that could be accomplished.
7 Q. Was that more important than the interview with the Times?
8 A. It was.
9 Q. Now, ultimately --
12 Q. Ultimately, did The New York Times publish an article
13 before the Report was released by the Ministry of Justice?
14 A. Yes, it did.
15 Q. And did Mr. Craig actually provide an on-the-record
16 interview to The New York Times that appeared in that article?
17 A. He did.
18 Q. And had he been asked to do so on Ukraine's behalf?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Now, let's look at, finally, last exhibit, Government's
21 383.
22 Let's look at the email.
23 Now, you recognize this email, Mr. Gates?
24 A. I do.
25 Q. What is it?
1 A. This is one of the email updates that I'm sending to
2 Mr. Manafort, as well as some other members of the PR team, to
3 keep them updated on the progress.
4 Q. What is the subject line?
5 A. The subject is, "Report coverage."
6 Q. Okay. And as of what time, according to your email, is
7 this report coverage update happening?
8 A. This was sent at --
9 Q. Well, let's read your own email, the first line.
10 A. Oh, the first line.
11 "Here is an update as of 8 a.m. Ukraine time."
12 Q. Is that accurate, the time?
13 A. That is accurate, yes.
14 Q. And then you say, "Below are two articles thus far that
15 have been published from The New York Times and The Telegraph."
16 And you say, "Overall" -- well, let me ask you,
17 first, at this point, had the Ministry report been released?
18 A. No.
19 Q. So this is before the release of the Report by the Ukraine
20 Ministry?
22 Q. "Overall, the strategy of targeting a few select
23 journalists was absolutely the right one."
24 What strategy are you referring to?
25 A. The strategy of seeding the Report with one journalist.

1 Q. Then you go on.
2 "There are good quotes on selective prosecution in
3 the articles. My only disappointment is one of GC's quotes in
4 the New York Time article."
5 And then you say, "But that was part of the strategy
6 in using him via The New York Times."
7 What was the strategy of using Mr. Craig via The New
8 York Times? What does that mean?
9 A. It means that we knew the Report was independent. Greg was
10 going to, you know, make reference to that. But, more
11 importantly, we knew it may not necessarily be a positive
12 article, but we were willing to take the risk, given that,
13 again, Mr. Sanger was a very credible reporter.
14 Q. Then he goes on.
15 "He's much more direct and positive on the same
16 matter in The Telegraph article. We are getting ready to
17 release the MOJ statement and the Report. More coverage
18 coming."
19 A. Correct.
20 Q. All right. Now, did you, in fact, keep Manafort and others
21 updated of the progress of the seeding and then the articles
22 that followed?
23 A. I did.
24 Q. So what was your assessment of the success of the media
25 rollout plan, including the seeding of The New York Times?

1 A. So, the overall strategy worked. As you can see in my
2 email, the article wasn't the greatest, but it, at least, was
3 viewed neutrally. So, it did have an impact on some of the
4 articles that came out, which were, in some cases, more
5 positive. So, from our standpoint, the success of it was very
6 great.
7 Q. And did Mr. Craig willingly participate in the media
8 rollout plan as to The New York Times?
10 THE COURT: I think it's a little argumentative.
11 But, I think he's already established that.
12 Ask your next question.
15 I'm sorry.
16 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ: No. No.
17 THE COURT: If I sustain an objection, then you don't
18 get to answer.
19 The question and the answer have been stricken.
20 THE WITNESS: Sorry.
22 Q. Did Mr. Craig carry out the role that he had promised to
23 carry out as it related to The New York Times?
24 A. He did.
25 MS. JUNGHANS: Objection. It's also argumentative.

1 THE COURT: I think he can ask the question.
2 Did Mr. Craig -- can you answer that question?
3 THE WITNESS: I can.
4 THE COURT: All right. What's the answer?
5 THE WITNESS: Yes, he did.
7 No further questions.
8 THE COURT: All right. We're going to take a break
9 before we have cross-examination of this witness. So, I'm
10 going to ask you, please, to not discuss anything that's
11 happened this morning or anything that's happened so far in the
12 case. The case has not yet been given to you to decide.
13 You're excused. We'll try to resume again at 11:30.
14 Maybe 11:35 by the time we all gather. You can leave your
15 notebooks on your chairs.
16 (Whereupon the jury leaves the courtroom.)
17 THE COURT: All right. Everyone is excused, and
18 we'll resume in ten minutes.
20 (Recess.)
21 THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Your Honor, recalling Case
22 Number 19-125, United States of America v. Gregory B. Craig.
23 THE COURT: All right. Can we proceed with
24 cross-examination?
25 MS. JUNGHANS: Yes, Your Honor.

2 (Whereupon the jury enters the courtroom.)
3 THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: All present.
4 THE COURT: You can be seated.
5 Mr. Gates, I want to remind you that you're still
6 under oath.
7 Note that all of our jurors are back. I assume no
8 one has tried to discuss this case with you during your
9 break.
10 Ms. Junghans, you can proceed.
13 BY MS. JUNGHANS:
14 Q. Mr. Gates, I'm Paula Junghans. I represent Mr. Craig, and
15 I am going to have some questions for you.
16 MS. JUNGHANS: Let's put up Government Exhibit 625,
17 please.
18 BY MS. JUNGHANS:
19 Q. Mr. Gates, this is the plea agreement that you identified
20 on your direct examination, pursuant to which you appear in
21 court today -- or, part of -- it's part of why you're here.
22 Now, Mr. Campoamor asked you about some of the items
23 of it, but I want to ask you about some more.
24 MS. JUNGHANS: John, would you pull up this first
25 section, Charges and Statutory Penalties?

1 BY MS. JUNGHANS:
2 Q. And this details the crimes to which you pled guilty,
3 correct?
4 A. Yes, ma'am.
5 Q. Okay. And 371, a conspiracy to violate 26 U.S.C. 7206(1),
6 that's the tax evasion statue, right?
7 A. I don't believe it was tax evasion. It was filing false
8 tax returns.
9 Q. You're right, filing false tax returns.
10 And then 31 U.S.C. 5312 and 5322(b), that has to do
11 with failing to file reports of foreign bank accounts, right?
12 A. It does.
13 Q. And then 22 U.S.C. Section 612 and 618, that's FARA, right?
14 A. Yes, ma'am.
15 Q. So you pled guilty to conspiring to violate all of those
16 federal statutes?
17 A. I did.
18 Q. And you also pled guilty to one count of 1001, which is
19 making a false statement, right?
20 A. I did.
21 Q. And the false statement in this case was made to the Office
22 of Special Counsel, which was conducting an investigation?
24 Q. Now, the tax evasion offenses -- tax -- false tax return
25 conspiracy here and the foreign bank account conspiracy is a

1 conspiracy that you participated in with Paul Manafort, right?
2 A. Yes, ma'am.
3 Q. He was the other coconspirator?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Were there any others?
6 A. No.
7 Q. And it was about filing false tax returns for Mr. Manafort?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And about both his and your obligations to file reports of
10 foreign bank accounts that were not filed?
12 Q. And that's because Mr. Manafort had bank accounts in a
13 number of countries around the world, right?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Okay. Including a number of large accounts in Cyprus?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And those accounts were accounts that had -- even though
18 you didn't own the money in the account, you had the ability to
19 cause money to go out of the account on Mr. Manafort's
20 direction, right?
21 A. I did.
22 Q. In fact, sometimes not on Mr. Manafort's direction?
23 A. Correct.
24 Q. And those activities related to those accounts and to
25 Mr. Manafort's false tax returns occurred during the period

1 that you were doing work in Ukraine, including the work you've
2 described involving Mr. Craig?
4 Q. Now, if you --
5 MS. JUNGHANS: Can you scroll down, John, to
6 Section 4?
7 Okay. There.
8 BY MS. JUNGHANS:
9 Q. Now, you mentioned, in response to questions on direct,
10 that you understood what your guidelines range was.
11 But, you understand that in a money case, the
12 guidelines are driven by the amount of money involved, right?
13 A. That's what I've learned, yes.
14 Q. Pardon?
15 A. That's what I learned through the process, yes.
16 Q. Right. And in a tax case particularly, they're driven by
17 the amount of tax that should have been paid by the taxpayer in
18 question that was not paid, right?
19 A. Yes, to my understanding.
20 Q. And as it states here, in this case, the amount that you
21 helped Mr. Manafort hide from the Internal Revenue Service is
22 more than $9.5 million?
24 Q. And it also says that the source of income was from
25 criminal activity?
1 A. The aggravating -- oh, yes. I see that, yes.
2 Q. That caused your guideline level to go up, right?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Now, the FARA violations -- well, actually, let's turn
5 to --
6 MS. JUNGHANS: Can we have up Government Exhibit 626,
7 please?
8 BY MS. JUNGHANS:
9 Q. And when you enter into a plea agreement, there's a
10 companion document to it called the Statement of the Offense,
11 right?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And that actually sets out the facts. Not just the list
14 of the statutes to which you're pleading guilty, but the
15 facts that support your guilty plea, that make it a crime,
16 correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Okay. And in this case, as it says here, "The facts do not
19 constitute all of the facts known to the parties, but they
20 demonstrate that sufficient facts exists to establish that the
21 crime was committed," right?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And what the Statement of the Offense sets forth --
24 MS. JUNGHANS: John, if you could go over to page --
25 sorry -- page 3, the FARA scheme.

1 BY MS. JUNGHANS:
2 Q. -- is that you understood that it was illegal to engage in
3 activities in the United States as an agent of a foreign
4 principal without registering, and that you and Mr. Manafort
5 engaged in the scheme to avoid registering for your company,
6 correct, and for yourselves?
7 A. Correct.
8 Q. And part of what you did here was to create this entity --
9 MS. JUNGHANS: If you scroll down to the lower part
10 of paragraph 7, please, John.
11 BY MS. JUNGHANS:
12 Q. You created -- well, an entity was created called the
13 European Centre for a Modern Ukraine, and you acted as the
14 voice of -- and we'll call it ECFMU.
15 You acted as its representative in dealing with
16 various parties, did you not?
17 A. I was not an employee of the entity. But, I was a
18 intermediary for the executive director of the entity, yes.
19 Q. The executive director was a woman named Ina, or Ina
20 Kirsch, correct?
21 A. Ina Kirsch, yes.
22 Q. Ina Kirsch?
23 A. Ina, yes.
24 Q. And ECFMU was, in fact, an arm of the Ukraine government?
25 A. It was a arm of a specific member of the government. He

1 served a role in the government.
2 Q. Pardon me?
3 A. He served a role inside the government. It was not a
4 direct arm of the entire government.
5 Q. But it was associated with the Ukrainian government. It
6 was not an independent, nonprofit organization, right?
8 Q. Okay. And you assisted, on behalf of ECFMU, in
9 retaining the firms that we've heard about, Podesta and
10 Mercury, right?
12 Q. And you represented to them that, in fact, ECFMU was an
13 independent, nonprofit entity, did you not?
15 Q. You lied to them?
16 A. I did.
17 Q. And eventually, it dawned on them that, in fact, it was a
18 governmental --
19 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ: Objection, Your Honor.
20 Relevance. Beyond the scope.
21 THE COURT: Are we going to spend a lot more time on
22 this?
23 MS. JUNGHANS: Not too much time, Your Honor. But I
24 believe it goes to the witness's -- well, not too much.
25 THE COURT: All right. Go ahead.

1 BY MS. JUNGHANS:
2 Q. And so when you were dealing with Podesta and Mercury, you
3 were, in fact, attempting to advance the interests of Ukraine?
4 A. Yes. And that was codified in emails to Mercury and
5 Podesta at the early stages of the relationship.
6 Q. Now, when the time came -- eventually, the time came that
7 you -- there was an inquiry to you -- when I say "you," and
8 Mr. Manafort -- about the activities of ECFMU, right, by the
9 FARA Unit of the Department of Justice?
10 A. Yes.
11 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ: Relevance.
12 THE COURT: All right. Can we approach the bench?
14 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ: He's admitted to what he pled
15 about. And, so, you know, the purpose of the cross...
16 THE COURT: I just heard somebody talking. I wasn't
17 sure if someone was trying to get my attention.
18 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ: Well, it's not relevant.
19 It's beyond the scope. And other than the fact that the
20 lawyers for folks that worked for the Centre here -- I really
21 don't know what the purpose of this line of questioning is.
22 MS. JUNGHANS: I have absolutely no -- I -- I'm not
23 playing to the audience, if that's what you're saying. I think
24 it goes to his credibility.
25 THE COURT: Okay. He lied to them. That goes to

1 credibility.
3 MS. JUNGHANS: And then he lied to the FARA Unit. He
4 lied to the lawyer who was representing him before the FARA.
5 THE COURT: Is that alleged to be him, or is that
6 alleged to be Mr. Manafort?
7 MS. JUNGHANS: No, it's alleged to be both of them.
8 THE COURT: That they lied to their lawyer, who
9 then --
10 MS. JUNGHANS: He went to the FARA Unit and said they
11 don't have to register because this isn't a Ukrainian entity.
12 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ: If she wants to ask whether
13 he lied to a lawyer about FARA registration, that's one thing,
14 but that's not what I'm hearing with ECFMU questions.
15 MS. JUNGHANS: That was the subject matter of the
16 lie.
17 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ: But what does it matter --
18 THE COURT: He didn't know that Manafort -- Manafort
19 pled guilty to -- that was part of Manafort's Statement of
20 Offense. I'm not sure it was a part of his Statement of
21 Offense.
22 So, just remind me, he drafted the letters to the
23 lawyer?
24 MS. JUNGHANS: No. I think he participated, is my
25 understanding, from reading his 302s.

1 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ: He did not send a letter, is
2 my understanding. As the lawyer that was interfacing with FARA
3 asked him questions, they did not provide truthful answers, and
4 then he made those representations.
5 MS. JUNGHANS: That would be called a lie.
6 THE COURT: All right. Now, I will say that if
7 you're going to bring up this stuff, you need to read it
8 accurately. Because there was a paragraph that came up that he
9 said, in his Statement of Offense, the conspiracy that he
10 agreed that for FARA avoidance was that it was FARA avoidance
11 by DMI, Manafort, and others. And I know that Manafort
12 specifically involved causing others to avoid FARA
13 registration, and I don't know that you want to go down that
14 road too far.
15 MS. JUNGHANS: No, Your Honor. I'm not going
16 backwards. I'm just going forward.
17 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ: In fact, she wanted to make
18 sure I did not ask or get into comments about Mr. Craig's FARA
19 knowledge of registration, and I didn't.
20 MS. JUNGHANS: And I'm not asking about him. I'm
21 asking about his truthfulness.
22 THE COURT: All right. Well, I think it needs to be
23 very focused.
25 (Open court:)
1 BY MS. JUNGHANS:
2 Q. Mr. Gates, I was asking you about when you had an inquiry
3 from the FARA Unit of the Department of Justice, you did not
4 answer their inquiries truthfully; isn't that right?
5 THE COURT: When you say you, do you mean Davis
6 Manafort?
7 BY MS. JUNGHANS:
8 Q. You personally. No, you personally.
9 A. I personally answered truthfully.
10 Q. Davis Manafort did not?
11 A. Mr. Manafort did not. I don't know about Davis Manafort.
12 Q. Well, he is Davis Manafort, isn't he?
13 A. He's the owner, yes.
14 Q. Okay. And isn't it also true that -- well, never mind.
15 Let's go on.
16 Now, under this plea agreement -- the plea agreement
17 was in lieu of charges that had been previously brought against
18 you, correct?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. In other words, you were first indicted. And, in fact, you
21 were indicted both in the District of Columbia and in Virginia,
22 right?
24 Q. Okay. And then those charges were dropped and what's in
25 the plea agreement was substituted, correct?

1 A. The charges in Virginia were dropped, correct.
2 Q. Yes. And, in fact, some of the charges in D.C. were
3 dropped?
5 Q. And one of the things that was dropped was the charge of
6 money laundering?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And one of the things that was dropped was a claim by the
9 government for monetary forfeiture, correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Okay. And under this agreement, you have no obligation to
12 pay any kind of restitution, right?
13 A. As I understand, that's determined by the judge.
14 Q. Well, there's no -- there's no amount of restitution set
15 forth in the plea agreement, correct?
16 A. That is correct, to my understanding, yes.
17 Q. And now, you are required, under your agreement, as you've
18 already said, to meet with the government?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And you've done that more than 40 times since you started
21 this process?
22 A. I have.
23 Q. About lots and lots of different things?
24 A. Correct.
25 Q. Okay. One or two times about the matters that bring us

1 here today?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Okay. And you've been interviewed by more than 30
4 government lawyers and agents?
5 A. I don't have the exact number. That sounds pretty good.
6 Q. A lot?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Okay. And you were also required under your plea agreement
9 to provide all documents relative to the matters that the
10 government's interested in, right?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. But you can't do that, can you -- you couldn't do that?
13 A. I'm not sure what you mean.
14 Q. Because you deleted a lot of materials that were on your
15 computers related to the work that you did in Ukraine, right?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Okay. And so that the record as to your own activities
18 that you maintained is not complete?
19 A. Correct. On an annual basis, I deleted documents from all
20 different types of email accounts.
21 Q. Well, you deleted them, in part, in purpose -- on purpose,
22 so the government wouldn't have access to them; isn't that
23 right?
24 A. Not in relation to the FARA letter. I think you're
25 referring --
1 Q. No. I'm not asking you about that. I'm just asking you in
2 general, didn't you delete them so anybody wouldn't see what
3 you were doing?
4 A. There was an instance related to a completely separate
5 matter that I deleted documents for, yes.
6 Q. All right. Now, you also get, under your plea agreement, a
7 promise that you will not be prosecuted for other crimes that
8 you've committed, correct?
10 Q. And you've committed quite a few, haven't you?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. You've committed tax evasion with respect to your own
13 taxes, in addition to helping Mr. Manafort conceal his tax
14 liabilities?
15 A. I don't believe it was ever tax evasion; it was filing
16 false tax returns.
17 Q. Okay. Well, you make a distinction.
18 Filing a false tax return is to file a tax return
19 that has a statement on it -- a statement of material fact
20 that's not true, that the person knows is not true?
21 A. Okay.
22 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ: Objection.
23 THE COURT: There are legal distinctions between the
24 counts.
25 MS. JUNGHANS: There are. And I'm trying -- if the

1 witness wants to define them, I can do that.
2 THE COURT: Well, I think -- he's allowed to answer
3 your questions as he understands it. So, if you're going to
4 quibble with him about matters of law, I don't think that he
5 should be testifying to matters of law or you should be
6 testifying to matters --
7 MS. JUNGHANS: No. Let me -- let me try again, Your
8 Honor.
10 MS. JUNGHANS: Okay.
11 BY MS. JUNGHANS:
12 Q. The conspiracy that you pled guilty to with respect to
13 Mr. Manafort's taxes is a conspiracy to violate 7206(1) of
14 Title 26, which you've just pointed to, right?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Okay. And that is the crime of filing a false tax return?
17 A. Correct.
18 Q. Okay. Leaving that aside, turning to your own crimes with
19 respect to your own tax matters.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Okay. You have committed tax evasion, have you not?
22 A. There were unpaid taxes on my tax returns, yes.
23 Q. Well, you're not saying simply that you filed tax returns
24 that showed an amount due that you didn't pay?
25 A. I didn't pay the full amount of taxes on my taxes owed.

1 Q. Right. But you didn't report all the income that you had
2 either --
4 Q. -- did you?
5 For a number of years running?
6 A. I don't know the total number of years. But, yeah, there
7 was several occasions where I did not report the full amount of
8 taxes owed.
9 Q. Well, in -- for the tax year 2010, you omitted more than
10 half a million dollars in income, did you not?
11 A. I don't believe the number was that high.
12 Q. You don't?
13 Did you lie about the -- your control over foreign
14 bank accounts?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. For the year 2011, did you omit about 200-and-some-thousand
17 dollars in taxes?
18 A. I don't know the exact number.
19 Q. Have you attempted to figure it out?
20 A. No. Early on, when I pled, we didn't figure it out. I did
21 review some documents at different junctures, but I never owed
22 the total amount.
23 I did subsequently -- actually, before the plea, have
24 revised tax documents submitted to the IRS to fix any mistakes
25 that were made in the past.

1 Q. So that you would look good to the Court that you had fixed
2 your prior --
3 A. Do the right thing.
5 BY MS. JUNGHANS:
6 Q. For the year 2011, you also took false expense deductions,
7 did you not?
8 A. I did.
9 Q. And you also lied about your control over the bank accounts
10 that you controlled?
12 Q. Okay. And you had foreign bank accounts for yourself, as
13 well as the accounts that you managed for Mr. Manafort, right?
14 A. Correct.
15 Q. And in 2012, same thing, omitted income --
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. -- lied about foreign bank accounts?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. In 2013, you omitted about $1 million in income?
20 A. I don't believe that's the correct number. But, I did omit
21 taxes, yes.
22 Q. And, again, you continued to lie about your foreign bank
23 accounts?
24 A. Correct. We did not file foreign bank accounts.
25 Q. 2016, you omitted $800,000 that you got from a company

1 called IDW?
2 A. In 2016? No, I don't believe that money was -- the 2016
3 tax return was a good tax return. It should have been filed
4 properly.
5 Q. All right. Well, maybe check that over the break.
6 For all the tax returns that you just described that
7 were false, you lied to the preparer who put them together for
8 you?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And you lied to the government of Cyprus to avoid tax on
11 accounts that you had there?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And to conceal the fact that you had taken money out of
14 those accounts?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And, in fact, you took money from Mr. Manafort himself?
18 Q. So that you were able to write checks on or arrange wire
19 transfers out of the accounts that Mr. Manafort had in Cyprus,
20 and you just helped yourself from time to time without telling
21 him?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And you didn't pay tax on that money either?
24 A. Correct.
25 Q. And all of that has been forgiven as part of your plea

1 agreement, at least from a criminal perspective, right?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And you've lied to the SEC in an insider trading inquiry?
4 A. No, that's not correct.
5 Q. You didn't fail to tell the SEC, when you were being asked
6 about Equifax's -- Equifax's acquisition of this company called
7 IDW, that you had tipped your father and brother when they
8 asked you?
9 A. No.
10 Q. You lied to banks to borrow money for yourself?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And, in fact, you had Mr. Manafort sign a letter so that
13 you could give it to Morgan Stanley, claiming that you had more
14 income than you had so you could get a loan from Morgan
15 Stanley?
16 A. Correct.
17 Q. And you altered other kinds of documents to give to the
18 banks to get those loans?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. You lied to Visa so you could get a higher grade credit
21 card?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. You lied to the government of Ukraine, your own client,
24 about the amounts that Davis Manafort paid to employees in the
25 Ukraine?
1 A. I -- you have to be more specific. I don't know what
2 you're talking about.
3 Q. Do you remember -- I know you can't possibly remember every
4 date you've been interviewed by various federal agents. But,
5 do you remember being interviewed on February 12th, 2018, by
6 Mr. Weissmann, Mr. Andres, and others?
7 A. There were interviews. I don't know if they were
8 specifically there, but I'll take your word for it.
9 Q. And I apologize. I think I have the wrong date. So, let
10 me -- let me verify that, and I'll come back.
11 A. Okay. I won't take your word for it.
12 Q. Pardon me? I'm sorry, I didn't hear what you said.
13 A. I thought you were correct, but since you said you weren't
14 correct, I said I won't take your word for it.
15 Q. Well, sir, you're the one who knows whether you lied to
16 Ukraine or not?
17 A. Well, I never had any interaction with the government of
18 Ukraine, specific individuals. So when you're making that
19 statement, I'm not clear on what you're trying to ask.
20 THE COURT: I think you're arguing with him now.
21 MS. JUNGHANS: I'm trying not to, Your Honor.
23 MS. JUNGHANS: I would like to come back to it,
24 actually --
25 THE COURT: All right. You may.

1 MS. JUNGHANS: -- when I check the document.
2 THE COURT: Well, ask your next question rather than
3 making comments.
5 BY MS. JUNGHANS:
6 Q. Did you lie in the deposition about Black Sea Cable and a
7 company called Pericles?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. To conceal Mr. Manafort's control over bank accounts in
10 Cyprus?
12 Q. You did.
13 Now, after you left the -- after Davis Manafort
14 folded -- for want of a better term -- what did you do after
15 that?
16 A. The next role I served was under Mr. Manafort at the
17 Donald J. Trump for President campaign.
18 Q. And Mr. Manafort was campaign manager for a period of time?
19 A. He was.
20 Q. And you worked in the campaign also, under Mr. Manafort's
21 direction?
22 A. I did.
23 Q. Okay. And during that period of time, did you submit
24 expenses to be reimbursed by the Trump campaign to which you
25 were not entitled?

1 A. For the Trump campaign? No, I don't recall that I did.
2 Q. To the Inaugural Committee?
3 A. No.
4 Q. To any organization associated with the campaign?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Now -- all right. Let's talk about -- well, actually, let
7 me ask you one more question.
8 You said that you had filed amended tax returns right
9 around the time you entered your guilty plea?
11 Q. Have you paid the taxes associated with them?
12 A. Some, not all.
13 Q. How much do you owe?
14 A. At this time, I --
16 THE COURT: Sustained.
17 BY MS. JUNGHANS:
18 Q. Now, let's go back to the period of time when -- that you
19 were talking about this morning on direct, when the Skadden
20 project got off -- the Skadden Report project got off the
21 ground.
22 I believe you said that "We hired Skadden," correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Who's "we"?
25 A. Davis Manafort.
1 Q. Well, actually, the Ministry of Justice engaged Skadden,
2 correct?
3 A. On an official basis, yes.
4 Q. Are you saying that unofficially Skadden was working for
5 Davis Manafort?
6 A. No, not working for Davis Manafort. Again, when I was
7 asked the question about what the first task was by
8 Mr. Manafort, it was to wire Skadden money. At that point in
9 time he explained to me how --
10 Q. No, I'm not asking you that.
11 A. Okay.
12 Q. I'm just asking you, Skadden was engaged by the Ministry of
13 Ukraine -- the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine; is that correct?
15 Q. And you were separately engaged by the government of
16 Ukraine?
17 A. Actually, it's the Party of Regions, but that's correct.
18 Q. The Party of Regions?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And that's a political party that Mr. Yanukovych headed,
21 correct?
23 Q. The fellow who you had helped to get him elected?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. So, Skadden was not Davis Manafort's client?

2 Q. Or, put it the other way around, David Manafort was not
3 Skadden's client. Skadden's client was the Ministry of
4 Ukraine?
5 A. Correct.
6 Q. The same with respect to FTI, correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. I believe you also said, "We hired FTI."
9 But, in fact, the Ministry of Justice hired FTI?
10 A. The Ministry of Justice hired FTI at a later point. We
11 paid FTI through proceeds from Mr. Manafort.
12 Q. Okay. And FTI didn't get paid everything?
13 A. Correct.
14 Q. Now, let's look at Government Exhibit 166, which you were
15 asked about on direct.
16 And you said, I believe, that in the very beginning
17 of this, while the Report was still in process, you began to
18 think about media activities related to the Report?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And that you sent this email to a bunch of people
21 soliciting names of --
22 MS. JUNGHANS: If you go to the first line, please,
23 John, after "Team."
24 BY MS. JUNGHANS:
25 Q. "I need you to identify a list with media, GR's government

1 relations," right?
2 A. Correct.
3 Q. "And third-party contacts that we will need to engage with
4 the SA firm"?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Now, the first person on this email is Ina Kirsch?
8 Q. That's the person you've already mentioned is related to
9 ECFMU?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Tell us, again, who all these other people are.
12 A. They are a series of consultants from firms, both in Europe
13 and the United States, that we hired.
14 Q. You hired --
15 A. That the -- in part, the ECFMU hired.
16 Q. Well, you, acting on behalf of the ECFMU, put these people
17 together, right?
18 A. Correct.
19 Q. And how many firms -- I mean, there's a number of
20 individuals here, but how many firms does this represent?
21 A. I believe there were four firms in Europe and two in the
22 United States, in total.
23 Q. So the two in the United States were Podesta and Mercury?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And the four -- the other two in Europe were

1 FleishmanHillard and Burson-Marsteller?
2 A. FleishmanHillard, Burson-Marsteller. There was one in
3 France and one in Germany.
4 Q. So you had six firms altogether?
6 Q. Now, you didn't disclose to Mr. Craig that you had hired
7 any of these people, right?
8 A. Correct. These firms were not hired in conjunction with
9 the Skadden Report -- or, that was not the impetus for hiring
10 them.
11 Q. Well, you say in the first -- the second line, "Contacts
12 that we will need to engage the SA firm."
13 That's Skadden, right?
14 A. Yeah. Because the Skadden Report was a component of a
15 greater plan called Engage Ukraine, which I mentioned earlier.
16 So, this is just one facet of it.
17 Q. Well, nevertheless, you didn't tell Skadden that you had
18 engaged six PR firms to do work related to the work that
19 Skadden was doing?
20 A. Correct.
21 Q. And when you -- did you get -- did you get responses to
22 this? Did you get names?
23 A. Yes, I did.
24 Q. Okay. And you didn't share those with Skadden either?
25 With, particularly, with Mr. Craig?

1 A. They were in the media matrix that we provided to Mr. Craig
2 and Mr. van der Zwaan.
3 Q. Well, actually, you didn't provide the media matrix to
4 Mr. Craig directly until September, right?
5 A. I never provided the media matrix directly. It was
6 generally done through Mr. Hawker.
7 Q. Right. Now, in -- when you -- you got this -- let's look
8 at --
9 MS. JUNGHANS: Can we have up, please, Exhibit 77,
10 Defendant's Exhibit 77?
11 BY MS. JUNGHANS:
12 Q. And, sir, there's a binder in front of you. If you'd
13 prefer to look at the exhibits in hardcopy, you should be able
14 to find it. They're organized defense and government.
15 A. Okay.
16 Q. Now, this is an email from yourself. If you look at the
17 top -- oh, I'm sorry. I'll wait until you have it.
18 A. Okay.
19 Q. This is from yourself to Jon Aarons from Jonathan Hawker,
20 FTI. And it says the subject is "Asset tracing."
21 Just so it's clear, what was that?
22 A. That was a project proposed by FTI to look at assets that
23 the previous government had either taken or confiscated. And
24 as part of the new government coming in, it was an idea to find
25 out where those assets went.

1 Q. Okay. Which never went anywhere, right?
2 A. Correct.
3 Q. But, in spite of that, that heading sort of carrying
4 through here, the attachment here is referred do as the "SA
5 outreach list final, July 2, 2012."
6 Do you see that?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Okay. And if you turn to that document, which begins at
9 the page marked 77-4. It's got this enormous list of contacts.
10 And is this what you're referring to, contacts that
11 you had collected from the inquiry you had made of the six PR
12 firms?
13 A. Yes, this looks like it.
14 Q. Okay. And if you go to the last page here, 77-7, at the
15 bottom.
16 MS. JUNGHANS: If you could highlight, John, please,
17 the part that says, "Media."
18 BY MS. JUNGHANS:
19 Q. The contact that is listed -- there is a contact listed at
20 The New York Times, right?
22 Q. And that name is Steven Lee Myers, right?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Where did that come from?
25 A. Mr. Hawker.
1 Q. Okay. Not from Mr. Craig?
2 A. No.
3 Q. And -- but, this is in -- let's see. This is July 10th.
4 And I believe you told us on direct that around this
5 time you had already discussed with Mr. Craig David Sanger?
6 A. Correct, in broad terms.
7 Q. In broad terms. But not good enough terms that he would
8 make it onto the media list?
10 A. Correct.
11 THE COURT: Overruled.
12 BY MS. JUNGHANS:
13 Q. So you didn't think it was serious?
14 A. No. We just hadn't gotten to a point in the media grid to
15 actually go through and identify. There are other names in
16 here that are not as concrete either. This was kind of a straw
17 man. Meaning, it was an initial document put together by
18 Mr. Hawker in order to identify key reporters at certain
19 publications.
20 Q. Okay. So, the written record is that the correspondent who
21 was being considered from The New York Times was
22 Steven Lee Myers?
23 A. No. That was a --
24 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ: Object to the form of the
25 question.
1 THE COURT: Yeah. I don't think he said that.
2 MS. JUNGHANS: I apologize. Did I misspeak? What
3 did I say?
4 I said, "The written record here" --
5 THE COURT: That's the part that I think --
6 MS. JUNGHANS: "The written record" --
7 THE COURT: Steven Myers is listed here.
8 MS. JUNGHANS: Yes.
9 THE COURT: Okay.
10 MS. JUNGHANS: "The written record is that the" --
12 question.
13 MS. JUNGHANS: The written --
14 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ: Mischaracterizing the
15 document.
16 MS. JUNGHANS: It is a written record.
17 THE COURT: It is a plan dated July 12th.
18 MS. JUNGHANS: Let me -- I think my question was
19 clear, but let me try again.
20 BY MS. JUNGHANS:
21 Q. What was put down in writing at this time, was that the
22 correspondent who was being considered was Steven Lee Myers,
23 correct?
24 A. It wasn't necessarily being considered. It was
25 Mr. Hawker's -- he put that name in there, along with other

1 names that were placeholders of key publications. We hadn't
2 identified who specifically at those publications would be
3 selected.
4 Q. Okay. But the only writing we have that --
5 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ: Objection to the "writing."
6 It mischaracterizes the record.
7 THE COURT: All right. Let's talk about this
8 writing.
9 MS. JUNGHANS: The writing.
10 THE COURT: This writing?
11 MS. JUNGHANS: Yes, this writing. This writing.
12 THE COURT: Okay. I think he's answered -- you've
13 asked and answered multiple times.
14 BY MS. JUNGHANS:
15 Q. This writing, as of July 10th -- and, actually, it says
16 that the document list was created on July 2nd. This writing
17 says that the correspondent from The New York Times who was
18 being considered was Steven Lee Myers.
19 A. Correct.
20 Q. And whoever else was in somebody's head, it was not reduced
21 to writing, correct, in this document?
22 A. Correct.
23 Q. Do you know of any other document issued at this time that
24 reflected that Greg Craig had suggested David Sanger?
25 A. At the time of July 10th?

1 Q. Yes, sir.
2 A. No.
3 Q. Now, these plans and strategies and all that, as you said,
4 evolved over time, right?
6 Q. And there was a lot of work done on these things in
7 anticipation of the release of the Report, correct?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Okay. And, in fact, if we go to --
10 MS. JUNGHANS: Can we have up, please, Government
11 Exhibit 176?
12 BY MS. JUNGHANS:
13 Q. Now, this is from Mr. Aarons to you and some others
14 related to Project Veritas, the communications strategy,
15 right?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And Veritas is -- actually, let's just look at -- well,
18 Veritas is the name that was given to trying to counter
19 Yulia Tymoshenko, right?
20 A. Project Veritas was given as the name for the overall PR
21 and GR plan for the rollout of the Skadden Report.
22 Q. Well, if you look at page 1 of this document --
23 MS. JUNGHANS: John, if you could go to the next
24 page. It's actually 2 of the PDF, and the paragraph that
25 begins, "We have called this Project Veritas."

1 BY MS. JUNGHANS:
2 Q. It says, "We will refer in this document to the
3 prosecutions and the accused, collectively, as Veritas."
4 The accused is Yulia Tymoshenko, is it not?
5 A. It is.
6 Q. Okay. So is it not the case that the purpose of the
7 project was to not only talk about the Skadden Report, but to
8 counter Ms. Tymoshenko's interests?
9 A. What do you mean by "interests"?
10 Q. Well, you've said that there was a lot of controversy about
11 her situation in Ukraine, right?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And she claimed that she had been wrongfully prosecuted and
14 she was being wrongfully detained and there was political
15 persecution and all sorts of noise that she was making, right?
16 A. Correct.
17 Q. And the Yanukovych government wanted to counter her, to
18 fight back against her, correct?
19 A. They wanted to make sure that the record was clear on the
20 crimes that she had committed and the justification for the
21 trial, that's correct.
22 Q. Right. So they wanted to defend that they had acted
23 properly in going after her, correct?
24 A. Yes. Because it was a big part of their entry into the
25 European Union.
1 Q. Right. And there were forces in the world who thought
2 that, in fact, prosecuting a prior -- a -- prosecuting the
3 previous prime minister of the country was a bad thing to do?
4 A. There were individuals. I don't know what you mean by
5 "forces," but there were people specifically concerned about
6 the way that the trial had occurred, yes.
7 Q. Right. And the Ukrainian government wanted the message to
8 get out that the Ukrainian government hadn't done anything
9 wrong in going after her?
10 A. That was the general intent, yes.
11 Q. Exactly. Now, this document was before the Report was
12 finished, right?
13 A. Yes, it was.
14 Q. Okay. And, so, neither you nor anybody else had seen a
15 draft of the Report at this time, correct?
17 Q. Okay. And didn't know what it was going to say?
18 A. Correct.
19 Q. But, nevertheless, the communications strategy was set
20 forth by Mr. Hawker to you, right?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Okay. And if you look at page 6, at the top --
23 MS. JUNGHANS: I'm sorry, John. Page 7 of the PDF.
24 BY MS. JUNGHANS:
25 Q. -- it says, "The Report will conclude that the trial was

1 valid, the crime was committed, and the sentence was
2 appropriate."
3 A. Correct.
4 Q. You had no idea what the Report was going to conclude, did
5 you?
6 A. That's correct. This was a placeholder for when we
7 eventually got the information. But, this is Mr. Hawker's
8 first attempt at trying to establish the kinds of information
9 that would be necessary to show in the rollout of the Report.
10 Q. Well, you could have said, the Report will conclude that
11 the trial was flawed.
12 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ: Objection to the form of the
13 question.
14 THE COURT: He didn't draft this.
15 MS. JUNGHANS: No.
16 BY MS. JUNGHANS:
17 Q. You agreed with it, though, right?
18 THE COURT: Agreed with the plan or the sentence?
19 MS. JUNGHANS: No, this sentence.
20 THE COURT: I think he has said what the sentence is.
21 MS. JUNGHANS: Right. Well, let me try again.
22 BY MS. JUNGHANS:
23 Q. This was Mr. Hawker's expression, right, of what might be?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And I think he says in the earlier portion of it, "If given

1 a free hand" -- look at page --
2 MS. JUNGHANS: It's page 2 of the PDF, John, on --
3 paragraph that says, "We have been asked."
4 BY MS. JUNGHANS:
5 Q. "We have been asked to explain how we would address the
6 Skadden publication if given a completely free hand," right?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And the person who asked him to do that was you?
9 A. At the direction of Mr. Manafort, yes.
10 Q. But it was you?
11 A. Well, it was asked -- it was requested for Mr. Hawker to
12 put together a full communications strategy, based on their
13 experience in other jurisdictions.
14 Q. And you had been in communication with Mr. Hawker about how
15 the government of Ukraine wanted its position to be expressed?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Okay. So, when Mr. -- when Mr. Hawker wrote on --
18 MS. JUNGHANS: Go back to page 7 of the PDF, please,
19 John.
20 Yes. Thank you.
21 BY MS. JUNGHANS:
22 Q. "The Report will conclude that the trial was valid, the
23 crime was committed, and the sentence was appropriate," that's
24 what you hoped the Report would conclude, too, right?
25 A. Well, we believed at the time that the -- that the trial

1 was appropriate, but we didn't have all the information. What
2 we needed was the independence of a third-party report from a
3 prominent law firm in order to establish some of these, you
4 know, potential ideas. That's correct.
5 Q. All right. Now, at this point, had you had this
6 conversation that you say you had with Mr. Craig about
7 David Sanger? This is now July 14th.
8 A. I don't recall specifically the date of the meeting.
9 Q. Where do you -- where did that conversation take place?
10 A. Yeah. I recall that conversation took place at his office.
11 Q. In?
12 A. D.C. Sorry. Washington, D.C.
13 Q. Was anybody else there?
14 A. Yes. It was myself, Mr. Manafort, and Mr. van der Zwaan.
15 Q. Now, you kept working on this, right?
16 A. Working on what?
17 Q. The plan.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. The communication strategy?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And, again --
22 MS. JUNGHANS: Let's go to Government Exhibit 189.
23 BY MS. JUNGHANS:
24 Q. So, this is now July 28th, 2012, couple weeks after the one
25 we just looked at.

1 And this is you sending to Mr. Aarons and Mr. Hawker
2 a revised media plan, right?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Now, it's the case, isn't it, that frequently they would
5 write things -- primarily Mr. Hawker would write things, but
6 then you would take the documents and revise them?
7 A. Yes. I would show them to Mr. Manafort, get his comments,
8 add my comments, and then recirculate to Mr. Hawker.
9 Q. Okay. And what you were trying to communicate to
10 Mr. Hawker is what you hoped the strategy would be and what you
11 hoped the Report would say?
12 A. We had, along the way, worked with Mr. Hawker to refine the
13 messaging. I'm not sure what specific document this is. If
14 you show me the content of it, then I could be more specific.
15 Q. Okay. Well, let's do that. Let's look at the revised
16 media plan. And let's look at page 1.
17 And, in fact, if you look at the top of this, this is
18 formulated as from PJM -- that's Mr. Manafort, right?
19 A. Correct.
20 Q. -- to SL.
21 And that's Serhiy Lyovochkin, right?
22 A. It's actually Serhiy Lyovochkin.
23 Q. Lyovochkin. Okay. Thank you.
24 And he was?
25 A. He was, at the time, the president of Ukraine's chief of

1 staff.
2 Q. Okay. And, so, this was something that you actually
3 expected to go to the client?
4 A. Yes. This is something Mr. Manafort had requested me to
5 put together, based off of Mr. Hawker's media plan, but it was
6 a shortened version of that plan.
7 Q. Okay. And if you look at page 3 of the PDF --
8 MS. JUNGHANS: John, please.
9 And go down to the second bullet point.
10 Could you blow up the upper part?
11 Thank you. And go to the second bullet point.
12 BY MS. JUNGHANS:
13 Q. Again, it says, "The Report will conclude the trial was
14 valid, that crimes were committed by YT" -- that's
15 Yulia Tymoshenko, right?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. -- "but that some irregularities existed not in line with
18 Western jurisprudence," right?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Now, if you drop down to the bottom bullet point there.
21 It says, "SA" -- that's Skadden, right?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. -- "cannot proactively lead in communications, given their
24 restrictions by FARA registration and disclosure," correct?
25 A. Correct.
1 Q. Now, had you had this conversation that you said you had
2 with Mr. Craig about David Sanger before this?
3 A. What was the date of this report, again?
4 Q. July 28th.
5 A. Yes, I would have had that conversation before.
6 Q. So, is it your testimony that although Mr. Craig may have
7 mentioned David Sanger, he also said, "We are not going to
8 proactively lead in communications"?
10 question.
11 May we approach?
12 THE COURT: Yes.
14 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ: One, it's very argumentative.
15 But, two, you know, I stayed away, in part because of
16 the objections, about all the communications Mr. Manafort is
17 having with Mr. Craig. And, you know, I believe she's opening
18 the door to me getting a lot of those communications in, in
19 light of how the question is being presented.
20 THE COURT: All right. You have put a document up
21 there that has a sentence in it, and, so are you going to ask
22 him -- you didn't ask him why he wrote it or where he got that
23 information from.
24 MS. JUNGHANS: The question I just asked him was,
25 "Did Mr. Craig also tell you, when he mentioned David Sanger,
1 that he couldn't be proactive in communications?"
2 I didn't ask --
3 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ: What she asked is, Despite
4 the fact you claimed this, and then that.
5 That's what you asked.
6 THE COURT: All right. Do you want to know if
7 Mr. Craig said that to him? Is that your question?
8 MS. JUNGHANS: Yes. Yes.
9 THE COURT: Okay. Well, ask him that question. You
10 are sort of linking things up with -- it's usually the preface
11 for the question I think is prompting the objections more than
12 the questions. They use your words, not necessarily the words
13 of the answer before that you're purporting to summarize, and
14 so that's why he's objecting.
15 MS. JUNGHANS: Okay. But, I'm asking only about his
16 conversation he claims to have had --
17 THE COURT: Okay. Well, then ask that. But, what
18 I'm saying is, when you lay your predicates and your
19 foundations for your questions that tell the story the way you
20 want to tell the story, if they don't align exactly with what's
21 been said before, he's going to object. He has a point. And
22 that can be avoided, if you just ask the second half of the
23 question after the comma.
25 (Open court:)
1 BY MS. JUNGHANS:
2 Q. Focusing your attention, again, sir, on that last bullet
3 point.
4 Did Mr. Craig tell you that Skadden cannot
5 proactively lead in communications?
6 A. He did not tell me specifically; he told Mr. Hawker.
7 Q. Okay. And Mr. Hawker told you?
8 A. Yeah. Put it into the original memo.
9 Q. Okay. Now, then you go on and recite, down lower in the
10 page --
11 MS. JUNGHANS: John, if you would just go down to
12 Item Number 6.
13 BY MS. JUNGHANS:
14 Q. There's this information about a small number of
15 international journalists should be briefed in advance of the
16 publication of the Report, and formally contacted, etcetera,
17 right?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Now, you've said, I believe, that as of this time,
20 Mr. Craig had already told you that David Sanger would be the,
21 kind of, international journalist who should be briefed in
22 advance, right?
23 A. It was on the U.S. side. It wasn't an international
24 journalist.
25 Q. Oh, you don't consider Mr. Sanger an international

1 journalist?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Okay.
4 Now, if you go to the next page.
5 And there is a whole section here called Post Report
6 Release. And the very first item is, "GC will do briefings
7 and interviews with key stakeholders, as listed on the
8 attachment."
9 A. I think the exact is, "He will need to do," not "will do."
10 Q. Okay. So this was something you wanted but he had not
11 committed to do?
12 A. Correct. He, at this stage, had agreed to help, generally,
13 again, but we hadn't defined the plan with much specificity at
14 that time.
15 Q. Okay. And then you go on lower on the -- in Item 11,
16 "Consideration should be given to him visiting Moscow, and that
17 he should do a roundtable in Berlin," etcetera, right?
18 A. Correct.
19 Q. So this was your wish list of what Mr. Craig would do?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Okay. None of which he had committed to do?
22 A. Correct.
23 Q. Now, if you look at the bottom of the page, in Item 18.
24 The very last sentence says, "We have to be firm in
25 the position that this report concludes that a crime was

1 committed, and that the weight of evidence would have secured a
2 conviction under a Western-style system, irrespective of any
3 minor procedural issues."
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Now, did you have any understanding that the Report was
6 going to take a position as to whether a crime was committed?
7 A. At that time, we did not know what the Report was going to
8 say. And, so, with specific reference to a crime committed, we
9 didn't know what the conclusion was going to cite.
10 Q. But, you were drafting a memorandum to go to your client
11 that said, "We have to be firm in the position that the Report
12 concludes that a crime was committed."
13 A. The idea was that the government was going to need to be
14 firm in the position. But, up until this point, this was,
15 again, an idea. This wasn't -- again, because we didn't have
16 the Report. So, we were still waiting to see what the
17 conclusion of the Report would be.
18 Q. Well, I'm a little confused, Mr. Gates, because it doesn't
19 say, We hope the Report will conclude.
20 A. Um-hum.
21 Q. It says, "We have to be firm in the position that the
22 Report concludes," present tense.
23 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ: Objection. Asked and
24 answered.
25 THE COURT: I think it has been asked and answered.

1 BY MS. JUNGHANS:
2 Q. Well, what I'm trying to get to, sir, is, you were telling
3 your client that the Report concludes something, and it hadn't
4 concluded anything at this point; isn't that right?
6 Q. Now --
7 MS. JUNGHANS: Your Honor, whenever you -- you can
8 tell me when you want me to stop for lunch.
9 THE COURT: I will.
11 THE COURT: But, I think we should go a little bit
12 longer. Would you like to estimate how much more you have?
13 MS. JUNGHANS: Oh, a while. Certainly not enough to
14 be finished before lunch.
15 THE COURT: Well, I predicted that.
16 But, in general, what are we talking about?
17 MS. JUNGHANS: Your Honor, I'm guessing two hours.
18 THE COURT: All right. Well, let's go for a little
19 bit longer, since we've recently had a break.
21 BY MS. JUNGHANS:
22 Q. Now, on August the 5th --
23 MS. JUNGHANS: Let's have Government Exhibit 207.
24 BY MS. JUNGHANS:
25 Q. This is now August the 5th of 2012.

1 And at that point, did you expect that the release of
2 the Report was imminent?
3 A. So, in August we -- yes. Now, we were back working on the
4 belief that the Report would be released, because the summer
5 had passed, and we were trying to get it out before summer.
6 So, at this point in time, we were gearing up with
7 the belief that the Report would be released.
8 Q. And the decision about when to release the Report or
9 whether to release the Report lay with the client, correct?
10 A. To my understanding, yes.
11 Q. It certainly wasn't Mr. Craig's decision?
12 A. No.
13 Q. Or yours?
14 A. No.
15 Q. So -- but, while it was still out there, in the sense of
16 while it was unreleased, you all kept working away at refining
17 these plans, correct?
18 A. Correct.
19 Q. Okay. And on August the 5th, Mr. Hawker sent you something
20 called a draft plan of the Veritas master control plan.
21 Do you recall this?
22 A. I would have to look at the document.
23 Q. Okay.
24 MS. JUNGHANS: Let's turn to the first page of this,
25 John. It's called master control grid.

1 BY MS. JUNGHANS:
2 Q. Now, Mr. Hawker did a lot of these things, right?
3 A. He did.
4 Q. And sometimes you edited them and sometimes you just
5 reviewed them?
6 A. Correct.
7 Q. If you go to the next page of this one.
8 It says, at the top, the first bullet point -- or,
9 the first item on the graph says -- and this is -- strike that.
10 This anticipates what's going to happen on the day of
11 the release. It purports to set out, hour by hour, what
12 everybody is going to do, correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Okay. And whatever the release date might be?
15 A. Correct.
16 Q. Okay. And it says, "The first thing that's going to happen
17 is that drafts are going to be shared with Charlie."
18 A. Correct.
19 Q. Who's Charlie?
20 A. I don't recall who Charlie is. It's a code name, I think,
21 Jonathan used for somebody, I don't recall, though.
22 Q. Okay. So why were you talking in code?
23 A. Jonathan typically talked in code quite a bit. When there
24 were issues or areas where we weren't clear on who it might be,
25 that he would put just kind of a -- a name in there as a

1 placeholder, similar to what he did in other versions.
2 Q. So if you scroll down to line 10.
3 "The plan anticipates that Charlie and GC" -- that's
4 Mr. Craig, right?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. -- "will discuss changes and sign off," correct?
7 A. Correct.
8 Q. And that "Mr. Craig will have a conference" -- the next
9 line.
10 "Mr. Craig will have a conference call" -- or, "that
11 there will be a conference call between FTI in Kyiv and
12 Mr. Craig to discuss the statement." Is that right?
13 A. The Skadden statement, yes.
14 Q. Okay. Turn to the next page, please.
15 It anticipates, in line 24, that the judge is going
16 to be sent on a foreign trip.
17 What does that mean?
18 A. I think that's in reference to the general prosecutor,
19 Mr. Pshonka, being -- he was planning to come over to the
20 United States.
21 Q. Well, isn't it a fact that the -- well, the judge -- Mr. --
22 strike that.
23 Mr. Pshonka isn't a judge; he's the prosecutor,
24 right?
25 A. At the time. But, apparently, he was a judge prior to

1 that.
2 Q. This doesn't refer to the judge from the Yulia Tymoshenko
3 trial being sent out of town so he wouldn't be available to
4 answer questions?
5 A. I don't know.
6 Q. Now, it also contemplates, on line 32, that there would be
7 meetings between Mr. Craig and Cox, Kwaniewski, and the
8 Ukrainian commissioner for human rights?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And if we go to the next page.
11 A number of items. Like, for example, in line 39,
12 Mr. Craig is going to do something. In line 43, Mr. Craig is
13 going to provide counterpoints.
14 And if you go to the next page --
15 THE COURT: Can we -- can we put a question mark
16 somewhere?
17 MS. JUNGHANS: I think he said yes.
18 THE COURT: Those are on there?
19 BY MS. JUNGHANS:
20 Q. You agree?
21 A. These are on the grid, yes.
22 Q. Thank you, sir.
23 And if you go to the next page.
24 In lines 53 through 57, it sets out something of a
25 world tour for Mr. Craig, right?

1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Now, he hadn't, at this point, agreed to do any of this,
3 had he?
5 Q. In fact, this document was not shared with him, correct?
7 A. I did not share it with him.
8 Sorry.
9 THE COURT: All right. Do you know?
10 THE WITNESS: I don't. I did not share it with him.
11 BY MS. JUNGHANS:
12 Q. Okay. Well, you sent it to -- if you go back to page 1.
13 The people you sent it to were Jon Aarons,
14 John Hawker, and Alex van der Zwaan. You did not send it to
15 Greg Craig.
16 A. Actually, Jonathan Hawker sent this to me, based on the
17 email.
18 Q. I'm sorry, sir. I'm looking at the wrong one. You are
19 correct. You are correct.
20 This is just Jonathan Hawker to you?
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. So Jonathan Hawker, at least on the surface of this, did
23 not send it to Greg Craig?
24 A. To my knowledge.
25 Q. And you did not send it to Greg Craig?

1 A. I did not.
2 Q. Okay.
3 Now, let's go to Government Exhibit 220.
4 This is now August 24th, 2012. And if you look at
5 the bottom email, it's from yourself to Mr. Hawker and
6 Mr. Aarons at FTI.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And you say, "It looks like we will be moving forward next
9 week. In the interim, I need you guys to think of a few
10 friendly reporters that we can outreach to when the Report is
11 made public."
12 Do you see that?
13 A. I do.
14 Q. Now, this is sometime after you've told us you already had
15 a conversation with Greg Craig identifying David Sanger?
16 A. Correct.
17 Q. Did you say -- well, you obviously did not say, Hey, guys,
18 we could use David Sanger?
19 A. No. This actually alluded to additional reporters. I'm
20 not saying it mentions David Sanger, but this was more of a
21 question, that we needed more reporters to solicit this to,
22 friendly reporters.
23 Q. Did you ever, during this period of time, advise Mr. Hawker
24 that Mr. Craig had identified David Sanger a month or two
25 before and -- did you ever tell him that?

1 A. To my recollection, Mr. Hawker was aware of Sanger --
2 Mr. Sanger potentially being involved. But, I don't know
3 specifically when we had that conversation.
4 Q. Well, okay. Because you said he was aware.
5 But, are you saying you told him?
6 A. No, I did not tell him.
7 Q. So, how was he aware?
8 A. It was my understanding he was aware from Mr. Craig.
9 Q. You're saying Jonathan Hawker, you believe --
10 THE COURT: Do you know how Mr. Hawker became aware?
11 THE WITNESS: I do not.
12 THE COURT: Okay. Next question.
13 BY MS. JUNGHANS:
14 Q. Okay. You don't know?
16 Q. And you did not take any steps to include David Sanger in
17 the email to Jonathan Hawker?
18 A. Not in this specific email, no.
19 Q. Pardon me?
20 A. Not in this specific email that you're referencing here,
21 no.
22 Q. Right. On the next -- can you turn to Defendant's Exhibit
23 98?
24 This is from Jon Aarons to you. I think -- well, if
25 you look at the bottom of the page, it repeats or incorporates

1 the email we were just discussing where you were asking for a
2 list of reporters.
3 And Mr. Aarons responds to you with a list he says
4 that he previously sent you, and there are reporters all
5 throughout Europe, right?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Okay. Were you expecting to get, also, reporters in the
8 United States?
9 A. I don't recall. I don't know if they left those off or --
10 this was the list that they provided.
11 Q. Okay.
12 A. We weren't specific.
13 Q. But, if you look at what is attached here, is another
14 version of the communications strategy document.
15 Do you see that?
16 A. (No response.)
17 Q. And if you look at page -- it's -- well, look at page 5.
18 A. Is this exhibit 98?
19 Q. I'm sorry. The PDF page is 98-7. It's page 5 of the memo,
20 but it's page 7 of the PDF.
21 A. Okay.
22 MS. JUNGHANS: John, could you go to the previous
23 page? I don't know why mine are numbered differently. But --
24 okay.
25 BY MS. JUNGHANS:
1 Q. Item 2, still saying, "The Report will conclude that the
2 trial was valid, the crime was committed, and the sentence was
3 appropriate," right?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Now, by this time had you had any more insight into what
6 the Report said?
7 A. So, there were -- the Report, as it was being drafted, had
8 content to it, but the conclusions had not been written yet.
9 So we still didn't have an understanding of what the
10 conclusions might contain. But there were elements of the
11 Report -- I would have to go back. I think at this time, we
12 had seen at least some of it.
13 Q. Did Mr. Craig give it to you?
14 A. He did not.
15 Q. In fact, he wouldn't give it to you, right?
16 A. It was my understanding that Mr. van der Zwaan had given it
17 to Mr. Hawker and copied me. I had not seen a copy of the
18 Report at that time, though.
19 Q. Well, in fact, Mr. van der Zwaan, at your request, allowed
20 Mr. Hawker to enter his hotel room in Kyiv and have
21 Mr. van der Zwaan leave a copy of the Report behind so that
22 Mr. Hawker could see it; isn't that right?
24 Q. And you got Alex van der Zwaan to do that, in spite of the
25 fact that Greg Craig had refused to disclose the Report to you
1 or to Mr. Hawker?
3 question.
4 A. Can you repeat the question, please?
5 BY MS. JUNGHANS:
6 Q. Mr. Craig had declined to disclose the Report to
7 Mr. Hawker?
8 A. To my knowledge, yes.
9 Q. Or to you?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And you were friendly with Alex van der Zwaan, were you
12 not?
13 A. Yes. We socialized.
14 Q. You socialized in Kyiv?
15 A. In London, Kyiv, Washington.
16 Q. You hung out?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. You went to parties and nightclubs -- or, dinners and
19 nightclubs together?
20 A. We went to dinners.
21 Q. And Mr. van der Zwaan, you understood, was Mr. Craig's
22 associate?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Subject to Mr. Craig's discretion?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. But, nevertheless, you persuaded Mr. van der Zwaan to
2 disclose the Report to Mr. Hawker, against Mr. Craig's
3 instructions?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Did you offer him anything for that?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Well, around that time, you were trying to get Alex
8 van der Zwaan to come to work for Davis Manafort, were you not?
9 A. Well, Alex had expressed interest in looking at other
10 opportunities. One opportunity was potentially working for
11 Davis Manafort. Another opportunity was looking at expanding
12 the Skadden office in Eastern Europe. So, at that time, he had
13 indicated that he wanted to stay at Skadden long enough to make
14 partner before, you know, any decision was made.
15 Q. Okay. And whatever -- for whatever reason, he accepted
16 your request -- or, he acted in response to your request, and
17 he contradicted Mr. Craig's instruction and gave the Report to
18 Mr. Hawker?
19 A. Yes. We had a situation where Mr. Hawker could not
20 continue with the outline until he had some information from
21 the Report. Mr. Manafort had asked me to --
22 Q. I didn't ask you, sir, to tell us --
23 THE COURT: Well, you strung together many
24 statements, and I think he's responding to them.
25 Go ahead.
1 A. Mr. Manafort had asked me to see if we could get a copy of
2 the Report in advance, to have Jonathan write the matrix. I
3 communicated that to Alex. The initial response I got was, No,
4 the Report was not ready.
5 I went back to Alex to ask him if he could let
6 Jonathan at least see snippets of the Report, at which time,
7 then Mr. van der Zwaan arranged for Mr. Hawker to receive parts
8 of it.
9 BY MS. JUNGHANS:
10 Q. And none of you, to your knowledge, told Mr. Craig you were
11 doing that?
12 A. I did not.
13 Q. Now, so, after Mr. Hawker had seen the Report, that had
14 occurred prior to the exhibit we're looking at, August 24th,
15 right?
16 A. I don't --
17 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ: Objection to the form. I
18 think misstates the evidence.
19 MS. JUNGHANS: Let me --
21 BY MS. JUNGHANS:
22 Q. Do you know when it occurred?
23 A. I don't know when Mr. Hawker saw the Report. There were
24 multiple movements in terms of, we could see it, we couldn't
25 see it, the Report was ready, it wasn't ready. So I don't have
1 a specific date. If you could tell me the date, then I
2 could --
3 Q. Well, sir, I wasn't there. I mean, do you recall --
4 A. Well, I wasn't there either.
5 THE COURT: He doesn't know the date.
6 THE WITNESS: Yeah.
8 BY MS. JUNGHANS:
9 Q. Do you recall it being before the end of July?
10 A. I don't.
11 Q. So, if you look at this document that Mr. -- that FTI was
12 generating, it still said, "The Report will conclude that the
13 trial was valid, the crime was committed, and the sentence was
14 appropriate," right?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. So, either Mr. Hawker had seen the Report at this time and
17 knew that the Report did not conclude this -- that's one
18 possibility, right?
19 A. It could be a possibility, yes.
20 Q. -- or he had not seen the Report and was still hoping
21 that's what it would say?
22 A. Keep in mind this was just a placeholder until we got
23 details from the Report. So, this went on for quite some time.
24 And this was not the only instance where there were things in
25 this document that we put in that, yes, you could suggest we

1 were hoping for, but we didn't know the definitive answer. And
2 until we got the Report, we couldn't fill in the details.
3 Q. And the placeholder was what you wanted the message to be?
4 A. That was certainly one of the messages, yes.
5 Q. Now, if you look at --
6 MS. JUNGHANS: If you go to page 12 of the PDF,
7 please, John.
8 And go -- actually, keep going to the next page. No.
9 Page 12 of the PDF. There's a list of reporters.
10 Go to the prior page, please.
11 There you go.
12 BY MS. JUNGHANS:
13 Q. So there's a list of reporters, and the reporter who's
14 listed for The New York Times is still Steven Lee Myers --
15 A. Correct.
16 Q. -- right?
17 Not David Sanger?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. By this time, do you think you had communicated to
20 Mr. Hawker that Greg Craig was suggesting Davis Sanger?
22 question. Misstates the facts in evidence.
23 THE COURT: Well, do you know if you had given the
24 name David Sanger to Mr. Hawker by the time this report -- this
25 draft of the plan --

1 THE WITNESS: In August, I don't believe so.
2 BY MS. JUNGHANS:
3 Q. Okay. Mr. Craig had given it to you --
4 THE COURT: Okay. Why don't we approach the bench.
5 MS. JUNGHANS: No, Your Honor. I'll just go to the
6 next question.
7 THE COURT: Okay.
9 BY MS. JUNGHANS:
10 Q. Now, go to Government Exhibit 232, please.
11 August -- no, strike that. That's September 12th,
12 2012. So, two weeks or so after what we just looked at?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. All right. Okay.
15 And you say -- this is from you to Mr. Hawker and
16 Mr. Kilimnik, right?
17 A. Correct.
18 Q. -- "We're getting close to the release of the Report. We
19 need to have the following prepared for me by 2 p.m."
20 And the first item on your agenda was the headline --
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. -- right?
23 Now, at this point, did you know -- excuse me -- did
24 you know how long the Report appeared it was going to be?
25 A. No, because the Report still wasn't finalized at this time.

1 Q. Excuse me.
2 But, you knew it wasn't going to be ten pages?
3 A. Oh, no. We suspected it would be much longer.
4 Q. Hundreds of pages?
5 A. We didn't know the total number until the end.
6 Q. Okay. Okay. But, the reason you wanted the headline was
7 because you knew that this dense report, when it came out, was
8 not likely to be read in its entirety by too many people,
9 right?
10 A. Correct.
11 Q. And, in fact, even if there were news articles about the
12 Report, people might not read the whole article; they might
13 just read the headline?
14 A. Correct.
15 Q. That's part of what you think about in your business,
16 right?
18 Q. So you were -- the first thing on your agenda was, The
19 headline, let's get that --
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. -- correct?
22 Okay. And then Number 5 was, "What media are we
23 privately leaking to?"
24 And you say, "Remember, I want to use Bloomberg in
25 the United States."

1 A. Yes.
2 Q. What happened to David Sanger?
3 A. At this time, there was concern raised by one of the other
4 consultants in terms of Sanger and whether or not he would
5 actually put out a favorable article. So, there was a
6 recommendation made that we consider another reporter.
7 We, at that time, looked at Bloomberg. The reporter
8 that was recommended was actually more related to TV. So, we
9 thought that we would look at one in print and one in TV, as
10 well. Bloomberg was going to be the television.
11 Q. You had never discussed a television reporter with
12 Mr. Craig, right?
13 A. No.
14 Q. So, there's no indication in here that you had, by then,
15 told Mr. Hawker about the suggestion of Mr. Sanger?
16 A. By this point, I believe that Mr. Hawker was aware that
17 Mr. Sanger was a possibility.
18 Q. Okay. Now, the same day, Mr. Hawker sent you yet another
19 version of the messaging documents, right?
20 If you go to government -- defendant -- ah --
21 Defendant's Exhibit 126.
22 And this is Mr. Hawker sending you more versions of
23 these things, right?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Okay. And what -- if you turn to the next page. Let's

1 just see what the first page looks like.
2 He actually is putting together here a proposed set
3 of question and answers that the Ministry of Justice might
4 answer when the Report was released, correct?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Okay. And if you look at page -- the next page.
7 MS. JUNGHANS: 126-3, John. In about the lower --
8 "You can say," that part.
9 BY MS. JUNGHANS:
10 Q. One of the questions -- and, again, this is writing -- this
11 is anticipating, What if this question is asked? What are we
12 going to say, right?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And the question that he anticipated was, "You say you have
15 only just received the Report and are just reading it. Isn't
16 it odd, given that you paid for it, you were not provided with
17 a draft?
18 "Answer: We wanted an independent report. It would
19 not have been independent if we had requested a draft," right?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Well, that's not a truthful statement, is it?
22 A. These were statements designed by Mr. Hawker initially to
23 look at how we might potentially answer these questions or how
24 people from the Ministry of Justice would answer those
25 questions. But, in fact, a draft had been seen by multiple

1 groups before the final report was released.
2 Q. So the answer to my question is, yes, it's not a truthful
3 statement?
4 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ: Objection to the form.
5 THE COURT: The statement that Mr. Hawker put in this
6 draft as a possible answer to a Q&A was not accurate?
7 THE WITNESS: That is correct.
8 THE COURT: Okay.
9 BY MS. JUNGHANS:
10 Q. And was that okay with you?
11 A. Frankly, I'd -- he had sent so many documents. I did not
12 review every document in detail.
13 Q. Okay.
14 MS. JUNGHANS: Scroll down to the part that says
15 "Findings."
16 BY MS. JUNGHANS:
17 Q. "The Report is inconclusive on political motivation.
18 Surely this was the key point you wanted to address. Are you
19 disappointed?"
20 This was, again, a question he imagined might come
21 up, right?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And the issue of political -- whether the prosecution of
24 Ms. Tymoshenko was politically motivated was the most important
25 issue for the government of Ukraine to dispel, correct?

1 A. Yes, it was a major provision that needed to be dispelled.
2 Q. Okay. I mean, the issues about how the trial was conducted
3 were important, but they were secondary to this question of
4 whether this was a political prosecution of a former prime
5 minister?
6 A. I'd say, both were important. But, the political
7 motivation piece was central to the Western leaders from other
8 European countries seeing that Ukraine did not do this through
9 political motivation.
10 Q. And so the -- the hypothetical statement -- or, the
11 hypothetical question -- excuse me -- starts out with the
12 premise, "The Report is inconclusive on political motivation."
13 That's a true statement, isn't it?
14 A. Contrary...
15 THE COURT: Well, at the time it was written or right
16 now?
17 BY MS. JUNGHANS:
18 Q. At the time it was written -- at the time it was written,
19 you understood that the Report did not take a position on
20 whether there was a political motivation for the prosecution?
21 A. At the time of the Report, I recall that there was a
22 statement about political motivation, but it was more extensive
23 than what Jonathan boiled it down to. So this is a sound bite
24 based on one of the greater conclusions in the Report --
25 Q. All right.
1 A. -- about political motivation.
2 Q. We're going to get to the Report.
3 But, is it your testimony that at that time you
4 believed -- well, strike that.
5 Let's look at the answer.
6 "On the contrary" -- the proposed answer.
7 "On the contrary. The Report clearly states that
8 there is no evidence of political motivation."
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. The Report did not take a position about whether there was
11 political motivation, right? Correct?
12 A. My recollection of the Report was that there was -- that
13 the -- that there was no evidence of political motivation.
14 Q. Are you distinguishing political motivation from selective
15 prosecution?
16 A. No, we're not separating the two. We are trying to show
17 that the trial was not done out of political malice toward a
18 former opponent.
19 Q. And the issue was -- there's two issues. One is whether
20 Ms. Tymoshenko presented enough evidence of political
21 prosecution that her conviction could be overturned because of
22 it, right?
23 A. Correct.
24 Q. And then there's the larger issue of whether Skadden
25 surveyed information outside the trial to make a conclusion

1 about political prosecution?
2 A. I'm not sure about the second piece, but the first piece is
3 correct.
4 Q. Okay. Well, you know that Skadden only reviewed the record
5 of the trial, correct?
6 A. Correct.
7 MR. TAYLOR: Could we approach, Your Honor?
8 THE COURT: Yes.
9 And I was thinking I was going to let her finish this
10 document before we broke for lunch.
11 MS. JUNGHANS: And I just have one more, possibly two
12 more, questions.
13 THE COURT: All right. Well, let me hear from
14 Mr. Taylor and then you'll ask your questions and --
15 MR. TAYLOR: It relates to the -- when we get a
16 break.
17 THE COURT: Okay. All right.
18 Your colleague says it's going to be in two
19 questions.
20 MR. TAYLOR: You asked me to rise my hand.
21 THE COURT: All right. All right.
22 MS. JUNGHANS: I think everybody is ready for lunch.
23 You'll probably be relieved.
24 THE COURT: All right. Why don't we do it now, then?
25 MS. JUNGHANS: Sure, let's do that.

2 Thank you, Mr. Taylor.
3 All right. Members of the jury, please don't discuss
4 this case among yourselves or with anyone else during the
5 break. It is 1 p.m. We'll resume at 2 p.m.
6 So, please enjoy your lunch, and don't discuss the
7 case or research it in any way.
8 Thank you.
9 (Whereupon the jury leaves the courtroom.)
10 THE COURT: All right. Everyone is excused. The
11 witness also gets a lunch, hopefully.
12 I'll see you at 2 o'clock.
13 * * *
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2 CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
5 I, JANICE DICKMAN, do hereby certify that the above
6 and foregoing constitutes a true and accurate transcript of my
7 stenograph notes and is a full, true and complete transcript of
8 the proceedings to the best of my ability.
9 Dated this 22nd day of August, 2019.
10
11
12 /s/________________________
13 Janice E. Dickman, CRR, RMR, CRC

14 Room 6523
333 Constitution Avenue NW
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
$ 2007 [2] - 1814:9, 1814:15 360 [2] - 1883:15, 1884:10

2010 [3] - 1815:15, 1816:23, 361 [1] - 1886:20
$800,000 [1] - 1909:25 1908:9 371 [1] - 1894:5
2011 [2] - 1908:16, 1909:6 383 [1] - 1888:21
' 2012 [18] - 1815:6, 1815:8, 39 [1] - 1941:11
1815:19, 1816:18, 1817:3,
'leak' [1] - 1865:9 1817:6, 1817:18, 1817:23, 4
'selective [1] - 1857:23 1821:17, 1823:15, 1836:25,
'Ukraine [1] - 1858:1 1886:11, 1909:15, 1920:5, 4 [3] - 1850:21, 1854:15, 1896:6
1929:24, 1937:25, 1943:4, 40 [3] - 1826:3, 1826:11,
/ 1952:12 1904:20
2013 [1] - 1909:19 410 [1] - 1801:24
/s [1] - 1961:12 2014 [2] - 1814:9, 1814:15 43 [1] - 1941:12
2016 [4] - 1813:16, 1909:25, 47 [1] - 1812:11
1 1910:2
1 [7] - 1849:23, 1849:25,

2017 [2] - 1823:18, 1826:24 5
2018 [1] - 1912:5
1909:19, 1924:22, 1930:16, 2019 [2] - 1801:6, 1961:9 5 [6] - 1827:18, 1850:21,
1942:12, 1960:5 202 [3] - 1801:15, 1801:19, 1851:3, 1945:17, 1945:19,
10 [1] - 1940:2 1802:4 1953:22
100 [1] - 1801:22 202-354-3267 [1] - 1802:9 5.B [2] - 1851:3, 1851:5
1000 [1] - 1802:3 20530 [2] - 1801:15, 1801:18 53 [1] - 1941:24
1001 [1] - 1894:18 207 [1] - 1937:23 5312 [1] - 1894:10
10th [5] - 1876:10, 1877:8, 21202 [1] - 1801:23 5322(b [1] - 1894:10
1921:3, 1923:15, 1923:25 22 [2] - 1801:6, 1894:13 555 [1] - 1801:14
11 [2] - 1885:7, 1935:15 220 [1] - 1943:3 57 [2] - 1825:9, 1941:24
11:30 [1] - 1892:13 22nd [1] - 1961:9 5K [1] - 1828:8
11:35 [1] - 1892:14 232 [1] - 1952:10 5K1 [2] - 1828:3, 1828:5
11th [2] - 1881:2, 1886:11 233-0986 [1] - 1801:19 5th [3] - 1937:22, 1937:25,
12 [2] - 1951:6, 1951:9 23rd [1] - 1855:7 1938:19
126 [1] - 1954:21 24 [2] - 1878:1, 1940:15
126-3 [1] - 1955:7 2440 [1] - 1801:23 6
12th [4] - 1877:14, 1912:5, 24th [3] - 1836:25, 1943:4,
1922:17, 1952:11 6 [6] - 1828:2, 1851:9, 1854:15,
1949:14
1300 [1] - 1877:22 1870:13, 1926:22, 1934:12
252-7698 [1] - 1801:15
14th [1] - 1929:7 6.B [1] - 1851:20
254 [3] - 1847:14, 1847:17,
166 [3] - 1834:18, 1834:23, 612 [1] - 1894:13
1848:3
1916:14 258 [2] - 1856:9, 1858:10 618 [1] - 1894:13
176 [1] - 1924:11 26 [2] - 1894:5, 1907:14 625 [3] - 1823:25, 1824:3,
18 [1] - 1935:23 1893:16
27 [1] - 1861:7
1800 [1] - 1802:2 626 [1] - 1897:6
281 [1] - 1863:24
189 [1] - 1929:22 6523 [2] - 1802:8, 1961:14
284 [1] - 1847:17
19-125 [2] - 1803:11, 1892:22 28th [2] - 1929:24, 1932:4
19-CR-125 [1] - 1801:3 2nd [1] - 1923:16 7
1900 [1] - 1878:3
7 [8] - 1828:16, 1854:15,
3 1854:17, 1878:16, 1898:10,
2
1926:23, 1928:18, 1945:20
3 [5] - 1825:5, 1850:7, 1854:14,
2 [13] - 1826:19, 1848:5, 1850:2, 71 [1] - 1825:9
1897:25, 1931:7
1850:3, 1856:21, 1864:22, 7206(1 [2] - 1894:5, 1907:13
30 [1] - 1905:3
1920:5, 1924:24, 1928:2, 77 [2] - 1919:9, 1919:10
302s [1] - 1901:25
1946:1, 1952:19, 1960:5, 77-4 [1] - 1920:9
306 [1] - 1867:5
1960:12 77-7 [1] - 1920:14
31 [1] - 1894:10
2-5-4 [1] - 1847:18 778-1814 [1] - 1802:4
316 [1] - 1868:13
200-and-some-thousand [1] -
32 [1] - 1941:6
1908:16
322 [2] - 1869:12, 1869:13 8
2000 [1] - 1854:17
327 [1] - 1876:6
20001 [2] - 1802:9, 1961:15 8 [2] - 1854:15, 1889:11
331 [1] - 1880:21
20036 [1] - 1802:3
333 [2] - 1802:8, 1961:14
2006 [1] - 1813:16
1856:7, 1857:9, 1860:18, ahead [3] - 1821:25, 1899:25,

9
1860:20, 1860:21, 1865:6, 1948:25
9 [3] - 1801:5, 1801:8, 1828:2 1868:24 air [2] - 1874:20
9-28-1012 [1] - 1864:5 Action [1] - 1801:3 Al [2] - 1867:23, 1885:9
9.5 [1] - 1896:22 action-oriented [1] - 1857:9 Aleksander [1] - 1880:2
949-1146 [1] - 1801:24 actions [4] - 1850:16, 1864:4, Alex [14] - 1832:21, 1838:11,
950 [1] - 1801:18 1867:17, 1877:3 1881:14, 1881:24, 1882:11,
98 [2] - 1944:23, 1945:18 activities [6] - 1827:10, 1882:12, 1882:14, 1942:14,
98-7 [1] - 1945:19 1895:24, 1898:3, 1900:8, 1946:24, 1947:11, 1948:7,
9:30 [2] - 1801:7, 1803:7 1905:17, 1916:18 1948:9, 1949:3, 1949:5
activity [9] - 1827:8, 1828:6, align [1] - 1933:20
A 1831:25, 1850:22, 1850:24, alleged [3] - 1901:5, 1901:6,
1867:3, 1870:18, 1881:13, 1901:7
a.m [4] - 1801:7, 1878:16, 1896:25 allow [1] - 1871:17
1885:7, 1889:11 actual [4] - 1835:18, 1837:24, allowed [5] - 1839:1, 1842:16,
Aabelson@zuckerman.com [1] 1850:1, 1870:16 1844:18, 1907:2, 1946:19
- 1801:25 Adam [3] - 1801:17, 1801:21, alluded [1] - 1943:19
Aarons [7] - 1919:19, 1924:13, 1803:22 almost [1] - 1826:2
1930:1, 1942:13, 1943:6, add [2] - 1873:1, 1930:8 altered [1] - 1911:17
1944:24, 1945:3 added [1] - 1846:6 altogether [2] - 1874:20, 1918:4
Abelson [2] - 1801:21, 1803:22 addition [5] - 1817:19, 1827:15, Amanda [1] - 1803:18
abide [1] - 1851:23 1834:10, 1863:18, 1906:13 amended [1] - 1914:8
ability [3] - 1880:8, 1895:18, Additional [1] - 1826:20 America [3] - 1801:3, 1803:11,
1961:8 additional [7] - 1817:21, 1892:22
able [8] - 1822:17, 1836:6, 1826:24, 1832:12, 1846:6, amount [9] - 1855:14, 1896:12,
1840:25, 1841:21, 1860:16, 1863:11, 1864:19, 1943:19 1896:17, 1896:20, 1904:14,
1874:8, 1910:18, 1919:13 address [7] - 1812:13, 1851:24, 1907:24, 1907:25, 1908:7,
absence [1] - 1859:23 1853:6, 1858:21, 1859:20, 1908:22
absolutely [3] - 1827:25, 1928:5, 1956:18 amounts [1] - 1911:24
1889:23, 1900:22 administration [1] - 1879:4 AMY [1] - 1801:9
abundantly [1] - 1873:3 admitted [2] - 1834:17, 1900:14 andres [1] - 1912:6
acceptable [1] - 1830:20 advance [6] - 1848:1, 1871:16, announcement [1] - 1877:18
accepted [1] - 1948:15 1900:3, 1934:15, 1934:22, annual [1] - 1905:19
access [1] - 1905:22 1949:2 ANSA [1] - 1887:14
accommodate [1] - 1805:4 advanced [1] - 1834:8 answer [23] - 1829:6, 1830:13,
accomplish [2] - 1830:7, advertising [1] - 1814:22 1839:2, 1841:22, 1844:10,
1830:20 advise [1] - 1943:23 1844:23, 1891:18, 1891:19,
accomplished [1] - 1888:6 agencies [1] - 1870:20 1892:2, 1892:4, 1903:4, 1907:2,
accomplishing [1] - 1829:16 agenda [7] - 1848:9, 1848:11, 1933:13, 1941:4, 1951:1,
according [3] - 1873:5, 1849:22, 1850:14, 1856:5, 1955:4, 1955:18, 1955:23,
1879:14, 1889:6 1952:20, 1953:18 1955:24, 1956:2, 1956:6,
account [6] - 1831:12, 1831:16, agent [1] - 1898:3 1958:5, 1958:6
1831:19, 1894:25, 1895:18, agents [2] - 1905:4, 1912:4 answered [6] - 1825:24, 1903:9,
1895:19 aggravating [1] - 1897:1 1923:12, 1923:13, 1936:24,
accounts [19] - 1894:11, agree [3] - 1827:4, 1874:1, 1936:25
1895:10, 1895:12, 1895:15, 1941:20 answering [1] - 1844:9
1895:17, 1895:24, 1905:20, agreed [19] - 1825:11, 1825:12, answers [3] - 1851:18, 1902:3,
1908:14, 1909:9, 1909:12, 1825:14, 1826:21, 1826:23, 1955:3
1909:13, 1909:17, 1909:23, 1827:20, 1827:21, 1827:22, anticipated [2] - 1818:21,
1909:24, 1910:11, 1910:14, 1828:3, 1828:14, 1828:21, 1955:14
1910:19, 1913:9 1861:1, 1863:4, 1902:10, anticipates [3] - 1939:10,
accurate [4] - 1889:12, 1927:17, 1927:18, 1935:12, 1940:3, 1940:15
1889:13, 1956:6, 1961:6 1942:2 anticipating [1] - 1955:11
accurately [1] - 1902:8 agreement [21] - 1824:6, anticipation [1] - 1924:7
accused [2] - 1925:3, 1925:4 1824:11, 1824:14, 1825:10, anyway [1] - 1875:20
acquisition [1] - 1911:6 1825:17, 1826:13, 1826:16, apologize [2] - 1912:9, 1922:2
acted [4] - 1898:13, 1898:15, 1826:17, 1827:11, 1829:8, appear [1] - 1893:20
1925:22, 1948:16 1893:19, 1897:9, 1903:16, appeared [2] - 1888:16,
acting [2] - 1820:5, 1917:16 1903:25, 1904:11, 1904:15, 1952:24
action [9] - 1838:7, 1851:16, 1904:17, 1905:8, 1906:6, 1911:1 application [2] - 1828:18,
1860:9 attended [1] - 1848:17 behaving [1] - 1859:11

appreciate [2] - 1811:8, attention [4] - 1815:6, 1877:13, behind [5] - 1805:2, 1834:9,
1819:11 1900:17, 1934:2 1836:16, 1840:24, 1946:21
apprised [1] - 1836:14 attorney [4] - 1822:3, 1832:14, belief [3] - 1817:25, 1938:4,
approach [8] - 1803:13, 1832:18, 1838:11 1938:7
1818:18, 1842:7, 1872:18, Attorney's [1] - 1801:13 belonged [1] - 1831:12
1900:12, 1932:11, 1952:4, audience [1] - 1900:23 Below [1] - 1889:14
1959:7 August [10] - 1801:6, 1937:22, below [4] - 1854:18, 1860:21,
appropriate [5] - 1927:2, 1937:25, 1938:3, 1938:19, 1884:12, 1887:6
1928:23, 1929:1, 1946:3, 1943:4, 1949:14, 1952:1, bench [18] - 1804:6, 1804:7,
1950:14 1952:11, 1961:9 1805:3, 1805:9, 1805:10,
approved [3] - 1834:3, 1887:7, available [1] - 1941:3 1805:14, 1818:18, 1818:19,
1887:8 Avenue [3] - 1801:18, 1802:8, 1842:7, 1842:11, 1852:11,
areas [2] - 1840:9, 1939:24 1961:14 1852:12, 1872:18, 1872:19,
arguing [1] - 1912:20 avoid [3] - 1898:5, 1902:12, 1900:12, 1900:13, 1932:13,
argumentative [3] - 1891:10, 1910:10 1952:4
1891:25, 1932:14 avoidance [2] - 1902:10 Berlin [1] - 1935:17
arm [3] - 1898:24, 1898:25, avoided [1] - 1933:22 BERMAN [1] - 1801:9
1899:4 AVZ [1] - 1860:23 best [2] - 1844:14, 1961:8
Army [1] - 1813:1 aware [11] - 1862:18, 1862:19, better [2] - 1836:5, 1913:14
Arps [6] - 1817:11, 1817:23, 1875:8, 1878:23, 1880:17, between [11] - 1823:10,
1818:7, 1821:15, 1851:10, 1944:1, 1944:4, 1944:7, 1944:8, 1837:21, 1838:6, 1848:19,
1861:4 1944:10, 1954:16 1865:16, 1870:18, 1883:12,
arrange [1] - 1910:18 awful [1] - 1852:10 1883:22, 1906:23, 1940:11,
arranged [2] - 1830:5, 1949:7 1941:7
arrangement [1] - 1853:20 B beyond [4] - 1857:7, 1865:3,
arrived [1] - 1811:6 1899:20, 1900:19
article [21] - 1840:18, 1840:25, bachelor [1] - 1812:20 big [1] - 1925:24
1841:1, 1841:11, 1841:15, background [7] - 1812:19, bigger [2] - 1835:9, 1864:25
1867:16, 1871:11, 1873:17, 1818:23, 1820:15, 1821:4, biggest [1] - 1857:15
1877:20, 1878:13, 1885:19, 1835:21, 1836:4, 1886:9 Bill [2] - 1803:21
1888:12, 1888:16, 1890:4, backup [4] - 1883:7, 1883:9, binder [1] - 1919:12
1890:12, 1890:16, 1891:2, 1883:10, 1886:10 bit [8] - 1811:13, 1833:20,
1953:12, 1954:5 backwards [1] - 1902:16 1846:14, 1857:7, 1888:5,
articles [6] - 1841:11, 1889:14, bad [1] - 1926:3 1937:11, 1937:19, 1939:23
1890:3, 1890:21, 1891:4, balanced [1] - 1865:11 bite [1] - 1957:23
1953:11 Baltimore [1] - 1801:23 black [1] - 1831:18
arts [2] - 1812:20, 1812:21 bank [11] - 1894:11, 1894:25, Black [1] - 1913:6
aside [1] - 1907:18 1895:10, 1895:12, 1908:14, Bloomberg [8] - 1854:18,
asserted [2] - 1819:4, 1842:13 1909:9, 1909:12, 1909:17, 1854:21, 1865:10, 1867:23,
assessment [1] - 1890:24 1909:22, 1909:24, 1913:9 1883:10, 1953:24, 1954:7,
Asset [1] - 1919:20 banks [2] - 1911:10, 1911:18 1954:10
assets [2] - 1919:22, 1919:25 banner [1] - 1864:25 blow [1] - 1931:10
assigned [1] - 1879:14 Barosso [1] - 1878:18 blue [1] - 1837:16
assistance [1] - 1828:18 barosso [1] - 1880:13 blush [1] - 1844:6
assisted [1] - 1899:8 based [6] - 1821:22, 1885:24, board [1] - 1833:7
associate [2] - 1866:20, 1928:12, 1931:5, 1942:16, body [1] - 1835:18
1947:22 1957:24 Boehner [1] - 1878:19
associated [7] - 1822:6, basis [2] - 1905:19, 1915:3 boiled [1] - 1957:23
1822:25, 1834:11, 1835:8, became [3] - 1834:15, 1852:2, border [1] - 1815:12
1899:5, 1914:4, 1914:11 1944:10 borrow [2] - 1841:5, 1911:10
assume [2] - 1874:9, 1893:7 BEFORE [1] - 1801:9 bottom [13] - 1825:5, 1835:19,
assuming [1] - 1828:20 began [3] - 1852:13, 1860:18, 1844:17, 1856:11, 1860:1,
attached [2] - 1876:14, 1945:13 1916:17 1868:16, 1876:8, 1884:11,
attachment [2] - 1920:4, 1935:8 beginning [1] - 1916:16 1920:15, 1931:20, 1935:23,
attachments [1] - 1864:5 beginnings [1] - 1829:18 1943:5, 1944:25
attempt [1] - 1927:8 begins [2] - 1920:8, 1924:25 bound [1] - 1844:10
attempted [1] - 1908:19 behalf [6] - 1835:17, 1867:13, Bradley [1] - 1801:17
attempting [1] - 1900:3 1880:7, 1888:18, 1899:8, break [10] - 1883:17, 1883:18,
attend [1] - 1849:19 1917:16 1883:22, 1884:2, 1892:8,
1893:9, 1910:5, 1937:19, 1955:9, 1956:9, 1956:16, 1801:12, 1883:16

1959:16, 1960:5 1957:17 CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ [116]
breathing [1] - 1846:9 - 1803:15, 1804:14, 1810:23,
brief [8] - 1815:7, 1838:3, C 1811:21, 1812:2, 1812:4,
1871:9, 1879:18, 1880:10, 1819:8, 1819:10, 1820:8,
1881:11, 1884:8, 1887:5 Cable [1] - 1913:6 1820:10, 1820:20, 1821:3,
briefed [4] - 1838:5, 1838:6, Cairo [3] - 1861:7, 1861:15, 1821:8, 1821:12, 1822:9,
1934:15, 1934:21 1861:25 1825:4, 1825:6, 1826:8, 1826:9,
briefing [9] - 1854:24, 1877:20, calculated [1] - 1825:7 1829:10, 1830:3, 1830:4,
1880:18, 1881:15, 1881:19, camp [1] - 1873:7 1830:18, 1830:24, 1831:2,
1881:21, 1882:17, 1887:8, campaign [11] - 1814:17, 1831:3, 1831:15, 1833:16,
1887:13 1815:15, 1834:11, 1836:2, 1834:20, 1834:22, 1837:3,
briefings [3] - 1836:4, 1881:24, 1859:17, 1913:17, 1913:18, 1837:4, 1837:20, 1839:8,
1935:6 1913:20, 1913:24, 1914:1, 1842:2, 1842:8, 1842:23,
briefly [1] - 1815:6 1914:4 1843:17, 1843:19, 1843:25,
bring [9] - 1804:4, 1804:17, campaigns [1] - 1814:14 1844:20, 1845:14, 1847:9,
1810:21, 1810:23, 1818:6, Campoamor [5] - 1801:12, 1847:18, 1847:20, 1849:18,
1875:8, 1893:1, 1902:7, 1904:25 1802:15, 1803:17, 1883:16, 1849:20, 1849:21, 1854:7,
bringing [3] - 1814:20, 1833:7, 1893:22 1854:14, 1854:16, 1855:24,
1842:12 CAMPOAMOR [116] - 1803:15, 1857:3, 1860:11, 1860:13,
broad [3] - 1838:23, 1921:6, 1804:14, 1810:23, 1811:21, 1862:12, 1862:13, 1865:24,
1921:7 1812:2, 1812:4, 1819:8, 1866:9, 1866:10, 1867:7,
broke [1] - 1959:10 1819:10, 1820:8, 1820:10, 1867:9, 1868:3, 1868:4,
brother [1] - 1911:7 1820:20, 1821:3, 1821:8, 1868:15, 1868:17, 1871:7,
brought [3] - 1826:24, 1846:7, 1821:12, 1822:9, 1825:4, 1871:20, 1872:2, 1873:1,
1903:17 1825:6, 1826:8, 1826:9, 1873:14, 1873:18, 1873:24,
building [1] - 1814:14 1829:10, 1830:3, 1830:4, 1874:4, 1874:6, 1875:13,
built [2] - 1836:23, 1869:16 1830:18, 1830:24, 1831:2, 1879:6, 1879:7, 1883:20,
1831:3, 1831:15, 1833:16, 1884:7, 1884:9, 1888:10,
built-in [1] - 1836:23
1834:20, 1834:22, 1837:3, 1888:11, 1891:13, 1891:16,
bullet [5] - 1931:9, 1931:11,
1837:4, 1837:20, 1839:8, 1891:21, 1892:6, 1892:19,
1931:20, 1934:2, 1939:8
1842:2, 1842:8, 1842:23, 1899:19, 1900:11, 1900:14,
bunch [2] - 1852:23, 1916:20
1843:17, 1843:19, 1843:25, 1900:18, 1901:2, 1901:12,
Burson [3] - 1835:10, 1918:1,
1844:20, 1845:14, 1847:9, 1901:17, 1902:1, 1902:17,
1918:2
1847:18, 1847:20, 1849:18, 1902:24, 1906:22, 1909:4,
Burson-Marsteller [3] -
1849:20, 1849:21, 1854:7, 1914:15, 1921:9, 1921:24,
1835:10, 1918:1, 1918:2
1854:14, 1854:16, 1855:24, 1922:11, 1922:14, 1923:5,
business [2] - 1831:13, 1953:15
1857:3, 1860:11, 1860:13, 1927:12, 1932:9, 1932:14,
BY [73] - 1812:4, 1821:12,
1862:12, 1862:13, 1865:24, 1933:3, 1936:23, 1942:6,
1822:9, 1826:9, 1829:10,
1866:9, 1866:10, 1867:7, 1947:2, 1949:17, 1951:21,
1830:4, 1831:3, 1831:15,
1867:9, 1868:3, 1868:4, 1956:4
1833:16, 1837:20, 1839:8,
1868:15, 1868:17, 1871:7, Campoamor-Sanchez..........
1842:2, 1845:14, 1847:9,
1871:20, 1872:2, 1873:1, 1812 [1] - 1802:15
1847:20, 1849:21, 1854:7,
1873:14, 1873:18, 1873:24, candidates [2] - 1814:14,
1855:24, 1857:3, 1865:24,
1874:4, 1874:6, 1875:13, 1814:23
1866:10, 1871:7, 1871:20,
1879:6, 1879:7, 1883:20, cannot [3] - 1882:8, 1931:23,
1872:2, 1893:13, 1893:18,
1884:7, 1884:9, 1888:10, 1934:4
1894:1, 1896:8, 1897:8, 1898:1,
1888:11, 1891:13, 1891:16, capacity [1] - 1823:11
1898:11, 1900:1, 1903:1,
1891:21, 1892:6, 1892:19, capture [2] - 1841:7, 1857:9
1903:7, 1907:11, 1909:5,
1899:19, 1900:11, 1900:14, captured [1] - 1857:12
1913:5, 1914:17, 1916:24,
1900:18, 1901:2, 1901:12, card [1] - 1911:21
1919:11, 1920:18, 1921:12,
1901:17, 1902:1, 1902:17, care [1] - 1834:9
1922:20, 1923:14, 1924:12,
1902:24, 1906:22, 1909:4, carry [4] - 1838:8, 1879:8,
1925:1, 1926:24, 1927:16,
1914:15, 1921:9, 1921:24, 1891:22, 1891:23
1927:22, 1928:4, 1928:21,
1922:11, 1922:14, 1923:5, carrying [2] - 1845:10, 1920:3
1929:23, 1931:12, 1934:1,
1927:12, 1932:9, 1932:14, Case [2] - 1803:11, 1892:21
1934:13, 1937:1, 1937:21,
1933:3, 1936:23, 1942:6, case [37] - 1811:11, 1824:11,
1937:24, 1939:1, 1941:19,
1947:2, 1949:17, 1951:21, 1826:11, 1826:25, 1829:2,
1942:11, 1944:13, 1945:25,
1956:4 1829:4, 1829:11, 1832:1,
1947:5, 1949:21, 1950:8,
Campoamor-Sanchez [2] - 1832:2, 1832:3, 1832:5, 1832:6,
1951:12, 1952:2, 1952:9,
1832:7, 1835:21, 1854:22, 1834:9, 1835:17, 1841:8, 1832:15, 1898:5, 1909:25,

1859:8, 1859:24, 1860:5, 1883:1, 1911:23, 1915:25, 1911:6, 1913:7
1860:9, 1874:23, 1875:3, 1916:3, 1931:3, 1936:10, complained [2] - 1853:17,
1881:25, 1882:2, 1882:10, 1937:3, 1938:9 1853:18
1892:12, 1893:8, 1894:21, close [2] - 1846:5, 1952:18 complaining [2] - 1852:7,
1896:11, 1896:16, 1896:20, closer [2] - 1850:15, 1864:8 1852:18
1897:18, 1925:6, 1930:4, Club [9] - 1839:25, 1846:23, complaints [1] - 1852:19
1960:4, 1960:7 1848:12, 1848:16, 1854:10, complete [3] - 1884:2, 1905:18,
cases [2] - 1825:14, 1891:4 1855:1, 1855:3, 1863:8, 1863:11 1961:7
caused [1] - 1897:2 coconspirator [1] - 1895:3 completed [1] - 1888:4
causing [1] - 1902:12 code [4] - 1858:14, 1939:20, completely [2] - 1906:4, 1928:6
central [1] - 1957:7 1939:22, 1939:23 complex [1] - 1856:5
Centre [4] - 1835:14, 1867:14, codified [1] - 1900:4 component [5] - 1836:12,
1898:13, 1900:20 codify [2] - 1828:6, 1856:6 1836:13, 1851:7, 1865:4,
certain [7] - 1851:18, 1853:21, colleague [2] - 1862:3, 1959:18 1918:14
1859:2, 1859:3, 1863:4, colleagues [2] - 1803:14, components [4] - 1814:22,
1885:17, 1921:18 1870:19 1817:9, 1822:1, 1836:11
certainly [4] - 1819:22, collected [2] - 1864:20, 1920:11 computers [1] - 1905:15
1937:13, 1938:11, 1951:4 collectively [2] - 1864:12, conceal [3] - 1906:13, 1910:13,
CERTIFICATE [1] - 1961:2 1925:3 1913:9
certify [1] - 1961:5 College [1] - 1812:20 concern [3] - 1830:9, 1855:6,
chairs [1] - 1892:15 COLUMBIA [2] - 1801:1, 1954:3
change [2] - 1846:11, 1885:17 1801:14 concerned [3] - 1885:13,
changed [5] - 1811:17, 1836:3, Columbia [2] - 1803:2, 1903:21 1885:15, 1926:5
1846:13, 1857:11, 1863:7 comfortable [1] - 1804:8 concerns [1] - 1853:3
changes [2] - 1863:17, 1940:6 coming [5] - 1861:25, 1869:1, conclude [10] - 1926:25,
charge [3] - 1824:21, 1861:20, 1875:5, 1890:18, 1919:24 1927:4, 1927:10, 1928:22,
1904:5 comma [1] - 1933:23 1928:24, 1931:13, 1936:19,
charged [1] - 1870:17 comment [1] - 1857:18 1946:1, 1950:12, 1950:17
charges [12] - 1816:3, 1823:22, comments [4] - 1902:18, concluded [1] - 1937:4
1824:9, 1825:8, 1826:24, 1913:3, 1930:7, 1930:8 concludes [4] - 1935:25,
1827:5, 1827:8, 1827:15, Commission [1] - 1880:8 1936:12, 1936:22, 1937:3
1903:17, 1903:24, 1904:1, commissioner [1] - 1941:8 conclusion [3] - 1936:9,
1904:2 committed [18] - 1827:13, 1936:17, 1958:25
Charges [2] - 1826:20, 1893:25 1897:21, 1906:8, 1906:10, conclusions [6] - 1836:15,
Charlie [4] - 1939:17, 1939:19, 1906:12, 1907:21, 1925:20, 1850:6, 1860:6, 1946:8,
1939:20, 1940:3 1927:1, 1928:23, 1931:14, 1946:10, 1957:24
check [2] - 1910:5, 1913:1 1935:11, 1935:21, 1936:1, concrete [1] - 1921:16
checks [1] - 1910:18 1936:6, 1936:8, 1936:12, conditions [1] - 1826:17
chief [1] - 1930:25 1946:2, 1950:13 conduct [3] - 1839:1, 1851:5,
choose [1] - 1843:15 Committee [1] - 1914:2 1882:17
choosing [1] - 1821:23 committee [1] - 1861:20 conducted [1] - 1957:2
chose [1] - 1842:15 common [1] - 1841:3 conducting [1] - 1894:22
circulated [1] - 1876:19 communicate [2] - 1883:1, conference [4] - 1868:22,
circumstances [1] - 1805:2 1930:9 1940:8, 1940:10, 1940:11
cite [1] - 1936:9 communicated [3] - 1875:18, confidence [1] - 1885:24
citing [1] - 1852:10 1949:3, 1951:19 confiscated [1] - 1919:23
City [1] - 1846:23 communication [2] - 1928:14, confused [1] - 1936:18
claim [1] - 1904:8 1929:19 conjunction [1] - 1918:8
claimed [2] - 1925:13, 1933:4 communications [13] - consider [2] - 1934:25, 1954:6
claiming [1] - 1911:13 1837:10, 1861:5, 1883:12, considerably [1] - 1851:25
claims [1] - 1933:16 1924:14, 1926:19, 1928:12, Consideration [1] - 1935:16
Claire [2] - 1866:17, 1866:20 1931:23, 1932:8, 1932:16, considered [7] - 1845:20,
clear [10] - 1818:2, 1838:9, 1932:18, 1933:1, 1934:5, 1869:18, 1886:8, 1921:21,
1865:25, 1872:4, 1873:3, 1945:14 1922:22, 1922:24, 1923:18
1912:19, 1919:21, 1922:19, community [1] - 1851:15 conspiracy [9] - 1824:12,
1925:19, 1939:24 companies [3] - 1817:17, 1824:21, 1894:5, 1894:25,
clearer [1] - 1821:7 1836:17, 1836:18 1895:1, 1902:9, 1907:12,
clearly [2] - 1836:11, 1958:7 companion [1] - 1897:10 1907:13
client [14] - 1833:11, 1834:3, company [6] - 1830:25, conspiring [1] - 1894:15
constant [1] - 1815:13 1932:5, 1933:16, 1943:15, 1939:18, 1940:6, 1940:7,

constitute [1] - 1897:19 1944:3 1942:4, 1942:5, 1942:19,
constitutes [1] - 1961:6 conversations [2] - 1811:10, 1942:21, 1943:16, 1944:15,
Constitution [2] - 1802:8, 1838:6 1946:23, 1951:15, 1952:17,
1961:14 convey [2] - 1835:23, 1853:22 1953:10, 1953:14, 1953:17,
consultant [1] - 1886:9 conveyed [1] - 1821:18 1953:21, 1955:4, 1956:7,
consultants [16] - 1814:16, conveying [2] - 1818:4, 1956:25, 1958:11, 1958:23,
1815:2, 1815:4, 1817:17, 1887:25 1959:3, 1959:5, 1959:6
1835:17, 1864:5, 1864:6, conviction [2] - 1936:2, correcting [1] - 1827:25
1864:20, 1864:24, 1872:11, 1958:21 correctly [1] - 1881:23
1873:20, 1875:9, 1875:15, cooks [1] - 1833:1 correspondent [3] - 1921:20,
1876:19, 1917:12, 1954:4 cooperated [1] - 1828:21 1922:22, 1923:17
consulted [2] - 1820:18, cooperation [8] - 1824:14, counsel [1] - 1803:13
1820:19 1825:10, 1825:17, 1826:13, Counsel [1] - 1894:22
Consulting [2] - 1817:20, 1827:11, 1827:17, 1827:22, Counsel's [2] - 1824:17,
1866:21 1828:6 1824:24
consulting [4] - 1813:22, coordinate [5] - 1861:5, count [1] - 1894:18
1817:14, 1834:16, 1835:4 1861:13, 1867:3, 1870:18, counter [3] - 1924:18, 1925:8,
contact [15] - 1823:12, 1835:21, 1870:22 1925:17
1837:6, 1837:7, 1837:21, coordinating [1] - 1871:4 counterpoints [1] - 1941:13
1838:10, 1838:14, 1855:15, copied [5] - 1835:15, 1876:4, countries [3] - 1814:5, 1895:13,
1869:19, 1869:25, 1881:5, 1883:11, 1884:19, 1946:17 1957:8
1885:8, 1886:6, 1920:19 copy [6] - 1824:1, 1824:6, country [3] - 1815:11, 1816:12,
contacted [1] - 1934:16 1864:10, 1946:17, 1946:21, 1926:3
contacts [5] - 1836:18, 1949:1 counts [1] - 1906:24
1837:25, 1917:3, 1920:9, copying [1] - 1886:25 couple [3] - 1815:3, 1854:20,
1920:10 correct [126] - 1820:20, 1827:3, 1929:24
Contacts [1] - 1918:11 1828:22, 1845:5, 1862:16, course [2] - 1826:2, 1874:23
contain [1] - 1946:10 1865:22, 1873:18, 1874:7, Court [6] - 1802:7, 1802:7,
contained [1] - 1810:18 1887:1, 1887:10, 1887:15, 1803:2, 1830:21, 1909:1,
contemplates [1] - 1941:6 1889:21, 1890:19, 1894:3, 1961:13
content [5] - 1847:7, 1849:15, 1894:23, 1895:11, 1895:23, court [9] - 1810:16, 1819:1,
1856:7, 1930:14, 1946:8 1896:3, 1896:23, 1897:16, 1821:11, 1844:22, 1854:6,
contents [1] - 1880:10 1898:6, 1898:7, 1898:20, 1875:12, 1893:21, 1902:25,
context [3] - 1816:10, 1860:3, 1899:7, 1899:11, 1899:14, 1933:25
1886:22 1903:18, 1903:23, 1903:25, COURT [163] - 1801:1, 1803:4,
continue [2] - 1839:2, 1948:20 1904:1, 1904:4, 1904:9, 1803:8, 1803:19, 1803:23,
continued [7] - 1846:5, 1846:8, 1904:15, 1904:16, 1904:24, 1803:25, 1804:16, 1804:21,
1846:9, 1863:3, 1863:15, 1905:19, 1906:8, 1906:9, 1805:1, 1805:6, 1805:12,
1876:17, 1909:22 1907:17, 1908:3, 1909:11, 1810:17, 1810:25, 1811:5,
continuing [1] - 1857:10 1909:14, 1909:20, 1909:24, 1812:1, 1818:5, 1818:9,
contract [3] - 1834:5, 1851:13, 1910:17, 1910:24, 1911:4, 1818:12, 1818:15, 1818:18,
1862:7 1911:16, 1912:13, 1912:14, 1818:25, 1819:16, 1820:17,
contracting [2] - 1832:22, 1913:11, 1914:10, 1914:22, 1820:21, 1821:5, 1821:10,
1851:22 1915:2, 1915:13, 1915:14, 1821:21, 1826:5, 1829:6,
contractual [1] - 1862:7 1915:17, 1915:21, 1915:22, 1829:21, 1829:24, 1830:1,
contradicted [1] - 1948:17 1916:1, 1916:5, 1916:6, 1830:9, 1830:22, 1831:1,
contrary [2] - 1958:6, 1958:7 1916:13, 1917:2, 1917:7, 1831:9, 1833:5, 1837:18,
1917:18, 1918:8, 1918:20, 1838:25, 1841:17, 1842:7,
contrary.. [1] - 1957:14
1920:2, 1920:21, 1921:6, 1842:9, 1842:12, 1842:16,
control [10] - 1854:12, 1864:19,
1921:10, 1922:23, 1923:19, 1842:22, 1843:21, 1844:1,
1877:4, 1879:9, 1879:15,
1923:21, 1923:22, 1924:5, 1844:8, 1844:13, 1844:23,
1908:13, 1909:9, 1913:9,
1924:7, 1925:16, 1925:18, 1845:4, 1845:6, 1845:8,
1938:20, 1938:25
1925:21, 1925:23, 1926:15, 1845:12, 1847:2, 1847:17,
controlled [1] - 1909:10
1926:16, 1926:18, 1927:3, 1847:19, 1849:7, 1849:10,
controversy [1] - 1925:10
1927:6, 1929:4, 1930:19, 1849:16, 1849:19, 1852:4,
convenience [2] - 1811:15,
1931:24, 1931:25, 1935:12, 1852:11, 1852:17, 1852:24,
1811:18
1935:18, 1935:22, 1937:5, 1853:12, 1853:15, 1853:24,
conversation [11] - 1843:20,
1938:9, 1938:17, 1938:18, 1854:5, 1855:19, 1856:25,
1847:24, 1885:25, 1929:6,
1939:6, 1939:12, 1939:15, 1865:20, 1865:23, 1866:7,
1929:9, 1929:10, 1932:1,
1871:3, 1871:6, 1871:14, 1879:15, 1879:18, 1879:22, 1913:10

1871:25, 1872:17, 1872:20, 1880:17, 1881:4, 1881:6,
1873:12, 1873:15, 1873:19, 1881:10, 1881:12, 1881:18, D
1874:11, 1874:16, 1874:21, 1882:5, 1883:12, 1884:12,
1875:3, 1875:7, 1883:16, 1886:5, 1887:13, 1888:15, D.C [11] - 1834:16, 1864:5,
1883:24, 1891:10, 1891:17, 1890:7, 1891:7, 1891:22, 1864:6, 1864:15, 1864:24,
1892:1, 1892:4, 1892:8, 1892:2, 1892:22, 1893:14, 1865:16, 1870:21, 1904:2,
1892:17, 1892:23, 1893:1, 1896:2, 1918:6, 1918:25, 1929:12, 1961:15
1893:4, 1899:21, 1899:25, 1919:1, 1919:4, 1921:1, 1921:5, date [15] - 1836:25, 1866:16,
1900:12, 1900:16, 1900:25, 1923:24, 1929:6, 1932:2, 1870:12, 1870:13, 1876:18,
1901:5, 1901:8, 1901:18, 1932:6, 1932:17, 1932:25, 1881:1, 1881:2, 1912:4, 1912:9,
1902:6, 1902:22, 1903:5, 1933:7, 1934:4, 1934:20, 1929:8, 1932:3, 1939:14,
1906:23, 1907:2, 1907:9, 1935:19, 1940:4, 1940:8, 1950:1, 1950:5
1912:20, 1912:22, 1912:25, 1940:10, 1940:12, 1941:7, Dated [1] - 1961:9
1913:2, 1914:16, 1921:11, 1941:12, 1941:25, 1942:15, dated [1] - 1922:17
1922:1, 1922:5, 1922:7, 1922:9, 1942:23, 1942:25, 1943:15, David [30] - 1819:19, 1839:22,
1922:17, 1923:7, 1923:10, 1943:24, 1944:8, 1946:13, 1841:25, 1842:15, 1845:17,
1923:12, 1927:14, 1927:18, 1946:25, 1949:10, 1951:20, 1855:14, 1865:15, 1870:11,
1927:20, 1932:12, 1932:20, 1952:3, 1954:12 1871:10, 1872:5, 1877:25,
1933:6, 1933:9, 1933:17, craig [2] - 1803:22, 1947:6 1885:3, 1885:23, 1886:1,
1936:25, 1937:9, 1937:11, Craig's [8] - 1850:12, 1858:5, 1916:2, 1921:5, 1923:24,
1937:15, 1937:18, 1941:15, 1902:18, 1938:11, 1947:21, 1929:7, 1932:2, 1932:7,
1941:18, 1942:9, 1944:10, 1947:24, 1948:2, 1948:17 1932:25, 1934:20, 1943:15,
1944:12, 1948:23, 1949:20, CRC [2] - 1802:7, 1961:13 1943:18, 1943:20, 1943:24,
1950:5, 1950:7, 1951:23, create [2] - 1876:20, 1898:8 1944:16, 1951:17, 1951:24,
1952:4, 1952:7, 1956:5, 1956:8, created [6] - 1816:5, 1859:17, 1954:2
1957:15, 1959:8, 1959:13, 1876:16, 1898:12, 1923:16 Davis [15] - 1815:1, 1821:7,
1959:17, 1959:21, 1959:24, credibility [3] - 1872:8, 1903:5, 1903:10, 1903:11,
1960:1, 1960:10, 1961:2 1900:24, 1901:1 1903:12, 1911:24, 1913:13,
Courthouse [1] - 1802:8 credible [6] - 1822:2, 1822:3, 1914:25, 1915:5, 1915:6,
COURTROOM [6] - 1803:1, 1822:8, 1840:19, 1872:10, 1915:25, 1948:8, 1948:11,
1803:7, 1803:10, 1811:4, 1890:13 1951:20
1892:21, 1893:3 credit [1] - 1911:20 dawned [1] - 1899:17
courtroom [7] - 1804:19, crime [11] - 1897:15, 1897:21, DAY [1] - 1801:8
1810:15, 1811:3, 1837:13, 1907:16, 1927:1, 1928:23, days [1] - 1859:4
1892:16, 1893:2, 1960:9 1935:25, 1936:6, 1936:8, DC [5] - 1801:6, 1801:15,
cover [1] - 1841:9 1936:12, 1946:2, 1950:13 1801:18, 1802:3, 1802:9
coverage [3] - 1889:5, 1889:7, crimes [6] - 1827:13, 1894:2, deal [1] - 1870:20
1890:17 1906:7, 1907:18, 1925:20, dealing [8] - 1832:18, 1835:2,
covered [2] - 1840:9, 1848:14 1931:14 1853:25, 1862:6, 1887:18,
Cox [1] - 1941:7 criminal [5] - 1816:3, 1816:10, 1888:1, 1898:15, 1900:2
CPC [2] - 1858:12, 1858:13 1858:14, 1896:25, 1911:1 dealt [2] - 1823:1, 1834:8
crack [1] - 1871:19 Criminal [2] - 1801:3, 1803:10 debrief [1] - 1861:23
craft [1] - 1876:20 criticism [1] - 1816:13 debriefed [1] - 1864:11
Craig [105] - 1801:6, 1803:12, cross [2] - 1892:9, 1892:24 debriefings [1] - 1861:11
1803:24, 1822:2, 1837:6, CROSS [1] - 1893:12 December [8] - 1840:3,
1837:8, 1837:22, 1838:1, Cross [1] - 1802:16 1868:12, 1870:13, 1876:10,
1838:7, 1838:17, 1838:22, cross-examination [2] - 1877:7, 1877:14, 1881:2,
1839:6, 1839:14, 1839:23, 1892:9, 1892:24 1886:11
1840:4, 1840:14, 1845:16, CROSS-EXAMINATION [1] - decide [1] - 1892:12
1848:2, 1848:20, 1849:13, 1893:12 decided [1] - 1885:9
1850:18, 1854:22, 1855:3, Cross-Examination [1] - decides [2] - 1829:4, 1884:3
1855:6, 1855:9, 1857:13, 1802:16 decision [22] - 1818:6, 1818:9,
1857:14, 1857:17, 1857:22, cross.. [1] - 1900:15 1818:10, 1818:13, 1820:17,
1857:25, 1858:3, 1859:3, crossed [1] - 1885:3 1842:3, 1842:18, 1842:20,
1859:10, 1859:12, 1859:23, CRR [2] - 1802:7, 1961:13 1843:15, 1843:23, 1843:24,
1861:11, 1861:23, 1861:25, current [1] - 1823:16 1845:1, 1845:3, 1845:9, 1873:9,
1862:22, 1862:24, 1863:7, cut [1] - 1883:21 1873:12, 1873:13, 1875:20,
1871:22, 1872:4, 1875:23, 1938:8, 1938:11, 1948:14
Cyprus [6] - 1814:4, 1831:20,
1878:5, 1878:7, 1879:8, decisions [4] - 1820:13,
1895:15, 1910:10, 1910:19,
1842:17, 1853:20, 1853:21 determined [1] - 1904:13 District [3] - 1803:2, 1903:21
declined [1] - 1947:6 DICKMAN [1] - 1961:5 DMI [1] - 1902:11
deductions [1] - 1909:6 Dickman [2] - 1802:7, 1961:13 document [34] - 1828:5,
defend [1] - 1925:22 different [17] - 1815:2, 1815:4, 1843:6, 1846:9, 1848:9, 1864:2,
Defendant [2] - 1801:7, 1801:20 1815:5, 1817:9, 1825:16, 1864:3, 1867:8, 1867:10,
defendant [9] - 1837:19, 1835:25, 1837:8, 1840:21, 1867:13, 1876:14, 1876:16,
1839:10, 1845:19, 1846:18, 1843:16, 1843:17, 1850:9, 1876:17, 1876:21, 1877:17,
1855:11, 1855:16, 1870:14, 1854:21, 1863:15, 1868:9, 1897:10, 1913:1, 1920:8,
1870:24, 1954:20 1904:23, 1905:20, 1908:21 1921:17, 1922:15, 1923:16,
defendant's [2] - 1828:17, differently [1] - 1945:23 1923:21, 1923:23, 1924:22,
1828:18 difficult [2] - 1816:7, 1885:18 1925:2, 1926:11, 1930:13,
Defendant's [3] - 1919:10, diminish [1] - 1859:23 1932:20, 1938:22, 1942:5,
1944:22, 1954:21 dinners [2] - 1947:18, 1947:20 1945:14, 1950:11, 1950:25,
defense [2] - 1873:3, 1919:14 DIRECT [1] - 1812:3 1956:12, 1959:10
define [2] - 1859:16, 1907:1 direct [15] - 1815:6, 1835:20, documents [17] - 1825:13,
defined [1] - 1935:13 1837:7, 1839:1, 1883:17, 1848:1, 1850:5, 1851:17,
definitely [1] - 1883:25 1883:19, 1884:2, 1890:15, 1852:5, 1852:23, 1852:25,
definitive [1] - 1951:1 1893:20, 1896:9, 1899:4, 1853:3, 1905:9, 1905:19,
delegation [1] - 1823:3 1914:19, 1916:15, 1921:4 1906:5, 1908:21, 1908:24,
delegations [1] - 1881:21 Direct [1] - 1802:15 1911:17, 1930:6, 1954:19,
delete [1] - 1906:2 directed [2] - 1864:9, 1865:14 1956:11
deleted [4] - 1905:14, 1905:19, direction [11] - 1815:13, dollars [2] - 1908:10, 1908:17
1905:21, 1906:5 1819:20, 1819:21, 1819:24, domino [1] - 1841:10
delivery [3] - 1884:13, 1884:19, 1820:6, 1828:15, 1829:24, Donald [1] - 1913:17
1884:23 1895:20, 1895:22, 1913:21, done [9] - 1813:21, 1819:17,
democracy [2] - 1815:25, 1928:9 1828:4, 1828:5, 1904:20,
1822:15 directly [4] - 1844:24, 1879:2, 1919:6, 1924:6, 1926:8, 1958:17
demonstrate [1] - 1897:20 1919:4, 1919:5 door [2] - 1820:24, 1932:18
dense [1] - 1953:7 director [4] - 1835:13, 1861:5, down [19] - 1837:3, 1850:16,
Department [3] - 1801:17, 1898:18, 1898:19 1850:21, 1851:9, 1868:3,
1900:9, 1903:3 disappointed [1] - 1956:19 1879:6, 1883:21, 1888:10,
deployed [1] - 1834:1 disappointment [1] - 1890:3 1896:5, 1898:9, 1902:13,
deposition [1] - 1913:6 discharge [1] - 1813:3 1922:21, 1931:9, 1931:20,
disclose [4] - 1918:6, 1946:25, 1934:9, 1934:11, 1940:2,
DEPUTY [6] - 1803:1, 1803:7,
1947:6, 1948:2 1956:14, 1957:23
1803:10, 1811:4, 1892:21,
disclosure [1] - 1931:24 draft [8] - 1926:15, 1927:14,
1893:3
discretion [1] - 1947:24 1938:20, 1951:25, 1955:17,
Deputy [1] - 1885:6
discuss [12] - 1804:6, 1804:12, 1955:19, 1955:25, 1956:6
der [24] - 1832:21, 1838:11,
1805:8, 1838:17, 1854:2, drafted [3] - 1848:9, 1901:22,
1861:4, 1879:25, 1880:1,
1882:3, 1892:10, 1893:8, 1946:7
1880:17, 1881:14, 1882:14,
1940:6, 1940:12, 1960:3, 1960:6 drafting [1] - 1936:10
1882:17, 1886:25, 1887:4,
1887:6, 1919:2, 1929:14, discussed [9] - 1833:6, 1849:1, drafts [1] - 1939:17
1942:14, 1946:16, 1946:19, 1854:10, 1854:25, 1858:16, drawn [1] - 1811:16
1946:21, 1946:24, 1947:11, 1860:7, 1885:7, 1921:5, 1954:11 driven [2] - 1896:12, 1896:16
1947:21, 1948:1, 1948:8, 1949:7 discussing [2] - 1880:15, drop [2] - 1826:24, 1931:20
describe [2] - 1814:24, 1830:19 1945:1 dropped [5] - 1903:24, 1904:1,
described [6] - 1829:19, discussion [10] - 1804:11, 1904:3, 1904:5, 1904:8
1830:8, 1846:11, 1872:6, 1805:14, 1818:19, 1833:1, due [1] - 1907:24
1896:2, 1910:6 1838:21, 1842:11, 1852:12, duly [1] - 1811:24
description [1] - 1815:7 1872:19, 1900:13, 1932:13 during [9] - 1813:17, 1837:5,
designated [1] - 1861:4 discussions [4] - 1839:6, 1874:23, 1881:6, 1893:8,
designed [1] - 1955:22 1856:8, 1862:18, 1887:8 1895:25, 1913:23, 1943:23,
Despite [1] - 1933:3 dispel [1] - 1956:25 1960:4
detail [4] - 1840:3, 1852:20, dispelled [1] - 1957:1
1874:22, 1956:12 dispute [1] - 1854:1 E
detailed [1] - 1855:8 distinction [1] - 1906:17
distinctions [1] - 1906:23 early [9] - 1811:7, 1832:24,
details [3] - 1894:2, 1950:23,
distinguishing [1] - 1958:14 1838:20, 1851:21, 1851:25,
1951:2
1868:11, 1870:3, 1900:5,
detained [1] - 1925:14 DISTRICT [4] - 1801:1, 1801:1,
1908:20
determine [2] - 1840:7, 1862:22 1801:10, 1801:14
ease [1] - 1830:15 end [6] - 1853:1, 1855:13, evaluating [1] - 1822:13
East [1] - 1801:22 1868:10, 1877:15, 1950:9, evasion [6] - 1894:6, 1894:7,
Eastern [1] - 1948:12 1953:5 1894:24, 1906:12, 1906:15,
ECFMU [9] - 1898:14, 1898:24, endorsement [4] - 1871:23, 1907:21
1899:8, 1899:12, 1900:8, 1873:6, 1873:17, 1874:25 evening [1] - 1804:2
1901:14, 1917:9, 1917:15, Engage [3] - 1864:24, 1864:25, event [1] - 1816:7
1917:16 1918:15 events [2] - 1855:7, 1882:25
ED [1] - 1885:6 engage [4] - 1854:23, 1898:2, eventually [3] - 1899:17,
edited [1] - 1939:4 1917:3, 1918:12 1900:6, 1927:7
educational [1] - 1812:19 engaged [6] - 1813:17, 1898:5, evidence [17] - 1823:25,
effect [1] - 1841:10 1915:1, 1915:12, 1915:15, 1825:19, 1847:15, 1853:4,
effective [1] - 1822:15 1918:18 1856:10, 1863:25, 1867:6,
effort [7] - 1817:8, 1817:10, engagement [7] - 1822:21, 1868:14, 1876:7, 1880:22,
1822:18, 1839:18, 1846:8, 1829:16, 1831:22, 1832:9, 1886:21, 1936:1, 1949:18,
1865:3, 1874:14 1854:18, 1855:10, 1886:3 1951:22, 1958:8, 1958:13,
efforts [4] - 1814:18, 1817:7, engaging [2] - 1881:13, 1886:1 1958:20
1879:22, 1885:4 enjoy [1] - 1960:6 evolved [1] - 1924:4
either [9] - 1862:14, 1864:11, enormous [1] - 1920:9 exact [4] - 1855:8, 1905:5,
1908:2, 1910:23, 1918:24, ensure [1] - 1865:10 1908:18, 1935:9
1919:23, 1921:16, 1950:4, ensuring [1] - 1836:13 exactly [4] - 1833:8, 1848:13,
1950:16 entailed [1] - 1814:19 1926:11, 1933:20
elected [5] - 1815:16, 1816:1, enter [2] - 1897:9, 1946:20 Examination [2] - 1802:15,
1816:25, 1883:6, 1915:23 entered [1] - 1914:9 1802:16
election [4] - 1814:17, 1814:20, entering [1] - 1880:5 EXAMINATION [2] - 1812:3,
1816:22, 1816:23 enters [3] - 1804:19, 1811:3, 1893:12
elections [1] - 1814:21 1893:2 examination [3] - 1892:9,
electronic [2] - 1884:13, entire [1] - 1899:4 1892:24, 1893:20
1884:19 entirety [1] - 1953:8 examined [1] - 1811:25
elements [1] - 1946:10 entitled [1] - 1913:25 example [1] - 1941:11
elicit [1] - 1874:2 entity [6] - 1898:8, 1898:12, examples [1] - 1881:8
email [47] - 1804:22, 1804:24, 1898:17, 1898:18, 1899:13, exception [1] - 1820:25
1834:24, 1835:18, 1836:25, 1901:11 exclusive [1] - 1878:1
1847:21, 1847:23, 1847:24, entry [2] - 1815:10, 1925:24 excuse [5] - 1833:4, 1851:17,
1856:12, 1856:14, 1864:1, Equifax's [2] - 1911:6 1952:23, 1953:1, 1957:11
1868:21, 1869:15, 1869:17, equity [1] - 1813:20 excused [6] - 1804:3, 1804:23,
1870:12, 1876:4, 1876:10, especially [2] - 1822:14, 1885:4 1810:19, 1892:13, 1892:17,
1876:14, 1880:23, 1880:24, essence [2] - 1833:15, 1841:7 1960:10
1881:3, 1882:5, 1884:12, establish [3] - 1897:20, 1927:8, executing [1] - 1860:19
1884:18, 1886:23, 1886:24, 1929:3 executive [3] - 1835:13,
1887:6, 1887:16, 1887:20, established [1] - 1891:11 1898:18, 1898:19
1887:23, 1888:22, 1888:23, estimate [1] - 1937:12 exhibit [8] - 1848:5, 1854:15,
1889:1, 1889:6, 1889:9, 1891:2, estimated [3] - 1825:1, 1825:7, 1856:21, 1858:9, 1870:4,
1905:20, 1916:20, 1917:6, 1825:9 1888:20, 1945:18, 1949:14
1919:16, 1942:17, 1943:5, etcetera [2] - 1934:16, 1935:17 Exhibit [27] - 1823:25, 1824:3,
1944:17, 1944:18, 1944:20, EU [2] - 1817:8, 1822:16 1834:18, 1834:23, 1847:14,
1945:1 Europe [19] - 1815:12, 1816:6, 1848:3, 1856:9, 1863:24,
Email [8] - 1801:16, 1801:16, 1816:14, 1816:15, 1817:22, 1867:5, 1868:13, 1869:12,
1801:19, 1801:24, 1801:25, 1835:9, 1835:11, 1836:14, 1876:6, 1880:21, 1883:15,
1801:25, 1802:4, 1802:5 1861:15, 1861:17, 1863:5, 1886:20, 1893:16, 1897:6,
emails [4] - 1837:10, 1876:5, 1863:23, 1879:19, 1880:7, 1916:14, 1919:9, 1919:10,
1884:11, 1900:4 1917:12, 1917:21, 1917:25, 1924:11, 1929:22, 1937:23,
emarcus@zuckerman.com [1] 1945:5, 1948:12 1943:3, 1944:22, 1952:10,
- 1802:5 European [18] - 1815:10, 1954:21
embargo [1] - 1877:20 1815:17, 1815:22, 1816:6, exhibits [1] - 1919:13
embargoed [3] - 1871:11, 1816:9, 1835:1, 1835:14, existed [1] - 1931:17
1871:14, 1871:15 1835:17, 1861:21, 1867:14, exists [1] - 1897:20
employee [2] - 1815:1, 1898:17 1880:6, 1880:8, 1880:9, exits [1] - 1810:15
employees [2] - 1815:3, 1880:12, 1880:16, 1898:13, expand [1] - 1869:20
1911:24 1925:25, 1957:8 expanding [1] - 1948:11
employing [1] - 1817:18 Europeans [1] - 1835:6 expect [3] - 1871:21, 1873:16,
1938:1 1897:4, 1897:25, 1900:9, 1936:21

expected [1] - 1931:3 1901:3, 1901:4, 1901:10, firms [24] - 1817:21, 1834:10,
expecting [1] - 1945:7 1901:13, 1902:2, 1902:10, 1834:13, 1835:1, 1835:9,
expense [1] - 1909:6 1902:12, 1902:18, 1903:3, 1846:6, 1863:18, 1863:23,
expenses [2] - 1833:23, 1905:24, 1931:24 1864:3, 1864:9, 1864:15,
1913:24 fashion [1] - 1841:9 1865:16, 1866:21, 1870:21,
experience [3] - 1812:23, father [1] - 1911:7 1899:9, 1917:12, 1917:19,
1822:18, 1928:13 favorable [1] - 1954:5 1917:20, 1917:21, 1918:4,
experienced [1] - 1822:3 February [1] - 1912:5 1918:8, 1918:18, 1920:12
expertise [2] - 1832:13, federal [2] - 1894:16, 1912:4 first [58] - 1811:24, 1813:8,
1840:12 fees [10] - 1834:8, 1851:20, 1824:1, 1824:10, 1824:20,
explain [6] - 1827:19, 1835:23, 1851:24, 1852:1, 1853:3, 1829:15, 1829:17, 1835:19,
1839:19, 1850:5, 1877:2, 1928:5 1854:1, 1854:8, 1862:4, 1862:9, 1838:20, 1838:25, 1839:9,
explained [2] - 1818:12, 1915:9 1862:10 1839:14, 1839:23, 1839:25,
explore [1] - 1874:8 fellow [1] - 1915:23 1840:2, 1840:4, 1840:25,
expressed [3] - 1853:3, Fernandez [1] - 1803:17 1844:6, 1856:11, 1856:24,
1928:15, 1948:9 Fernando [1] - 1801:12 1860:23, 1866:12, 1867:16,
expression [1] - 1927:23 fernando.campoamor [1] - 1869:19, 1869:25, 1870:6,
extensive [1] - 1957:22 1801:16 1870:16, 1871:11, 1871:19,
extent [2] - 1837:9, 1862:22 fernando.campoamor- 1876:6, 1876:9, 1876:23,
external [3] - 1852:1, 1852:6, sanchez@usdoj.gov [1] - 1880:24, 1881:5, 1884:14,
1852:18 1801:16 1886:23, 1887:20, 1889:9,
few [4] - 1813:7, 1889:22, 1889:10, 1889:17, 1893:24,
External [1] - 1852:14
1906:10, 1943:9 1903:20, 1915:7, 1916:22,
externally [2] - 1850:5, 1853:2
fight [1] - 1925:18 1917:6, 1918:11, 1927:8,
extremely [1] - 1880:14
figure [4] - 1804:10, 1853:8, 1935:6, 1938:24, 1939:8,
Ezra [2] - 1802:1, 1803:22
1908:19, 1908:20 1939:9, 1939:16, 1952:20,
1953:18, 1955:1, 1959:2
F figured [1] - 1882:10
five [4] - 1824:22, 1824:25,
figuring [1] - 1853:5
1837:8, 1883:22
facet [1] - 1918:16 file [5] - 1860:9, 1894:11,
fix [3] - 1858:12, 1862:6,
fact [40] - 1810:18, 1825:16, 1895:9, 1906:18, 1909:24
1908:24
1825:19, 1834:7, 1853:8, filed [4] - 1895:10, 1907:23,
1872:22, 1873:4, 1873:8, fixed [2] - 1860:4, 1909:1
1910:3, 1914:8
1874:24, 1880:17, 1882:17, flawed [1] - 1927:11
filing [6] - 1894:7, 1894:9,
1884:23, 1885:10, 1888:3, FleishmanHillard [3] - 1835:10,
1895:7, 1906:15, 1906:18,
1890:20, 1895:22, 1898:24, 1907:16 1918:1, 1918:2
1899:12, 1899:17, 1900:3, fill [2] - 1859:16, 1951:2 flexibility [1] - 1811:18
1900:19, 1902:17, 1903:20, final [3] - 1876:18, 1920:5, focus [5] - 1856:2, 1856:24,
1904:2, 1906:19, 1910:13, 1956:1 1858:7, 1868:15, 1877:13
1910:16, 1911:12, 1916:9, Finalize [1] - 1865:8 focused [1] - 1902:23
1924:9, 1926:2, 1930:17, finalized [2] - 1865:17, 1952:25 focusing [2] - 1861:11, 1934:2
1933:4, 1940:21, 1942:5, finally [3] - 1836:25, 1868:24, folded [1] - 1913:14
1946:15, 1946:19, 1946:25, 1888:20 folks [1] - 1900:20
1953:11, 1955:25 financing [1] - 1862:2 follow [4] - 1811:9, 1841:2,
facts [8] - 1859:8, 1859:16, Findings [1] - 1956:15 1841:12, 1843:8
1897:13, 1897:15, 1897:18, findings [1] - 1836:15 follow-up [1] - 1843:8
1897:19, 1897:20, 1951:22 fingers [1] - 1885:3 followed [3] - 1848:11,
fail [1] - 1911:5 1848:13, 1890:22
finish [4] - 1883:17, 1887:18,
failing [1] - 1894:11 following [3] - 1839:4, 1878:18,
1888:1, 1959:9
fair [2] - 1840:16, 1859:24 1952:19
finished [2] - 1926:12, 1937:14
false [15] - 1824:16, 1824:23, follows [2] - 1811:25, 1857:15
finishes [1] - 1885:22
1846:3, 1894:7, 1894:9, foot [1] - 1819:16
firm [27] - 1813:13, 1813:20,
1894:19, 1894:21, 1894:24, FOR [2] - 1801:1, 1801:13
1815:3, 1817:11, 1817:16,
1895:7, 1895:25, 1906:16, 1817:19, 1817:24, 1817:25, forces [2] - 1926:1, 1926:5
1906:18, 1907:16, 1909:6, 1821:24, 1822:2, 1822:17, foregoing [1] - 1961:6
1910:7 1823:10, 1829:18, 1831:7, foreign [10] - 1894:11, 1894:25,
familiar [1] - 1825:1 1832:13, 1832:15, 1832:16, 1895:10, 1898:3, 1908:13,
far [3] - 1889:14, 1892:11, 1835:8, 1837:21, 1840:7, 1909:12, 1909:17, 1909:22,
1902:14 1917:4, 1918:12, 1929:3, 1909:24, 1940:16
FARA [17] - 1827:9, 1894:13, 1935:24, 1936:11, 1936:14, forfeiture [1] - 1904:9
forgiven [1] - 1910:25 1871:21, 1873:4, 1875:14, 1897:6, 1916:14, 1924:10,

form [8] - 1921:24, 1922:11, 1888:23, 1893:14, 1893:19, 1929:22, 1937:23, 1943:3,
1927:12, 1932:9, 1947:2, 1903:2, 1936:18 1952:10
1949:17, 1951:21, 1956:4 Gates's [1] - 1874:15 government's [2] - 1874:23,
formally [1] - 1934:16 gather [1] - 1892:14 1905:10
former [5] - 1816:2, 1832:3, GC [7] - 1858:1, 1861:7, Government's [16] - 1823:25,
1880:3, 1957:4, 1958:18 1861:16, 1877:23, 1878:5, 1824:3, 1834:17, 1834:23,
formulated [1] - 1930:18 1935:6, 1940:3 1847:14, 1848:2, 1856:9,
forth [4] - 1865:16, 1897:23, GC's [1] - 1890:3 1863:24, 1867:5, 1868:13,
1904:15, 1926:20 GC/SKA [1] - 1854:18 1869:12, 1876:6, 1880:21,
forward [5] - 1821:5, 1873:9, gearing [1] - 1938:6 1883:15, 1886:20, 1888:20
1875:20, 1902:16, 1943:8 general [8] - 1818:23, 1830:10, governmental [1] - 1899:18
foster [1] - 1836:24 1838:21, 1840:8, 1906:2, GR [2] - 1850:19, 1924:21
foundation [1] - 1849:6 1926:10, 1937:16, 1940:18 GR's [1] - 1916:25
foundations [1] - 1933:19 generally [6] - 1813:18, grade [1] - 1911:20
four [4] - 1812:18, 1860:6, 1814:12, 1823:9, 1851:10, graph [1] - 1939:9
1917:21, 1917:25 1919:6, 1935:12 grassroots [1] - 1814:18
Fourth [1] - 1801:14 generating [1] - 1950:12 great [6] - 1841:8, 1852:20,
frame [2] - 1844:6, 1844:8 gentleman [3] - 1816:19, 1874:22, 1884:20, 1885:16,
France [1] - 1918:3 1832:20, 1880:2 1891:6
frankly [1] - 1956:11 gentlemen [3] - 1814:11, greater [2] - 1918:15, 1957:24
free [2] - 1928:1, 1928:6 1827:19, 1829:14 greatest [1] - 1891:2
frequently [1] - 1930:4 geography [1] - 1815:11 green [4] - 1868:11, 1868:23,
friendly [3] - 1943:10, 1943:22, George [1] - 1812:22 1868:25, 1875:23
1947:11 Germany [1] - 1918:3 Greg [14] - 1837:6, 1878:5,
front [5] - 1824:1, 1834:19, given [23] - 1810:18, 1822:4, 1878:7, 1884:20, 1887:7,
1858:10, 1883:25, 1919:12 1822:14, 1829:17, 1832:12, 1887:18, 1890:9, 1923:24,
FTI [30] - 1817:20, 1822:25, 1833:11, 1856:5, 1868:11, 1942:15, 1942:23, 1942:25,
1823:10, 1832:16, 1832:23, 1868:22, 1872:8, 1877:25, 1943:15, 1946:25, 1951:20
1833:4, 1833:7, 1833:12, 1890:12, 1892:12, 1924:18, Gregory [3] - 1801:6, 1803:11,
1833:14, 1833:21, 1834:1, 1924:20, 1927:25, 1928:6, 1892:22
1834:8, 1834:10, 1838:13, 1931:23, 1935:16, 1946:16, grid [14] - 1854:12, 1854:22,
1838:15, 1840:7, 1863:18, 1951:23, 1952:3, 1955:16 1862:21, 1864:19, 1876:13,
1870:18, 1877:22, 1916:6, global [1] - 1816:15 1876:15, 1876:18, 1877:1,
1916:8, 1916:9, 1916:10, globally [1] - 1822:4 1877:4, 1879:9, 1879:15,
1916:11, 1916:12, 1919:20, glowing [4] - 1871:22, 1873:6, 1921:14, 1938:25, 1941:21
1919:22, 1940:11, 1943:6, 1873:17, 1874:25 ground [6] - 1814:19, 1834:2,
1950:11 Google [1] - 1840:11 1862:3, 1862:5, 1870:19,
Fule [5] - 1861:17, 1861:20, governing [1] - 1835:16 1914:21
1861:24, 1878:18, 1878:23 government [58] - 1811:22, Group [1] - 1835:5
full [5] - 1833:23, 1907:25, 1823:13, 1824:8, 1825:13, group [5] - 1835:8, 1835:16,
1908:7, 1928:12, 1961:7 1825:19, 1825:22, 1826:11, 1836:5, 1836:6, 1839:5
fully [2] - 1865:16, 1874:24 1826:15, 1826:21, 1826:23, groups [4] - 1814:20, 1851:6,
fund [1] - 1813:20 1827:4, 1827:12, 1827:16, 1877:3, 1956:1
future [2] - 1832:6, 1880:15 1827:20, 1827:22, 1828:3, guarantee [1] - 1828:20
1828:8, 1828:13, 1828:14, Guard [1] - 1813:1
G 1828:21, 1828:24, 1829:8, guessing [1] - 1937:17
1833:11, 1836:2, 1836:8, guideline [1] - 1897:2
G-A-T-E-S [1] - 1812:9 1836:13, 1836:23, 1838:22, guidelines [4] - 1825:2, 1825:7,
gain [1] - 1815:10 1839:7, 1847:8, 1851:22, 1896:10, 1896:12
game [1] - 1866:13 1864:12, 1864:16, 1898:24, guilty [11] - 1824:11, 1824:16,
Gaston [2] - 1801:13, 1803:16 1898:25, 1899:1, 1899:3, 1825:8, 1894:2, 1894:15,
gate [1] - 1871:12 1899:4, 1899:5, 1904:9, 1894:18, 1897:14, 1897:15,
GATES [1] - 1811:23 1904:18, 1905:4, 1905:22, 1901:19, 1907:12, 1914:9
gates [1] - 1893:5 1910:10, 1911:23, 1912:17, Gulland [1] - 1801:13
Gates [22] - 1802:14, 1811:22, 1915:15, 1916:25, 1919:14, guys [2] - 1943:9, 1943:17
1812:9, 1820:19, 1823:14, 1919:23, 1919:24, 1925:17,
1926:7, 1926:8, 1928:15,
1825:10, 1829:13, 1837:5, H
1841:13, 1844:23, 1845:15, 1936:13, 1954:20, 1956:25
1847:21, 1854:8, 1854:17, Government [8] - 1893:16, Haley [4] - 1804:1, 1804:17,
1804:22, 1804:24 1836:24, 1839:17, 1840:20, 1886:8

half [3] - 1813:2, 1908:10, 1848:10, 1855:17, 1863:19, husher [1] - 1805:3
1933:22 1876:20, 1935:12 hypothetical [4] - 1858:18,
hand [5] - 1876:25, 1884:5, helped [6] - 1814:15, 1814:16, 1858:21, 1957:10, 1957:11
1928:1, 1928:6, 1959:20 1816:25, 1896:21, 1910:20,
handling [2] - 1882:1, 1885:4 1915:23 I
handwritten [1] - 1857:1 helping [2] - 1815:20, 1906:13
hardcopy [2] - 1858:10, hereby [1] - 1961:5 idea [13] - 1816:8, 1816:9,
1919:13 hide [1] - 1896:21 1836:16, 1840:24, 1841:1,
Harvard [9] - 1839:25, 1846:23, high [2] - 1880:18, 1908:11 1857:8, 1865:14, 1867:22,
1848:11, 1848:16, 1854:10, high-ranking [1] - 1880:18 1872:12, 1919:24, 1927:4,
1855:1, 1855:3, 1863:8, 1863:11 higher [1] - 1911:20 1936:13, 1936:15
Haskell [1] - 1852:24 highlight [1] - 1920:16 ideally [1] - 1881:24
hawker [4] - 1861:3, 1883:12, himself [4] - 1818:21, 1870:24, ideas [2] - 1860:7, 1929:4
1949:7, 1955:22 1879:3, 1910:16 identified [6] - 1869:21, 1870:2,
Hawker [76] - 1823:11, 1838:15, hired [20] - 1814:16, 1815:4, 1879:9, 1893:19, 1923:2,
1847:24, 1848:10, 1849:14, 1817:20, 1817:22, 1817:23, 1943:24
1850:3, 1854:13, 1856:14, 1821:19, 1834:14, 1835:1, identify [4] - 1803:13, 1916:25,
1856:16, 1858:19, 1858:25, 1835:16, 1863:23, 1914:22, 1921:15, 1921:18
1859:1, 1860:23, 1862:1, 1916:8, 1916:9, 1916:10, Identify [1] - 1865:9
1862:19, 1864:3, 1864:17, 1917:13, 1917:14, 1917:15, identifying [1] - 1943:15
1864:18, 1865:14, 1869:18, 1918:6, 1918:8 IDW [2] - 1910:1, 1911:7
1875:25, 1876:1, 1876:16, hiring [4] - 1821:14, 1821:23, III [1] - 1801:21
1878:10, 1883:4, 1884:12, 1832:23, 1918:9 illegal [1] - 1898:2
1884:14, 1884:18, 1884:21, historically [1] - 1839:20 imagined [1] - 1956:20
1885:10, 1919:6, 1919:19, hold [1] - 1888:2 immediate [2] - 1869:19,
1920:25, 1921:18, 1926:20, holes [1] - 1859:17 1869:25
1928:11, 1928:14, 1928:17, Honor [33] - 1803:10, 1803:15, imminent [1] - 1938:2
1930:1, 1930:5, 1930:8, 1803:20, 1804:14, 1804:15, impact [2] - 1885:20, 1891:3
1930:10, 1930:12, 1934:6, 1804:20, 1811:4, 1811:21, impetus [1] - 1918:9
1934:7, 1938:19, 1939:2, 1812:2, 1819:11, 1826:8, implementing [1] - 1820:14
1942:14, 1942:16, 1942:20, 1830:18, 1844:21, 1847:18, important [11] - 1819:18,
1942:22, 1943:5, 1943:23, 1852:9, 1853:13, 1866:9, 1821:6, 1826:4, 1826:12,
1944:1, 1944:9, 1944:10, 1873:1, 1884:7, 1891:13, 1836:12, 1880:10, 1880:14,
1944:17, 1946:17, 1946:20, 1892:19, 1892:21, 1892:25, 1888:7, 1956:24, 1957:3, 1957:6
1946:22, 1947:1, 1947:7, 1893:11, 1899:19, 1899:23, importantly [1] - 1890:11
1948:2, 1948:18, 1948:19, 1902:15, 1907:8, 1912:21, IN [1] - 1801:1
1949:13, 1949:23, 1950:16, 1937:7, 1937:17, 1952:5, 1959:7 ina [2] - 1835:12, 1898:23
1951:20, 1951:24, 1952:15, HONORABLE [1] - 1801:9 Ina [7] - 1835:13, 1835:16,
1954:15, 1954:16, 1954:18, Honorable [2] - 1803:3, 1803:4 1898:19, 1898:21, 1898:22,
1954:22, 1956:5 honorable [1] - 1813:3 1917:6
Hawker's [4] - 1922:25, 1927:7, hope [1] - 1936:19 Inaugural [1] - 1914:2
1927:23, 1931:5 hoped [4] - 1855:22, 1928:24, include [3] - 1831:23, 1878:18,
head [1] - 1923:20 1930:10, 1930:11 1944:16
headed [1] - 1915:20 hopefully [4] - 1823:25, included [4] - 1817:11, 1843:5,
heading [2] - 1826:19, 1920:3 1834:18, 1872:7, 1960:11 1866:2, 1867:18
headline [4] - 1952:20, 1953:6, hoping [3] - 1883:16, 1950:20, includes [1] - 1834:25
1953:13, 1953:19 1951:1 including [4] - 1854:21,
heads [1] - 1811:12 hotel [1] - 1946:20 1890:25, 1895:15, 1896:1
hear [4] - 1811:7, 1842:25, hour [2] - 1939:11 income [6] - 1896:24, 1908:1,
1912:12, 1959:13 hours [3] - 1877:22, 1878:2, 1908:10, 1909:15, 1909:19,
heard [4] - 1839:23, 1853:15, 1937:17 1911:14
1899:9, 1900:16 hum [6] - 1814:13, 1815:9, incoming [1] - 1831:13
hearing [2] - 1853:14, 1901:14 1831:11, 1846:16, 1884:24, inconclusive [2] - 1956:17,
hearsay [9] - 1819:7, 1820:7, 1936:20 1957:12
1821:1, 1842:6, 1844:5, 1844:6, human [1] - 1941:8 incorporates [1] - 1944:25
1844:10, 1853:7, 1874:12 hundreds [1] - 1953:4 independence [2] - 1851:14,
HELD [1] - 1801:9 hung [1] - 1947:16 1929:2
help [13] - 1822:10, 1822:11, hunt [1] - 1867:20 independent [9] - 1822:8,
1825:14, 1832:13, 1834:9, Hunt [3] - 1867:23, 1885:9, 1822:10, 1822:11, 1880:7,
1890:9, 1899:6, 1899:13, internally [1] - 1850:25 J

1955:18, 1955:19 international [6] - 1851:7,
INDEX [1] - 1802:12 1851:15, 1934:15, 1934:21, JACKSON [1] - 1801:9
indicated [2] - 1881:12, 1934:23, 1934:25 Jackson [1] - 1829:12
1948:13 internationally [1] - 1813:23 James [1] - 1801:20
indicating [1] - 1837:17 interrupt [2] - 1819:10, 1852:15 JANICE [1] - 1961:5
indication [1] - 1954:14 interruptions [1] - 1830:16 Janice [2] - 1802:7, 1961:13
indicted [3] - 1823:18, 1903:20, interview [5] - 1871:22, 1878:7, Jason [2] - 1801:17, 1803:16
1903:21 1888:3, 1888:7, 1888:16 jason.mccullough@usdoj.
individuals [5] - 1834:24, interviewed [3] - 1905:3, gov [1] - 1801:19
1878:18, 1912:18, 1917:20, 1912:4, 1912:5 jeopardize [1] - 1888:4
1926:4 interviews [2] - 1912:7, 1935:7 job [1] - 1858:2
inferences [1] - 1811:16 interviews/meetings [1] - John [17] - 1893:24, 1896:5,
inform [2] - 1827:12, 1886:16 1835:22 1897:24, 1898:10, 1916:23,
information [15] - 1804:4, investigation [2] - 1823:19, 1920:16, 1924:23, 1926:23,
1810:19, 1821:18, 1835:22, 1894:22 1928:2, 1928:19, 1931:8,
1852:10, 1862:1, 1864:20, investigators [2] - 1825:20, 1934:11, 1938:25, 1942:14,
1886:9, 1927:7, 1927:8, 1929:1, 1825:22 1945:22, 1951:7, 1955:7
1932:23, 1934:14, 1948:20, involved [8] - 1818:6, 1822:16, join [1] - 1861:21
1958:25 1834:10, 1851:1, 1864:12, Jon [3] - 1919:19, 1942:13,
informed [3] - 1804:1, 1838:2, 1896:12, 1902:12, 1944:2 1944:24
1886:17 involvement [1] - 1823:6 Jonathan [16] - 1823:11,
initial [3] - 1885:19, 1921:17, involving [2] - 1832:3, 1896:2 1838:15, 1851:16, 1856:14,
1949:3 irregularities [1] - 1931:17 1857:8, 1919:19, 1939:21,
initials [1] - 1878:4 irrespective [1] - 1936:2 1939:23, 1942:16, 1942:20,
initiation [1] - 1819:22 IRS [1] - 1908:24 1942:22, 1944:9, 1944:17,
injected [1] - 1874:21 issue [31] - 1815:9, 1815:16, 1949:2, 1949:6, 1957:23
input [1] - 1848:10 1816:13, 1816:17, 1821:24, journalist [7] - 1845:21,
inputting [1] - 1860:19 1823:15, 1833:6, 1833:7, 1846:12, 1862:15, 1889:25,
inquiries [1] - 1903:4 1833:12, 1833:15, 1833:17, 1934:21, 1934:24, 1935:1
inquiry [4] - 1900:7, 1903:2, 1845:1, 1851:21, 1852:6, journalists [6] - 1836:19,
1911:3, 1920:11 1852:17, 1852:18, 1853:6, 1841:3, 1841:9, 1869:21,
inside [2] - 1822:5, 1899:3 1853:25, 1854:8, 1855:12, 1889:23, 1934:15
insider [1] - 1911:3 1857:15, 1857:20, 1857:21, JUDGE [2] - 1801:9, 1801:10
insight [1] - 1946:5 1862:5, 1874:24, 1956:23, judge [11] - 1829:2, 1829:3,
instance [2] - 1906:4, 1950:24 1956:25, 1958:19, 1958:24 1829:7, 1829:11, 1860:9,
instead [1] - 1881:15 issued [1] - 1923:23 1904:13, 1940:15, 1940:21,
instruction [5] - 1843:9, issues [20] - 1817:15, 1823:1, 1940:23, 1940:25, 1941:2
1843:12, 1845:16, 1866:4, 1832:22, 1846:4, 1847:1, Judge [1] - 1829:12
1948:17 1849:13, 1851:12, 1851:25, judge's [1] - 1828:7
instructions [4] - 1811:10, 1853:2, 1854:9, 1858:13, judicial [2] - 1822:14, 1858:15
1830:19, 1843:3, 1948:3 1858:22, 1860:2, 1860:3, July [11] - 1839:3, 1920:5,
integrity [1] - 1814:20 1874:20, 1881:11, 1936:3, 1921:3, 1922:17, 1923:15,
intend [1] - 1849:20 1939:24, 1957:2, 1958:19 1923:16, 1923:25, 1929:7,
intended [1] - 1873:3 Issues [1] - 1859:25 1929:24, 1932:4, 1950:9
intending [1] - 1873:24 Item [3] - 1934:12, 1935:15, jump [1] - 1844:3
intent [1] - 1926:10 1935:23 junctures [1] - 1908:21
intention [1] - 1804:4 item [7] - 1850:16, 1859:25, June [2] - 1836:25, 1839:3
interaction [1] - 1912:17 1865:5, 1935:6, 1939:9, 1946:1, JUNGHANS [172] - 1803:20,
interest [1] - 1948:9 1952:20 1803:24, 1804:15, 1818:2,
interested [3] - 1839:16, items [13] - 1838:7, 1851:16, 1818:17, 1818:20, 1819:9,
1882:1, 1905:10 1854:25, 1856:7, 1858:15, 1819:11, 1820:9, 1821:2,
interesting [1] - 1815:10 1860:18, 1860:20, 1860:21, 1821:9, 1821:20, 1829:5,
interests [3] - 1900:3, 1925:8, 1861:1, 1861:9, 1865:6, 1829:20, 1831:8, 1833:3,
1925:9 1893:22, 1941:11 1838:24, 1841:16, 1842:6,
interfacing [1] - 1902:2 Items [1] - 1860:14 1842:14, 1842:19, 1843:12,
interim [1] - 1943:9 iterations [2] - 1836:1, 1863:16 1843:18, 1844:3, 1844:12,
intermediary [3] - 1822:24, itself [1] - 1820:6 1844:21, 1849:6, 1852:3,
1823:4, 1898:18 1852:9, 1852:13, 1852:22,
Internal [1] - 1896:21 1853:10, 1853:13, 1853:19,
1854:4, 1855:18, 1865:19, jurors's [1] - 1810:18 1845:22, 1848:15, 1869:11,

1866:6, 1871:2, 1871:24, JURY [2] - 1801:4, 1801:8 1872:11, 1872:24, 1878:21,
1872:16, 1873:11, 1874:1, jury [13] - 1804:23, 1810:21, 1879:20, 1902:19, 1942:24,
1874:5, 1874:8, 1874:13, 1811:1, 1811:3, 1814:11, 1947:8, 1949:10
1874:18, 1875:2, 1875:6, 1827:20, 1829:15, 1859:23, known [1] - 1897:19
1875:11, 1891:9, 1891:25, 1892:16, 1893:1, 1893:2, knows [6] - 1818:22, 1819:14,
1892:25, 1893:11, 1893:13, 1960:3, 1960:9 1843:19, 1906:20, 1912:15
1893:16, 1893:18, 1893:24, Justice [14] - 1801:17, 1851:13, Kwaniewski [1] - 1941:7
1894:1, 1896:5, 1896:8, 1897:6, 1862:6, 1862:8, 1886:14, Kyiv [5] - 1887:20, 1940:11,
1897:8, 1897:24, 1898:1, 1888:13, 1900:9, 1903:3, 1946:20, 1947:14, 1947:15
1898:9, 1898:11, 1899:23, 1915:1, 1915:13, 1916:9,
1900:1, 1900:22, 1901:3, 1916:10, 1955:3, 1955:24 L
1901:7, 1901:10, 1901:15, justice [1] - 1816:10
1901:24, 1902:5, 1902:15, justification [1] - 1925:20 ladies [3] - 1814:10, 1827:19,
1902:20, 1903:1, 1903:7, 1829:14
1906:25, 1907:7, 1907:10, laid [1] - 1826:17
K
1907:11, 1909:5, 1912:21, language [1] - 1862:7
1912:23, 1913:1, 1913:4, Kaczynski [1] - 1880:2 large [3] - 1846:25, 1880:5,
1913:5, 1914:17, 1916:22, kaczynski [2] - 1880:14, 1887:5 1895:15
1916:24, 1919:9, 1919:11, kaczynski's [1] - 1880:4 largely [2] - 1823:20, 1876:16
1920:16, 1920:18, 1921:12, keen [1] - 1885:23 larger [2] - 1823:19, 1958:24
1922:2, 1922:6, 1922:8, keep [7] - 1862:20, 1865:14, last [9] - 1814:9, 1861:16,
1922:10, 1922:13, 1922:16, 1883:25, 1889:3, 1890:20, 1877:4, 1877:11, 1881:22,
1922:18, 1922:20, 1923:9, 1950:22, 1951:8 1888:20, 1920:14, 1934:2,
1923:11, 1923:14, 1924:10, keeping [7] - 1864:18, 1882:20, 1935:24
1924:12, 1924:23, 1925:1, 1883:2, 1883:4, 1884:15, late [1] - 1846:21
1926:23, 1926:24, 1927:15, 1885:3, 1886:16 launched [1] - 1870:8
1927:16, 1927:19, 1927:21, kept [3] - 1863:16, 1929:15, launching [1] - 1819:13
1927:22, 1928:2, 1928:4, 1938:16 laundering [1] - 1904:6
1928:18, 1928:21, 1929:22, key [13] - 1859:8, 1862:21, law [10] - 1817:11, 1817:16,
1929:23, 1931:8, 1931:12, 1863:4, 1865:9, 1870:1, 1870:6, 1817:24, 1817:25, 1822:5,
1932:24, 1933:8, 1933:15, 1879:19, 1880:12, 1881:21, 1829:18, 1859:19, 1907:4,
1933:24, 1934:1, 1934:11, 1921:18, 1923:1, 1935:7, 1907:5, 1929:3
1934:13, 1937:1, 1937:7, 1956:18 lawyer [7] - 1823:2, 1860:9,
1937:10, 1937:13, 1937:17, kicked [1] - 1832:25 1901:4, 1901:8, 1901:13,
1937:20, 1937:21, 1937:23, kids [2] - 1812:17, 1812:18 1901:23, 1902:2
1937:24, 1938:24, 1939:1, Kilimnik [1] - 1952:16 lawyers [4] - 1835:21, 1836:3,
1941:17, 1941:19, 1942:11,
kind [40] - 1814:10, 1814:11, 1900:20, 1905:4
1944:13, 1945:22, 1945:25,
1815:13, 1816:8, 1817:17, lay [3] - 1821:4, 1933:18,
1947:5, 1949:9, 1949:19,
1822:13, 1828:6, 1832:24, 1938:9
1949:21, 1950:8, 1951:6,
1834:15, 1835:8, 1835:16, lead [5] - 1822:17, 1841:2,
1951:12, 1952:2, 1952:5,
1835:25, 1836:10, 1836:11, 1931:23, 1932:8, 1934:5
1952:8, 1952:9, 1955:7, 1955:9,
1836:21, 1840:8, 1840:12, leaders [5] - 1816:6, 1816:11,
1956:9, 1956:14, 1956:16,
1841:3, 1841:10, 1846:8, 1822:7, 1836:14, 1957:7
1957:17, 1959:11, 1959:22,
1849:25, 1850:16, 1851:6, leading [2] - 1838:24, 1854:3
1959:25
1851:17, 1851:18, 1854:23, leak [1] - 1865:18
Junghans [4] - 1802:1,
1864:19, 1864:25, 1865:1, leaked [1] - 1843:2
1803:21, 1893:10, 1893:14
1869:19, 1871:19, 1880:7, leaking [1] - 1953:23
Junghans....................1893 [1] 1881:20, 1882:24, 1887:12, learned [5] - 1819:1, 1825:3,
- 1802:16 1904:12, 1921:16, 1934:21, 1842:21, 1896:13, 1896:15
jurisdiction [1] - 1827:2 1939:25 least [9] - 1826:3, 1841:7,
jurisdictions [3] - 1870:1, kinds [2] - 1911:17, 1927:8 1844:6, 1885:21, 1891:2,
1870:7, 1928:13 Kirsch [6] - 1835:12, 1835:13, 1911:1, 1942:22, 1946:12,
jurisprudence [1] - 1931:18 1898:20, 1898:21, 1898:22, 1949:6
juror [6] - 1804:2, 1804:17, 1917:6 leave [3] - 1885:7, 1892:14,
1804:19, 1810:15, 1810:19, kitchen [1] - 1833:1 1946:21
1884:3 KK [3] - 1862:1, 1862:3, 1862:5 leaves [2] - 1892:16, 1960:9
JUROR [4] - 1804:20, 1804:25, knowing [1] - 1840:25 leaving [1] - 1907:18
1805:5, 1805:10 knowledge [15] - 1818:3, lectern [1] - 1803:13
jurors [2] - 1811:15, 1893:7 1831:21, 1845:9, 1845:20, Lee [5] - 1920:22, 1921:22,
1922:22, 1923:18, 1951:14 literally [1] - 1820:15 M

left [4] - 1865:5, 1883:23, live [2] - 1812:12, 1812:13
1913:13, 1945:9 living [1] - 1846:9 ma'am [9] - 1804:25, 1805:5,
legal [2] - 1832:13, 1906:23 LLP [2] - 1801:22, 1802:2 1805:11, 1818:8, 1826:7,
legend [1] - 1876:25 loan [1] - 1911:14 1829:23, 1894:4, 1894:14,
legislators [1] - 1865:2 loans [1] - 1911:18 1895:2
legitimate [1] - 1875:5 local [1] - 1823:1 main [4] - 1816:16, 1837:21,
legwork [1] - 1841:4 localized [1] - 1817:15 1838:10, 1838:13
Leon [1] - 1803:5 located [3] - 1815:11, 1828:16, maintained [1] - 1905:18
letter [6] - 1828:4, 1828:5, 1831:19 major [2] - 1858:22, 1957:1
1828:8, 1902:1, 1905:24, London [1] - 1947:15 malice [1] - 1958:17
1911:12 look [67] - 1803:4, 1816:10, man [3] - 1813:8, 1831:14,
letters [1] - 1901:22 1823:24, 1824:9, 1825:4, 1921:17
level [3] - 1846:25, 1847:3, 1826:18, 1826:19, 1827:18, Manafort [114] - 1813:9,
1897:2 1835:18, 1847:14, 1847:16, 1813:11, 1813:12, 1813:17,
liabilities [1] - 1906:14 1848:5, 1849:22, 1850:10, 1813:21, 1814:25, 1815:1,
liaised [1] - 1823:2 1854:14, 1856:9, 1856:11, 1816:21, 1816:25, 1817:2,
lie [5] - 1901:16, 1902:5, 1856:21, 1859:25, 1863:24, 1817:6, 1817:18, 1818:11,
1908:13, 1909:22, 1913:6 1864:22, 1867:5, 1868:13, 1818:14, 1818:22, 1819:2,
lied [15] - 1899:15, 1900:25, 1869:12, 1870:4, 1872:9, 1819:14, 1819:15, 1819:19,
1901:3, 1901:4, 1901:8, 1876:8, 1876:23, 1877:7, 1820:5, 1820:12, 1820:21,
1901:13, 1909:9, 1909:17, 1877:22, 1878:3, 1880:21, 1820:22, 1820:25, 1821:7,
1910:7, 1910:10, 1911:3, 1883:15, 1884:10, 1886:20, 1821:19, 1821:23, 1823:3,
1911:10, 1911:20, 1911:23, 1886:22, 1887:16, 1888:20, 1829:19, 1830:8, 1830:14,
1912:15 1888:22, 1909:1, 1916:14, 1830:15, 1831:5, 1831:12,
lieu [1] - 1903:17 1919:7, 1919:13, 1919:16, 1833:8, 1834:8, 1837:23,
light [5] - 1868:11, 1868:23, 1919:22, 1924:17, 1924:22, 1837:25, 1842:4, 1842:13,
1868:25, 1875:23, 1932:19 1926:22, 1928:1, 1930:15, 1842:15, 1842:17, 1842:20,
likely [2] - 1841:9, 1953:8 1930:16, 1930:17, 1931:7, 1842:24, 1843:2, 1843:7,
limit [2] - 1820:4, 1887:12 1935:23, 1938:22, 1943:4, 1843:11, 1843:14, 1843:15,
limited [2] - 1816:13, 1831:22 1944:25, 1945:13, 1945:17, 1843:22, 1843:23, 1844:25,
Limited [1] - 1831:18 1950:11, 1951:5, 1954:9, 1845:15, 1847:25, 1848:20,
line [31] - 1854:17, 1857:23, 1955:6, 1955:23, 1958:5 1858:13, 1859:15, 1859:18,
1858:12, 1858:18, 1858:20, looked [7] - 1832:17, 1840:6, 1861:22, 1862:4, 1864:9,
1858:23, 1859:2, 1859:11, 1840:10, 1854:20, 1929:25, 1865:13, 1865:17, 1866:5,
1859:13, 1859:15, 1859:18, 1952:12, 1954:7 1869:2, 1869:4, 1875:18,
1860:23, 1861:2, 1861:16, looking [18] - 1825:20, 1834:23, 1881:14, 1882:25, 1889:2,
1862:1, 1864:4, 1865:5, 1878:3, 1836:20, 1848:7, 1851:22, 1890:20, 1895:1, 1895:7,
1889:4, 1889:9, 1889:10, 1854:17, 1855:8, 1856:13, 1895:12, 1896:21, 1898:4,
1900:21, 1916:22, 1918:11, 1857:6, 1860:7, 1860:14, 1900:8, 1901:6, 1901:18,
1931:17, 1940:2, 1940:9, 1864:23, 1870:5, 1877:16, 1902:11, 1903:6, 1903:10,
1940:15, 1941:6, 1941:11, 1942:18, 1948:9, 1948:11, 1903:11, 1903:12, 1906:13,
1941:12 1949:14 1909:13, 1910:16, 1910:19,
lined [1] - 1834:4 looks [4] - 1837:16, 1920:13, 1911:12, 1911:24, 1913:13,
lines [3] - 1877:13, 1881:22, 1943:8, 1955:1 1913:16, 1913:18, 1914:25,
low [1] - 1852:1 1915:5, 1915:6, 1915:8, 1916:2,
1941:24
lower [4] - 1898:9, 1934:9, 1916:11, 1928:9, 1929:14,
link [3] - 1823:10, 1860:23,
1935:15, 1955:7 1930:7, 1930:18, 1931:4,
1861:4
lowered [1] - 1851:24 1932:16, 1948:8, 1948:11,
linking [1] - 1933:10
Lucy [2] - 1866:17, 1866:20 1948:21, 1949:1
list [16] - 1858:18, 1858:21,
Lucy-Claire [2] - 1866:17, Manafort's [10] - 1819:21,
1859:6, 1862:15, 1897:13,
1866:20 1829:24, 1895:19, 1895:22,
1916:25, 1920:5, 1920:9,
lunch [6] - 1937:8, 1937:14, 1895:25, 1901:19, 1907:13,
1921:8, 1923:16, 1935:19,
1959:10, 1959:22, 1960:6, 1913:9, 1913:20, 1915:25
1945:2, 1945:3, 1945:10,
1960:11 managed [3] - 1811:9, 1823:3,
1951:9, 1951:13
Lyovochkin [2] - 1930:21, 1909:13
List [1] - 1878:17
1930:22 manager [1] - 1913:18
listed [6] - 1870:9, 1920:19,
lyovochkin [1] - 1930:23 managing [1] - 1814:15
1922:7, 1935:7, 1951:14
map [1] - 1864:24
listing [1] - 1860:21
Marcus [2] - 1802:1, 1803:22
lists [1] - 1878:19
mark [1] - 1941:15 1839:24, 1839:25, 1840:2, 1950:22

marked [1] - 1920:9 1840:3, 1842:20, 1843:22, mine [2] - 1838:11, 1945:23
married [1] - 1812:15 1844:25, 1845:2, 1846:14, minister [5] - 1816:2, 1816:4,
Marsteller [3] - 1835:10, 1846:17, 1846:22, 1846:24, 1832:4, 1926:3, 1957:5
1918:1, 1918:2 1846:25, 1847:5, 1847:10, Ministry [16] - 1851:13, 1862:6,
Mary [1] - 1812:21 1847:11, 1848:1, 1848:11, 1862:8, 1882:11, 1886:14,
master [9] - 1854:12, 1864:18, 1848:14, 1848:16, 1848:19, 1888:13, 1889:17, 1889:20,
1876:13, 1876:15, 1877:4, 1848:21, 1848:22, 1848:24, 1915:1, 1915:12, 1915:13,
1879:9, 1879:14, 1938:20, 1848:25, 1849:1, 1849:4, 1916:3, 1916:9, 1916:10,
1938:25 1849:8, 1849:11, 1849:12, 1955:3, 1955:24
master's [1] - 1812:21 1849:17, 1850:17, 1854:2, minor [1] - 1936:3
material [6] - 1825:13, 1857:9, 1854:10, 1855:1, 1855:4, minutes [4] - 1813:7, 1883:20,
1865:15, 1871:16, 1878:1, 1855:5, 1855:6, 1855:7, 1883:23, 1892:18
1906:19 1855:12, 1855:17, 1855:25, mischaracterizes [1] - 1923:6
materials [1] - 1905:14 1856:3, 1856:4, 1856:15, mischaracterizing [1] - 1922:14
Matrix [1] - 1864:4 1856:25, 1857:1, 1857:2, misspeak [1] - 1922:2
matrix [4] - 1919:1, 1919:3, 1857:13, 1860:4, 1860:15, misspelling [1] - 1878:9
1919:5, 1949:2 1860:18, 1862:21, 1862:24, misstates [2] - 1949:18,
Matrix-actions [1] - 1864:4 1863:8, 1863:11, 1885:6, 1929:8 1951:22
matter [10] - 1804:5, 1819:4, meetings [5] - 1842:17, mistakes [1] - 1908:24
1826:6, 1842:13, 1853:7, 1842:24, 1861:14, 1861:22, Modern [3] - 1835:14, 1867:14,
1890:16, 1901:15, 1901:17, 1941:7 1898:13
1906:5 member [1] - 1898:25 MOJ [2] - 1862:2, 1890:17
matters [12] - 1817:15, 1826:7, members [4] - 1868:21, Molly [2] - 1801:13, 1803:16
1832:13, 1832:16, 1837:9, 1881:21, 1889:2, 1960:3 molly.gaston@usdoj.gov [1] -
1856:8, 1904:25, 1905:9, memo [2] - 1934:8, 1945:19 1801:16
1907:4, 1907:5, 1907:6, 1907:19 memorandum [1] - 1936:10 momentous [1] - 1819:12
maximum [1] - 1824:20 mention [3] - 1839:23, 1840:2, monetary [1] - 1904:9
McCullough [2] - 1801:17, 1862:14 money [11] - 1895:18, 1895:19,
1803:16 mentioned [9] - 1817:16, 1896:11, 1896:12, 1904:6,
MD [1] - 1801:23 1836:8, 1840:4, 1845:19, 1910:2, 1910:13, 1910:16,
mean [24] - 1826:10, 1840:10, 1896:9, 1917:8, 1918:15, 1910:23, 1911:10, 1915:8
1843:13, 1844:3, 1850:13, 1932:7, 1932:25 monitor [1] - 1814:21
1853:25, 1854:19, 1860:25, mentions [1] - 1943:20 Montenegro [1] - 1814:4
1865:12, 1869:22, 1871:14, Mercury [12] - 1835:4, 1863:22, month [1] - 1943:24
1872:6, 1874:14, 1877:7, 1866:21, 1866:22, 1867:3, months [3] - 1825:9, 1845:24,
1882:13, 1890:8, 1903:5, 1870:21, 1873:4, 1899:10, 1876:17
1905:13, 1917:19, 1925:9, 1900:2, 1900:4, 1917:23
Morgan [2] - 1911:13, 1911:14
1926:4, 1940:17, 1950:3, 1957:2 message [3] - 1850:4, 1926:7,
morning [16] - 1803:15,
meaning [2] - 1833:11, 1921:17 1951:3
1803:19, 1803:20, 1803:25,
means [2] - 1871:15, 1890:9 messages [1] - 1951:4 1804:3, 1804:20, 1804:21,
mechanism [1] - 1834:5 messaging [2] - 1930:13, 1811:5, 1811:6, 1811:14,
media [36] - 1814:22, 1823:12, 1954:19 1812:5, 1812:6, 1877:19,
1838:17, 1838:21, 1839:11, met [5] - 1825:22, 1826:10, 1878:14, 1892:11, 1914:19
1847:8, 1847:11, 1847:12, 1837:7, 1839:5, 1885:17 Morning [1] - 1801:5
1855:6, 1855:15, 1857:5, method [1] - 1830:25 MORNING [1] - 1801:8
1857:8, 1863:11, 1865:2, methodical [1] - 1836:21 morning's [1] - 1810:22
1866:12, 1869:6, 1870:15, metrics [1] - 1885:17 morph [1] - 1846:8
1870:25, 1879:9, 1881:6, middle [1] - 1858:7 Moscow [1] - 1935:16
1882:21, 1886:17, 1887:9, midnight [1] - 1878:14 most [6] - 1818:21, 1826:4,
1890:24, 1891:7, 1916:18, might [18] - 1830:15, 1838:22, 1826:12, 1834:24, 1841:2,
1916:25, 1919:1, 1919:3, 1839:15, 1855:9, 1856:19, 1956:24
1919:5, 1921:8, 1921:14, 1865:18, 1872:5, 1882:2, motion [1] - 1828:14
1930:2, 1930:16, 1931:5, 1882:10, 1927:23, 1939:14, motivated [2] - 1816:7, 1956:24
1953:22 1939:24, 1946:10, 1953:12,
motivation [11] - 1956:17,
Media [1] - 1920:17 1955:3, 1955:23, 1956:20
1957:7, 1957:9, 1957:12,
medical [1] - 1810:19 military [1] - 1812:23 1957:20, 1957:22, 1958:1,
meet [3] - 1861:17, 1861:23, million [3] - 1896:22, 1908:10, 1958:8, 1958:11, 1958:13,
1904:18 1909:19 1958:14
meeting [64] - 1839:1, 1839:4, mind [3] - 1863:7, 1903:14, move [11] - 1815:20, 1819:17,
1821:5, 1828:15, 1829:13, 1874:8, 1874:13, 1874:18, 1924:20, 1939:20, 1939:25,

1842:6, 1844:17, 1845:23, 1875:2, 1875:6, 1875:11, 1951:24
1851:9, 1854:12, 1868:5 1891:9, 1891:25, 1892:25, named [2] - 1839:14, 1898:19
movements [1] - 1949:24 1893:11, 1893:13, 1893:16, names [6] - 1803:8, 1835:20,
moving [4] - 1815:17, 1816:8, 1893:18, 1893:24, 1894:1, 1916:21, 1918:22, 1921:15,
1840:21, 1943:8 1896:5, 1896:8, 1897:6, 1897:8, 1923:1
MR [119] - 1803:15, 1804:14, 1897:24, 1898:1, 1898:9, National [1] - 1813:1
1810:23, 1811:21, 1812:2, 1898:11, 1899:23, 1900:1, nature [6] - 1828:17, 1833:8,
1812:4, 1819:8, 1819:10, 1900:22, 1901:3, 1901:7, 1833:10, 1833:12, 1838:23,
1820:8, 1820:10, 1820:20, 1901:10, 1901:15, 1901:24, 1854:1
1821:3, 1821:8, 1821:12, 1902:5, 1902:15, 1902:20, nearly [1] - 1855:22
1822:9, 1825:4, 1825:6, 1826:8, 1903:1, 1903:7, 1906:25, necessarily [6] - 1840:17,
1826:9, 1829:10, 1830:3, 1907:7, 1907:10, 1907:11, 1872:6, 1873:13, 1890:11,
1830:4, 1830:18, 1830:24, 1909:5, 1912:21, 1912:23, 1922:24, 1933:12
1831:2, 1831:3, 1831:15, 1913:1, 1913:4, 1913:5, necessary [1] - 1927:9
1833:16, 1834:20, 1834:22, 1914:17, 1916:22, 1916:24, need [12] - 1858:18, 1858:21,
1837:3, 1837:4, 1837:20, 1919:9, 1919:11, 1920:16, 1859:16, 1862:19, 1902:7,
1839:8, 1842:2, 1842:8, 1920:18, 1921:12, 1922:2, 1916:25, 1917:3, 1918:12,
1842:23, 1843:17, 1843:19, 1922:6, 1922:8, 1922:10, 1935:9, 1936:13, 1943:9,
1843:25, 1844:20, 1845:14, 1922:13, 1922:16, 1922:18, 1952:19
1847:9, 1847:18, 1847:20, 1922:20, 1923:9, 1923:11, needed [11] - 1815:5, 1816:10,
1849:18, 1849:20, 1849:21, 1923:14, 1924:10, 1924:12, 1817:25, 1822:16, 1857:10,
1854:7, 1854:14, 1854:16, 1924:23, 1925:1, 1926:23, 1860:4, 1860:5, 1881:19,
1855:24, 1857:3, 1860:11, 1926:24, 1927:15, 1927:16, 1929:2, 1943:21, 1957:1
1860:13, 1862:12, 1862:13, 1927:19, 1927:21, 1927:22, needs [3] - 1865:10, 1885:5,
1865:24, 1866:9, 1866:10, 1928:2, 1928:4, 1928:18, 1902:22
1867:7, 1867:9, 1868:3, 1868:4, 1928:21, 1929:22, 1929:23, nefarious [1] - 1844:15
1868:15, 1868:17, 1871:7, 1931:8, 1931:12, 1932:24, negative [1] - 1811:16
1871:20, 1872:2, 1873:1, 1933:8, 1933:15, 1933:24, neutral [3] - 1841:1, 1841:7,
1873:14, 1873:18, 1873:24, 1934:1, 1934:11, 1934:13, 1872:8
1874:4, 1874:6, 1875:13, 1937:1, 1937:7, 1937:10,
neutrally [1] - 1891:3
1879:6, 1879:7, 1883:20, 1937:13, 1937:17, 1937:20,
never [8] - 1846:13, 1886:7,
1884:7, 1884:9, 1888:10, 1937:21, 1937:23, 1937:24,
1903:14, 1908:21, 1912:17,
1888:11, 1891:13, 1891:16, 1938:24, 1939:1, 1941:17,
1919:5, 1920:1, 1954:11
1891:21, 1892:6, 1892:19, 1941:19, 1942:11, 1944:13,
nevertheless [3] - 1918:17,
1899:19, 1900:11, 1900:14, 1945:22, 1945:25, 1947:5,
1926:19, 1948:1
1900:18, 1901:2, 1901:12, 1949:9, 1949:19, 1949:21,
new [2] - 1858:12, 1919:24
1901:17, 1902:1, 1902:17, 1950:8, 1951:6, 1951:12,
New [30] - 1839:5, 1839:15,
1902:24, 1906:22, 1909:4, 1952:2, 1952:5, 1952:8, 1952:9,
1842:1, 1842:3, 1846:15,
1914:15, 1921:9, 1921:24, 1955:7, 1955:9, 1956:9,
1846:23, 1871:9, 1872:8,
1922:11, 1922:14, 1923:5, 1956:14, 1956:16, 1957:17,
1877:25, 1878:8, 1878:13,
1927:12, 1932:9, 1932:14, 1959:11, 1959:22, 1959:25
1879:12, 1883:3, 1884:16,
1933:3, 1936:23, 1942:6, Mueller's [1] - 1824:17
1886:18, 1887:19, 1888:1,
1947:2, 1949:17, 1951:21, multiple [10] - 1826:7, 1846:2,
1888:12, 1888:16, 1889:15,
1956:4, 1959:7, 1959:15, 1846:4, 1846:10, 1857:11,
1890:4, 1890:6, 1890:7,
1959:20 1868:8, 1869:23, 1923:13,
1890:25, 1891:8, 1891:23,
MS [172] - 1803:20, 1803:24, 1949:24, 1955:25
1920:20, 1921:21, 1923:17,
1804:15, 1818:2, 1818:17, Murphy [2] - 1801:20, 1803:21
1951:14
1818:20, 1819:9, 1819:11, Myers [6] - 1920:22, 1921:22,
news [1] - 1953:11
1820:9, 1821:2, 1821:9, 1922:7, 1922:22, 1923:18,
next [39] - 1811:20, 1813:24,
1821:20, 1829:5, 1829:20, 1951:14
1829:12, 1830:2, 1845:13,
1831:8, 1833:3, 1838:24,
1858:18, 1858:23, 1859:2,
1841:16, 1842:6, 1842:14, N 1859:11, 1859:13, 1859:15,
1842:19, 1843:12, 1843:18,
1859:18, 1860:10, 1861:2,
1844:3, 1844:12, 1844:21, nail [1] - 1850:16
1861:7, 1866:8, 1871:6,
1849:6, 1852:3, 1852:9, name [21] - 1812:7, 1813:8,
1873:19, 1875:10, 1878:3,
1852:13, 1852:22, 1853:10, 1816:19, 1831:16, 1832:20,
1891:12, 1913:2, 1913:16,
1853:13, 1853:19, 1854:4, 1839:21, 1839:22, 1845:16,
1924:23, 1935:4, 1939:7,
1855:18, 1865:19, 1866:6, 1865:21, 1866:2, 1866:12,
1940:8, 1940:14, 1941:10,
1871:2, 1871:24, 1872:16, 1866:17, 1867:18, 1886:7,
1941:14, 1941:23, 1943:8,
1873:11, 1874:1, 1874:5, 1920:22, 1922:25, 1924:18,
1944:12, 1944:22, 1950:7, 1855:18, 1865:19, 1866:6, 1890:3, 1893:8, 1894:18,

1951:8, 1952:6, 1954:25, 1955:6 1871:2, 1871:24, 1872:16, 1901:13, 1904:5, 1904:8,
night [1] - 1848:23 1874:2, 1891:9, 1891:17, 1904:25, 1912:15, 1914:7,
nightclubs [2] - 1947:18, 1891:25, 1899:19, 1906:22, 1918:2, 1918:3, 1918:16,
1947:19 1909:4, 1914:15, 1921:9, 1929:24, 1932:14, 1939:7,
noise [1] - 1925:15 1923:5, 1927:12, 1932:9, 1942:18, 1948:10, 1950:17,
nondescriptive [1] - 1874:15 1936:23, 1942:6, 1947:2, 1951:4, 1954:3, 1954:9,
none [3] - 1879:20, 1935:21, 1949:17, 1951:21, 1956:4 1955:10, 1957:24, 1958:19,
1949:10 objectionable [2] - 1820:23, 1959:11
nonprofit [2] - 1899:6, 1899:13 1841:18 One [4] - 1869:19, 1869:22,
normal [1] - 1844:9 objections [3] - 1844:15, 1869:23, 1869:24
note [5] - 1804:2, 1811:5, 1932:16, 1933:11 ones [1] - 1838:2
1861:13, 1884:5, 1893:7 obligation [1] - 1904:11 ongoing [1] - 1817:7
notebooks [1] - 1892:15 obligations [1] - 1895:9 online [2] - 1861:2, 1861:6
notes [10] - 1855:25, 1856:1, obviously [5] - 1817:8, open [7] - 1820:24, 1821:11,
1856:2, 1856:15, 1856:22, 1840:19, 1874:14, 1881:11, 1844:22, 1854:6, 1875:12,
1857:1, 1857:18, 1862:16, 1943:17 1902:25, 1933:25
1862:20, 1961:7 occasions [1] - 1908:7 Open [1] - 1810:16
nothing [2] - 1811:15, 1874:16 occur [1] - 1879:13 opening [1] - 1932:17
notice [1] - 1811:13 occurred [5] - 1879:20, opine [1] - 1873:23
notified [2] - 1868:7, 1868:8 1895:25, 1926:6, 1949:14, opinion [1] - 1872:22
notify [1] - 1868:25 1949:22 opinions [3] - 1818:4, 1852:15,
notifying [1] - 1875:22 odd [1] - 1955:16 1875:18
November [1] - 1868:10 OF [4] - 1801:1, 1801:8, opponent [1] - 1958:18
Number [9] - 1803:11, 1849:23, 1801:14, 1961:2 opportunities [2] - 1838:17,
1849:25, 1850:2, 1850:7, Offense [5] - 1897:10, 1897:23, 1948:10
1864:22, 1892:22, 1934:12, 1901:20, 1901:21, 1902:9 opportunity [3] - 1861:24,
1953:22 offenses [1] - 1894:24 1948:10, 1948:11
number [30] - 1814:4, 1817:7, offer [1] - 1948:5 oppose [2] - 1828:14, 1828:18
1817:21, 1822:2, 1822:11, offering [2] - 1830:13, 1874:3 opposed [6] - 1819:19, 1821:6,
1822:24, 1823:21, 1833:13, office [4] - 1824:18, 1828:18, 1844:10, 1872:12, 1873:5,
1847:6, 1848:13, 1850:16, 1929:10, 1948:12 1875:15
1851:12, 1855:8, 1855:22, Office [4] - 1801:13, 1824:17, Opposition [1] - 1859:13
1858:12, 1860:17, 1863:5, 1824:24, 1894:21 order [5] - 1831:14, 1834:4,
1879:18, 1895:13, 1895:15, OFFICIAL [1] - 1961:2 1847:5, 1921:18, 1929:3
1905:5, 1908:5, 1908:6, official [1] - 1915:3 organization [3] - 1835:14,
1908:11, 1908:18, 1909:20, Official [2] - 1802:7, 1961:13 1899:6, 1914:4
1917:19, 1934:14, 1941:11, old [2] - 1812:10, 1812:11 organized [2] - 1833:14,
1953:5 omit [2] - 1908:16, 1909:20 1919:14
numbered [1] - 1945:23 omitted [4] - 1908:9, 1909:15, oriented [3] - 1817:25, 1822:17,
NW [5] - 1801:14, 1801:18, 1909:19, 1909:25 1857:9
1802:2, 1802:8, 1961:14 on-recorder [1] - 1878:7 original [2] - 1836:2, 1934:8
on-the-record [2] - 1871:22, originally [1] - 1834:14
O 1888:15 out-of-court [1] - 1819:1
once [1] - 1870:8 outlet [1] - 1865:9
o'clock [1] - 1960:12 one [70] - 1804:24, 1811:15, outline [1] - 1948:20
oath [1] - 1893:6 1811:18, 1813:20, 1816:2, outlined [2] - 1862:23, 1863:14
Obama [4] - 1878:19, 1878:25, 1817:7, 1822:1, 1822:12, outlines [1] - 1828:4
1879:3, 1879:4 1822:18, 1823:2, 1826:5, outreach [2] - 1920:5, 1943:10
object [4] - 1872:23, 1921:24, 1826:21, 1826:23, 1828:9, outside [3] - 1822:5, 1880:13,
1922:11, 1933:21 1832:12, 1834:15, 1838:10, 1958:25
objected [6] - 1872:21, 1840:6, 1841:11, 1841:23, Overall [1] - 1889:16
1873:20, 1874:9, 1874:10, 1843:4, 1843:14, 1845:25, overall [11] - 1823:12, 1834:15,
1875:9 1848:2, 1854:9, 1854:25, 1846:7, 1849:25, 1851:7,
objecting [1] - 1933:14 1858:15, 1858:23, 1859:4, 1858:2, 1864:21, 1865:2,
objection [38] - 1818:2, 1860:5, 1860:7, 1861:1, 1889:22, 1891:1, 1924:20
1818:16, 1821:20, 1829:5, 1861:22, 1866:21, 1872:15, overnight [1] - 1811:11
1829:20, 1831:8, 1833:3, 1877:4, 1877:11, 1878:23, overruled [3] - 1841:19,
1838:24, 1841:16, 1842:6, 1881:8, 1881:11, 1887:13, 1871:25, 1921:11
1844:18, 1849:6, 1852:3, 1889:1, 1889:23, 1889:25, overseas [1] - 1813:25
overturned [1] - 1958:21 participated [3] - 1816:3, personal [6] - 1805:2, 1810:18,
owe [1] - 1914:13 1895:1, 1901:24 1818:3, 1845:8, 1848:15,
owed [3] - 1907:25, 1908:8, particular [6] - 1819:12, 1872:24
1908:21 1820:17, 1823:2, 1830:25, personally [8] - 1819:19,
own [12] - 1819:22, 1822:13, 1844:18 1822:20, 1838:16, 1882:1,
1831:21, 1841:4, 1874:22, particularly [7] - 1820:23, 1884:4, 1903:8, 1903:9
1889:9, 1895:18, 1905:17, 1822:7, 1822:16, 1822:18, perspective [2] - 1842:25,
1906:12, 1907:18, 1907:19, 1836:14, 1896:16, 1918:25 1911:1
1911:23 parties [11] - 1804:1, 1833:13, persuaded [1] - 1948:1
owner [1] - 1903:13 1850:9, 1850:10, 1852:1, pertained [1] - 1864:14
1852:14, 1852:18, 1877:2, Phase [3] - 1869:18, 1869:22,
P 1897:19, 1898:16, 1947:18 1869:24
partner [1] - 1948:14 phase [1] - 1869:23
p.m [3] - 1952:19, 1960:5 parts [4] - 1814:17, 1814:21, phases [1] - 1869:24
Page [1] - 1864:22 1823:4, 1949:7 phone [1] - 1845:3
page [53] - 1824:2, 1825:5, Party [2] - 1915:17, 1915:18 physical [1] - 1811:14
1826:19, 1827:18, 1828:2, party [4] - 1814:13, 1915:20, picked [2] - 1819:5, 1819:6
1828:11, 1828:16, 1848:5, 1917:3, 1929:2 picks [1] - 1859:22
1854:14, 1854:15, 1856:21, passed [1] - 1938:5 piece [6] - 1857:17, 1865:11,
1858:7, 1860:10, 1870:4, past [4] - 1822:19, 1832:5, 1883:7, 1957:7, 1959:2
1877:15, 1897:24, 1897:25, 1883:18, 1908:25 PJM [1] - 1930:18
1920:9, 1920:14, 1924:22, Paul [3] - 1813:9, 1849:12, pjunghans@zuckerman.com
1924:24, 1926:22, 1926:23, 1895:1 [1] - 1802:4
1928:1, 1928:2, 1928:18, Paula [3] - 1802:1, 1803:21, place [11] - 1830:23, 1838:24,
1930:16, 1931:7, 1934:10, 1893:14 1846:22, 1846:23, 1847:10,
1935:4, 1935:23, 1938:24, pay [5] - 1834:5, 1904:12, 1848:16, 1878:15, 1878:16,
1939:7, 1940:14, 1941:10, 1907:24, 1907:25, 1910:23 1883:7, 1929:9, 1929:10
1941:14, 1941:23, 1942:12, payment [5] - 1830:20, placed [1] - 1878:13
1944:25, 1945:17, 1945:19, 1831:14, 1831:17, 1834:5, placeholder [4] - 1927:6,
1945:20, 1945:23, 1951:6, 1834:9 1940:1, 1950:22, 1951:3
1951:8, 1951:9, 1951:10, PDF [9] - 1924:24, 1926:23, placeholders [1] - 1923:1
1954:25, 1955:1, 1955:6 1928:2, 1928:18, 1931:7, Plaintiff [2] - 1801:4, 1801:12
pages [2] - 1953:2, 1953:4 1945:19, 1945:20, 1951:6, Plan [1] - 1850:14
paid [10] - 1833:21, 1833:23, 1951:9 plan [49] - 1823:13, 1834:15,
1834:7, 1896:17, 1896:18, Penalties [1] - 1893:25 1836:2, 1836:10, 1838:17,
1911:24, 1914:11, 1916:11, penalty [2] - 1824:20, 1824:23 1838:21, 1838:22, 1839:11,
1916:12, 1955:16 pending [1] - 1823:21 1843:4, 1845:25, 1847:8,
Pakistan [1] - 1814:4 Pennsylvania [1] - 1801:18 1847:11, 1847:12, 1850:8,
paper [1] - 1866:14 people [24] - 1816:1, 1819:23, 1851:7, 1855:8, 1857:9, 1864:5,
paragraph [6] - 1828:2, 1822:24, 1823:1, 1830:10, 1864:6, 1864:21, 1865:17,
1835:19, 1898:10, 1902:8, 1836:22, 1838:7, 1848:17, 1869:16, 1869:24, 1870:15,
1924:24, 1928:3 1850:5, 1852:6, 1853:2, 1853:8, 1870:25, 1871:4, 1881:6,
paralegal [1] - 1803:18 1853:17, 1853:22, 1863:5, 1882:21, 1883:7, 1883:9,
pardon [4] - 1896:14, 1899:2, 1916:20, 1917:11, 1917:16, 1883:10, 1886:17, 1887:19,
1912:12, 1944:19 1918:7, 1926:5, 1942:13, 1890:25, 1891:8, 1918:15,
part [41] - 1820:13, 1824:14, 1953:8, 1953:12, 1955:24 1922:17, 1924:21, 1927:18,
1827:11, 1835:16, 1836:2, perceived [1] - 1854:9 1929:17, 1930:2, 1930:16,
1839:5, 1839:11, 1846:25, perception [1] - 1855:16 1931:5, 1931:6, 1935:13,
1849:5, 1849:7, 1850:17, perhaps [1] - 1875:4 1938:20, 1940:3, 1951:25
1851:16, 1855:5, 1856:11, Pericles [1] - 1913:7 planned [2] - 1854:10, 1855:22
1867:8, 1868:16, 1870:23, period [9] - 1813:18, 1814:8, planning [2] - 1849:7, 1940:19
1873:2, 1875:3, 1876:9, 1814:15, 1871:17, 1895:25, plans [8] - 1846:2, 1846:10,
1877:16, 1890:5, 1893:21, 1913:18, 1913:23, 1914:18, 1863:11, 1866:12, 1885:16,
1898:8, 1898:9, 1901:19, 1943:23 1885:17, 1924:3, 1938:17
1901:20, 1905:21, 1910:25, persecution [1] - 1925:15 play [4] - 1816:21, 1870:14,
1917:15, 1919:24, 1920:17,
person [12] - 1841:14, 1842:25, 1870:24, 1871:4
1922:5, 1925:24, 1931:10,
1844:9, 1845:6, 1846:18, played [1] - 1880:12
1932:15, 1953:15, 1955:8,
1860:24, 1862:5, 1867:2, players [1] - 1850:25
1956:14
1906:20, 1917:6, 1917:8, 1928:8 playing [1] - 1900:23
participate [1] - 1891:7
person's [1] - 1820:6 plea [17] - 1824:6, 1824:11,
1824:14, 1826:13, 1829:8, 1950:19, 1954:17 previous [6] - 1816:11, 1827:8,

1893:19, 1897:9, 1897:15, possible [5] - 1830:19, 1856:6, 1828:11, 1919:23, 1926:3,
1903:16, 1903:25, 1904:15, 1857:13, 1874:15, 1956:6 1945:22
1905:8, 1906:6, 1908:23, possibly [4] - 1861:17, 1865:10, previously [4] - 1845:17,
1910:25, 1914:9 1912:3, 1959:11 1863:14, 1903:17, 1945:4
plead [2] - 1824:11, 1824:16 Post [4] - 1885:8, 1886:1, primarily [11] - 1813:19, 1814:3,
pleading [1] - 1897:14 1886:4, 1935:5 1814:13, 1816:15, 1822:24,
pled [8] - 1825:8, 1894:2, potential [4] - 1838:21, 1823:1, 1823:10, 1855:15,
1894:15, 1894:18, 1900:14, 1860:21, 1886:3, 1929:4 1879:19, 1882:25, 1930:5
1901:19, 1907:12, 1908:20 potentially [8] - 1828:10, primary [4] - 1815:9, 1815:16,
Podesta [8] - 1835:4, 1863:22, 1835:20, 1863:19, 1864:11, 1822:12, 1823:11
1870:21, 1873:4, 1899:9, 1865:14, 1944:2, 1948:10, prime [5] - 1816:2, 1816:4,
1900:2, 1900:5, 1917:23 1955:23 1832:3, 1926:3, 1957:4
point [40] - 1818:24, 1820:24, PR [30] - 1823:6, 1832:13, principal [3] - 1815:2, 1866:22,
1823:12, 1838:10, 1838:13, 1840:20, 1840:24, 1845:25, 1898:4
1849:25, 1850:3, 1852:2, 1847:2, 1849:14, 1850:8, principle [1] - 1818:24
1853:2, 1857:11, 1860:15, 1850:14, 1850:19, 1855:17, print [2] - 1885:24, 1954:9
1862:5, 1865:13, 1867:2, 1856:8, 1857:9, 1859:12, private [2] - 1804:6, 1813:20
1868:10, 1869:6, 1869:9, 1859:17, 1860:14, 1860:16, privately [1] - 1953:23
1869:11, 1871:10, 1881:18, 1860:23, 1861:5, 1861:9, pro [1] - 1873:6
1885:10, 1889:17, 1915:8, 1864:15, 1868:21, 1869:24, pro-Tymoshenko [1] - 1873:6
1916:10, 1921:14, 1929:5, 1870:25, 1871:4, 1876:19, proactive [1] - 1933:1
1931:9, 1931:11, 1931:20, 1889:2, 1918:18, 1920:11, proactively [3] - 1931:23,
1933:21, 1934:3, 1936:14, 1924:20 1932:8, 1934:5
1937:4, 1938:1, 1938:6, 1939:8, practice [1] - 1841:3 probation [1] - 1828:15
1942:2, 1952:23, 1954:16, Pratt [1] - 1801:22 problem [3] - 1818:20, 1833:9,
1956:18 pre [6] - 1854:24, 1871:9, 1833:10
Point [5] - 1849:23, 1850:2, 1877:20, 1879:18, 1881:11, procedural [1] - 1936:3
1850:7, 1850:10, 1851:9 1887:13 procedure [1] - 1858:14
pointed [2] - 1885:6, 1907:14 pre-brief [3] - 1871:9, 1879:18, proceed [6] - 1812:1, 1882:3,
points [1] - 1850:21 1881:11 1883:7, 1884:6, 1892:23,
Poland [2] - 1880:3, 1882:8 pre-briefing [3] - 1854:24, 1893:10
policy [2] - 1812:22, 1817:14 1877:20, 1887:13 proceedings [2] - 1810:22,
political [24] - 1813:22, preamble [1] - 1858:1 1961:8
1813:25, 1814:14, 1815:8, precaution [1] - 1865:17 proceeds [1] - 1916:11
1816:5, 1859:12, 1915:20, precise [1] - 1828:17 process [12] - 1823:9, 1829:19,
1925:14, 1956:17, 1956:23, precisely [2] - 1821:1, 1821:2 1830:5, 1830:6, 1831:6,
1957:4, 1957:6, 1957:9, precluded [1] - 1874:3 1832:23, 1851:23, 1858:2,
1957:12, 1957:20, 1957:22, predicates [1] - 1933:18 1870:3, 1896:15, 1904:21,
1958:1, 1958:8, 1958:11, predicted [1] - 1937:15 1916:17
1958:13, 1958:14, 1958:17, preface [1] - 1933:10 processes [1] - 1861:21
1958:20, 1959:1 prefer [4] - 1804:6, 1805:8, procurement [1] - 1851:23
political' [1] - 1857:24 1805:10, 1919:13 produced [2] - 1845:25, 1846:2
politically [3] - 1816:7, 1816:11, premise [1] - 1957:12 progress [5] - 1882:21, 1883:5,
1956:24 prepared [8] - 1850:1, 1850:3, 1886:17, 1889:3, 1890:21
politician [1] - 1880:19 1851:16, 1851:17, 1863:12, project [20] - 1814:9, 1817:10,
politicians [10] - 1855:9, 1867:13, 1876:25, 1952:19 1817:22, 1822:4, 1832:17,
1859:13, 1861:12, 1863:4, preparer [1] - 1910:7 1832:25, 1836:24, 1837:5,
1879:19, 1880:13, 1881:12, present [5] - 1803:24, 1811:4, 1838:20, 1854:17, 1864:13,
1881:19, 1887:8 1811:6, 1893:3, 1936:22 1864:24, 1865:1, 1865:13,
portion [2] - 1810:17, 1927:25 presented [2] - 1932:19, 1869:24, 1871:12, 1914:20,
portions [1] - 1850:19 1958:20 1919:22, 1925:7
position [9] - 1885:18, 1928:15, president [6] - 1815:16, Project [3] - 1924:14, 1924:20,
1935:25, 1936:6, 1936:11, 1816:18, 1816:24, 1880:3, 1924:25
1936:14, 1936:21, 1957:19, 1880:13, 1930:25 projects [2] - 1813:25, 1814:3
1958:10 President [3] - 1878:25, 1879:3, prominent [1] - 1929:3
positive [6] - 1840:17, 1841:1, 1913:17 promise [2] - 1827:16, 1906:7
1872:7, 1890:11, 1890:15, presidents [1] - 1816:1 promised [2] - 1828:25,
1891:5 pretty [4] - 1820:18, 1834:1, 1891:22
possibility [3] - 1950:18, 1875:5, 1905:5 promises [1] - 1826:15
prompting [1] - 1933:11 1950:25, 1954:5, 1956:5 1812:20, 1812:21, 1830:19,

properly [3] - 1844:8, 1910:4, putting [3] - 1871:16, 1882:24, 1831:13, 1843:3, 1843:9,
1925:23 1955:2 1955:15
proponent [1] - 1880:5 receiving [1] - 1831:7
proponents [1] - 1816:17 Q recently [1] - 1937:19
proposed [3] - 1919:22, 1955:2, recess [1] - 1892:20
1958:6 Q&A [3] - 1835:22, 1851:18, recipients [1] - 1848:2
prosecute [1] - 1827:5 1956:6 recirculate [1] - 1930:8
prosecuted [2] - 1906:7, Q&As [2] - 1858:18, 1858:21 recitation [1] - 1819:13
1925:13 questioning [1] - 1900:21 recite [1] - 1934:9
prosecuting [2] - 1926:2 questions [21] - 1825:24, recognize [7] - 1824:3,
prosecution [9] - 1831:23, 1841:17, 1843:8, 1844:24, 1837:11, 1848:7, 1867:10,
1857:24, 1890:2, 1956:23, 1851:18, 1851:19, 1892:7, 1868:18, 1869:13, 1888:23
1957:4, 1957:20, 1958:15, 1893:15, 1896:9, 1901:14, recollection [7] - 1839:10,
1958:21, 1959:1 1902:3, 1907:3, 1933:12, 1839:13, 1839:14, 1875:25,
prosecutions [1] - 1925:3 1933:19, 1941:4, 1955:10, 1886:5, 1944:1, 1958:12
prosecutor [2] - 1940:18, 1955:23, 1955:25, 1959:12, recommendation [1] - 1954:6
1940:23 1959:14, 1959:19 recommended [1] - 1954:8
provide [8] - 1825:12, 1825:19, quibble [1] - 1907:4 record [18] - 1803:9, 1803:14,
1835:20, 1888:15, 1902:3, quickly [1] - 1833:19 1804:8, 1805:6, 1812:8,
1905:9, 1919:3, 1941:13 quite [5] - 1833:20, 1859:2, 1837:18, 1852:20, 1871:22,
provided [5] - 1828:13, 1919:1, 1906:10, 1939:23, 1950:23 1888:15, 1905:17, 1921:20,
1919:5, 1945:10, 1955:16 quotes [2] - 1890:2, 1890:3 1922:4, 1922:6, 1922:10,
provides [1] - 1828:8 1922:16, 1923:6, 1925:19,
provision [1] - 1957:1 R 1959:4
Pshonka [2] - 1940:19, 1940:23 recorder [1] - 1878:7
raise [1] - 1884:4 recounting [1] - 1852:15
public [15] - 1801:5, 1805:6,
1812:22, 1817:19, 1832:10, raised [2] - 1849:14, 1954:3 red [1] - 1837:17
1834:11, 1836:1, 1836:8, ran [3] - 1815:15, 1816:23 reduce [2] - 1828:10, 1855:14
1836:12, 1836:18, 1836:22, range [4] - 1825:2, 1825:7, reduced [2] - 1863:5, 1923:20
1839:6, 1852:19, 1873:5, 1825:9, 1896:10 refer [2] - 1925:2, 1941:2
1943:11 ranking [1] - 1880:18 reference [6] - 1820:12, 1832:2,
publication [2] - 1928:6, rather [1] - 1913:2 1887:4, 1890:10, 1936:8,
1934:16 Re [1] - 1884:19 1940:18
publications [5] - 1836:20, reach [5] - 1839:17, 1863:3, referenced [1] - 1824:11
1870:7, 1921:19, 1923:1, 1923:2 1863:6, 1864:9, 1870:8 referencing [1] - 1944:20
publicly [2] - 1871:16, 1877:21 reaching [1] - 1836:22 referred [1] - 1920:4
publish [1] - 1888:12 reaction [1] - 1851:10 referring [4] - 1837:19,
published [1] - 1889:15 read [11] - 1852:23, 1852:25, 1889:24, 1905:25, 1920:10
pull [2] - 1815:13, 1893:24 1858:8, 1877:23, 1881:22, refers [1] - 1862:3
pulling [1] - 1881:19 1889:9, 1902:7, 1953:8, refine [5] - 1850:16, 1857:10,
purporting [1] - 1933:13 1953:12, 1953:13 1860:16, 1876:17, 1930:12
purports [1] - 1939:11 reading [5] - 1828:16, 1858:23, refined [1] - 1846:6
purpose [16] - 1821:14, 1878:17, 1901:25, 1955:15 refining [1] - 1938:16
1821:19, 1836:17, 1846:24, reads [5] - 1850:22, 1857:4, reflect [1] - 1837:18
1846:25, 1849:3, 1849:5, 1865:8, 1876:12, 1884:19 reflected [1] - 1923:24
1849:10, 1849:12, 1850:17, ready [8] - 1810:21, 1810:25,
reflects [1] - 1877:19
1853:23, 1900:15, 1900:21, 1881:17, 1890:16, 1949:4,
reform [1] - 1816:10
1905:21, 1925:6 1949:25, 1959:22
reforms [1] - 1858:15
purposes [2] - 1817:18, really [3] - 1883:22, 1886:7,
refused [1] - 1946:25
1859:12 1900:20
regarding [2] - 1822:20,
pursuant [2] - 1825:17, 1893:20 reason [6] - 1811:17, 1855:5,
1832:10
put [26] - 1803:8, 1816:2, 1866:2, 1873:2, 1948:15, 1953:6
regards [8] - 1823:12, 1827:9,
1824:1, 1835:20, 1843:6, reasoning [1] - 1836:5
1827:16, 1829:16, 1832:22,
1843:7, 1854:22, 1861:2, reasons [5] - 1819:5, 1822:12,
1847:25, 1869:18, 1883:3
1862:19, 1865:20, 1893:16, 1863:14, 1873:23, 1873:25
regime [1] - 1874:25
1910:7, 1916:2, 1917:16, recalling [1] - 1892:21
Regions [2] - 1915:17, 1915:18
1921:17, 1922:21, 1922:25, receive [5] - 1813:3, 1824:21,
register [1] - 1901:11
1928:12, 1931:5, 1932:20, 1847:10, 1847:11, 1949:7
registering [2] - 1898:4, 1898:5
1934:8, 1939:25, 1941:15, received [9] - 1804:2, 1804:22,
registration [5] - 1827:9,
1901:13, 1902:13, 1902:19, Remember [1] - 1953:24 1872:7, 1872:8, 1873:5,

1931:24 remember [5] - 1829:15, 1875:16, 1880:7, 1889:7,
Reid [1] - 1878:19 1876:1, 1912:3, 1912:5 1889:17, 1908:1, 1908:7,
reimbursed [1] - 1913:24 remind [2] - 1893:5, 1901:22 1929:2, 1932:3, 1935:25,
rejiggering [1] - 1811:14 repeat [1] - 1947:4 1951:24, 1953:7, 1955:18,
relate [10] - 1849:23, 1850:10, repeated [1] - 1866:7 1956:1
1850:23, 1851:4, 1851:11, repeats [1] - 1944:25 reporter [29] - 1839:10,
1851:20, 1862:2, 1864:7, Report [152] - 1817:12, 1822:6, 1839:15, 1839:19, 1840:8,
1865:12, 1887:3 1823:5, 1823:7, 1823:13, 1840:15, 1840:16, 1840:17,
related [21] - 1823:13, 1827:8, 1829:18, 1831:22, 1832:11, 1841:13, 1841:20, 1841:23,
1832:19, 1847:6, 1850:8, 1834:12, 1834:14, 1836:15, 1841:25, 1843:1, 1843:16,
1856:6, 1858:13, 1862:9, 1840:22, 1841:7, 1843:13, 1865:9, 1869:9, 1869:20,
1862:10, 1879:22, 1883:12, 1843:14, 1845:21, 1846:4, 1869:25, 1870:10, 1871:9,
1886:18, 1891:23, 1895:24, 1846:5, 1846:6, 1846:12, 1871:16, 1871:17, 1872:6,
1905:15, 1906:4, 1916:18, 1846:13, 1847:6, 1847:7, 1872:10, 1887:13, 1890:13,
1917:8, 1918:18, 1924:14, 1849:15, 1850:6, 1850:15, 1951:13, 1954:6, 1954:7,
1954:8 1850:17, 1850:19, 1851:1, 1954:11
relates [6] - 1832:11, 1850:12, 1851:14, 1854:24, 1856:7, Reporter [3] - 1802:7, 1802:7,
1851:5, 1863:10, 1879:11, 1857:4, 1859:10, 1859:16, 1961:13
1959:15 1859:20, 1860:4, 1860:6, REPORTER [1] - 1961:2
relation [7] - 1823:19, 1832:1, 1860:8, 1860:16, 1860:19, reporters [17] - 1841:2, 1841:5,
1839:25, 1849:13, 1851:1, 1861:2, 1861:10, 1863:16, 1854:21, 1855:9, 1861:12,
1862:4, 1905:24 1864:8, 1864:10, 1865:3, 1870:1, 1870:6, 1921:18,
relations [20] - 1817:19, 1865:4, 1865:6, 1867:1, 1867:4, 1943:10, 1943:19, 1943:21,
1823:13, 1832:10, 1834:11, 1867:15, 1868:5, 1868:7, 1943:22, 1945:2, 1945:4,
1836:1, 1836:2, 1836:8, 1836:9, 1868:23, 1869:1, 1870:8, 1945:7, 1951:9, 1951:13
1836:12, 1836:13, 1836:19, 1871:10, 1872:5, 1872:12, reporting [2] - 1840:9, 1887:7
1836:22, 1836:23, 1838:22, 1873:10, 1873:12, 1873:20, reports [3] - 1886:1, 1894:11,
1839:7, 1847:8, 1864:16, 1874:24, 1875:9, 1875:23, 1895:9
1873:5, 1917:1 1877:21, 1877:25, 1880:11, represent [2] - 1893:14,
relationship [3] - 1839:17, 1881:18, 1885:5, 1885:8, 1917:20
1839:24, 1900:5 1886:13, 1888:13, 1889:5, representations [1] - 1902:4
relationships [2] - 1836:24, 1889:19, 1889:25, 1890:9, representative [2] - 1879:4,
1864:15 1890:17, 1914:20, 1916:17, 1898:15
relative [2] - 1844:16, 1905:9 1916:18, 1918:9, 1918:14, represented [1] - 1899:12
relatively [2] - 1815:4, 1817:15 1924:7, 1924:21, 1925:7, representing [2] - 1867:14,
Release [1] - 1935:6 1926:11, 1926:15, 1926:25, 1901:4
release [30] - 1845:24, 1846:3, 1927:4, 1927:9, 1927:10, reputable [1] - 1817:24
1846:5, 1863:19, 1864:8, 1928:22, 1928:24, 1930:11, request [5] - 1805:2, 1828:15,
1865:8, 1868:5, 1868:7, 1931:13, 1934:16, 1935:5, 1946:19, 1948:16
1868:11, 1868:23, 1869:16, 1936:5, 1936:7, 1936:11, requested [6] - 1864:2,
1872:21, 1873:9, 1873:12, 1936:16, 1936:17, 1936:19, 1881:13, 1882:18, 1928:11,
1875:9, 1875:15, 1876:18, 1936:22, 1937:3, 1938:2, 1931:4, 1955:19
1877:5, 1878:15, 1878:16, 1938:4, 1938:7, 1938:8, 1938:9, requesting [1] - 1856:14
1881:17, 1889:19, 1890:17, 1943:10, 1946:1, 1946:6, requests [1] - 1861:21
1924:7, 1938:1, 1938:8, 1938:9, 1946:7, 1946:11, 1946:18, required [6] - 1804:11, 1826:13,
1939:11, 1939:14, 1952:18 1946:21, 1946:25, 1947:6, 1827:12, 1859:24, 1904:17,
released [13] - 1840:23, 1948:2, 1948:17, 1948:21, 1905:8
1863:16, 1872:25, 1875:24, 1949:2, 1949:4, 1949:6, research [2] - 1811:10, 1960:7
1877:21, 1878:14, 1886:13, 1949:13, 1949:23, 1949:25, resolve [1] - 1833:19
1888:13, 1889:17, 1938:4, 1950:12, 1950:16, 1950:17, resolved [2] - 1816:17, 1833:17
1938:7, 1955:4, 1956:1 1950:20, 1950:23, 1951:2,
respect [18] - 1816:6, 1821:24,
releases [1] - 1868:9 1952:18, 1952:24, 1952:25,
1826:5, 1826:6, 1844:15,
releasing [2] - 1872:12, 1953:12, 1955:4, 1955:15,
1849:14, 1850:19, 1851:6,
1873:20 1956:17, 1957:12, 1957:19,
1851:13, 1851:21, 1851:25,
relevance [2] - 1899:20, 1957:21, 1957:24, 1958:2,
1862:7, 1865:2, 1883:4,
1900:11 1958:7, 1958:10, 1958:12
1906:12, 1907:12, 1907:19,
relevant [2] - 1822:5, 1900:18 report [25] - 1818:7, 1822:8, 1916:6
relieved [1] - 1959:23 1822:10, 1822:11, 1822:13,
respond [5] - 1851:19, 1856:16,
rely [1] - 1869:6 1836:4, 1850:1, 1861:5, 1865:8,
1882:5, 1882:9, 1887:17
responding [1] - 1948:24 1862:23 1901:17, 1902:1, 1902:17,

responds [1] - 1945:3 rollout [22] - 1823:6, 1823:13, 1902:24, 1906:22, 1909:4,
response [6] - 1842:22, 1834:11, 1838:17, 1839:11, 1914:15, 1921:9, 1921:24,
1887:16, 1896:9, 1945:16, 1847:8, 1847:11, 1850:15, 1922:11, 1922:14, 1923:5,
1948:16, 1949:3 1850:20, 1851:2, 1861:10, 1927:12, 1932:9, 1932:14,
responses [1] - 1918:21 1867:15, 1869:6, 1870:15, 1933:3, 1936:23, 1942:6,
responsibilities [1] - 1832:10 1870:16, 1881:6, 1882:21, 1947:2, 1949:17, 1951:21,
responsibility [1] - 1866:25 1886:17, 1890:25, 1891:8, 1956:4
responsible [4] - 1828:25, 1924:21, 1927:9 Sanchez [2] - 1801:12, 1883:16
1875:22, 1877:3, 1882:20 room [1] - 1946:20 Sanchez..........1812 [1] -
rest [1] - 1888:4 Room [2] - 1802:8, 1961:14 1802:15
restitution [2] - 1904:12, roundtable [1] - 1935:17 sanchez@usdoj.gov [1] -
1904:14 row [2] - 1883:24, 1883:25 1801:16
restrictions [1] - 1931:24 rule [1] - 1821:1 sanger [1] - 1883:4
result [3] - 1816:5, 1820:2, ruled [1] - 1821:21 Sanger [62] - 1839:22, 1840:4,
1856:8 rules [2] - 1830:10, 1844:11 1840:6, 1840:8, 1840:14,
resulted [1] - 1838:7 run [4] - 1836:1, 1881:25, 1840:16, 1841:25, 1842:3,
resume [3] - 1892:13, 1892:18, 1885:5, 1885:23 1842:15, 1843:5, 1845:6,
1960:5 running [1] - 1908:5 1845:17, 1845:19, 1845:20,
retaining [1] - 1899:9 Russia [1] - 1815:12 1854:21, 1855:14, 1862:14,
return [6] - 1894:24, 1906:18, 1862:18, 1862:19, 1863:4,
1865:15, 1866:11, 1869:11,
1907:16, 1910:3 S
returns [10] - 1827:9, 1894:8, 1870:11, 1871:10, 1872:5,
1894:9, 1895:7, 1895:25, SA [6] - 1860:23, 1862:2, 1872:9, 1873:16, 1877:20,
1906:16, 1907:22, 1907:23, 1917:4, 1918:12, 1920:4, 1877:25, 1878:13, 1879:11,
1910:6, 1914:8 1931:21 1883:3, 1883:6, 1883:13,
Revenue [1] - 1896:21 Sager [1] - 1886:24 1884:15, 1884:23, 1886:6,
review [8] - 1817:12, 1828:7, sager [2] - 1887:11, 1887:12 1888:3, 1890:13, 1921:5,
1847:5, 1850:4, 1860:6, 1860:8, SANCHEZ [116] - 1803:15, 1923:24, 1929:7, 1932:2,
1908:21, 1956:12 1804:14, 1810:23, 1811:21, 1932:7, 1932:25, 1934:20,
1812:2, 1812:4, 1819:8, 1934:25, 1943:15, 1943:18,
reviewed [2] - 1939:5, 1959:4
1819:10, 1820:8, 1820:10, 1943:20, 1943:24, 1944:1,
revise [1] - 1930:6
1820:20, 1821:3, 1821:8, 1944:2, 1944:16, 1951:17,
revised [3] - 1908:24, 1930:2,
1821:12, 1822:9, 1825:4, 1951:20, 1951:24, 1954:2,
1930:15
1825:6, 1826:8, 1826:9, 1954:4, 1954:15, 1954:17
RG [1] - 1860:23
1829:10, 1830:3, 1830:4, Sanger's [2] - 1866:2, 1867:18
RG-AVZ [1] - 1860:23
1830:18, 1830:24, 1831:2, Saunders [5] - 1866:17,
RICHARD [1] - 1811:23
1831:3, 1831:15, 1833:16, 1866:20, 1866:25, 1867:2,
Richard [5] - 1802:14, 1803:3,
1834:20, 1834:22, 1837:3, 1867:13
1803:5, 1811:22, 1812:9
1837:4, 1837:20, 1839:8, saw [1] - 1949:23
Richmond [1] - 1812:14
1842:2, 1842:8, 1842:23, scenes [1] - 1834:9
Rick [3] - 1884:20, 1885:6,
1843:17, 1843:19, 1843:25, schedule [1] - 1861:14
1885:25
1844:20, 1845:14, 1847:9, scheme [2] - 1897:25, 1898:5
right-hand [1] - 1876:25
1847:18, 1847:20, 1849:18, Schoen [1] - 1819:5
rights [1] - 1941:8
1849:20, 1849:21, 1854:7, Schultz [1] - 1878:18
rise [2] - 1803:1, 1959:20
1854:14, 1854:16, 1855:24, scope [2] - 1899:20, 1900:19
risk [2] - 1872:9, 1890:12
1857:3, 1860:11, 1860:13, screen [2] - 1824:2, 1834:18
RMR [2] - 1802:7, 1961:13
1862:12, 1862:13, 1865:24, scroll [4] - 1896:5, 1898:9,
road [1] - 1902:14
1866:9, 1866:10, 1867:7, 1940:2, 1956:14
roadblocks [1] - 1815:19 1867:9, 1868:3, 1868:4, Sea [2] - 1831:18, 1913:6
Robert [1] - 1824:17 1868:15, 1868:17, 1871:7, sealed [1] - 1810:18
Rohde [1] - 1803:18 1871:20, 1872:2, 1873:1, search [1] - 1840:11
role [23] - 1814:24, 1816:21, 1873:14, 1873:18, 1873:24, seat [1] - 1804:18
1817:5, 1822:20, 1822:23, 1874:4, 1874:6, 1875:13, seated [3] - 1811:1, 1837:15,
1823:9, 1850:14, 1851:5, 1879:6, 1879:7, 1883:20, 1893:4
1870:14, 1870:16, 1870:18, 1884:7, 1884:9, 1888:10, seating [1] - 1811:14
1870:23, 1870:24, 1871:3, 1888:11, 1891:13, 1891:16, seats [1] - 1811:17
1871:8, 1871:9, 1880:4, 1891:21, 1892:6, 1892:19, SEC [2] - 1911:3, 1911:5
1880:12, 1880:15, 1891:22, 1899:19, 1900:11, 1900:14,
1899:1, 1899:3, 1913:16 second [12] - 1839:4, 1839:24,
1900:18, 1901:2, 1901:12,
roles [3] - 1850:8, 1850:12, 1840:3, 1857:20, 1861:16,
1870:4, 1886:23, 1918:11, 1917:12 1850:1, 1850:12, 1851:10,

1931:9, 1931:11, 1933:22, serious [1] - 1921:13 1851:22, 1851:24, 1852:20,
1959:2 serve [1] - 1879:21 1854:8, 1854:23, 1861:3,
secondary [1] - 1957:3 served [4] - 1813:1, 1899:1, 1861:4, 1862:7, 1863:19,
Section [2] - 1894:13, 1896:6 1899:3, 1913:16 1864:12, 1865:3, 1865:5,
section [5] - 1857:6, 1857:7, service [1] - 1804:23 1867:1, 1867:4, 1867:15,
1860:16, 1893:25, 1935:5 Service [1] - 1896:21 1875:15, 1879:21, 1880:11,
secured [1] - 1936:1 session [1] - 1803:2 1881:20, 1914:19, 1914:20,
see [27] - 1837:13, 1840:11, set [11] - 1813:20, 1836:10, 1914:22, 1915:1, 1915:4,
1850:13, 1850:14, 1856:15, 1846:25, 1847:3, 1853:24, 1915:8, 1915:12, 1915:25,
1858:6, 1861:2, 1861:14, 1861:23, 1868:22, 1904:14, 1918:9, 1918:13, 1918:14,
1864:6, 1865:6, 1884:12, 1926:19, 1939:11, 1955:2 1918:17, 1918:19, 1918:24,
1888:6, 1891:1, 1897:1, 1906:2, sets [4] - 1846:7, 1897:13, 1924:21, 1925:7, 1928:6,
1920:6, 1921:3, 1936:16, 1897:23, 1941:24 1931:21, 1934:4, 1940:13,
1943:12, 1945:15, 1946:22, setting [2] - 1820:15, 1836:21 1948:12, 1948:13, 1958:24,
1949:1, 1949:6, 1949:24, several [2] - 1847:1, 1908:7 1959:4
1949:25, 1955:1, 1960:12 share [3] - 1918:24, 1942:7, Skadden's [3] - 1851:13,
seed [1] - 1845:21 1942:10 1916:3
seeded [2] - 1843:2, 1885:19 shared [4] - 1884:20, 1884:21, skill [1] - 1846:7
seeding [9] - 1846:11, 1846:13, 1939:17, 1942:5 SL [1] - 1930:20
1869:7, 1869:10, 1883:3, short [1] - 1874:15 slightly [1] - 1840:21
1883:13, 1889:25, 1890:21, shortened [1] - 1931:6 small [3] - 1815:4, 1822:25,
1890:25 shorthand [2] - 1856:20, 1859:9 1934:14
seeing [1] - 1957:8 show [5] - 1834:17, 1927:9, sneaking [1] - 1844:5
select [2] - 1870:1, 1889:22 1930:7, 1930:14, 1958:16 snippets [1] - 1949:6
selected [8] - 1841:14, 1841:16, showed [2] - 1855:6, 1907:24 socialized [2] - 1947:13,
1841:20, 1841:21, 1841:23, side [3] - 1876:23, 1876:25, 1947:14
1841:25, 1843:10, 1923:3 1934:23 soldier [1] - 1819:16
selective [2] - 1890:2, 1958:14 sides [2] - 1805:13, 1846:4 solicit [1] - 1943:21
send [6] - 1829:21, 1864:17, sign [2] - 1911:12, 1940:6 soliciting [1] - 1916:21
1902:1, 1942:14, 1942:23, significant [5] - 1815:19, someone [2] - 1845:9, 1900:17
1942:25 1834:2, 1875:1, 1880:15, 1886:6 sometime [1] - 1943:14
sending [4] - 1887:20, 1889:1, significantly [2] - 1855:14, sometimes [6] - 1837:8,
1930:1, 1954:22 1863:5 1844:9, 1885:16, 1895:22,
sense [2] - 1883:21, 1938:15 similar [1] - 1940:1 1939:4
sent [21] - 1804:24, 1831:11, simply [3] - 1843:24, 1877:2, somewhere [1] - 1941:16
1847:24, 1854:13, 1864:3, 1907:23 Sorry [1] - 1929:12
1864:18, 1869:18, 1876:4, single [1] - 1857:15 sorry [21] - 1819:9, 1820:9,
1877:8, 1887:22, 1889:8, sit [4] - 1804:5, 1804:9, 1821:21, 1840:14, 1847:4,
1916:20, 1938:19, 1940:16, 1866:11, 1867:22 1853:13, 1858:8, 1858:20,
1941:3, 1942:12, 1942:13, sitting [3] - 1804:8, 1837:17, 1858:21, 1869:3, 1877:14,
1942:16, 1945:4, 1954:18, 1868:6 1891:15, 1891:20, 1897:25,
1956:11 situation [4] - 1815:8, 1816:2, 1912:12, 1919:17, 1926:23,
sentence [13] - 1825:8, 1925:11, 1948:19 1942:8, 1942:18, 1945:19
1828:10, 1829:11, 1835:24, six [4] - 1813:1, 1918:4, sort [11] - 1815:20, 1818:23,
1927:1, 1927:18, 1927:19, 1918:18, 1920:11 1827:12, 1832:9, 1837:16,
1927:20, 1928:23, 1932:21, size [1] - 1854:1 1844:5, 1876:20, 1877:4,
1935:24, 1946:2, 1950:13 1882:20, 1920:3, 1933:10
SKA/GC [1] - 1850:14
sentencing [2] - 1823:21, sorts [1] - 1925:15
Skadden [81] - 1817:11,
1829:1 sound [1] - 1957:23
1817:16, 1817:19, 1817:23,
separate [3] - 1826:25, 1836:9, sounds [1] - 1905:5
1817:24, 1818:6, 1819:5,
1906:4 1819:6, 1821:15, 1821:19, source [1] - 1896:24
separately [1] - 1915:15 1822:1, 1822:20, 1822:25, space [1] - 1840:19
separating [1] - 1958:16 1823:2, 1823:5, 1823:7, SPAEDER [2] - 1801:22, 1802:2
September [5] - 1839:5, 1829:16, 1829:18, 1831:6, span [1] - 1813:14
1846:21, 1861:7, 1919:4, 1831:12, 1831:14, 1831:17, speaking [3] - 1818:3, 1853:16,
1952:11 1831:21, 1831:22, 1831:25, 1887:7
Serhiy [2] - 1930:21, 1930:22 1832:11, 1832:15, 1832:18, spearheading [1] - 1865:1
series [6] - 1815:2, 1835:9, 1833:2, 1834:12, 1834:14, Special [3] - 1824:17, 1824:24,
1850:4, 1858:15, 1863:23, 1836:3, 1838:10, 1838:12, 1894:22
specialist [1] - 1803:18 1892:22, 1898:3, 1917:13, subsequently [1] - 1908:23

specific [20] - 1812:13, 1917:22, 1917:23, 1940:20, substantial [1] - 1828:17
1834:13, 1839:16, 1840:22, 1945:8, 1953:25 substituted [1] - 1903:25
1850:8, 1855:21, 1857:7, statue [1] - 1894:6 success [3] - 1822:4, 1890:24,
1866:16, 1869:17, 1887:13, stature [1] - 1822:6 1891:5
1898:25, 1912:1, 1912:18, status [1] - 1849:25 sufficient [1] - 1897:20
1930:13, 1930:14, 1936:8, statutes [2] - 1894:16, 1897:14 suggest [4] - 1820:11, 1826:10,
1944:18, 1944:20, 1945:12, Statutory [1] - 1893:25 1867:23, 1950:25
1950:1 stay [1] - 1948:13 suggested [2] - 1845:16,
specifically [20] - 1830:14, stayed [1] - 1932:15 1923:24
1838:23, 1849:15, 1850:18, Stefan [1] - 1861:20 suggesting [3] - 1839:10,
1851:3, 1851:14, 1857:8, stenograph [1] - 1961:7 1884:2, 1951:20
1861:11, 1862:20, 1863:3, step [1] - 1804:11 suggestion [1] - 1954:15
1864:3, 1864:14, 1879:11, steps [1] - 1944:16 suit [2] - 1837:16, 1841:12
1902:12, 1912:8, 1923:2, Steven [5] - 1920:22, 1921:22, Suite [2] - 1801:23, 1802:3
1926:5, 1929:8, 1934:6, 1944:3 1922:22, 1923:18, 1951:14 summarize [1] - 1933:13
specificity [1] - 1935:13 steven [1] - 1922:7 summary [1] - 1882:24
specifics [2] - 1819:18, 1823:14 still [15] - 1805:6, 1817:3, summer [2] - 1938:4, 1938:5
specified [1] - 1828:13 1818:16, 1869:6, 1873:9, support [1] - 1897:15
speculating [1] - 1882:2 1893:5, 1916:17, 1936:16, supposed [3] - 1878:15,
spell [1] - 1812:7 1938:15, 1946:1, 1946:9, 1878:16, 1878:24
spend [1] - 1899:21 1950:12, 1950:20, 1951:14, surely [1] - 1956:18
sphere [2] - 1864:16 1952:25 surface [1] - 1942:22
spite [2] - 1920:3, 1946:24 sting [1] - 1875:4 surveyed [1] - 1958:25
staff [2] - 1879:1, 1931:1 stop [1] - 1937:8 suspected [1] - 1953:3
stage [1] - 1935:12 stopgap [1] - 1881:20 sustain [1] - 1891:17
stages [1] - 1900:5 story [8] - 1841:6, 1843:1, sustained [1] - 1914:16
stakeholders [1] - 1935:7 1865:9, 1871:17, 1871:18, sworn [1] - 1811:24
stand [3] - 1804:5, 1830:10, 1871:19, 1933:19, 1933:20 system [2] - 1822:14, 1936:2
1879:21 strategic [4] - 1834:15,
stand-in [1] - 1879:21 1836:10, 1846:7, 1864:21 T
standards [1] - 1859:19 strategically [1] - 1867:15
standpoint [1] - 1891:5 strategies [1] - 1924:3 tabs [2] - 1882:20, 1883:2
Stanley [2] - 1911:13, 1911:15 strategy [24] - 1823:6, 1840:20, target [1] - 1865:1
start [2] - 1810:22, 1880:23 1840:22, 1840:24, 1846:11, targeting [2] - 1816:11, 1889:22
started [5] - 1832:9, 1832:14, 1846:13, 1851:8, 1857:5, task [6] - 1829:15, 1829:17,
1834:1, 1904:20 1865:8, 1869:7, 1869:10, 1829:21, 1830:7, 1861:3, 1915:7
starting [1] - 1877:14 1888:5, 1889:22, 1889:24, tasked [5] - 1831:5, 1835:10,
starts [2] - 1846:3, 1957:11 1889:25, 1890:5, 1890:7, 1867:2, 1880:6, 1882:24
Statement [5] - 1897:10, 1891:1, 1924:14, 1926:19, tasks [4] - 1832:12, 1834:15,
1897:23, 1901:19, 1901:20, 1928:12, 1929:19, 1930:10, 1879:8, 1879:14
1902:9 1945:14 tax [31] - 1827:9, 1894:6,
statement [23] - 1819:3, 1819:7, straw [1] - 1921:16 1894:7, 1894:8, 1894:9,
1819:12, 1824:17, 1824:23, Street [3] - 1801:14, 1801:22, 1894:24, 1895:7, 1895:25,
1842:12, 1844:7, 1872:22, 1802:2 1896:16, 1896:17, 1906:12,
1890:17, 1894:19, 1894:21, stricken [1] - 1891:19 1906:13, 1906:15, 1906:16,
1906:19, 1912:19, 1940:12, strike [5] - 1842:6, 1939:9, 1906:18, 1907:16, 1907:19,
1940:13, 1955:21, 1956:3, 1940:22, 1952:11, 1958:4 1907:21, 1907:22, 1907:23,
1956:5, 1957:10, 1957:13, structure [2] - 1853:20, 1859:9 1908:9, 1908:24, 1910:3,
1957:22 strung [1] - 1948:23 1910:6, 1910:10, 1910:23,
statements [4] - 1819:2, stuff [1] - 1902:7 1914:8
1837:24, 1948:24, 1955:22 stunned [1] - 1885:21 taxes [10] - 1827:9, 1906:13,
states [2] - 1896:20, 1958:7 style [1] - 1936:2 1907:13, 1907:22, 1907:25,
STATES [2] - 1801:1, 1801:10 subcontracted [1] - 1833:13 1908:8, 1908:17, 1909:21,
States [25] - 1801:3, 1802:8, subject [8] - 1864:4, 1876:12, 1914:11
1803:1, 1803:11, 1803:17, 1881:16, 1889:4, 1889:5, taxpayer [1] - 1896:17
1813:22, 1814:16, 1816:16, 1901:15, 1919:20, 1947:24 Taylor [4] - 1801:21, 1803:21,
1822:17, 1824:12, 1825:13, submit [1] - 1913:23 1959:14, 1960:2
1834:12, 1834:13, 1841:14, submitted [1] - 1908:24 TAYLOR [3] - 1959:7, 1959:15,
1841:24, 1863:22, 1870:9, subsequent [1] - 1867:17 1959:20
team [7] - 1820:13, 1822:25, 1849:10, 1849:12, 1849:16, 1867:22, 1868:6, 1893:21,
1834:2, 1838:8, 1854:18, 1849:19, 1852:4, 1852:11, 1905:1
1868:21, 1889:2 1852:17, 1852:24, 1853:12, together [9] - 1882:24, 1910:7,
Team [1] - 1916:23 1853:15, 1853:24, 1854:5, 1917:17, 1921:17, 1928:12,
teams [2] - 1834:25, 1835:2 1855:19, 1855:21, 1856:25, 1931:5, 1947:19, 1948:23,
tear [1] - 1829:8 1857:2, 1865:20, 1865:22, 1955:2
technically [1] - 1834:2 1865:23, 1866:7, 1871:3, tomorrow [3] - 1881:25, 1882:8,
Telegraph [2] - 1889:15, 1871:5, 1871:6, 1871:14, 1887:20
1890:16 1871:15, 1871:25, 1872:17, took [12] - 1833:20, 1834:3,
television [2] - 1954:10, 1872:20, 1873:12, 1873:15, 1846:23, 1847:10, 1848:16,
1954:11 1873:19, 1874:11, 1874:16, 1856:22, 1857:18, 1860:18,
ten [6] - 1813:12, 1813:14, 1874:21, 1875:3, 1875:7, 1867:17, 1909:6, 1910:16,
1883:20, 1883:22, 1892:18, 1883:16, 1883:24, 1891:10, 1929:10
1953:2 1891:14, 1891:17, 1891:20, top [13] - 1828:16, 1847:16,
tend [1] - 1862:20 1892:1, 1892:3, 1892:4, 1892:5, 1854:15, 1856:24, 1857:4,
tense [1] - 1936:22 1892:8, 1892:17, 1892:21, 1864:23, 1867:8, 1886:23,
tension [1] - 1816:5 1892:23, 1893:1, 1893:3, 1887:16, 1919:17, 1926:22,
tentatively [2] - 1868:11, 1883:8 1893:4, 1899:21, 1899:25, 1930:17, 1939:8
term [1] - 1913:14 1900:12, 1900:16, 1900:25, topic [2] - 1833:6, 1840:21
1901:5, 1901:8, 1901:18, topics [3] - 1840:9, 1847:6,
terms [19] - 1814:20, 1815:11,
1902:6, 1902:22, 1903:5, 1848:14
1834:4, 1838:22, 1839:23,
1906:23, 1907:2, 1907:9, total [5] - 1837:8, 1908:6,
1847:7, 1850:25, 1855:8,
1912:20, 1912:22, 1912:25, 1908:22, 1917:22, 1953:5
1855:17, 1860:8, 1866:13,
1913:2, 1914:16, 1921:11, tough [2] - 1840:16, 1872:5
1867:14, 1867:16, 1870:20,
1922:1, 1922:5, 1922:7, 1922:9, tour [1] - 1941:25
1921:6, 1921:7, 1949:24, 1954:4
1922:17, 1923:7, 1923:10, toward [1] - 1958:17
testified [5] - 1811:25, 1819:6,
1923:12, 1927:14, 1927:18, town [1] - 1941:3
1819:23, 1825:16, 1852:21
1927:20, 1932:12, 1932:20, tracing [1] - 1919:20
testify [1] - 1821:22
1933:6, 1933:9, 1933:17, trading [1] - 1911:3
testifying [2] - 1907:5, 1907:6
1936:25, 1937:9, 1937:11,
testimony [5] - 1852:4, 1874:2, transcribed [1] - 1805:7
1937:15, 1937:18, 1941:15,
1874:15, 1932:6, 1958:3 Transcript [1] - 1801:5
1941:18, 1942:9, 1942:10,
thanked [1] - 1882:15 transcript [3] - 1810:17, 1961:6,
1944:10, 1944:11, 1944:12,
THE [206] - 1801:1, 1801:1, 1961:7
1948:23, 1949:20, 1950:5,
1801:9, 1801:13, 1803:1, TRANSCRIPT [1] - 1801:8
1950:6, 1950:7, 1951:23,
1803:4, 1803:7, 1803:8, transfer [3] - 1829:17, 1829:22,
1952:1, 1952:4, 1952:7, 1956:5,
1803:10, 1803:19, 1803:23, 1831:13
1956:7, 1956:8, 1957:15,
1803:25, 1804:16, 1804:20, transfers [1] - 1910:19
1959:8, 1959:13, 1959:17,
1804:21, 1804:25, 1805:1, transit [2] - 1861:17, 1861:25
1959:21, 1959:24, 1960:1,
1805:5, 1805:6, 1805:10, translation [1] - 1860:5
1960:10
1805:12, 1810:17, 1810:25, transpired [1] - 1823:15
therefore [1] - 1817:2
1811:4, 1811:5, 1812:1, 1818:5, travel [2] - 1814:6, 1861:14
they've [1] - 1852:22
1818:8, 1818:9, 1818:10, trial [25] - 1816:2, 1817:12,
thinking [2] - 1859:19, 1959:9
1818:12, 1818:14, 1818:15, 1825:16, 1832:4, 1832:11,
third [3] - 1857:23, 1917:3,
1818:18, 1818:25, 1819:16, 1858:2, 1859:14, 1859:23,
1929:2
1820:17, 1820:21, 1821:5, 1859:24, 1874:21, 1875:1,
third-party [2] - 1917:3, 1929:2
1821:10, 1821:21, 1826:5, 1925:21, 1926:6, 1926:25,
thoughts [1] - 1886:2
1826:7, 1829:6, 1829:21, 1927:11, 1928:22, 1928:25,
three [2] - 1816:1, 1850:8
1829:23, 1829:24, 1829:25, 1931:13, 1941:3, 1946:2,
1830:1, 1830:9, 1830:17, throughout [1] - 1945:5
1950:13, 1957:2, 1958:17,
1830:22, 1831:1, 1831:9, Thursday [2] - 1877:19,
1958:25, 1959:5
1831:11, 1833:5, 1833:10, 1878:14
TRIAL [2] - 1801:4, 1801:8
1837:18, 1838:25, 1841:17, tie [1] - 1837:17
trials [1] - 1825:14
1841:25, 1842:7, 1842:9, tier [1] - 1870:1
tried [4] - 1856:6, 1873:11,
1842:12, 1842:16, 1842:22, time-wise [1] - 1843:9
1874:2, 1893:8
1843:21, 1844:1, 1844:8, timeframe [1] - 1839:3
trip [2] - 1887:4, 1940:16
1844:13, 1844:23, 1845:2, timing [2] - 1884:3, 1886:11
true [10] - 1845:11, 1873:11,
1845:4, 1845:5, 1845:6, 1845:7, tipped [1] - 1911:7
1874:4, 1874:6, 1903:14,
1845:8, 1845:11, 1845:12, Title [1] - 1907:14 1906:20, 1957:13, 1961:6,
1847:2, 1847:4, 1847:17, title [1] - 1860:14 1961:7
1847:19, 1849:7, 1849:9, today [6] - 1837:13, 1866:11, Trump [3] - 1913:17, 1913:24,
1914:1 1815:8, 1815:9, 1815:10, unpaid [1] - 1907:22

truth [7] - 1819:3, 1825:12, 1815:17, 1815:20, 1815:25, unreleased [1] - 1938:16
1826:14, 1829:9, 1842:13, 1816:8, 1816:13, 1816:18, up [43] - 1813:20, 1820:15,
1853:7, 1853:16 1817:6, 1817:8, 1822:10, 1824:22, 1824:25, 1829:8,
truthful [4] - 1829:4, 1902:3, 1822:11, 1822:13, 1823:1, 1830:13, 1834:4, 1836:10,
1955:21, 1956:2 1835:14, 1850:22, 1850:24, 1836:21, 1840:3, 1840:6,
truthfully [2] - 1903:4, 1903:9 1850:25, 1859:19, 1862:5, 1840:10, 1842:10, 1843:8,
truthfulness [1] - 1902:21 1864:24, 1864:25, 1867:14, 1844:4, 1849:14, 1851:12,
try [10] - 1820:4, 1844:17, 1870:19, 1871:23, 1880:5, 1851:19, 1852:24, 1852:25,
1844:23, 1862:6, 1884:5, 1880:8, 1880:16, 1889:11, 1853:24, 1857:1, 1859:22,
1884:8, 1892:13, 1907:7, 1889:19, 1896:1, 1898:13, 1860:23, 1861:4, 1861:6,
1922:19, 1927:21 1898:24, 1900:3, 1905:15, 1861:23, 1868:22, 1881:11,
trying [24] - 1820:11, 1821:3, 1911:23, 1911:25, 1912:16, 1893:16, 1893:24, 1897:2,
1821:4, 1833:14, 1835:23, 1912:18, 1915:13, 1915:16, 1897:6, 1902:7, 1902:8, 1919:9,
1840:7, 1844:3, 1844:8, 1916:4, 1918:15, 1925:11, 1924:10, 1931:10, 1932:20,
1844:17, 1852:14, 1853:22, 1928:15, 1956:25, 1957:8 1933:10, 1936:14, 1938:6,
1861:13, 1885:18, 1900:17, Ukraine's [3] - 1865:2, 1888:18, 1956:21
1906:25, 1912:19, 1912:21, 1930:25 upcoming [2] - 1832:6, 1832:7
1924:18, 1927:8, 1930:9, Ukrainian [8] - 1822:13, update [5] - 1849:25, 1857:10,
1937:2, 1938:5, 1948:7, 1958:16 1831:13, 1833:11, 1899:5, 1881:17, 1889:7, 1889:11
tug [1] - 1815:13 1901:11, 1926:7, 1926:8, 1941:8 Update [1] - 1881:16
turn [6] - 1897:4, 1920:8, ultimately [9] - 1828:25, updated [7] - 1847:10, 1847:12,
1938:24, 1940:14, 1944:22, 1833:17, 1833:21, 1834:7, 1862:21, 1883:5, 1884:15,
1954:25 1834:10, 1841:13, 1868:10, 1889:3, 1890:21
turning [1] - 1907:18 1888:9, 1888:12 updates [1] - 1889:1
TV [2] - 1954:8, 1954:9 um-hum [2] - 1846:16, 1884:24 upper [1] - 1931:10
two [29] - 1813:19, 1816:16, Um-hum [4] - 1814:13, 1815:9, usual [1] - 1883:18
1817:21, 1822:1, 1822:2, 1831:11, 1936:20
1826:2, 1834:13, 1835:4, under [18] - 1824:9, 1825:10, V
1836:9, 1836:11, 1859:5, 1826:13, 1826:15, 1826:19,
1864:2, 1864:15, 1865:16, 1833:13, 1833:14, 1860:14, valid [5] - 1927:1, 1928:22,
1870:21, 1884:11, 1889:14, 1878:12, 1893:6, 1903:16, 1931:14, 1946:2, 1950:13
1904:25, 1917:21, 1917:23, 1904:11, 1904:17, 1905:8, van [24] - 1832:21, 1838:11,
1917:25, 1932:15, 1937:17, 1906:6, 1913:16, 1913:20, 1861:4, 1879:25, 1880:1,
1943:24, 1952:12, 1958:16, 1936:2 1880:17, 1881:14, 1882:14,
1958:19, 1959:11, 1959:18 understood [6] - 1819:4, 1882:17, 1886:25, 1887:4,
Tymoshenko [17] - 1817:12, 1821:22, 1896:10, 1898:2, 1887:6, 1919:2, 1929:14,
1817:13, 1831:23, 1832:4, 1947:21, 1957:19 1942:14, 1946:16, 1946:19,
1832:11, 1847:7, 1857:4, unemployed [4] - 1813:5, 1946:21, 1946:24, 1947:11,
1859:5, 1859:17, 1873:6, 1823:17, 1823:18, 1823:20 1947:21, 1948:1, 1948:8, 1949:7
1875:1, 1924:19, 1925:4, unemployment [1] - 1823:16 various [8] - 1814:14, 1814:17,
1931:15, 1941:2, 1956:24, Union [9] - 1815:10, 1815:18, 1814:23, 1816:3, 1817:14,
1958:20 1815:22, 1816:9, 1861:21, 1823:4, 1898:16, 1912:4
Tymoshenko's [1] - 1925:8 1880:6, 1880:9, 1880:16, verify [1] - 1912:10
type [2] - 1813:17, 1857:1 1925:25 Veritas [7] - 1924:14, 1924:17,
types [1] - 1905:20 Unit [4] - 1900:9, 1901:3, 1924:18, 1924:20, 1924:25,
typically [3] - 1823:3, 1841:4, 1901:10, 1903:3 1925:3, 1938:20
1939:23 UNITED [2] - 1801:1, 1801:10 version [3] - 1931:6, 1945:14,
typing [2] - 1856:25, 1857:2 United [25] - 1801:3, 1802:8, 1954:19
1803:1, 1803:11, 1803:17, versions [2] - 1940:1, 1954:22
U 1813:22, 1814:16, 1816:16, vetted [3] - 1832:16, 1865:10,
1822:17, 1824:12, 1825:13, 1874:24
U.S [11] - 1801:13, 1801:17, 1834:12, 1834:13, 1841:14, via [3] - 1859:17, 1890:6,
1834:25, 1835:2, 1835:4, 1841:24, 1863:22, 1870:9, 1890:7
1864:2, 1865:1, 1865:2, 1865:8, 1892:22, 1898:3, 1917:13, View [1] - 1831:18
1869:10, 1934:23 1917:22, 1917:23, 1940:20, view [1] - 1885:23
U.S.C [3] - 1894:5, 1894:10, 1945:8, 1953:25 viewed [5] - 1817:24, 1822:1,
1894:13 University [1] - 1812:22 1851:15, 1877:1, 1891:3
Ukraine [54] - 1814:3, 1814:6, unless [1] - 1830:14 views [2] - 1818:4, 1852:16
1814:8, 1814:12, 1814:13, unofficially [1] - 1915:4 Viktor [1] - 1816:20
Vin [1] - 1866:24 witness [15] - 1802:13, 1804:5, year [4] - 1815:16, 1908:9,
violate [4] - 1820:6, 1894:5, 1810:24, 1811:20, 1811:24, 1908:16, 1909:6
1894:15, 1907:13 1818:3, 1820:12, 1830:10, years [10] - 1812:11, 1813:2,
violations [1] - 1897:4 1844:9, 1844:10, 1857:21, 1813:12, 1813:14, 1815:3,
Virginia [4] - 1812:14, 1813:1, 1859:6, 1892:9, 1907:1, 1960:11 1824:22, 1824:25, 1826:2,
1903:21, 1904:1 WITNESS [31] - 1818:8, 1908:5, 1908:6
vis-à-vis [1] - 1814:24 1818:10, 1818:14, 1826:7, yesterday [1] - 1804:2
Visa [1] - 1911:20 1829:23, 1829:25, 1830:17, York [30] - 1839:5, 1839:15,
visibility [1] - 1822:4 1831:11, 1833:10, 1841:25, 1842:1, 1842:3, 1846:15,
visiting [1] - 1935:16 1845:2, 1845:5, 1845:7, 1846:23, 1871:9, 1872:8,
vlasenko [1] - 1853:17 1845:11, 1847:4, 1849:9, 1878:1, 1878:8, 1878:13,
voice [1] - 1898:14 1849:12, 1855:21, 1857:2, 1879:12, 1883:3, 1884:16,
vs [1] - 1801:5 1865:22, 1871:5, 1871:15, 1886:18, 1887:19, 1888:1,
1891:14, 1891:20, 1892:3, 1888:12, 1888:16, 1889:15,
1892:5, 1942:10, 1944:11, 1890:4, 1890:6, 1890:8,
W 1950:6, 1952:1, 1956:7 1890:25, 1891:8, 1891:23,
wait [4] - 1833:5, 1885:25, witness's [1] - 1899:24 1920:20, 1921:21, 1923:17,
1888:5, 1919:17 witnesses [4] - 1819:23, 1951:14
waiting [3] - 1887:18, 1887:25, 1852:21, 1859:5, 1874:22 young [2] - 1815:25, 1822:15
1936:16 wmurphy@zuckerman.com [1] yourself [9] - 1803:14, 1814:6,
waive [1] - 1870:6 - 1801:24 1876:20, 1909:12, 1910:20,
wants [3] - 1853:10, 1901:12, woman [2] - 1866:17, 1898:19 1911:10, 1919:16, 1919:19,
1907:1 wondered [1] - 1883:18 1943:5
Warsaw [4] - 1881:25, 1882:18, wondering [1] - 1885:25 yourselves [2] - 1898:6, 1960:4
1887:2, 1887:4 word [3] - 1912:8, 1912:11, YT [1] - 1931:14
Washington [12] - 1801:6, 1912:14 Yulia [7] - 1832:4, 1859:5,
1801:15, 1801:18, 1802:3, words [3] - 1903:20, 1933:12 1859:17, 1924:19, 1925:4,
1802:9, 1812:22, 1817:21, works [1] - 1834:3 1931:15, 1941:2
1834:16, 1864:24, 1929:12, world [7] - 1814:21, 1836:19,
1947:15, 1961:15 1836:22, 1836:23, 1895:13, Z
wearing [2] - 1837:15, 1837:16 1926:1, 1941:25
Weber [2] - 1866:24, 1868:1 worth [1] - 1872:9 zoom [7] - 1825:5, 1834:20,
website [1] - 1861:3 write [13] - 1818:7, 1828:3, 1848:6, 1848:8, 1860:11,
Wednesday [1] - 1877:14 1835:19, 1843:14, 1857:14, 1862:12, 1867:7
week [2] - 1861:8, 1943:9 1871:17, 1871:18, 1872:5, ZUCKERMAN [2] - 1801:22,
weeks [2] - 1929:24, 1952:12 1878:13, 1910:18, 1930:5, 1802:2
weight [1] - 1936:1 1949:2 Zwaan [24] - 1832:21, 1838:11,
Weissmann [1] - 1912:6 writing [16] - 1831:22, 1839:16, 1861:4, 1879:25, 1880:1,
1871:19, 1880:6, 1922:21, 1880:17, 1881:14, 1882:14,
west [3] - 1815:17, 1815:20,
1923:4, 1923:5, 1923:8, 1923:9, 1882:17, 1886:25, 1887:4,
1836:14
1923:10, 1923:11, 1923:15, 1887:6, 1919:2, 1929:14,
Western [9] - 1817:25, 1822:2,
1923:16, 1923:21, 1955:10 1942:14, 1946:16, 1946:19,
1822:7, 1822:17, 1851:6,
written [10] - 1921:20, 1922:4, 1946:21, 1946:24, 1947:11,
1859:19, 1931:18, 1936:2,
1922:6, 1922:10, 1922:13, 1947:21, 1948:1, 1948:8, 1949:7
1957:7
Western-oriented [1] - 1822:17 1922:16, 1946:8, 1957:15,
Western-style [1] - 1936:2 1957:18
whole [2] - 1935:5, 1953:12 wrongfully [2] - 1925:13,
William [3] - 1801:20, 1801:21, 1925:14
1812:21 wrote [3] - 1835:19, 1928:17,
willing [7] - 1855:13, 1855:20, 1932:22
1855:21, 1862:23, 1862:24, wtaylor@zuckerman.com [1] -
1888:5, 1890:12 1801:25
willingly [1] - 1891:7
willingness [1] - 1855:17 Y
wire [6] - 1829:17, 1829:22,
Yanukovych [5] - 1816:20,
1831:5, 1831:11, 1910:18,
1817:3, 1874:25, 1915:20,
1915:8
1925:17
wired [1] - 1830:22
Yanukovych's [2] - 1816:22,
wise [1] - 1843:9
1816:23
wish [1] - 1935:19
1991

2
3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)
4 v. ) Criminal Action No. 19-CR-125
)
5 GREGORY B. CRAIG, ) JURY TRIAL - DAY 9
) Afternoon Session
6 Defendant. )
___________________________ ) Washington, D.C.
7 August 22, 2019
9 TRANSCRIPT OF JURY TRIAL - AFTERNOON SESSION

BEFORE THE HONORABLE AMY BERMAN JACKSON
11
APPEARANCES:
12
For the Government: Fernando Campoamor-Sanchez, AUSA
13 Molly Gulland Gaston, AUSA
U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR THE
-and-
16 Jason Bradley Adam McCullough
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
17 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
18
19 For the Defendant: Adam B. Abelson, Esq.

William James Murphy, Esq.
100 East Pratt Street
21 Suite 2440
Baltimore, MD 21202
22 -and-
William W. Taylor, III, Esq.
23 Paula M. Junghans, Esq.
ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER, LLP
24 1800 M Street, NW
Suite 1000
PATRICIA A. KANESHIRO-MILLER, RMR, CRR

OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
202-354-3243
1992
3 Court Reporter: PATRICIA A. KANESHIRO-MILLER, RMR, CRR

U.S. Courthouse, Room 4700A
4 333 Constitution Avenue, NW
5 (202) 354-3243
Proceedings reported by stenotype shorthand.
6 Transcript produced by computer-aided transcription.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
PATRICIA A. KANESHIRO-MILLER, RMR, CRR

OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
202-354-3243
1993
1
E X A M I N A T I O N S
2
WITNESS DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS
3 RICHARD GATES 1994 2042
4
E X H I B I T S
5
DEFENDANT EXHIBIT PAGE
6 418 2016
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1994
1 AFTERNOON SESSION
2 (2:03 P.M.)
4 (Jury present)
5 THE COURT: The jurors are all present.
6 Mr. Gates, I want to remind you that you're still
7 under oath.
8 You can be seated.
9 Ms. Junghans, you can resume.
11 RICHARD GATES,
12 having been duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
14 BY MS. JUNGHANS:
15 Q. Mr. Gates, before we broke, we were talking about Exhibit
16 126, which I just want to go back to for a moment. And we
17 were looking at the portion where it discussed whether the
18 report stated there was no evidence of political motivation.
19 Now, if you look at the first page of the e-mail that
20 sent this to you, the first page of the document which was
21 the e-mail that sent this to you, you'll notice that
22 Mr. Hawker says to you, "We've provided answers even where we
23 do not know the facts."
24 Do you see that?
25 A. Yes.
1995
1 Q. And is that because at that point, if this was all still
2 hypothetical, what the report was going to say?
3 A. I believe at that time we still had not seen a copy of
4 the full report, so there were pieces of it that still had
5 not been filled in by Mr. Hawker because of that.
6 Q. Okay. But pretty much simultaneously with this, you did
7 get the report; didn't you?
8 Let's look at Exhibit 234, Government Exhibit 234.
9 This shows that on September the 12th, 2012, you were
10 forwarding the report to Mr. Hawker and he was, in turn,
11 forwarding it to Jon Aarons; correct?
12 A. Correct.
13 Q. Okay. And you have the paper document in front of you;
14 correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. This is the report --
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. -- right?
19 So I take it you read it when you got it?
20 A. Not the entire report, no.
21 Q. Have you ever read the entire report?
22 A. Honestly, I have not read the entire report.
23 Q. I see. So in order to get the facts right, you would
24 have to read the report, wouldn't you, to know what the
25 report said?
1996
1 A. Mr. Hawker was preparing the detailed items that were
2 related to the previous attachments, so he was the one that
3 went through the report in more detail.
4 Q. Let's look at Exhibit 233.
5 THE DEPUTY CLERK: Government 233?
6 MS. JUNGHANS: I'm sorry. Government 233. Thank
7 you.
8 BY MS. JUNGHANS:
9 Q. There is a lot of activity on September 12th, so this is
10 another e-mail from you to Mr. Hawker on September 12th, and
11 you appear to be forwarding comments from Mr. Manafort;
12 correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Okay. And if we turn to the -- and sending yet another
15 messaging document. If you look at the caption of the
16 e-mail, it says, "Project Veritas messaging and draft NR PJM
17 REV."
18 Does that mean Paul J. Manafort revisions?
19 A. Revisions, yes.
20 Q. Okay. And the same thing for the other document that is
21 attached; right?
22 A. Yes, the MOJ QNA.
23 Q. Can you go to the next page, please, John.
24 So, again, what this is is the messaging document --
25 A. Yes.
1997
1 Q. -- what we're going to say about this report. Okay. Is
2 that right?
4 Q. Okay. And it summarizes the findings. Now, did you
5 check to see whether the findings actually said these things?
6 A. I believe -- yeah, we read the executive summary, which
7 had a conclusion section in it, and we largely used that as
8 the basis for a lot of the messaging memos that we put out.
9 Q. Okay. And turn to the next page, please.
10 And then you put together statements that various
11 interested parties might make about the report; correct?
12 A. Yes.
14 question.
15 MS. JUNGHANS: Pardon?
17 question.
18 THE COURT: All right. Well, this is still -- when
19 you say "you," was that your objection?
21 THE COURT: Okay. So are you talking about the
22 group --
23 MS. JUNGHANS: Yes, the group.
24 BY MS. JUNGHANS:
25 Q. You were working on statements that interested parties

1998
1 might make after the report was released?
2 A. I had the occasion to edit the statements. Mr. Hawker
3 did the initial preparation of the statements.
4 Q. Okay. And Mr. Manafort had occasion to edit the
5 statements?
6 A. Correct.
7 Q. This was a group project?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Okay. In this draft on this page, the proposed statement
10 for the Ministry of Justice was in the headline, "Independent
11 report concludes Tymoshenko trial was not politically
12 motivated."
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. You see that?
15 A. I do.
16 Q. Is that statement in the report?
17 A. That specific statement, no. That was a headline that
18 Jonathan created based off the information from the report.
19 MS. JUNGHANS: Excuse me. Can I just consult with
20 counsel for one second, please?
21 THE COURT: Yes.
22 (Counsel confer)
23 BY MS. JUNGHANS:
24 Q. Let's look at page -- it is pdf page 9, John, of Exhibit
25 234 that we were just looking at; 234, page 9.

1999
1 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ: I'm confused as to
2 whether --
3 MS. JUNGHANS: I apologize. There are so many
4 iterations of this report.
5 BY MS. JUNGHANS:
6 Q. Exhibit 234, which is the one we just looked at that you
7 had on September 12th, okay, and if you look at page 9, it
8 deals with selective prosecution; right?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And what it says is --
11 THE COURT: Wait. What are we quoting from? The
12 last document we were asking him about was the messaging
13 plan. This doesn't seem to be the messaging plan.
14 MS. JUNGHANS: No, Your Honor. This is the actual
15 report.
16 THE COURT: Okay. Well, we first got the step of
17 directing his attention to the e-mail transmitting the report
18 and --
19 MS. JUNGHANS: I thought I had just done that.
20 THE COURT: No, you missed it. Things got a little
21 off track. So let's go back.
23 BY MS. JUNGHANS:
24 Q. Mr. Gates, Exhibit 234, which you have in front of you in
25 paper form -- right?

2000
1 A. Yes.
2 THE COURT: Defendant's Exhibit 234; correct.
3 MS. JUNGHANS: No, Government's Exhibit 234.
4 THE COURT: Okay.
5 MS. JUNGHANS:
6 Q. Shows that on December the 12th -- September the 12th,
7 2012 you had the full report, and you sent it to Mr. Hawker;
8 correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Okay. And then he sent it to Mr. Aarons?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Okay. And if we turn to page 5, which is pdf page 9 of
13 this report -- and maybe before we do that, we should just
14 see how the report is -- let's back up for a second so
15 everybody can see how the report is organized.
16 So it has a cover page; right?
17 And then go to the next page, please. It has a table
18 of contents.
19 Go on to the next page, please. And then it
20 identifies several appendices that are attached to it.
21 Right?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Then it starts on page 1, which is pdf page 5, with the
24 executive summary; correct?
25 A. Yes.
2001
1 Q. And the first number of bullet points are under the
2 heading of "Factual Conclusions." And it talks about various
3 facts related to Ukraine, etc.; right?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And then there is another page of factual conclusions;
6 correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And then if you go to -- at the bottom of what is page 2
9 of the report, it starts identifying the conclusions of the
10 report; correct?
11 A. Correct.
12 Q. Okay. Why don't we just so everybody is -- why don't we
13 all just run through them.
14 The first conclusion is the Court's opinion, and it
15 says, "The Court --
16 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ: Can we approach?
17 THE COURT: Yes.
18 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ: Sorry.
19 (At the bench)
20 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ: The document was still a
21 draft, it is not the final report. So I don't just want
22 there to be any confusion that the conclusions in the
23 executive, whatever we're reading, are not from the final
24 report, they're from a draft report.
25 MS. JUNGHANS: We can make that clear, but they don't

2002
1 change.
2 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ: Okay. Well, maybe they
3 don't. I just want to be --
4 THE COURT: We are now reading to him from the draft
5 report that he had in hand as of the time of the plan --
6 MS. JUNGHANS: Exactly.
8 (In open court)
9 BY MS. JUNGHANS:
10 Q. Just to be clear, Mr. Gates, this is the version that was
11 in existence as of September 12, 2012?
12 A. Correct.
13 Q. Okay. And the version that you were messaging about?
14 A. Correct.
15 Q. Okay. So the first conclusion is that the Court's
16 opinion -- I'm not going to read every word of this --
17 "Although many facts were in sharp dispute and conflicting
18 evidence was offered on many issues, the Court, as finder of
19 fact, based its findings on evidence before the Court and, in
20 some instances, on inferences that the Court drew from that
21 evidence."
22 Correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Okay. Let's go down to the second conclusion.
25 "Legal adequacy of the charges under Ukrainian law."

2003
1 And it says, "The parties vigorously disputed what was in
2 issue. And then it goes on to say, "This issue of Ukrainian
3 law -- the legal requirements necessary to satisfy the
4 elements of the statutory offense -- is beyond the scope of
5 our assignment and beyond our expertise."
6 So you understood from that conclusion that Skadden
7 was not undertaking to render an opinion about whether
8 Ms. Tymoshenko was or was not guilty under Ukrainian law?
10 Q. Then, the third conclusion deals with the opportunity to
11 prepare a defense, and that was an issue Ms. Tymoshenko had
12 complained about; correct?
13 A. Correct.
14 Q. Okay. And again, it says in the center of the paragraph,
15 "We believe that, looking at this case, most American trial
16 courts would have given the defendant more time to prepare
17 her defense. It is unlikely, however, that based on this
18 record, an American appellate court would find a due process
19 violation and reverse the conviction."
20 Everybody can read it eventually. But that was
21 conclusion two; right?
22 THE COURT: Three.
23 MS. JUNGHANS: Three. Thank you.
24 BY MS. JUNGHANS:
25 Q. Can you go to the next one, please, John.

2004
1 And then the next issue dealt with the selection of
2 the judge and dealt with Ms. Tymoshenko's allegation, in
3 essence, that Mr. Yanukovych had hand-picked the judge;
4 right?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Okay. And it said that "The report concluded she has not
7 established that the judge's experience, tenure, or selection
8 violated Western standards of fairness --
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. -- right?
11 Okay. Let's go to the next one.
12 Jury request. It goes on -- if I may summarize, even
13 though she would have liked to have had a jury, juries are
14 not customarily used in Ukraine, not a violation of due
15 process. Correct?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Okay. And let's go to the next one.
18 Her courtroom behavior. And it describes that
19 Ms. Tymoshenko refused to acknowledge the Court's legitimacy
20 and engaged in conduct that was disrespectful. And that the
21 tactics made management of the trial substantially more
22 difficult. And then it points you to the pages where that is
23 discussed in more detail. Right?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Then, can you go to the next one, please.

2005
1 Removal from the courtroom. This goes to her
2 complaint that she was put out of the room during certain
3 portions of the trial. Right?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Then it says, "Neither she nor her counsel raised any
6 objection to the admission of the document, and it does not
7 appear that she suffered any prejudice." All right.
8 THE COURT: Well, wait. That doesn't quite --
9 MS. JUNGHANS: As a result of the absence.
10 And one can find more details on that at the pages
11 that are cited? Correct?
12 THE COURT: Well, you read the first sentence that
13 there were two removals. And I think just to fairly
14 characterize what is sitting here, the conclusion is that the
15 July 6 removal doesn't raise fairness concerns, the 15th was
16 more troubling, but she didn't suffer any prejudice as a
17 result.
18 MS. JUNGHANS: Yes, Your Honor. Thank you, Your
19 Honor.
20 THE COURT: Is that a fair summary?
21 All right.
22 BY MS. JUNGHANS:
23 Q. Can you go to the next one, please.
24 That deals with her detention. And this goes to the
25 fact that she was put in jail during her trial. Correct?
2006
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Okay. And the conclusion that is expressed here, under
3 Western standards, "We find the decision to detain Tymoshenko
4 for the entire balance of her trial and after the trial had
5 concluded -- until sentencing -- without adequate
6 justification or review raises concerns about whether she was
7 inappropriately deprived of her liberty prior to her
8 conviction."
9 Right?
10 A. Yes.
11 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ: Objection, Your Honor. The
12 conclusion or the summary is not entirely accurate.
13 THE COURT: I'm sorry. You want to read the whole
14 paragraph?
15 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ: Yes, I think it would be
16 better to just have it read.
17 MS. JUNGHANS: Your Honor, I'm certainly not adverse,
18 but I'm trying not to bore everybody by standing here and
19 reading the whole thing. I'm just trying to present how the
20 report is organized.
21 THE COURT: Well, you're now presenting the actual
22 content of the report so you can ask him if the summary of
23 the report was accurate, so --
24 MS. JUNGHANS: Well, I'm trying to get to just the
25 last one.
2007
1 THE COURT: All right. I know. And we'll get to all
2 of them. But I think it is fair that this one --
3 MS. JUNGHANS: I'm happy to read it.
4 THE COURT: You might was well just read it rather
5 than talking about it.
6 MS. JUNGHANS: Sure.
7 THE COURT: I would be faster.
8 BY MS. JUNGHANS:
9 Q. So what this conclusion says, Mr. Gates, is, under the
10 subject of "detention," "Tymoshenko claims that the Court's
11 decision to incarcerate her in a detention
12 facility -- beginning on August 5 and continuing through her
13 sentencing -- was an open-ended detention unjustified by the
14 facts. Tymoshenko's courtroom behavior would likely have
15 merited a summary contempt finding under Western standards.
16 The Court's separate suggestion that she presented a flight
17 risk is problematic, however, on the record of this case.
18 Taking steps to maintain order in the courtroom is
19 justifiable. Using detention to achieve that objective, as
20 the Court did in this case, is an accepted but rarely used
21 practice in Western courts. Under Western standards, we find
22 that the decision to detain Tymoshenko for the entire balance
23 of her trial and after the trial had concluded -- until
24 sentencing -- without adequate justification or review raises
25 concerns about whether she was inappropriately deprived of

2008
1 her liberty prior to her conviction."
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Okay. And then last, the last conclusion deals with
4 -- well, actually not the last. The next one deals with
5 representation by counsel. And so we're not confused, I'll
6 read the whole thing.
7 "Tymoshenko argues that the Court violated her right
8 to adequate representation by examining witnesses in the
9 absence of defense counsel and by failing to adjourn the
10 proceedings to allow her to acquire new legal representation.
11 Ukrainian law, as well as European and Western legal
12 standards, requires that a defendant who wishes to be
13 represented by counsel during trial must be able to exercise
14 that right. Under Western standards, the continued
15 examination of witnesses without representation by counsel
16 would almost certainly be viewed as a violation of the right
17 to assistance of counsel."
18 Correct?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And then the next one, presentation of defense. "During
21 the investigation stage of the proceeding, Tymoshenko
22 identified a large number of witnesses that she asked to be
23 interviewed. Her request was found to be untimely, and the
24 chief investigator denied her request. During the trial, she
25 identified other witnesses and asked that they be permitted

2009
1 to testify. Judge Kireyev refused to permit all but two of
2 these witnesses to testify. Tymoshenko argues that Judge
3 Kireyev's refusal undermined her ability to present her
4 defense. Under Western standards of fairness, we believe
5 that the Court's decision not to call certain defense
6 witnesses compromised Tymoshenko's ability to present a
7 defense."
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. All right. And then last, selective prosecution.
10 Before we read that, you've already told us that this
11 question of selective or political prosecution was the most
12 important issue to your client, the Ministry of Justice.
14 Q. Okay. And what it says is, "Tymoshenko has alleged that
15 her prosecution was a politically motivated reprisal
16 undertaken in order to silence a political opponent of the
17 ruling regime. The prosecution of a former head of
18 government, unsuccessful presidential candidate, and leader
19 of the opposition merits close scrutiny in all respects. In
20 this report -- could you highlight this part please, John --
21 "In this report, we do not opine about whether the
22 prosecution was politically motivated or driven by an
23 improper political objective -- i.e., to remove her from
24 political life in Ukraine in the future. Instead, based on
25 the record of the case and established precedent, we do

2010
1 address the narrow doctrine of selective prosecution.
2 Tymoshenko has not provided specific evidence of political
3 motivation that would be sufficient to overturn her
4 conviction under American standards."
5 Right?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Okay. Now, having this report with this executive
8 summary in hand at September 12, 2012, the messaging document
9 that was being prepared -- John, can you go back to 233,
10 please, on page 3 -- says in the headline, "Independent
11 report concludes Tymoshenko trial was not politically
12 motivated."
13 Do you see that?
14 A. I do.
15 Q. That was not the conclusion of the Skadden Report; was
16 it?
17 A. That was Mr. Hawker's interpretation of the conclusion
18 from the report.
19 Q. Well, that wasn't my question, sir.
21 THE COURT: You're asking him about whether something
22 someone else said is, in his judgment, the characterization
23 of something as if it is a yes-or-no fact question. So is
24 the question -- he didn't write it. It's in the plan. So
25 what's your question.

2011
1 MS. JUNGHANS: Actually, Your Honor, he forwarded
2 this as a revised version from -- let me clarify -- from
3 yourself and Mr. Manafort?
4 THE WITNESS: If that's at the previous e-mail you
5 showed me --
6 MS. JUNGHANS: If you look at the first page. John,
7 you can put that up again, please.
8 BY MS. JUNGHANS:
9 Q. So this is a document from you to Hawker, not from Hawker
10 to you.
11 A. But this is based off of a document that Mr. Hawker
12 provided to us first because that would reflect why there are
13 edits and revisions.
14 Q. Okay. So do you think this is an accurate
15 characterization of the conclusion that we just read from the
16 report?
17 A. Based on the information at the time, yes, I do.
18 Q. You think saying the independent report concludes it was
19 not politically motivated is the same as what I just read
20 from the --
22 question. Asked and answered.
23 MS. JUNGHANS: It would be nice if I could get my
24 question out.

2012
1 THE COURT: Well, we have all been doing that. Let's
2 try not to snipe at each other. I realize everybody is
3 working very hard here and tensions are high. This is a
4 complicated matter. And I'm trying to avoid having everybody
5 come to the bench, but if we're going to argue at each other,
6 we're going to have to do that, and I think that would
7 frustrate everybody in the courtroom.
8 So you asked him what he thought. You can ask
9 another question, but you can't argue with him.
10 BY MS. JUNGHANS:
11 Q. Well, my question was: Do you think that is an accurate
12 characterization of what we just read from the conclusions of
13 the report?
14 A. And yes, I commented yes, I do believe that.
15 Q. Okay. Now, let's turn to Defendant's Exhibit 123.
16 If you could blow up the top of it, please, John.
17 No, actually, scroll down to the lower part of the page,
18 please.
19 So this is an e-mail from Mr. Hawker to you, also
20 September 12, 2006, sending you a control grid --
21 MR. TAYLOR: 2012.
22 MS. JUNGHANS: Yes, September 12, 2012.
23 BY MS. JUNGHANS:
24 Q. Do you see that?
25 A. Yes.
2013
1 Q. And you were exchanging these documents back and forth a
2 lot during this period of time; were you not?
3 A. Correct.
4 Q. Okay. And the control grid is the chart that sort of
5 sets out what everybody is going to do on launch date?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. So if we turn to the first page of what is
8 attached -- first of all, you will note that it says in the
9 upper left-hand corner, "Draft document for consideration of
10 legal counsel."
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Who did you understand that to be?
13 A. I could guess, but I don't recall.
14 Q. Okay. Mr. Hawker did not send this to Mr. Craig here?
15 A. Not in the e-mail you just showed me. It was sent to me.
16 Q. And generally speaking, at this time, you were not
17 providing these grids to Mr. Craig?
18 A. I was not. That was not one of my responsibilities.
19 Q. Now, if you turn to what is identified as page DX 123-3,
20 which is again the list of who is going to do what, and you
21 look at the line that is line 14 --
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. -- it refers to the project team and then -- who's the
24 project team?
25 A. The project team would have been Mr. Hawker's team on the
2014
1 ground.
2 Q. GC, that is Mr. Craig?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. SKA, that's Skadden; right?
5 A. Correct.
6 Q. And it says, "Engagement with Bloomberg."
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. No David Sanger?
9 A. Correct.
10 Q. Okay. And then it goes on to the next page, and we have
11 more, Mr. Craig talking to various officials; right?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And the last page, it repeats the Greg Craig travel log;
14 right?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Okay. You had not heard from Mr. Craig that he was going
17 to take any of these trips that are identified here?
19 Q. Now, at the same time -- same day -- I guess later in the
20 day -- can we have Defendant's Exhibit 125.
21 And this is yet another version from Mr. Hawker to
22 you. Why were you asking him for so many versions?
23 A. So we had different audiences that these documents were
24 going to. In reference to the document you're just citing
25 now, it was a cut-down version because it was going to

2015
1 different stakeholders who would not have paid attention to
2 the level of detail that we had in the master grid.
3 Q. And when you refer to a stakeholder, who are you talking
4 about?
5 A. It could have been somebody inside the government. It
6 could have been somebody outside the government. It all
7 depends on at the time who Mr. Manafort requested the
8 document go to.
9 Q. Okay. And do you have an idea for whom this one,
10 particular version would have been intended since it is the
11 cut-down version?
12 A. I believe this one went to Mr. Lyovochkin, who I
13 referenced earlier was the chief of staff to the President.
14 Q. Okay. So the purpose of this was for your firm to tell
15 the client all the great stuff that it was doing?
16 A. That was the general idea, yes.
17 Q. And all the great stuff you were going to get Mr. Craig
18 to do?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. But you had had no assurances from Mr. Craig that he was
21 going to do them?
22 A. I had none, that's correct.
23 Q. Now, let's turn to what has been marked as Defendant's
24 Exhibit 418.
25 Now, Mr. Gates this is a document dated September 12,

2016
1 2012. Do you recognize it?
2 A. Yes. I think it was a document forwarded to me by
3 Mr. Hawker, and I, in turn, sent it to Mr. van der Zwaan.
4 MS. JUNGHANS: Your Honor, I move the admission of
5 Defendant's Exhibit 418.
6 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ: No objection.
7 THE COURT: All right. It will be admitted.
8 (Defendant 418 admitted in evidence)
9 BY MS. JUNGHANS:
10 Q. And what this is, Mr. Gates, is the lower portion of it
11 is something you cut and pasted from an e-mail from
12 Mr. Hawker; right?
13 Everything under "FYI"?
14 A. Yes, I believe so.
15 Q. Can you blow that up, please, John.
16 And what this is is a sort of form of an article
17 about the report that Mr. Hawker had written, expressing what
18 he called the worst-case scenario?
20 question.
21 THE COURT: I think that is a fair question.
22 You can answer it if you recall.
23 THE WITNESS: Give me one second. Let me look at
24 this, please.
25 MS. JUNGHANS: Well, let me rephrase it a little

2017
1 different --
2 THE WITNESS: Yes, I was going to say, could you
3 repeat the question --
4 MS. JUNGHANS: Let me phrase it a little differently.
5 BY MS. JUNGHANS:
6 Q. Actually, if you look at the caption of the article -- or
7 the caption of the e-mail, it says, "How a journalist will
8 see the report" --
9 A. Uh-huh.
10 Q. -- right?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. So this was Mr. Hawker's take --
13 A. Exactly.
14 Q. -- on how he thought a journalist would see the report?
15 A. It was one iteration of an idea that Mr. Hawker thought a
16 reporter could react to the Skadden effort, that's correct.
17 Q. And the headline he thought that a reporter might issue,
18 start off with, was "Ukraine violated former Prime Minister's
19 rights, according to Ukraine's own lawyer"?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. That's not the headline you were looking for?
22 A. No. But this also never appeared as the headline.
23 Q. Well, we will get to that.
24 Let's turn to Defendant's Exhibit 134.
25 Now, at this point, you thought that the release of

2018
1 the report was imminent; right?
2 A. As of September 18th, yes, we thought it was going to be
3 very soon.
4 Q. Okay. And you had a version of the report that was
5 pretty significantly finished; wasn't it?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Okay. And in fact, you had been told by the Skadden
8 folks that as far as they were concerned it was finished;
9 right?
10 A. I believe that was Mr. Craig's representation, yes.
11 Q. Okay. But nevertheless, there were efforts by the
12 Ministry of Justice to get it to be changed yet again;
13 correct?
15 Q. If we look at Defendant's Exhibit 134, that is exactly
16 what this is, isn't it?
17 John, could you enlarge the lower part. Thank you.
18 So this is an e-mail from you to Mr. Craig saying,
19 "Call me with questions." And then is it fair to say that
20 what you're doing here is sending comments that Mr. Manafort
21 wrote but for whatever reason he asked you to send?
22 A. Yes. It is an e-mail from Mr. Manafort to me, which, in
23 turn, he asked me to forward it to Mr. Craig.
24 Q. Okay. And Mr. Craig's response was -- if you go to the
25 top -- "I thought we had dealt with all of the concerns that
2019
1 had been raised." Right?
2 A. Correct.
3 Q. And the concerns were those of BG; correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. BG was?
6 A. That referred to the President of Ukraine.
7 Q. BG is short for Big Guy?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Nevertheless, did Mr. Craig consent to consider these
10 comments?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Okay. And in fact, that was one of the purposes for
13 convening the meeting at the Harvard Club; wasn't it?
14 A. It was.
15 Q. Okay. If we go to Government's Exhibit 254, you have
16 identified it, I think, as the agenda and a batch of other
17 documents circulated prior to the meeting at the Harvard
18 Club.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Okay. And you have that in paper form in your binder?
21 A. I do. What is the exhibit number again?
22 Q. It is Defendant's Exhibit 254.
23 THE DEPUTY CLERK: Government's.
24 MS. JUNGHANS: Government's exhibit. I apologize.
25 THE WITNESS: Okay. I have it.

2020
1 BY MS. JUNGHANS:
2 Q. It is actually about 75 pages' worth of stuff; isn't it?
3 A. Yes. It is a rather large document.
4 Q. Pardon?
5 A. It is a rather large document.
6 Q. Yes. And do you recall what time -- well, strike that.
7 Do you recall receiving it?
8 A. I do.
9 Q. Do you recall what time you got it?
10 A. I do not.
11 Q. Okay. Well, it says 4:11 a.m. You don't know whether it
12 was actually sent at 4:11 or not; do you?
13 A. That is actually from Mr. Hawker to me, so based on his
14 computer being on UK time, I would gather that that was
15 4 a.m. UK time at the time he sent it.
16 Q. So it is probably more like midnight or so?
17 A. About, yes.
18 Q. And so you didn't have a conversation with Mr. Craig
19 about whether he had the opportunity to read this thing prior
20 to the Harvard Club meeting?
22 Q. Okay. And the whole master control grid was not reviewed
23 as part of the meeting; was it?
24 A. To my recollection, it was not.
25 Q. It was not?
2021
1 A. Correct.
2 THE COURT: Wasn't there a stipulation about what
3 time it was actually sent?
4 MR. MURPHY: 11:11, Your Honor.
5 THE COURT: 11:11 --
6 MR. MURPHY: p.m., Saturday night.
7 THE COURT: U.S. time or Hawker's time?
8 MR. MURPHY: 11:11 Saturday night, New York time.
9 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
10 BY MS. JUNGHANS:
11 Q. So the master control grid that is attached to this, if
12 you could, John, go over to the -- if you could go to page 3
13 of the document, which is page 5 of the pdf.
14 It repeats -- it repeats what we have seen before
15 about Mr. Craig's engagement with U.S. media. Right?
16 And then it repeats what we have seen before about
17 him going all over Europe to talk to people.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Okay. And he had not consented to do these things before
20 the meeting took place?
22 Q. Okay. Now, you have told us about the meeting at the
23 Harvard Club, and you said that Mr. Craig again mentioned the
24 name of David Sanger --
25 A. Correct.
2022
1 Q. -- as a reporter he knew?
2 A. To my recollection, yes.
3 Q. Okay. And what else is it that you say he said about
4 David Sanger?
5 A. At the meeting, it was not a lot of discussion on any
6 specific component of Sanger but that he was a reporter that
7 we could potentially use based on Greg's relationship to get
8 the story out, the seed story out.
9 Q. So he didn't say, "Don't worry, I'll do it, I'll go get
10 Sanger, just tell me when to launch? He didn't say anything
11 like that?
12 A. He did not.
13 Q. It was just this is a good guy?
14 A. That he had a relationship with, yes.
15 Q. So that was not part of the media plan at the end of the
16 Harvard Club meeting that Greg Craig had taken on this
17 assignment?
18 A. It was -- without specifically going through each
19 component of it, it was more general; that Craig had reduced
20 the amount of effort that he was willing to put into it, but
21 that he was still willing to do something. And a lot of that
22 was still dependent on what we came up with for the final
23 plan.
24 Q. Okay. But you didn't go out, then, and immediately
25 change the plan to say that Greg Craig will talk to David
2023
1 Sanger?
3 Q. And that's why, if you look at -- well, strike that.
4 If you look at Exhibit 258, which is your notes from
5 the meeting, under "PR Items" on page 2 --
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. -- and I think you told us earlier this was -- the next
8 page, please, John -- I think you told us earlier this was a
9 list of action items emanating from the Harvard Club meeting?
10 A. Notes and action items, yes.
11 Q. So there is no action item for Greg Craig?
12 A. Correct.
13 Q. Except possibly meeting this Mr. Fule?
14 A. Correct.
15 Q. To your knowledge, he never did that?
16 A. He did not.
17 Q. Now, do you know that the day after the Harvard Club
18 meeting Mr. Craig said that whatever discussion may have
19 occurred during that meeting about him backgrounding
20 journalists, he wouldn't be able to do it?
21 A. I wasn't part of any discussion. I don't recall if
22 Jonathan had mentioned it or not, but there was reluctance on
23 Mr. Craig's part to take on a number of the actions that we
24 had outlined in some of the models.
25 Q. Well, I think you said earlier that you never heard that
2024
1 Greg Craig changed his mind.
2 A. I personally did not, that's correct.
3 Q. Well, did you hear about it, him changing his mind?
4 A. Yes, at different points throughout the project, so not
5 just specifically at that time, but in other months as well.
6 Q. Well, how about specifically at this time?
7 A. At this time, I did not hear Mr. Craig change his mind
8 about that specific issue, no.
9 Q. Well, wasn't his changing his mind the subject of such
10 concern that a meeting was convened at Mr. Manafort's
11 apartment at Trump Tower to talk about what was going to
12 happen in view of him changing his mind?
14 question.
15 THE COURT: Was there a meeting convened at the Trump
16 Tower shortly after the meeting at the Harvard Club?
18 THE COURT: Do you know what the purpose of the
19 meeting was?
20 THE WITNESS: The purpose of the meeting was to
21 review and go through the report's content, and then also to
22 look at some of the material that we had discussed at the
23 meeting.
24 BY MS. JUNGHANS:
25 Q. So it had nothing to do with --

2025
1 THE COURT: Did you call the meeting?
2 THE WITNESS: No.
3 BY MS. JUNGHANS:
4 Q. Well, actually, take a look at Government Exhibit 270, if
5 you would.
6 This is an e-mail from yourself to Mr. Hawker --
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. -- saying, "We are going to meet at 10 a.m. at Paul's
9 apartment."
10 Is it fair to say that if you didn't call it, you
11 organized it?
12 A. Paul asked me to call for the meeting.
13 Q. And who was there?
14 A. Myself, Mr. Hawker, Mr. Manafort, and I believe, for part
15 of it, Mr. van der Zwaan.
16 Q. Well, he is not on the e-mail.
17 A. Correct. So maybe I'm wrong about that.
18 Q. Okay. And you're saying that the issue of Mr. Craig
19 reversing course was not an issue that was brought up at this
20 meeting?
21 A. It was not an issue brought up directly at the Harvard
22 Club meeting. From my understanding from Mr. Hawker, it was
23 brought up previously to the Harvard Club meeting.
24 Q. I'm sorry, Mr. Gates. Maybe I'm tired, but I'm not
25 following you. I thought you said that at the Harvard Club

2026
1 meeting Mr. Craig said David Sanger is a good reporter?
2 A. Correct. In the general discussion that we had.
3 Q. Right. And he didn't say, I will accept the assignment
4 of briefing David Sanger?
5 A. No, not at that meeting.
6 Q. Okay. But he might have talked about backgrounding the
7 journalist, in general?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Okay. And then you heard that he changed his mind?
10 A. Correct. But this is not the first time he had changed
11 his mind.
12 Q. Understood. But I'm talking about this specific subject.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. You learned that the next day?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And was that a subject of concern to the group?
17 A. To Mr. Hawker, it was. But Mr. Manafort indicated that
18 he would talk to Mr. Craig and take care of --
19 Q. I didn't ask you what Mr. Manafort --
20 THE COURT: Well, you asked if it was a subject of
21 concern to the group --
22 MS. JUNGHANS: And that was a "yes" or "no" question.
23 THE COURT: -- the group had different brains --
24 MS. JUNGHANS: Right, I'm just asking --
25 THE COURT: -- so he didn't have the same answer for

2027
1 every person. He's trying to answer your question.
2 MS. JUNGHANS: Right. Okay.
3 THE COURT: So it was the subject -- it was -- was
4 Mr. Hawker concerned?
5 THE WITNESS: He was.
6 THE COURT: Was Mr. Manafort concerned?
7 THE WITNESS: Not as concerned.
8 BY MS. JUNGHANS:
9 Q. Okay. So then you had this meeting at Trump Tower.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And then you continued to do media plans.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And let's look at September 26th, which is Defendant's
14 Exhibit 161.
15 Again, this is a document from you to Mr. Hawker, the
16 "SA outreach list."
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Okay. And are you the one who put this together in
19 addition to circulating it?
20 A. No, this was actually put together by the -- primarily,
21 the two D.C. firms. It's a template that we just updated,
22 but it had already been prepared by them.
23 Q. Okay. And did you have any input into it?
24 A. I did.
25 Q. Okay. And particularly as to U.S. journalists who might

2028
1 be employed in this process?
2 A. Well, to be clear, I didn't have input in terms of who
3 that might be. I had input into I could make changes based
4 on what I was directed to do with the document.
5 Q. Okay. And what the document says, if you go to page 2,
6 which is page 3 of the pdf -- so after you review journalists
7 in Europe, then you get to the United States. And the United
8 States person was Al Hunt at Bloomberg; correct?
10 Q. Okay. And did you direct that that information be
11 included?
12 A. I don't recall, but we -- either I or Mr. Hawker updated
13 it with that information.
14 Q. Okay. So at this point, you are not operating on the
15 presumption that Mr. Craig is going to reach out to David
16 Sanger?
17 A. At this stage, that is correct.
18 Q. And if you go to Defendant's Exhibit 167, a couple of
19 days later, another version. Do you have any idea what
20 caused you to update this version since September 26th?
21 A. Other than just more changes as we continued to change
22 the plan. I don't even think this is the last document,
23 either.
24 Q. Probably not. Let's look at pdf 167-5.
25 A. Yes.
2029
1 Q. And if you look at the lower portion of the page, it has
2 got a whole bunch of assignments for Mr. Craig. But I notice
3 in this one, it says, "Al Hunt and Bloomberg will be
4 contacted by FTI and MCW."
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. What is that?
7 A. MCW was Mercury. That was based on the contact that I
8 alluded to earlier that Mr. Weber had with the reporter,
9 Mr. Hunt.
10 Q. Okay. So Mr. Craig isn't involved in that, according to
11 this plan?
13 Q. Okay. But Mr. Craig supposedly is going to go talk to
14 Tony Blinken, Philip Gordon, and John Boehner?
15 A. That's who we identified, yes.
16 Q. Pardon me?
17 A. Yes, that's who we identified putting into the matrix.
18 Q. You're saying that Mr. Craig told you he would talk to
19 these three individuals?
20 A. No, I'm saying we just put it in the matrix. We did not
21 have -- I did not have a conversation with Mr. Craig.
22 Q. Okay. This is your continuing wish list about what
23 Mr. Craig is going to do?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Not shared with him by you or by anybody else, as far as

2030
1 you know?
2 A. Correct. This was a briefing of top level officials both
3 at Congress and at the administration that we thought that
4 Mr. Craig would be willing to do.
5 Q. Okay. You thought he would be willing to do, but you
6 hadn't asked him if he was willing to do it?
7 A. I personally did not, no.
8 Q. Now, if you go to Defendant's Exhibit 168, which is
9 September 30th, a couple of days later, again from you to
10 Mr. Hawker, yet another version, and you ask him to look
11 closely at it.
12 Now, at this point, did you think that the
13 report -- this was like getting down to crunch time? I mean
14 you're exchanging lots of documents.
15 A. This happened a couple of times -- actually, a few
16 times -- throughout the months that we thought we were going
17 to release it. So it was another fire drill exercise in
18 which we were attempting and believed that the report would
19 be released, that we would be given the green light from
20 Ukraine so that we could then put these into action.
21 Q. Right. So, at that moment, if you look at page 168-2,
22 we're still sticking with Al Hunt and Bloomberg.
24 Q. Without saying who's going to do it?
25 A. Correct.
2031
1 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ: Objection. Are we at Exhibit
2 168?
3 MS. JUNGHANS: 168, page 2.
4 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ: Can you show the jurors a
5 little bit above the box --
6 MS. JUNGHANS: Sure. Happy to.
8 THE COURT: Well, I do think -- she can ask her
9 questions, and you can ask your questions but --
10 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ: May we approach, Your Honor?
11 THE COURT: Yes.
12 (At the bench)
13 THE COURT: I think his point was it wasn't a fair
14 question to say, without saying who's going to do it, when
15 immediately above it says this will be done by FTI and SA.
16 Now, you can establish whether he knew that, whether
17 it was a wish list, blah, blah, blah. But it says that. And
18 you asked a question that was misleading. I don't think it
19 was deliberately you who put the box up --
20 MS. JUNGHANS: I'm happy to fix it.
21 THE COURT: Okay.
22 MS. JUNGHANS: I'm happy to have him read this whole
23 thing.
24 THE COURT: That's not the point. I think what he
25 meant, information that was invisible at the moment, and so

2032
1 it was an unfair question because it was written there.
2 MS. JUNGHANS: I am not --
3 THE COURT: Nobody is suggesting that you did it
4 deliberately. All right.
5 Now, I just want to say that we're all trying to
6 remain calm. I think you can object and ask to approach.
7 You don't need to turn back and look at him. Let's put it
8 through me.
9 I do want to say -- and this isn't directed to you
10 personally, this is directed to everyone -- that when the
11 jurors were making the gesture that indicated let's just keep
12 going that I think that conveyed that they wanted to just
13 finish whatever we were doing before the next break. I'm
14 concerned that it also reflects the notion that this is
15 taking a long time. And that doesn't lie at the feet of
16 either side. But there is, by both sides, in both directs
17 and crosses, a fair amount of replowing of territory and
18 recapitulation of testimony, and so I just want everybody to
19 think about the fact that it may be wearing on your untended
20 audience. And as I said, I'm not directing that to you
21 personally; I'm directing that to everyone.
22 MS. JUNGHANS: Your Honor, I appreciate that. There
23 is evidentiary value to the fact that these people generated
24 iteration after iteration after iteration of these documents
25 that don't mention Mr. Craig. You know, if I don't put that
2033
1 in, I can't make the point.
2 THE COURT: Well, I think Mr. Hawker was
3 cross-examined for an entire day during which that was put
4 in, and I think that this gentleman is being cross-examined
5 to put that in, and I understand the point, and the relevance
6 of the point will be both sides' ability to argue when the
7 time comes. I'm just suggesting that everyone risks annoying
8 the jury with too much repetition. I'm not directing that
9 only to the defense. I think there has been a lot of
10 repetition by everyone. And I think the jury's indicated
11 that. So that's for what it is worth.
12 MS. JUNGHANS: I hear you, and I'm doing my best.
14 (In open court)
15 BY MS. JUNGHANS:
16 Q. Mr. Gates, Mr. Campoamor pointed out that I failed to
17 highlight this whole section, and I want to make sure that it
18 is complete.
19 So, John, could you go up to -- you can just do the
20 line above the box.
21 Okay. "The background briefings will be done by FTI
22 and SA" -- which would be Skadden, right?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. -- "and include the following journalist."
25 A. Yes.
2034
1 Q. And the journalist is Bloomberg?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Okay. Let's look at Government Exhibit 280. And this is
4 an e-mail from Mr. Hawker to Mr. Manafort and you. Right?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And what he does here is to take segments out of the
7 master grid and comment on them. Right?
8 A. Let me read it real quick.
9 Okay.
10 Q. Okay. And if you go to the next page, he says that
11 "Mr. Craig is in Egypt. In his last call, he said that he
12 would do meetings with political stakeholders."
13 You see that?
14 A. I do.
15 Q. Now, Mr. Craig never -- you never heard him say that to
16 you?
17 A. No.
18 Q. And you don't know of him ever doing that?
19 A. Political stakeholders, I do not believe he did.
20 Q. Okay. And then if you go down lower on that page, he
21 talks about the part that says "the setup" -- at the
22 bottom -- "The set up and numbers is the responsibility of
23 the agencies." Again, it says, "briefings again would be
24 done by GC" -- Greg Craig" -- slash "me." "Me" is
25 Mr. Hawker; right?

2035
2 Q. "Or someone appropriate from the Ukraine." Correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Now, this is a few days after you have just heard that
5 Mr. Craig had --
6 THE COURT: Wait. Are the typed comments Hawker's
7 comments or Manafort's comments?
8 MS. JUNGHANS: Hawker's.
9 THE WITNESS: Mr. Hawker's.
10 BY MS. JUNGHANS:
11 Q. Okay. This is a few days after you had been told that
12 Mr. Craig had reversed course about whatever he indicated at
13 the Harvard Club he might be able to do?
14 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ: Objection to the form.
15 THE COURT: I'm sorry. Can you repeat the question?
16 BY MS. JUNGHANS:
17 Q. You said that the Harvard Club meeting was
18 September 23rd; right?
19 A. Correct.
20 Q. And within a day or two after that you heard that
21 Mr. Craig said that no, I can't do that?
22 A. With respect to media, not political stakeholders.
23 Q. Okay. Well, right. But then we're talking about here,
24 the line we just looked at, we're talking about briefings
25 with political stakeholders at that point. Right?

2036
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Okay. So you're saying you still thought he was going to
3 do that but you understood clearly he was not going to do
4 media?
5 A. Based on -- yes, that's correct.
6 Q. Okay. And let's just try to go through these.
7 Government Exhibit 281. This is from you to Mr. Hawker,
8 "Matrix," and it says, "D.C. consultants plan."
9 Right?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And this is the Podesta and Mercury people?
12 A. It is a revised version, yes.
13 Q. Turn to the next page, please, John.
14 And again, we're still talking about identifying a
15 key reporter, an outlet that can leak the story, possibly
16 Bloomberg. Right?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Okay. No David Sanger?
19 A. Not in this document.
20 Q. Turn to Defendant's Exhibit 175. This is from yourself
21 to Mr. Hawker, October 3rd.
22 Do you see that? With a list?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. More of the same?
25 If you scroll to the next page, please, John.

2037
1 "Proposed outreach list." And when you get to the
2 media on page 175-7, down at the bottom, and then go to the
3 next page, the person from The New York Times is Steven Lee
4 Myers.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And so was that put in by somebody from Mercury or
7 Podesta?
8 A. No. In fact, this was a compilation of documents from
9 Mercury and Podesta, along with the document that Mr. Hawker
10 had created, and then in a lot of these instances things had
11 not been updated accordingly.
12 Q. I'm sorry. I didn't hear the last part.
13 A. Some things had not been updated accordingly.
14 Q. Okay. So you're saying Steven Lee Myers was just like a
15 leftover from some prior version, or was he in active
16 contemplation?
17 A. No, that was actually from the original document that you
18 showed me earlier where Mr. Hawker had put in Mr. Myers' name
19 as a placeholder.
20 Q. So he is still a placeholder?
21 A. At this stage, yes.
22 Q. So there is no plan at that point for Mr. Craig to reach
23 out to David Sanger?
24 A. At that stage, to my knowledge, no specifics had been
25 talked about about Mr. Craig reaching out -- Mr. Craig

2038
1 actually reaching out to him, that's correct.
2 Q. Or Mr. Craig reaching out to any other particularly
3 identified journalist?
4 A. That's correct. Mr. Craig had agreed to do background
5 briefings, but the plan in the context of when he would do
6 those, how many, to who, had not been decided at this stage.
7 Q. And then he said he couldn't do that, you heard?
8 A. Yes.
9 MS. JUNGHANS: Your Honor, if we could take a few
10 minutes, I can maybe consolidate this. Is it too early?
11 THE COURT: I think consolidation would be a useful
12 exercise. It's a little early. But I think it may be a
13 better use of our time than not consolidating. So if you
14 would like to take the afternoon break now for 10 minutes, we
15 will do that.
17 THE COURT: All right. Members of the jury, we will
18 take our afternoon break. It doesn't mean that if you need
19 one later that you don't get one. But we are going to break
20 now and we will resume in 10 minutes. That would be 3:15.
21 And our witness would get a break, too.
22 (Jury not present)
23 THE COURT: All right. Everyone is excused, and we
24 will resume in 10 minutes. Thank you.
25 (Recess)
2039
1 THE DEPUTY CLERK: Your Honor, re-calling Case Number
2 19-125, United States of America v. Gregory B. Craig.
3 THE COURT: All right. Can we bring the jury back
4 in.
5 (Jury present)
6 BY MS. JUNGHANS:
7 Q. Mr. Gates, as it happened, the report was not released in
8 September of 2012; right?
10 Q. Or October?
11 A. Correct.
12 Q. Or November?
13 A. Correct.
14 Q. And it wasn't released, actually, until mid-December of
15 2012?
17 Q. And you learned in early December of 2012 that it was
18 going to be released; correct?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. So there were more iterations of the plan?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Okay. Now, let's look at December 5th, 2012.
23 A. I'm sorry. What exhibit?
24 Q. I'm sorry. Exhibit 317, Government Exhibit 317.
25 And if you look at the lower portion of the document,

2040
1 it is an email from yourself to Mr. Kilimnik, Mr. Manafort,
2 and Mr. Hawker, saying that you are sending a complete set of
3 documents for the Skadden Report --
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. -- that includes edits from Paul, which is Mr. Manafort;
6 right?
7 A. Correct.
8 Q. And the only new one is the file entitled "Master control
9 grid, SA report."
10 You see that?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Okay. And then Mr. Hawker, you understand, forwarded
13 that on to Mr. van der Zwaan; correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And the address to which it was sent,
16 AlexanderVanDerZwaan@gmail.com is Mr. van der Zwaan's private
17 e-mail address, not his Skadden e-mail address; correct?
18 A. Correct.
19 Q. And then Mr. Hawker -- and you did not send this to
20 Mr. Craig?
21 A. I did not.
22 Q. And we don't have any evidence that Mr. Hawker sent it to
23 Mr. Craig?
24 A. I don't know.
25 Q. Okay. Can you look at Defendant's -- Government's

2041
1 Exhibit 318.
2 And Mr. Hawker notified you pretty quickly there that
3 "Everything had gone to Alex's gmail. Can't get hold of
4 Greg" --
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. -- you see that?
7 And if you go back to 317, that was -- the documents
8 that were forwarded -- that you sent to Mr. Hawker and
9 Mr. Hawker sent to Mr. van der Zwaan were a whole raft of
10 documents; correct?
11 A. Yes. It was the entirety of the packet that we had
12 prepared.
13 Q. So if you look at Exhibit 317 in your paper form --
14 A. Okay.
15 Q. -- it is actually about 90-some pages of documents; is it
16 not?
17 A. It looks pretty close.
18 Q. Okay. And John, if you would put up page 317-94.
19 So on the 94th page of this batch of documents is an
20 item that says, in the middle of the page -- if you can blow
21 that up -- that the report will be given -- the upper
22 portion -- the report will be given to David Sanger, etc.;
23 right?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And this is the only media plan you crafted that said
2042
1 that, and it was not provided by you to Mr. Craig?
2 A. I didn't craft the report. I received a copy of it. But
3 I did not send it to Mr. Craig, that's correct.
4 MS. JUNGHANS: All right. Thank you very much.
5 Nothing further.
6 THE COURT: When you say the 94th page, was this all
7 one document or multiple documents?
8 THE WITNESS: Multiple documents.
9 MS. JUNGHANS: Multiple documents that are printed
10 that came as one package.
11 THE COURT: They came as separate pdfs attached to
12 the email, and they have now been print and put in an order
13 that makes this the 94th page.
14 MS. JUNGHANS: Correct. And the last one that is
15 listed on the header is the master control grid.
16 THE COURT: All right. Any redirect?
20 Q. Let's start with the last few sets of questions.
21 You were asked whether the documents were sent to
22 Mr. van der Zwaan's gmail account --
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. -- as opposed to his Skadden account.
25 A. Yes.
2043
1 Q. Was there a reason for that?
2 A. There was. There was concern very early on from the
3 project that Mr. Manafort's e-mail had been hacked on a prior
4 occasion, and he wanted to ensure the integrity of the
5 information. There were a number of instances where we were
6 receiving highly sensitive information from the Skadden law
7 firm, particularly about the involvement of former Prime
8 Minister Tymoshenko, so we did not want that information to
9 be hacked, basically. So we all used personal e-mail
10 accounts for some of the documents.
11 Q. Why would that be safer than using the Skadden account or
12 the business account?
13 A. Well, because most people would know the Skadden account.
14 They wouldn't specifically know my gmail account because it
15 might not even have my name. It might be personalized in
16 some other way that would not be a unique identifier to any
17 of us working on the project.
18 Q. All right. Let me take you back to this morning very
19 briefly. You were asked some questions on cross-examination
20 as to who was Skadden's client in this matter.
21 Do you recall those?
22 A. I do.
23 Q. Now, who arranged for Skadden to become involved in this
24 project?
25 A. To my knowledge, it was Mr. Pinchuk.

2044
1 Q. Okay. But who paid or who was arranging for the payment
2 to be made to Skadden?
3 A. Mr. Manafort.
4 Q. And who was actually delivering the payment to Skadden?
5 A. I was.
6 Q. At Mr. Manafort's instructions?
7 A. Correct.
8 Q. And who was the person that would communicate Ukraine's
9 position on the Skadden Report to Mr. Craig?
10 A. It was Mr. Manafort.
11 Q. Not the Ministry of Justice?
12 A. No.
13 Q. You were also asked a number of questions about media
14 plans, a lot of questions about media plans today. But I
15 will be short.
16 Did you yourself ever send a media plan to Mr. Craig?
17 A. I did not.
18 Q. Were you copied on the one that was sent prior to the
19 Harvard Club meeting?
20 A. I was.
21 Q. Now, sir, do you know whether Mr. Craig -- well, strike
22 that.
23 Do you know whether Mr. Manafort had sent Mr. Craig
24 earlier versions of the media plan and you were not copied on
25 it?
2045
1 A. I do not.
2 Q. Do you know whether Mr. van der Zwaan had received prior
3 versions of the media rollout plan?
4 A. I know he did receive them from Mr. Hawker, yes.
5 Q. And do you know if Mr. van der Zwaan had provided those
6 copies to Mr. Craig?
7 A. I do not.
8 Q. Do you know whether Mr. van der Zwaan had shared with
9 other members of the team at Skadden?
10 A. I do not.
11 Q. And did those versions of the media plan make reference
12 to all these other PR firms that were also involved?
13 A. At different times, yes.
14 Q. Now, talking about those other firms, you were asked some
15 questions again this morning about Podesta and Mercury and
16 whether you had lied about the ECFMU.
17 Do you recall those questions?
18 A. I do.
19 Q. Let me ask you, first, who was the head of the Podesta
20 Group?
21 A. Tony Podesta.
22 Q. And who was the person in charge of the Mercury Group?
23 A. Vin Weber.
24 Q. Okay. And --
25 THE COURT: Just for the record, he said who was in

2046
1 charge of The Podesta Group, and you said Podesta. What was
2 his first name?
3 THE WITNESS: Sorry. Tony Podesta.
5 Q. And for Mercury, it was Vin Weber?
6 A. Vin Weber, correct.
7 Q. All right. So I want to make sure now that I'm asking
8 you in their personal capacities as opposed to the business,
9 okay?
10 Sir, did you lie to Mr. Podesta himself about whether
11 the ECFMU was independent from the government of Ukraine?
12 A. I did not.
13 Q. Did you lie to Mr. Weber himself about whether the ECFMU
14 was independent from the government of Ukraine?
15 A. I did not.
16 Q. Did you, in fact, tell Podesta -- Tony Podesta --
17 that they were -- well, strike that.
18 Did you tell them who the client actually was?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And who was the client?
21 A. The government of Ukraine.
22 Q. So following up on that, you were also asked a lot of
23 questions about either lies or other crimes that you
24 committed earlier this morning.
25 You recall those?

2047
1 A. I do.
2 Q. And sir, you also had made a reference to approximately
3 how many interviews you have done with the government?
4 A. In excess of 40.
5 Q. Did you tell the investigators from the government and
6 the Special Prosecutor's Office about those lies and crimes?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And that's why that long list that you went on this
9 morning is known to us and to the defense?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And sir, did you have to come clean as part of this
12 process and talk and tell about all of the things you had
13 done?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And did you do that?
16 A. I did.
17 Q. Sir, as you sit here today, do you have any incentive to
18 lie or hide anything else from this Court or from the ladies
19 and gentlemen of the jury?
20 A. I certainly do not.
21 MS. JUNGHANS: Objection. Argumentative.
22 THE COURT: A little. On to your next question.
23 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ: Yes, Your Honor. I will move
24 on.
2048
1 Q. All right. Let's go talk about the Harvard Club meeting
2 very briefly.
3 You got a lot of questions about that, and I
4 think -- please correct me -- you said at some point -- well,
5 first of all, did you yourself remember or recall Mr. Craig
6 reversing his position about backgrounding journalists?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Okay. But upon questions of cross-examination, you said
9 that you heard about a reversal.
10 A. I did.
11 Q. Can you explain what you mean by that?
12 A. Yes. The primary point of contact with Mr. Craig with
13 respect to media was Mr. Hawker. So often Mr. Hawker would
14 communicate various updates and messages to me, and I would
15 relay them to Mr. Manafort. In this case, Mr. Manafort and I
16 were both present for the meeting. So Mr. Hawker
17 communicated those messages to us directly.
18 Q. Okay. And you, I think, also were asked about whether
19 Mr. Hawker was concerned about that.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And was he?
22 A. He was.
23 Q. Okay. And whether Mr. Manafort was concerned about that?
24 A. Mr. Manafort was not as concerned.
25 Q. And why was Mr. Manafort not concerned?

2049
2 THE COURT: What did he say that led you to believe
3 he was more or less concerned?
4 I think this is fair redirect after you asked him
5 what Mr. Manafort thought.
6 THE WITNESS: Yes, Mr. Manafort indicated to me that
7 he would talk to Greg and take care of the situation.
9 Q. Do you know -- without telling us what was said -- do you
10 know if Mr. Manafort did have, indeed, contact with
11 Mr. Craig?
12 A. I do know he had contact, yes.
13 Q. After this alleged reversal?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And in any event, was the idea of using Mr. Craig to
16 background journalists abandoned at any point?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Why not?
19 A. Because we needed Skadden to represent the findings of
20 the report. There was nobody that was more credible to do
21 it. So if I did it or Mr. Hawker did it, it wouldn't be the
22 same. So we had to continue down a path. Even if Mr. Craig
23 had indicated, I'm only willing to talk to one person, we
24 would have taken it because we needed his expertise and
25 credibility to debrief people on the report.

2050
1 Q. Now, let me ask you: You were shown some documents -- I
2 think it was reflected both in the notes and Government
3 Exhibit 280 that you were just shown by the defense. But did
4 you learn of Mr. Craig traveling to Egypt around either late
5 September or early October 2012?
6 A. I did.
7 Q. And in fact, was that discussed at the Harvard Club
8 meeting?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Do you know who, if anybody, from the other PR firms was
11 with Mr. Craig during that trip?
12 A. Yes. Mr. Weber happened to be with Mr. Craig because
13 they had a separate but shared client.
14 Q. In Egypt?
15 A. In Egypt, yes.
16 Q. Okay.
17 A. Or I believe it was the Middle East. I don't know if it
18 was Egypt specifically they were flying into and out of.
19 Q. Okay. Somewhere in the Middle East and they were
20 together?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Now, as you sit here today, do you recall when it was
23 that the name of David Sanger first got put in any document
24 related to the media PR plans?
25 A. Physical document, I believe it was the first document

2051
1 that came from Mercury that we saw earlier today.
2 Q. And is that where Mr. Weber worked?
3 A. It is.
4 Q. And if we can take a look at Government's Exhibit 306.
5 Can we zoom in on the top.
6 Is this a document you're referring to?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And does this, indeed, talk about Mr. Sanger as well as
9 Mr. Hunt being part of the seeding process?
10 A. It does.
11 Q. And you were shown all of these media -- well, let me do
12 one more thing. Let's go to page 3 of this report. Let's
13 zoom in on the bottom right.
14 In looking at the created date of October 3rd, 2012,
15 in the morning, does that help refresh your recollection
16 approximately about when the name of David Sanger at least
17 was being discussed among the PR firms?
18 MS. JUNGHANS: Objection, Your Honor. He didn't say
19 he didn't have a recollection --
20 THE COURT: I think he said he didn't know. You
21 asked him do you recall when his name first showed up in a
22 document. He said it was this document.
23 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ: Right. And I'm just trying
24 to see if this helps --
25 THE COURT: All right. Well, I think if you're

2052
1 refreshing somebody's recollection, you do it slightly
2 differently.
3 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ: Okay. Then if --
5 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ: I will ask my next question.
7 Q. As you sit here today, you don't recall?
8 A. When David Sanger's name was first mentioned --
9 Q. Yes.
10 A. -- or in a document?
11 Q. No, in a document.
12 A. In a document, this document by Ms. Saunders was the
13 first time I had seen it in a document.
14 Q. Now, was there a debate in the team as to whether to use
15 Mr. Sanger or Mr. Hunt?
16 A. There was.
17 Q. What was that debate?
18 A. The debate, again, was that Mr. Weber was concerned that
19 Mr. Sanger would not --
20 MS. JUNGHANS: Objection. Objection. Hearsay.
21 THE COURT: All right. Approach the bench.
22 (At the bench)
23 THE COURT: I don't think he was bringing in the
24 truth of the matter asserted. He's saying that there was a
25 debate, and someone said X and someone said Y. Now, if he

2053
1 wasn't present for the debate and the debate was reported to
2 him by somebody else, X said that Y said, he can't do that.
3 But if he heard the person say, I don't like Sanger for this
4 reason, and somebody else said, I like him for that reason,
5 that is not hearsay. I don't know why he can't say that.
6 MR. TAYLOR: May I?
7 THE COURT: Okay. I think she's doing great.
8 MR. TAYLOR: She is.
10 MR. TAYLOR: We're going to make sure that the record
11 is clear that we object to the extensive use of hearsay,
12 which is --
13 THE COURT: Mr. Taylor, you can't lay down a general
14 objection. She objected every time she thought she heard
15 hearsay.
16 MR. TAYLOR: I know that.
17 THE COURT: And then she got up on cross-examination
18 and elicited hearsay. So now we're on redirect. And what is
19 your objection to my question? And I agree that hearsay is
20 generally inadmissible.
21 He said, was there a debate within the team? He said
22 yes. He asked him to explain it. And he is, I think, about
23 to testify to the fact that something was said.
24 And I don't understand where the hearsay comes in.
25 Where is the assertion of a matter for the truth of the

2054
1 matter asserted? That is hearsay.
2 MR. TAYLOR: What I want to say, Your Honor, is
3 regardless of what has occurred, the testimony that Manafort
4 said he was going to do something with Craig is a violation
5 of our right in a criminal case to confront the witnesses
6 against us. I want to be sure that -- it is not just hearsay
7 but the government's efforts to put into the case --
8 THE COURT: Okay. I'm going to tell you exactly why
9 I ruled the way that I ruled.
10 MR. TAYLOR: I --
11 THE COURT: I'm going to put it on the record.
12 Ms. Junghans asked this witness on cross-examination about
13 the meeting in Mr. Manafort's office after the e-mail had
14 been received that he wasn't going to do the backgrounding.
15 And she said, what did the group think about that? What did
16 the group think, group including Mr. Manafort? And he
17 started to say what each of their positions was, including a
18 statement of future intention by Mr. Manafort, which again
19 seems to me it isn't hearsay, it falls within the exception,
20 I'm going to do X. But it was directly responsive --
21 directly responsive -- to something that had been asked on
22 cross. And so he asked about it on redirect. And I hear
23 you. Your objection is on the record. But I believe if you
24 ask a question about what did the people in the room think,
25 because people can't see inside of other people's heads,

2055
1 they're going to tell you what they said.
2 So I think where we are right now is in the middle of
3 an answer about what the nature of the debate was within the
4 team.
5 So tell me your hearsay objection to that.
6 MS. JUNGHANS: What I was saying there, the debate,
7 some people thought it was good and some people thought it
8 was bad. I don't have a problem. He was about to -- the
9 testimony that I think was about to be elicited was Mr. Weber
10 thought a specific thing, and I don't think we need to know
11 Mr. Weber's specific opinions.
12 THE COURT: So you're saying it is irrelevant or it's
13 hearsay?
14 MS. JUNGHANS: Both.
15 THE COURT: All right. Well, I think you asked him
16 why -- you asked him many times, well, why didn't it get
17 changed --
18 MS. JUNGHANS: Now, I didn't actually --
19 THE COURT: You kept saying, nonetheless, it's not
20 there. So he's bringing out one of the reasons it might not
21 be there.
22 MS. JUNGHANS: Look, I don't have a perfect
23 recollection of every word I have uttered today, I'm sure.
24 But I think I just said, it is not in this one, it is not in
25 this one, it is not in this one. And I didn't ask a single

2056
1 question about Vin Weber, not a single question. So Vin
2 Weber's opinion about thus and so, I just don't think is
3 relevant.
4 THE COURT: Nobody has addressed my question about
5 why the words that came out of Mr. Weber's mouth, if they
6 were said to Mr. Gates -- do we know if they were said to
7 Mr. Gates?
8 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ: I believe there was a phone
9 call where that was said. I can't recall if it was -- I
10 believe so, but I'm not a hundred percent sure.
11 THE COURT: Why don't we short-circuit some of this
12 and just ask him targeted questions. Did Mr. Weber favor the
13 use of Mr. Sanger? No. Who did Mr. Weber favor?
15 THE COURT: And I think you're allowed to bring that
16 out because it is responsive to many issues that were raised.
17 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ: I am trying to establish why
18 the name of Sanger was not in the document --
19 THE COURT: I understand that.
20 Will that solve your problem?
22 MR. TAYLOR: If it can be done without inadmissible
23 hearsay, that's one thing.
24 THE COURT: All right. I just told him exactly how
25 to do it. And so far no one has explained to me why, if he

2057
1 heard what Mr. Weber said, it would even constitute hearsay.
2 But we're trying to skip that by having him simply say -- and
3 then don't object that it is leading -- without telling me
4 why, did Mr. Weber favor Mr. Sanger? No. Did he favor
5 someone else? Yes. Who?
6 Okay. That's what we're going to do.
7 MR. TAYLOR: May I tell you why it is hearsay?
8 THE COURT: Yes.
9 MR. TAYLOR: I know I'm trying your patience. I'm
10 sorry.
11 THE COURT: No, no. It's just that you're arguing
12 broader principles than what I'm asking.
13 MR. TAYLOR: If Mr. Gates is permitted to say
14 Mr. Weber recommended this, that conveys a message, a
15 statement, just like a doctor's diagnosis conveys. That's
16 hearsay. And the fact that it explains or may be relevant to
17 Mr. Weber's state of mind doesn't make it admissible against
18 a defendant in a criminal case.
19 THE COURT: An out-of-court statement -- every
20 out-of-court statement is not hearsay. An out-of-court
21 statement being offered for the truth of a matter asserted in
22 that statement is hearsay. You know that. I know that.
23 None of us need to lecture each other about what hearsay was.
24 And so I was asking him a more nuanced question about
25 why the words coming out of Mr. Weber's mouth, I want to use
2058
1 X and not Y, is a fact, an assertion of a true fact. So I'm
2 not sure it is, but we don't need to look it up because we're
3 going to go past that with a much more tailored redirect so
4 that we can finish this bench conference and the trial.
5 MR. TAYLOR: We just can't cross-examine Mr. Weber
6 about what he said.
7 THE COURT: I know that. You can call him.
8 (In open court)
10 Q. Let me ask you, to try to make this shorter: Did
11 Mr. Weber favor having Mr. Sanger be the person to be
12 backgrounding journalists?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Which journalist did Mr. Weber favor?
15 A. Mr. Al Hunt from Bloomberg.
16 Q. So when you were shown all those media plans in
17 October that did not have Mr. Sanger's name, the other ones,
18 is there a reason for that?
19 A. There is no specific reason other than that at the time
20 we looked at potentially using other reporters. I had
21 communicated the information from Mr. Weber to Mr. Manafort.
22 And we had made a decision --
24 THE COURT: All right. You were doing what you were
25 supposed to do at the time?

2059
2 THE COURT: All right. Go on to your next question.
5 Q. Ultimately, who made the call to use Sanger?
6 A. Mr. Manafort.
7 Q. And that was after Mr. Craig had suggested --
8 MS. JUNGHANS: Your Honor, objection. That is
9 hearsay.
11 MS. JUNGHANS: And I move to strike. And it is
12 beyond the scope of the cross-examination.
13 THE COURT: No, that one it is not.
14 At the time someone reached out to Mr. Sanger on a
15 particular date. Do you know at whose direction -- do you
16 know from your own personal knowledge at whose direction they
17 were acting?
18 THE WITNESS: Mr. Manafort's.
19 THE COURT: All right. Approach the bench.
20 MS. JUNGHANS: I renew our objection.
21 THE COURT: I know.
22 (At the bench)
23 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ: I'm a little confused now
24 myself.
25 THE COURT: Well, I had asked for the first two

2060
1 questions. I didn't know where you were going after that.
2 So he is saying -- we don't know how he knew --
3 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ: I can ask him that.
4 THE COURT: Well, it would be because Mr. Manafort
5 told him --
6 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ: So I think there were
7 meetings at which they participated in phone calls. But I
8 can ask him if that's the case.
9 MS. JUNGHANS: Excuse me. I'm sorry.
10 THE COURT: If he was in a meeting where direction
11 was given to Mr. Hawker, do X --
12 MS. JUNGHANS: But the "do X" -- Mr. Hawker never
13 talked to David Sanger.
14 THE COURT: He sent him an e-mail.
15 MS. JUNGHANS: No, he didn't. I apologize.
16 Mr. Gates never communicated with Mr. Sanger. So asking
17 Mr. Gates why Mr. Hawker did something, I don't understand
18 that at all. He never communicated with --
19 THE COURT: I'm going to ask him, was he ever at a
20 meeting where someone was -- where Mr. Manafort specifically
21 directed someone in his presence to contact Mr. Sanger. I
22 think he can testify to that. That's not hearsay. That's
23 direction, do X, do Y. If he was there, then he can say he
24 heard Mr. Manafort say, do X, do Y. If he wasn't there, then
25 we have to go on.
2061
1 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ: And my understanding, Your
2 Honor, is that Mr. Manafort told him personally and then he
3 relayed that to Mr. Hawker, who puts it in the plan. That's
4 the chain of command.
5 MS. JUNGHANS: Well, let's be clear because I don't
6 want to keep popping up. You're saying he is going to say
7 Manafort said --
8 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ: Manafort made the decision.
9 MS. JUNGHANS: Can I just get my words out?
10 Manafort instructed Hawker to send an e-mail to
11 Sanger and made sure of that -- is that what you're saying --
12 THE COURT: He is saying Manafort told him, Gates,
13 tell Hawker to do it, and he did. Told Hawker to do it.
14 MS. JUNGHANS: Is that what you're saying?
15 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ: That's what I believe, yes.
16 MS. JUNGHANS: Well, you'd think if that had
17 happened, we would have heard it on direct.
18 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ: You objected --
19 THE COURT: Let's assume that's the testimony. Did
20 Mr. Manafort direct you to do anything with respect to
21 Mr. Hawker and Mr. Sanger? Yes. What did he do? He told me
22 to tell him to contact him. Did you communicate that to
23 anyone? Yes. Mr. Hawker.
24 Is that hearsay?
25 MS. JUNGHANS: Well, it probably isn't in that

2062
1 precise format. What this is all trying to hint at, which is
2 totally objectionable, is Manafort and Craig got together and
3 Craig agreed to do that and then Manafort told Hawker to do
4 it. We really have to keep away from that. If it is simply
5 Manafort told Hawker to e-mail Sanger and Hawker did it, I
6 don't think that is hearsay.
7 THE COURT: And so we're going to continue to lead
8 him extremely tightly.
9 Did you get a direction? Without telling me what it
10 is, did you get a direction from Mr. Manafort to tell
11 Mr. Hawker to do something? Yes or no? And then yes. Okay.
12 What was it? He told me to have him call Sanger. And did
13 you pass that on to Mr. Sanger -- pass that on to Mr. Hawker?
14 And if you want to lead him through all of this, and the
15 questions are just "yes" and "no", you can do that, too. You
16 can say, Mr. Gates, did you get a direction from Mr. Manafort
17 to pass on to Mr. Hawker? Yes. Was it to have Mr. Hawker
18 contact Mr. Sanger? Yes. And did you pass that on to
19 Mr. Hawker? Yes. And stop.
20 MS. JUNGHANS: I don't know what the witness is going
21 to say as much as he does. I'm not even sure he is going to
22 say he got a direction from Manafort to tell Hawker.
23 THE COURT: If he says, did you get a direction to
24 pass on to Mr. Hawker, and he says no, then --
25 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ: Right. I believe -- well, I

2063
1 will ask the question. But I believe the direction is who's
2 the journalist to be seeded. That's the direction.
3 THE COURT: Did you get a specific direction from
4 Mr. Manafort to pass on to Mr. Hawker as to who to contact as
5 the first journalist? Yes or no. He answers yes. Who was
6 the journalist? Did you pass that information on to
7 Mr. Hawker? Three questions.
8 MR. TAYLOR: This is so important to the core of this
9 case that I want to implore you that this is a way of getting
10 before the jury the impression that Mr. Manafort had a
11 conversation with Mr. Craig, and that's the purpose of this.
12 The non-hearsay purpose is to get in front of a jury that the
13 implication that Manafort said something to Craig, he can't
14 avoid that. And to let him testify --
15 THE COURT: Well, I think there is already an
16 implication that it could have been a ton of people. And we
17 have -- I mean, think of the end of the day, their closing
18 argument is going to be the documents were Craig reaches out
19 to Sanger. But there was indication where Hawker sent an
20 e-mail to Sanger. He seems to think he was supposed to do
21 that. He got that direction from somebody. And apparently
22 he got that from Gates. And Gates didn't do it on his own.
23 He got that direction from somebody else.
24 I think the thing about Manafort said he would speak
25 to Craig, that was September. We're now talking about

2064
1 December, in a different time period. We actually don't even
2 know when these conversations took place.
3 There have been at least 20 minutes of our being up
4 here in between these two things. And he is not going to ask
5 any questions to link those two things. I'm not even sure it
6 is fair argument. There is no testimony in the record about
7 what transpired between the two of them. They could have
8 talked about something else completely different. We don't
9 know whether Mr. Craig said I will participate or I won't
10 participate, when they had that conversation. So I don't
11 think there will be any argument in closing argument about
12 what happened in some secret side conversation between the
13 two of them. I don't think the evidence supports it.
14 MR. TAYLOR: His testimony was that Paul Manafort
15 gave the instruction to put Craig -- Craig and Sanger's name
16 and that that's hearsay. And it goes --
17 THE COURT: It is not --
18 MR. TAYLOR: The subject was --
19 THE COURT: He has been asked a thousand times by the
20 defense: Is this in the report? He told you to put it in
21 the report. Did you run it by this person? Did you run it
22 by that person?
23 You demanded that no conversation with Mr. Manafort
24 be introduced in direct, and the prosecution adhered to that.
25 And I sustained every objection along those lines.

2065
1 And then, on cross-examination, you stood up and
2 said, what was Mr. Manafort thinking. You asked, what did
3 Manafort -- how did he react. And the witness answered. It
4 was elicited by the defense.
5 MR. TAYLOR: Your Honor, I don't believe that
6 anything we've done waived the right that I'm asserting, that
7 is, not to have to confront this kind of issue. We have been
8 concerned about this from the beginning. I note my
9 objection. I do believe that at the most tender portion in
10 this case the government is being permitted to get the
11 implication before the jury that Manafort spoke to Craig -- I
12 think that is wrong.
13 THE COURT: Well, as I said, I think there is a
14 separation between the two different things. We have now Vin
15 Weber and Craig going to Egypt together and talking about who
16 knows what. And thereafter is the first time David Sanger's
17 name appears on the document, which gave me the implication
18 that it was Weber who told his associate to write it on the
19 piece of paper, and there have been further communications.
20 We also know from evidence that this witness is not
21 going to be permitted to discuss that it is precisely during
22 that period of time that Mr. Craig reaches out to Mr. Sanger
23 and mentions Mr. Weber. So I think at the end of the day the
24 inference that you're concerned about is not necessarily the
25 inference, I don't believe, and I think it would be

2066
1 inappropriate in closing argument to stand up and say you all
2 can assume that Craig told Manafort he was going to do it
3 because Manafort told -- I understand their objection on that
4 point. So I don't think you're going to argue that in
5 closing argument. But I think asking these couple of
6 questions just to get out of this conundrum and on to your
7 next issue would be appropriate.
9 (In open court)
11 Q. Mr. Gates, did you get direction from Mr. Manafort to
12 tell Mr. Hawker which journalist to contact for the purposes
13 of the seeding?
14 THE COURT: That is just a "yes" or "no" question.
17 Q. And which journalist was it?
18 A. Mr. David Sanger.
19 Q. And did you, in fact, pass on that information to
20 Mr. Hawker?
21 A. I did.
22 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ: The Court's indulgence.
23 (Pause)
25 Q. Did Mr. Craig contact Mr. Sanger?

2067
1 A. He did.
2 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ: No further questions, Your
3 Honor.
4 THE COURT: All right. This witness can be excused.
5 Thank you.
6 (Witness excused)
7 THE COURT: Do we have a short witness, or a tall
8 witness who isn't going to testify for a long time?
9 MS. GASTON: We don't have a really short witness
10 here, Your Honor.
11 THE COURT: All right. Then everybody has lots of
12 things to do. So I think what we'll do is break for the
13 evening unless anybody has any objection.
14 All right. We're going to break for the evening.
15 You are all, once again, cautioned to please do not
16 pay attention to any news accounts of this matter. Do not
17 look back to try to find prior news accounts about this
18 matter. Don't discuss it with anyone. Don't discuss it with
19 each other. The case has not yet been submitted to you.
20 Tomorrow morning, in an abundance of caution, just
21 given some other matters on my calendar, I'm going to say
22 we're going to start proceedings at 10. You'll still get
23 your breakfast. You can aim to be in the jury room between
24 9:30 and quarter of 10. And then, hopefully, we will be
25 knocking on the door and beginning at 10 a.m.

2068
1 I urge you to have a pleasant evening, and don't
2 think about the trial.
3 (Jury not present)
4 THE COURT: All right. Have you refined your witness
5 list such that you know how many more are left?
6 I understand that there's at least one more major
7 witness, and that would be Ms. Hunt. But what else have we
8 got going on?
9 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ: I believe we have five
10 witnesses in the mix, but likely only four. But we just have
11 five. Would you like me to identify them?
12 THE COURT: Yes.
13 MS. JUNGHANS: We can't hear you.
14 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ: I'm sorry.
15 I believe we have, at most, five witnesses left,
16 although it could be as short as four. We do expect,
17 assuming crosses are not overly long, to be done by Monday.
18 THE COURT: All right. That is very hopeful. If you
19 determine which witness you're not calling, that you're
20 definitely not calling, you can let the defense know if you
21 know you're definitely not going to call them.
22 MR. CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ: We will. And we will also
23 give them the expected order for tomorrow.
25 MR. TAYLOR: Can I address the Court on a less

2069
1 controversial matter?
2 THE COURT: Okay.
3 MR. TAYLOR: We expect the government will rest
4 tomorrow or Monday, and we will be addressing the Court on
5 the sufficiency issues.
7 MR. TAYLOR: There has been a fair amount of briefing
8 on the question of how the Court will define the duty that is
9 at issue in this case.
10 For us to meaningfully address the Rule 29 issues, it
11 would be helpful to have some understanding of how the Court
12 intends to proceed. Obviously, that is an instruction issue.
13 But if we're going to address the question of whether or not
14 the government has proved the elements, including duty, then
15 it would be helpful to know from the Court, before we do
16 that, how the Court views the duty, as we have said in our
17 pleadings.
18 THE COURT: I will do the best I can. And certainly,
19 I won't make you articulate the argument if you have not yet
20 heard where I'm headed on that point.
21 I would note that the army of superb scribes on both
22 sides that are submitting information are submitting it to a
23 funnel, which is me, and I have been, as you know, here. So
24 I have not concluded my examination of those issues, but I
25 understand that they are of the utmost importance; and that,

2070
1 as in this case, the recurring theme, there is a deadline
2 looming and about to happen.
3 MR. TAYLOR: I wouldn't impose on the Court for this
4 in the ordinary case, but because this is a legal issue and
5 it comes up in connection with instructions, but if we're to
6 have a meaningful discussion about sufficiency it would be
7 helpful to us.
8 THE COURT: All right. And I appreciate that. And I
9 think to the extent there is any lack of clarity about which
10 way I'm headed, until I have heard the whole case, you can
11 certainly -- if you argue that they haven't even met their
12 own standard, then they clearly wouldn't have met your higher
13 standard, and you can address both.
14 MR. TAYLOR: I'm eager to do that.
16 MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Your Honor.
17 THE COURT: I certainly want to underscore something
18 that I said at the bench, which is that I'm not chagrinned
19 with anyone in this courtroom. I think these are very
20 difficult issues, and we're all doing our best at threading
21 the needle carefully and in accordance with the rules of
22 evidence and all the challenges that this case has posed for
23 both sides.
24 All right. Thank you.
25 (Proceedings adjourned at 4:10 p.m.)

2071
3 I, Patricia A. Kaneshiro-Miller, certify that the foregoing
4 is a correct transcript from the record of proceedings in the
5 above-entitled matter.
8 /s/ Patricia A. Kaneshiro-Miller August 22, 2019

---------------------------------- ---------------------
9 PATRICIA A. KANESHIRO-MILLER DATE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2072
1 270 [1] - 2025:4 Abelson [1] - 1991:19
280 [2] - 2034:3, 2050:3 ability [3] - 2009:3, 2009:6, 2033:6
1 [1] - 2000:23 281 [1] - 2036:7 able [3] - 2008:13, 2023:20, 2035:13
10 [7] - 2025:8, 2038:14, 2038:20, 29 [1] - 2069:10 absence [2] - 2005:9, 2008:9
2038:24, 2067:22, 2067:24, 2067:25 2:03 [1] - 1994:2 abundance [1] - 2067:20
100 [1] - 1991:20 accept [1] - 2026:3
1000 [1] - 1991:24 3 accepted [1] - 2007:20
11:11 [3] - 2021:4, 2021:5, 2021:8 accordance [1] - 2070:21
12 [5] - 2002:11, 2010:8, 2012:20, 3 [4] - 2010:10, 2021:12, 2028:6, according [2] - 2017:19, 2029:10
2012:22, 2015:25 2051:12 accordingly [2] - 2037:11, 2037:13
123 [1] - 2012:15 306 [1] - 2051:4 account [6] - 2042:22, 2042:24,
123-3 [1] - 2013:19 30th [1] - 2030:9 2043:11, 2043:12, 2043:13, 2043:14
125 [1] - 2014:20 317 [4] - 2039:24, 2041:7, 2041:13 accounts [3] - 2043:10, 2067:16,
126 [1] - 1994:16 317-94 [1] - 2041:18 2067:17
12th [6] - 1995:9, 1996:9, 1996:10, 318 [1] - 2041:1 accurate [4] - 2006:12, 2006:23,
1999:7, 2000:6 333 [1] - 1992:4 2011:14, 2012:11
134 [2] - 2017:24, 2018:15 354-3243 [1] - 1992:5 achieve [1] - 2007:19
14 [1] - 2013:21 3:15 [1] - 2038:20 acknowledge [1] - 2004:19
15th [1] - 2005:15 3rd [2] - 2036:21, 2051:14 acquire [1] - 2008:10
161 [1] - 2027:14 acting [1] - 2059:17
167 [1] - 2028:18 4 Action [1] - 1991:4
167-5 [1] - 2028:24 action [4] - 2023:9, 2023:10, 2023:11,
168 [3] - 2030:8, 2031:2, 2031:3 4 [1] - 2020:15 2030:20
168-2 [1] - 2030:21 40 [1] - 2047:4 actions [1] - 2023:23
175 [1] - 2036:20 418 [4] - 1993:6, 2015:24, 2016:5, active [1] - 2037:15
175-7 [1] - 2037:2 2016:8 activity [1] - 1996:9
1800 [1] - 1991:24 4700A [1] - 1992:3 actual [2] - 1999:14, 2006:21
18th [1] - 2018:2 4:10 [1] - 2070:25 Adam [2] - 1991:16, 1991:19
19-125 [1] - 2039:2 4:11 [2] - 2020:11, 2020:12 addition [1] - 2027:19
19-CR-125 [1] - 1991:4 address [8] - 2010:1, 2040:15,
1994 [1] - 1993:3 5 2040:17, 2068:25, 2069:10, 2069:13,
2070:13
5 [4] - 2000:12, 2000:23, 2007:12,
2 2021:13
addressed [1] - 2056:4
addressing [1] - 2069:4
2 [4] - 2001:8, 2023:5, 2028:5, 2031:3 555 [1] - 1991:14
adequacy [1] - 2002:25
20 [1] - 2064:3 5th [1] - 2039:22
adequate [3] - 2006:5, 2007:24,
20001 [1] - 1992:4 2008:8
20036 [1] - 1991:25 6 adhered [1] - 2064:24
2006 [1] - 2012:20 adjourn [1] - 2008:9
6 [1] - 2005:15
2012 [13] - 1995:9, 2000:7, 2002:11, adjourned [1] - 2070:25
2010:8, 2012:21, 2012:22, 2016:1, administration [1] - 2030:3
2039:8, 2039:15, 2039:17, 2039:22, 7 admissible [1] - 2057:17
2050:5, 2051:14 admission [2] - 2005:6, 2016:4
75 [1] - 2020:2
2016 [1] - 1993:6 admitted [2] - 2016:7, 2016:8
2019 [1] - 1991:7 adverse [1] - 2006:17
202 [1] - 1992:5
9
Afternoon [1] - 1991:5
2042 [1] - 1993:3 9 [5] - 1991:5, 1998:24, 1998:25, afternoon [2] - 2038:14, 2038:18
20530 [2] - 1991:15, 1991:17 1999:7, 2000:12 AFTERNOON [2] - 1991:9, 1994:1
21202 [1] - 1991:21 90-some [1] - 2041:15 agencies [1] - 2034:23
22 [1] - 1991:7 94th [3] - 2041:19, 2042:6, 2042:13 agenda [1] - 2019:16
233 [4] - 1996:4, 1996:5, 1996:6, 950 [1] - 1991:17 agree [1] - 2053:19
2010:9 9:30 [1] - 2067:24 agreed [2] - 2038:4, 2062:3
234 [8] - 1995:8, 1998:25, 1999:6, aided [1] - 1992:6
1999:24, 2000:2, 2000:3
A aim [1] - 2067:23
23rd [1] - 2035:18 Al [4] - 2028:8, 2029:3, 2030:22,
2440 [1] - 1991:21 a.m [4] - 2020:11, 2020:15, 2025:8, 2058:15
254 [2] - 2019:15, 2019:22 2067:25 Alex's [1] - 2041:3
258 [1] - 2023:4 Aarons [2] - 1995:11, 2000:10 AlexanderVanDerZwaan@gmail.
26th [2] - 2027:13, 2028:20 abandoned [1] - 2049:16 com [1] - 2040:16
2073
allegation [1] - 2004:2 ATTORNEY'S [1] - 1991:13 briefly [2] - 2043:19, 2048:2
alleged [2] - 2009:14, 2049:13 audience [1] - 2032:20 bring [3] - 1994:3, 2039:3, 2056:15
allow [1] - 2008:10 audiences [1] - 2014:23 bringing [2] - 2052:23, 2055:20
allowed [1] - 2056:15 August [2] - 1991:7, 2007:12 broader [1] - 2057:12
alluded [1] - 2029:8 AUSA [2] - 1991:12, 1991:13 broke [1] - 1994:15
almost [1] - 2008:16 Avenue [2] - 1991:17, 1992:4 brought [3] - 2025:19, 2025:21,
AMERICA [1] - 1991:3 avoid [2] - 2012:4, 2063:14 2025:23
America [1] - 2039:2 bullet [1] - 2001:1
American [3] - 2003:15, 2003:18, B bunch [1] - 2029:2
2010:4 business [2] - 2043:12, 2046:8
amount [3] - 2022:20, 2032:17, 2069:7 background [3] - 2033:21, 2038:4, BY [32] - 1994:14, 1996:8, 1997:24,
AMY [1] - 1991:9 2049:16 1998:23, 1999:5, 1999:23, 2002:9,
annoying [1] - 2033:7 backgrounding [5] - 2023:19, 2026:6, 2003:24, 2005:22, 2007:8, 2011:8,
answer [4] - 2016:22, 2026:25, 2027:1, 2048:6, 2054:14, 2058:12 2012:10, 2012:23, 2016:9, 2017:5,
2055:3 bad [1] - 2055:8 2020:1, 2021:10, 2024:24, 2025:3,
answered [2] - 2011:22, 2065:3 balance [2] - 2006:4, 2007:22 2027:8, 2033:15, 2035:10, 2035:16,
answers [2] - 1994:22, 2063:5 Baltimore [1] - 1991:21 2039:6, 2042:19, 2047:25, 2049:8,
apartment [2] - 2024:11, 2025:9 based [11] - 1998:18, 2002:19, 2052:6, 2058:9, 2066:10, 2066:16,
apologize [3] - 1999:3, 2019:24, 2003:17, 2009:24, 2011:11, 2011:17, 2066:24
2060:15 2020:13, 2022:7, 2028:3, 2029:7,
appear [2] - 1996:11, 2005:7 2036:5 C
APPEARANCES [1] - 1991:11 basis [1] - 1997:8
appeared [1] - 2017:22 batch [2] - 2019:16, 2041:19 calendar [1] - 2067:21
appellate [1] - 2003:18 become [1] - 2043:23 calm [1] - 2032:6
appendices [1] - 2000:20 BEFORE [1] - 1991:9 CAMPOAMOR [54] - 1997:13,
appreciate [2] - 2032:22, 2070:8 beginning [3] - 2007:12, 2065:8, 1997:16, 1997:20, 1999:1, 2001:16,
2067:25 2001:18, 2001:20, 2002:2, 2006:11,
approach [5] - 2001:16, 2031:10,
behavior [2] - 2004:18, 2007:14 2006:15, 2010:20, 2011:21, 2011:25,
2032:6, 2052:21, 2059:19
bench [9] - 2001:19, 2012:5, 2031:12, 2016:6, 2016:19, 2024:13, 2031:1,
appropriate [2] - 2035:2, 2066:7
2052:21, 2052:22, 2058:4, 2059:19, 2031:4, 2031:7, 2031:10, 2035:14,
argue [5] - 2012:5, 2012:9, 2033:6,
2059:22, 2070:18 2042:17, 2042:19, 2046:4, 2047:23,
2066:4, 2070:11
BERMAN [1] - 1991:9 2047:25, 2049:8, 2051:23, 2052:3,
argues [2] - 2008:7, 2009:2
best [3] - 2033:12, 2069:18, 2070:20 2052:5, 2052:6, 2056:8, 2056:14,
arguing [1] - 2057:11
better [2] - 2006:16, 2038:13 2056:17, 2056:21, 2058:9, 2059:3,
argument [7] - 2063:18, 2064:6,
between [5] - 2064:4, 2064:7, 2064:12, 2059:4, 2059:23, 2060:3, 2060:6,
2064:11, 2066:1, 2066:5, 2069:19
2065:14, 2067:23 2061:1, 2061:8, 2061:15, 2061:18,
argumentative [1] - 2047:21
beyond [3] - 2003:4, 2003:5, 2059:12 2062:25, 2066:10, 2066:16, 2066:22,
army [1] - 2069:21
BG [3] - 2019:3, 2019:5, 2019:7 2066:24, 2067:2, 2068:9, 2068:14,
arranged [1] - 2043:23 2068:22
arranging [1] - 2044:1 Big [1] - 2019:7
Campoamor [2] - 1991:12, 2033:16
article [2] - 2016:16, 2017:6 binder [1] - 2019:20
CAMPOAMOR-SANCHEZ [54] -
articulate [1] - 2069:19 bit [1] - 2031:5
1997:13, 1997:16, 1997:20, 1999:1,
asserted [3] - 2052:24, 2054:1, blah [3] - 2031:17
2001:16, 2001:18, 2001:20, 2002:2,
2057:21 Blinken [1] - 2029:14
2006:11, 2006:15, 2010:20, 2011:21,
asserting [1] - 2065:6 Bloomberg [7] - 2014:6, 2028:8,
2011:25, 2016:6, 2016:19, 2024:13,
assertion [2] - 2053:25, 2058:1 2029:3, 2030:22, 2034:1, 2036:16,
2031:1, 2031:4, 2031:7, 2031:10,
assignment [3] - 2003:5, 2022:17, 2058:15
2035:14, 2042:17, 2042:19, 2046:4,
2026:3 blow [3] - 2012:16, 2016:15, 2041:20
2047:23, 2047:25, 2049:8, 2051:23,
assignments [1] - 2029:2 Boehner [1] - 2029:14
2052:3, 2052:5, 2052:6, 2056:8,
assistance [1] - 2008:17 bore [1] - 2006:18
2056:14, 2056:17, 2056:21, 2058:9,
associate [1] - 2065:18 bottom [4] - 2001:8, 2034:22, 2037:2,
2059:3, 2059:4, 2059:23, 2060:3,
assume [2] - 2061:19, 2066:2 2051:13
2060:6, 2061:1, 2061:8, 2061:15,
assuming [1] - 2068:17 box [3] - 2031:5, 2031:19, 2033:20
2061:18, 2062:25, 2066:10, 2066:16,
assurances [1] - 2015:20 Bradley [1] - 1991:16 2066:22, 2066:24, 2067:2, 2068:9,
attached [5] - 1996:21, 2000:20, brains [1] - 2026:23 2068:14, 2068:22
2013:8, 2021:11, 2042:11 break [7] - 2032:13, 2038:14, 2038:18, Campoamor-Sanchez [1] - 1991:12
attachments [1] - 1996:2 2038:19, 2038:21, 2067:12, 2067:14 candidate [1] - 2009:18
attempting [1] - 2030:18 breakfast [1] - 2067:23 capacities [1] - 2046:8
attention [3] - 1999:17, 2015:1, briefing [3] - 2026:4, 2030:2, 2069:7 caption [3] - 1996:15, 2017:6, 2017:7
2067:16 briefings [4] - 2033:21, 2034:23, care [2] - 2026:18, 2049:7
2035:24, 2038:5
2074
carefully [1] - 2070:21 comment [1] - 2034:7 consult [1] - 1998:19
case [18] - 2003:15, 2007:17, 2007:20, commented [1] - 2012:14 consultants [1] - 2036:8
2009:25, 2016:18, 2048:15, 2054:5, comments [6] - 1996:11, 2018:20, contact [10] - 2029:7, 2048:12,
2054:7, 2057:18, 2060:8, 2063:9, 2019:10, 2035:6, 2035:7 2049:10, 2049:12, 2060:21, 2061:22,
2065:10, 2067:19, 2069:9, 2070:1, committed [1] - 2046:24 2062:18, 2063:4, 2066:12, 2066:25
2070:4, 2070:10, 2070:22 communicate [3] - 2044:8, 2048:14, contacted [1] - 2029:4
Case [1] - 2039:1 2061:22 contemplation [1] - 2037:16
caused [1] - 2028:20 communicated [4] - 2048:17, 2058:21, contempt [1] - 2007:15
caution [1] - 2067:20 2060:16, 2060:18 content [2] - 2006:22, 2024:21
cautioned [1] - 2067:15 communications [1] - 2065:19 contents [1] - 2000:18
center [1] - 2003:14 compilation [1] - 2037:8 context [1] - 2038:5
certain [2] - 2005:2, 2009:5 complained [1] - 2003:12 continue [2] - 2049:22, 2062:7
certainly [6] - 2006:17, 2008:16, complaint [1] - 2005:2 continued [3] - 2008:14, 2027:11,
2047:20, 2069:18, 2070:11, 2070:17 complete [2] - 2033:18, 2040:2 2028:21
chagrinned [1] - 2070:18 completely [1] - 2064:8 continuing [2] - 2007:12, 2029:22
chain [1] - 2061:4 complicated [1] - 2012:4 control [6] - 2012:20, 2013:4, 2020:22,
challenges [1] - 2070:22 component [2] - 2022:6, 2022:19 2021:11, 2040:8, 2042:15
change [4] - 2002:1, 2022:25, 2024:7, compromised [1] - 2009:6 controversial [1] - 2069:1
2028:21 computer [2] - 1992:6, 2020:14 conundrum [1] - 2066:6
changed [5] - 2018:12, 2024:1, computer-aided [1] - 1992:6 convened [2] - 2024:10, 2024:15
2026:9, 2026:10, 2055:17 concern [4] - 2024:10, 2026:16, convening [1] - 2019:13
changes [2] - 2028:3, 2028:21 2026:21, 2043:2 conversation [6] - 2020:18, 2029:21,
changing [3] - 2024:3, 2024:9, concerned [13] - 2018:8, 2027:4, 2063:11, 2064:10, 2064:12, 2064:23
2024:12 2027:6, 2027:7, 2032:14, 2048:19, conversations [1] - 2064:2
characterization [3] - 2010:22, 2048:23, 2048:24, 2048:25, 2049:3, conveyed [1] - 2032:12
2011:15, 2012:12 2052:18, 2065:8, 2065:24 conveys [2] - 2057:14, 2057:15
characterize [1] - 2005:14 concerns [5] - 2005:15, 2006:6, conviction [4] - 2003:19, 2006:8,
charge [2] - 2045:22, 2046:1 2007:25, 2018:25, 2019:3 2008:1, 2010:4
charges [1] - 2002:25 concluded [4] - 2004:6, 2006:5, copied [2] - 2044:18, 2044:24
chart [1] - 2013:4 2007:23, 2069:24 copies [1] - 2045:6
check [1] - 1997:5 concludes [3] - 1998:11, 2010:11, copy [2] - 1995:3, 2042:2
chief [2] - 2008:24, 2015:13 2011:18 core [1] - 2063:8
circuit [1] - 2056:11 conclusion [15] - 1997:7, 2001:14, corner [1] - 2013:9
circulated [1] - 2019:17 2002:15, 2002:24, 2003:6, 2003:10, correct [71] - 1995:11, 1995:12,
circulating [1] - 2027:19 2003:21, 2005:14, 2006:2, 2006:12, 1995:14, 1996:12, 1997:11, 1998:6,
cited [1] - 2005:11 2007:9, 2008:3, 2010:15, 2010:17, 2000:2, 2000:8, 2000:24, 2001:6,
citing [1] - 2014:24 2011:15 2001:10, 2001:11, 2002:12, 2002:14,
claims [1] - 2007:10 Conclusions [1] - 2001:2 2002:22, 2003:9, 2003:12, 2003:13,
clarify [1] - 2011:2 conclusions [4] - 2001:5, 2001:9, 2004:15, 2005:11, 2005:25, 2008:18,
clarity [1] - 2070:9 2001:22, 2012:12 2009:13, 2013:3, 2014:5, 2014:9,
clean [1] - 2047:11 conduct [1] - 2004:20 2014:18, 2015:22, 2017:16, 2018:13,
clear [5] - 2001:25, 2002:10, 2028:2, confer [1] - 1998:22 2018:14, 2019:2, 2019:3, 2021:1,
2053:11, 2061:5 conference [1] - 2058:4 2021:21, 2021:25, 2023:2, 2023:12,
clearly [2] - 2036:3, 2070:12 conflicting [1] - 2002:17 2023:14, 2024:2, 2025:17, 2026:2,
CLERK [3] - 1996:5, 2019:23, 2039:1 confront [2] - 2054:5, 2065:7 2026:10, 2028:8, 2028:9, 2028:17,
client [6] - 2009:12, 2015:15, 2043:20, confused [3] - 1999:1, 2008:5, 2029:12, 2030:2, 2030:23, 2030:25,
2046:18, 2046:20, 2050:13 2059:23 2035:1, 2035:2, 2035:19, 2036:5,
close [2] - 2009:19, 2041:17 confusion [1] - 2001:22 2038:1, 2038:4, 2039:9, 2039:11,
closely [1] - 2030:11 Congress [1] - 2030:3 2039:13, 2039:16, 2039:18, 2040:7,
closing [4] - 2063:17, 2064:11, connection [1] - 2070:5 2040:13, 2040:17, 2040:18, 2041:10,
2066:1, 2066:5 consent [1] - 2019:9 2042:3, 2042:14, 2044:7, 2046:6,
Club [16] - 2019:13, 2019:18, 2020:20, consented [1] - 2021:19 2048:4
2021:23, 2022:16, 2023:9, 2023:17, consider [1] - 2019:9 counsel [8] - 1998:20, 2005:5, 2008:5,
2024:16, 2025:22, 2025:23, 2025:25, consideration [1] - 2013:9 2008:9, 2008:13, 2008:15, 2008:17,
2035:13, 2035:17, 2044:19, 2048:1, consolidate [1] - 2038:10 2013:10
2050:7 consolidating [1] - 2038:13 Counsel [1] - 1998:22
COLUMBIA [2] - 1991:1, 1991:14 consolidation [1] - 2038:11 couple [4] - 2028:18, 2030:9, 2030:15,
coming [1] - 2057:25 constitute [1] - 2057:1 2066:5
command [1] - 2061:4 Constitution [1] - 1992:4 course [2] - 2025:19, 2035:12
COURT [116] - 1991:1, 1994:3, 1994:5,
2075
1997:18, 1997:21, 1998:21, 1999:11, 2049:15, 2049:22, 2050:4, 2050:11, 2057:18
1999:16, 1999:20, 2000:2, 2000:4, 2050:12, 2054:4, 2059:7, 2062:2, Defendant [3] - 1991:6, 1991:19,
2001:17, 2002:4, 2002:7, 2003:22, 2062:3, 2063:11, 2063:13, 2063:18, 2016:8
2005:8, 2005:12, 2005:20, 2006:13, 2063:25, 2064:9, 2064:15, 2065:11, DEFENDANT [1] - 1993:5
2006:21, 2007:1, 2007:4, 2007:7, 2065:15, 2065:22, 2066:2, 2066:25 Defendant's [13] - 2000:2, 2012:15,
2010:21, 2012:1, 2016:7, 2016:21, Craig's [4] - 2018:10, 2018:24, 2014:20, 2015:23, 2016:5, 2017:24,
2021:2, 2021:5, 2021:7, 2021:9, 2021:15, 2023:23 2018:15, 2019:22, 2027:13, 2028:18,
2024:15, 2024:18, 2025:1, 2026:20, created [3] - 1998:18, 2037:10, 2030:8, 2036:20, 2040:25
2026:23, 2026:25, 2027:3, 2027:6, 2051:14 defense [13] - 2003:11, 2003:17,
2031:8, 2031:11, 2031:13, 2031:21, credibility [1] - 2049:25 2008:9, 2008:20, 2009:4, 2009:5,
2031:24, 2032:3, 2033:2, 2033:13, credible [1] - 2049:20 2009:7, 2033:9, 2047:9, 2050:3,
2035:6, 2035:15, 2038:11, 2038:17, crimes [2] - 2046:23, 2047:6 2064:20, 2065:4, 2068:20
2038:23, 2039:3, 2042:6, 2042:11, Criminal [1] - 1991:4 define [1] - 2069:8
2042:16, 2045:25, 2047:22, 2049:2, criminal [2] - 2054:5, 2057:18 definitely [2] - 2068:20, 2068:21
2051:20, 2051:25, 2052:4, 2052:21, CROSS [2] - 1993:2, 1994:13 deliberately [2] - 2031:19, 2032:4
2052:23, 2053:7, 2053:9, 2053:13, cross [10] - 2033:3, 2033:4, 2043:19, delivering [1] - 2044:4
2053:17, 2054:8, 2054:11, 2055:12, 2048:8, 2053:17, 2054:12, 2054:22, demanded [1] - 2064:23
2055:15, 2055:19, 2056:4, 2056:11, 2058:5, 2059:12, 2065:1 denied [1] - 2008:24
2056:15, 2056:19, 2056:24, 2057:8, cross-examination [6] - 2043:19, DEPARTMENT [1] - 1991:16
2057:11, 2057:19, 2058:7, 2058:24, 2048:8, 2053:17, 2054:12, 2059:12, dependent [1] - 2022:22
2059:2, 2059:10, 2059:13, 2059:19, 2065:1 deprived [2] - 2006:7, 2007:25
2059:21, 2059:25, 2060:4, 2060:10, CROSS-EXAMINATION [1] - 1994:13 DEPUTY [3] - 1996:5, 2019:23, 2039:1
2060:14, 2060:19, 2061:12, 2061:19, cross-examine [1] - 2058:5 der [9] - 2016:3, 2025:15, 2040:13,
2062:7, 2062:23, 2063:3, 2063:15, cross-examined [2] - 2033:3, 2033:4 2040:16, 2041:9, 2042:22, 2045:2,
2064:17, 2064:19, 2065:13, 2066:14,
crosses [2] - 2032:17, 2068:17 2045:5, 2045:8
2067:4, 2067:7, 2067:11, 2068:4,
CRR [1] - 1992:3 describes [1] - 2004:18
2068:12, 2068:18, 2068:24, 2069:2,
crunch [1] - 2030:13 detail [3] - 1996:3, 2004:23, 2015:2
2069:6, 2069:18, 2070:8, 2070:15,
customarily [1] - 2004:14 detailed [1] - 1996:1
2070:17
cut [3] - 2014:25, 2015:11, 2016:11 details [1] - 2005:10
court [8] - 2002:8, 2003:18, 2033:14,
cut-down [2] - 2014:25, 2015:11 detain [2] - 2006:3, 2007:22
2057:19, 2057:20, 2058:8, 2066:9
detention [5] - 2005:24, 2007:10,
Court [15] - 1992:3, 2001:15, 2002:18,
2002:19, 2002:20, 2007:20, 2008:7, D 2007:11, 2007:13, 2007:19
determine [1] - 2068:19
2047:18, 2068:25, 2069:4, 2069:8,
D.C [4] - 1991:6, 1992:4, 2027:21, diagnosis [1] - 2057:15
2069:11, 2069:15, 2069:16, 2070:3
2036:8 different [9] - 2014:23, 2015:1, 2017:1,
Court's [7] - 2001:14, 2002:15,
date [3] - 2013:5, 2051:14, 2059:15 2024:4, 2026:23, 2045:13, 2064:1,
2004:19, 2007:10, 2007:16, 2009:5,
dated [1] - 2015:25 2064:8, 2065:14
2066:22
David [16] - 2014:8, 2021:24, 2022:4, differently [2] - 2017:4, 2052:2
Courthouse [1] - 1992:3
2022:25, 2026:1, 2026:4, 2028:15, difficult [2] - 2004:22, 2070:20
courtroom [6] - 2004:18, 2005:1,
2036:18, 2037:23, 2041:22, 2050:23, direct [4] - 2028:10, 2061:17, 2061:20,
2007:14, 2007:18, 2012:7, 2070:19
2051:16, 2052:8, 2060:13, 2065:16, 2064:24
courts [2] - 2003:16, 2007:21
2066:18 DIRECT [1] - 1993:2
cover [1] - 2000:16
DAY [1] - 1991:5 directed [4] - 2028:4, 2032:9, 2032:10,
craft [1] - 2042:2
days [4] - 2028:19, 2030:9, 2035:4, 2060:21
crafted [1] - 2041:25 2035:11 directing [4] - 1999:17, 2032:20,
CRAIG [1] - 1991:5 DC [3] - 1991:15, 1991:17, 1991:25 2032:21, 2033:8
Craig [77] - 2013:14, 2013:17, 2014:2, deadline [1] - 2070:1 direction [15] - 2059:15, 2059:16,
2014:11, 2014:13, 2014:16, 2015:17, deals [5] - 1999:8, 2003:10, 2005:24, 2060:10, 2060:23, 2062:9, 2062:10,
2015:20, 2018:18, 2018:23, 2019:9,
2008:3, 2008:4 2062:16, 2062:22, 2062:23, 2063:1,
2020:18, 2021:23, 2022:16, 2022:19,
dealt [3] - 2004:1, 2004:2, 2018:25 2063:2, 2063:3, 2063:21, 2063:23,
2022:25, 2023:11, 2023:18, 2024:1,
debate [9] - 2052:14, 2052:17, 2066:11
2024:7, 2025:18, 2026:1, 2026:18,
2052:18, 2052:25, 2053:1, 2053:21, directly [4] - 2025:21, 2048:17,
2028:15, 2029:2, 2029:10, 2029:13,
2055:3, 2055:6 2054:20, 2054:21
2029:18, 2029:21, 2029:23, 2030:4,
debrief [1] - 2049:25 directs [1] - 2032:16
2032:25, 2034:11, 2034:15, 2034:24,
December [5] - 2000:6, 2039:14, discuss [3] - 2065:21, 2067:18
2035:5, 2035:12, 2035:21, 2037:22,
2039:17, 2039:22, 2064:1 discussed [5] - 1994:17, 2004:23,
2037:25, 2038:2, 2038:4, 2039:2,
decided [1] - 2038:6 2024:22, 2050:7, 2051:17
2040:20, 2040:23, 2042:1, 2042:3,
decision [6] - 2006:3, 2007:11, discussion [5] - 2022:5, 2023:18,
2044:9, 2044:16, 2044:21, 2044:23,
2007:22, 2009:5, 2058:22, 2061:8 2023:21, 2026:2, 2070:6
2045:6, 2048:5, 2048:12, 2049:11,
defendant [3] - 2003:16, 2008:12, dispute [1] - 2002:17
2076
disputed [1] - 2003:1 efforts [2] - 2018:11, 2054:7 exhibit [3] - 2019:21, 2019:24,
disrespectful [1] - 2004:20 Egypt [6] - 2034:11, 2050:4, 2050:14, 2039:23
DISTRICT [4] - 1991:1, 1991:1, 2050:15, 2050:18, 2065:15 Exhibit [32] - 1994:15, 1995:8, 1996:4,
1991:10, 1991:14 either [5] - 2028:12, 2028:23, 2032:16, 1998:24, 1999:6, 1999:24, 2000:2,
doctor's [1] - 2057:15 2046:23, 2050:4 2000:3, 2012:15, 2014:20, 2015:24,
doctrine [1] - 2010:1 elements [2] - 2003:4, 2069:14 2016:5, 2017:24, 2018:15, 2019:15,
document [41] - 1994:20, 1995:13, elicited [3] - 2053:18, 2055:9, 2065:4 2019:22, 2023:4, 2025:4, 2027:14,
1996:15, 1996:20, 1996:24, 1999:12, email [2] - 2040:1, 2042:12 2028:18, 2030:8, 2031:1, 2034:3,
2001:20, 2005:6, 2010:8, 2011:9, emanating [1] - 2023:9 2036:7, 2036:20, 2039:24, 2041:1,
2011:11, 2013:9, 2014:24, 2015:8, employed [1] - 2028:1 2041:13, 2050:3, 2051:4
2015:25, 2016:2, 2020:3, 2020:5, end [3] - 2022:15, 2063:17, 2065:23 existence [1] - 2002:11
2021:13, 2027:15, 2028:4, 2028:5, ended [1] - 2007:13 expect [2] - 2068:16, 2069:3
2028:22, 2036:19, 2037:9, 2037:17, engaged [1] - 2004:20 expected [1] - 2068:23
2039:25, 2042:7, 2050:23, 2050:25, Engagement [1] - 2014:6 experience [1] - 2004:7
2051:6, 2051:22, 2052:10, 2052:11, engagement [1] - 2021:15 expertise [2] - 2003:5, 2049:24
2052:12, 2052:13, 2056:18, 2065:17 enlarge [1] - 2018:17 explain [2] - 2048:11, 2053:22
documents [18] - 2013:1, 2014:23, ensure [1] - 2043:4 explained [1] - 2056:25
2019:17, 2030:14, 2032:24, 2037:8, entire [6] - 1995:20, 1995:21, 1995:22, explains [1] - 2057:16
2040:3, 2041:7, 2041:10, 2041:15, 2006:4, 2007:22, 2033:3 expressed [1] - 2006:2
2041:19, 2042:7, 2042:8, 2042:9, entirely [1] - 2006:12 expressing [1] - 2016:17
2042:21, 2043:10, 2050:1, 2063:18 entirety [1] - 2041:11 extensive [1] - 2053:11
done [9] - 1999:19, 2031:15, 2033:21, entitled [1] - 2040:8 extent [1] - 2070:9
2034:24, 2047:3, 2047:13, 2056:22, Esq [4] - 1991:19, 1991:19, 1991:22, extremely [1] - 2062:8
2065:6, 2068:17 1991:23
door [1] - 2067:25 essence [1] - 2004:3 F
down [9] - 2002:24, 2012:17, 2014:25, establish [2] - 2031:16, 2056:17
2015:11, 2030:13, 2034:20, 2037:2, established [2] - 2004:7, 2009:25 facility [1] - 2007:12
2049:22, 2053:13 fact [15] - 2002:19, 2005:25, 2010:23,
etc [2] - 2001:3, 2041:22
draft [5] - 1996:16, 1998:9, 2001:21, 2018:7, 2019:12, 2032:19, 2032:23,
Europe [2] - 2021:17, 2028:7
2001:24, 2002:4 2037:8, 2046:16, 2050:7, 2053:23,
European [1] - 2008:11
Draft [1] - 2013:9 2057:16, 2058:1, 2066:19
evening [3] - 2067:13, 2067:14,
drew [1] - 2002:20 facts [5] - 1994:23, 1995:23, 2001:3,
2068:1
drill [1] - 2030:17 2002:17, 2007:14
event [1] - 2049:15
driven [1] - 2009:22 Factual [1] - 2001:2
eventually [1] - 2003:20
due [2] - 2003:18, 2004:14 factual [1] - 2001:5
evidence [10] - 1994:18, 2002:18,
duly [1] - 1994:12 failed [1] - 2033:16
2002:19, 2002:21, 2010:2, 2016:8,
during [10] - 2005:2, 2005:25, 2040:22, 2064:13, 2065:20, 2070:22 failing [1] - 2008:9
2008:13, 2008:20, 2008:24, 2013:2, evidentiary [1] - 2032:23 fair [10] - 2005:20, 2007:2, 2016:21,
2023:19, 2033:3, 2050:11, 2065:21 2018:19, 2025:10, 2031:13, 2032:17,
exactly [5] - 2002:6, 2017:13, 2018:15,
duty [3] - 2069:8, 2069:14, 2069:16 2049:4, 2064:6, 2069:7
2054:8, 2056:24
DX [1] - 2013:19 examination [8] - 2008:15, 2043:19, fairly [1] - 2005:13
2048:8, 2053:17, 2054:12, 2059:12, fairness [3] - 2004:8, 2005:15, 2009:4
E 2065:1, 2069:24 falls [1] - 2054:19
EXAMINATION [2] - 1994:13, 2042:18 far [3] - 2018:8, 2029:25, 2056:25
e-mail [24] - 1994:19, 1994:21, faster [1] - 2007:7
examine [1] - 2058:5
1996:10, 1996:16, 1999:17, 2011:4, favor [6] - 2056:12, 2056:13, 2057:4,
examined [3] - 1994:12, 2033:3,
2012:19, 2013:15, 2016:11, 2017:7, 2058:11, 2058:14
2033:4
2018:18, 2018:22, 2025:6, 2025:16, feet [1] - 2032:15
examining [1] - 2008:8
2034:4, 2040:17, 2043:3, 2043:9, Fernando [1] - 1991:12
except [1] - 2023:13
2054:13, 2060:14, 2061:10, 2062:5, few [5] - 2030:15, 2035:4, 2035:11,
exception [1] - 2054:19
2063:20 2038:9, 2042:20
excess [1] - 2047:4
eager [1] - 2070:14 file [1] - 2040:8
exchanging [2] - 2013:1, 2030:14
early [5] - 2038:10, 2038:12, 2039:17, filled [1] - 1995:5
excuse [2] - 1998:19, 2060:9
2043:2, 2050:5 final [3] - 2001:21, 2001:23, 2022:22
East [3] - 1991:20, 2050:17, 2050:19 excused [3] - 2038:23, 2067:4, 2067:6
executive [4] - 1997:6, 2000:24, finder [1] - 2002:18
ECFMU [3] - 2045:16, 2046:11, findings [4] - 1997:4, 1997:5, 2002:19,
2046:13 2001:23, 2010:7
exercise [3] - 2008:13, 2030:17, 2049:19
edit [2] - 1998:2, 1998:4 finish [2] - 2032:13, 2058:4
2038:12
edits [2] - 2011:13, 2040:5 finished [2] - 2018:5, 2018:8
EXHIBIT [1] - 1993:5
effort [2] - 2017:16, 2022:20 fire [1] - 2030:17
2077
firm [2] - 2015:14, 2043:7 given [6] - 2003:16, 2030:19, 2041:21, 2040:19, 2040:22, 2041:2, 2041:8,
firms [5] - 2027:21, 2045:12, 2045:14, 2041:22, 2060:11, 2067:21 2041:9, 2045:4, 2048:13, 2048:16,
2050:10, 2051:17 gmail [3] - 2041:3, 2042:22, 2043:14 2048:19, 2049:21, 2060:11, 2060:12,
first [23] - 1994:19, 1994:20, 1999:16, Gordon [1] - 2029:14 2060:17, 2061:3, 2061:10, 2061:13,
2001:1, 2001:14, 2002:15, 2005:12, Government [6] - 1991:12, 1995:8, 2061:21, 2061:23, 2062:3, 2062:5,
2011:6, 2011:12, 2013:7, 2013:8, 2025:4, 2034:3, 2039:24, 2050:2 2062:11, 2062:13, 2062:17, 2062:19,
2026:10, 2045:19, 2046:2, 2048:5, government [14] - 1996:5, 1996:6, 2062:22, 2062:24, 2063:4, 2063:7,
2050:23, 2050:25, 2051:21, 2052:8, 2009:18, 2015:5, 2015:6, 2036:7, 2063:19, 2066:12, 2066:20
2052:13, 2059:25, 2063:5, 2065:16 2046:11, 2046:14, 2046:21, 2047:3, Hawker's [7] - 2010:17, 2013:25,
five [3] - 2068:9, 2068:11, 2068:15 2047:5, 2065:10, 2069:3, 2069:14 2017:12, 2021:7, 2035:6, 2035:8,
fix [1] - 2031:20 government's [3] - 2019:23, 2019:24, 2035:9
flight [1] - 2007:16 2054:7 head [2] - 2009:17, 2045:19
flying [1] - 2050:18 Government's [4] - 2000:3, 2019:15, headed [2] - 2069:20, 2070:10
folks [1] - 2018:8 2040:25, 2051:4 header [1] - 2042:15
following [3] - 2025:25, 2033:24, great [3] - 2015:15, 2015:17, 2053:7 heading [1] - 2001:2
2046:22 green [1] - 2030:19 headline [6] - 1998:10, 1998:17,
follows [1] - 1994:12 Greg [8] - 2014:13, 2022:16, 2022:25, 2010:10, 2017:17, 2017:21, 2017:22
FOR [2] - 1991:1, 1991:13 2023:11, 2024:1, 2034:24, 2041:4, heads [1] - 2054:25
form [10] - 1997:13, 1997:16, 1999:25, 2049:7 hear [6] - 2024:3, 2024:7, 2033:12,
2011:21, 2016:16, 2016:19, 2019:20, Greg's [1] - 2022:7 2037:12, 2054:22, 2068:13
2024:13, 2035:14, 2041:13 Gregory [1] - 2039:2 heard [15] - 2014:16, 2023:25, 2026:9,
format [1] - 2062:1 GREGORY [1] - 1991:5 2034:15, 2035:4, 2035:20, 2038:7,
former [3] - 2009:17, 2017:18, 2043:7 grid [8] - 2012:20, 2013:4, 2015:2, 2048:9, 2053:3, 2053:14, 2057:1,
forth [1] - 2013:1 2020:22, 2021:11, 2034:7, 2040:9, 2060:24, 2061:17, 2069:20, 2070:10
forward [1] - 2018:23 2042:15 hearsay [25] - 2052:20, 2053:5,
forwarded [4] - 2011:1, 2016:2, grids [1] - 2013:17 2053:11, 2053:15, 2053:18, 2053:19,
2040:12, 2041:8 ground [1] - 2014:1 2053:24, 2054:1, 2054:6, 2054:19,
forwarding [3] - 1995:10, 1995:11, group [9] - 1997:22, 1997:23, 1998:7, 2055:5, 2055:13, 2056:23, 2057:1,
1996:11 2026:16, 2026:21, 2026:23, 2054:15, 2057:7, 2057:16, 2057:20, 2057:22,
four [2] - 2068:10, 2068:16 2054:16 2057:23, 2059:9, 2060:22, 2061:24,
Fourth [1] - 1991:14 Group [3] - 2045:20, 2045:22, 2046:1 2062:6, 2063:12, 2064:16
front [3] - 1995:13, 1999:24, 2063:12 guess [2] - 2013:13, 2014:19 help [1] - 2051:15
frustrate [1] - 2012:7 guilty [1] - 2003:8 helpful [3] - 2069:11, 2069:15, 2070:7
FTI [3] - 2029:4, 2031:15, 2033:21 Gulland [1] - 1991:13 helps [1] - 2051:24
Fule [1] - 2023:13 Guy [1] - 2019:7 hide [1] - 2047:18
full [2] - 1995:4, 2000:7 guy [1] - 2022:13 high [1] - 2012:3
funnel [1] - 2069:23 higher [1] - 2070:12
highlight [2] - 2009:20, 2033:17
future [2] - 2009:24, 2054:18 H
FYI [1] - 2016:13 highly [1] - 2043:6
hacked [2] - 2043:3, 2043:9 himself [2] - 2046:10, 2046:13
hand [4] - 2002:5, 2004:3, 2010:8, hint [1] - 2062:1
G
2013:9 hold [1] - 2041:3
GASTON [1] - 2067:9 hand-picked [1] - 2004:3 honestly [1] - 1995:22
Gaston [1] - 1991:13 happy [4] - 2007:3, 2031:6, 2031:20, Honor [25] - 1994:10, 1999:14,
gates [13] - 1994:6, 1999:24, 2007:9, 2031:22 2005:18, 2005:19, 2006:11, 2006:17,
2015:25, 2025:24, 2033:16, 2039:7, hard [1] - 2012:3 2011:1, 2016:4, 2021:4, 2031:10,
2056:6, 2056:7, 2057:13, 2060:16, Harvard [16] - 2019:13, 2019:17, 2032:22, 2038:9, 2039:1, 2042:17,
2060:17, 2062:16 2020:20, 2021:23, 2022:16, 2023:9, 2047:23, 2051:18, 2054:2, 2059:3,
GATES [2] - 1993:3, 1994:11 2023:17, 2024:16, 2025:21, 2025:23, 2059:8, 2061:2, 2065:5, 2066:8,
Gates [7] - 1994:15, 2002:10, 2016:10, 2025:25, 2035:13, 2035:17, 2044:19, 2067:3, 2067:10, 2070:16
2061:12, 2063:22, 2066:11 2048:1, 2050:7 HONORABLE [1] - 1991:9
gather [1] - 2020:14 Hawker [70] - 1994:22, 1995:5, hopeful [1] - 2068:18
GC [2] - 2014:2, 2034:24 1995:10, 1996:1, 1996:10, 1998:2, hopefully [1] - 2067:24
general [5] - 2015:16, 2022:19, 2000:7, 2011:9, 2011:11, 2012:19, hundred [1] - 2056:10
2026:2, 2026:7, 2053:13 2013:14, 2014:21, 2016:3, 2016:12, Hunt [4] - 2028:8, 2029:3, 2030:22,
generally [2] - 2013:16, 2053:20 2016:17, 2017:15, 2020:13, 2025:6, 2058:15
generated [1] - 2032:23 2025:14, 2025:22, 2026:17, 2027:4, hunt [4] - 2029:9, 2051:9, 2052:15,
gentleman [1] - 2033:4 2027:15, 2028:12, 2030:10, 2033:2, 2068:7
gentlemen [1] - 2047:19 2034:4, 2034:25, 2036:7, 2036:21, hypothetical [1] - 1995:2
gesture [1] - 2032:11 2037:9, 2037:18, 2040:2, 2040:12,
2078
intends [1] - 2069:12 2011:1, 2011:6, 2011:8, 2011:23,
I
intention [1] - 2054:18 2012:10, 2012:22, 2012:23, 2016:4,
i.e [1] - 2009:23 interested [2] - 1997:11, 1997:25 2016:9, 2016:25, 2017:4, 2017:5,
idea [5] - 2015:9, 2015:16, 2017:15, interpretation [1] - 2010:17 2019:24, 2020:1, 2021:10, 2024:24,
2028:19, 2049:15 interviewed [1] - 2008:23 2025:3, 2026:22, 2026:24, 2027:2,
identified [8] - 2008:22, 2008:25, interviews [1] - 2047:3 2027:8, 2031:3, 2031:6, 2031:20,
2013:19, 2014:17, 2019:16, 2029:15, introduced [1] - 2064:24 2031:22, 2032:2, 2032:22, 2033:12,
2029:17, 2038:3 investigation [1] - 2008:21 2033:15, 2035:8, 2035:10, 2035:16,
identifier [1] - 2043:16 investigator [1] - 2008:24 2038:9, 2038:16, 2039:6, 2042:4,
identifies [1] - 2000:20 investigators [1] - 2047:5 2042:9, 2042:14, 2047:21, 2049:1,
identify [1] - 2068:11 invisible [1] - 2031:25 2051:18, 2052:20, 2055:6, 2055:14,
identifying [2] - 2001:9, 2036:14 involved [3] - 2029:10, 2043:23, 2055:18, 2055:22, 2058:23, 2059:8,
III [1] - 1991:22 2045:12 2059:11, 2059:20, 2060:9, 2060:12,
immediately [2] - 2022:24, 2031:15 involvement [1] - 2043:7 2060:15, 2061:5, 2061:9, 2061:14,
imminent [1] - 2018:1 2061:16, 2061:25, 2062:20, 2066:8,
irrelevant [1] - 2055:12
2068:13
implication [4] - 2063:13, 2063:16, issue [15] - 2003:2, 2003:11, 2004:1,
2065:11, 2065:17 Junghans [3] - 1991:23, 1994:9,
2009:12, 2017:17, 2024:8, 2025:18,
2054:12
implore [1] - 2063:9 2025:19, 2025:21, 2065:7, 2066:7,
juries [1] - 2004:13
importance [1] - 2069:25 2069:9, 2069:12, 2070:4
issues [6] - 2002:18, 2056:16, 2069:5, jurors [3] - 1994:5, 2031:4, 2032:11
important [2] - 2009:12, 2063:8
2069:10, 2069:24, 2070:20 JURY [2] - 1991:5, 1991:9
impose [1] - 2070:3
item [2] - 2023:11, 2041:20 jury [11] - 1994:3, 2004:12, 2004:13,
impression [1] - 2063:10
items [3] - 1996:1, 2023:9, 2023:10 2033:8, 2038:17, 2039:3, 2047:19,
improper [1] - 2009:23
2063:10, 2063:12, 2065:11, 2067:23
inadmissible [2] - 2053:20, 2056:22 Items [1] - 2023:5
Jury [4] - 1994:4, 2038:22, 2039:5,
inappropriate [1] - 2066:1 iteration [4] - 2017:15, 2032:24
2068:3
inappropriately [2] - 2006:7, 2007:25 iterations [2] - 1999:4, 2039:20
jury's [1] - 2033:10
incarcerate [1] - 2007:11
Justice [4] - 1998:10, 2009:12,
incentive [1] - 2047:17 J 2018:12, 2044:11
include [1] - 2033:24
JACKSON [1] - 1991:9 JUSTICE [1] - 1991:16
included [1] - 2028:11
jail [1] - 2005:25 justifiable [1] - 2007:19
includes [1] - 2040:5
James [1] - 1991:19 justification [2] - 2006:6, 2007:24
including [3] - 2054:16, 2054:17,
2069:14 Jason [1] - 1991:16
indeed [2] - 2049:10, 2051:8 John [16] - 1996:23, 1998:24, 2003:25, K
Independent [2] - 1998:10, 2010:10 2009:20, 2010:9, 2011:6, 2012:16,
KANESHIRO [1] - 1992:3
independent [3] - 2011:18, 2046:11, 2016:15, 2018:17, 2021:12, 2023:8,
KANESHIRO-MILLER [1] - 1992:3
2046:14 2029:14, 2033:19, 2036:13, 2036:25,
2041:18 keep [3] - 2032:11, 2061:6, 2062:4
indicated [6] - 2026:17, 2032:11,
Jon [1] - 1995:11 kept [1] - 2055:19
2033:10, 2035:12, 2049:6, 2049:23
Jonathan [2] - 1998:18, 2023:22 key [1] - 2036:15
indication [1] - 2063:19
journalist [12] - 2017:7, 2017:14, Kilimnik [1] - 2040:1
individuals [1] - 2029:19
2026:7, 2033:24, 2034:1, 2038:3, kind [1] - 2065:7
indulgence [1] - 2066:22
2058:14, 2063:2, 2063:5, 2063:6, Kireyev [1] - 2009:1
inference [2] - 2065:24, 2065:25
2066:12, 2066:17 Kireyev's [1] - 2009:3
inferences [1] - 2002:20
journalists [6] - 2023:20, 2027:25, knocking [1] - 2067:25
information [12] - 1998:18, 2011:17,
2028:6, 2048:6, 2049:16, 2058:12 knowledge [4] - 2023:15, 2037:24,
2028:10, 2028:13, 2031:25, 2043:5,
Judge [2] - 2009:1, 2009:2 2043:25, 2059:16
2043:6, 2043:8, 2058:21, 2063:6,
JUDGE [1] - 1991:10 known [1] - 2047:9
2066:19, 2069:22
judge [2] - 2004:2, 2004:3 knows [1] - 2065:16
initial [1] - 1998:3
input [3] - 2027:23, 2028:2, 2028:3 judge's [1] - 2004:7
inside [2] - 2015:5, 2054:25 judgment [1] - 2010:22 L
instances [3] - 2002:20, 2037:10, July [1] - 2005:15
lack [1] - 2070:9
2043:5 JUNGHANS [91] - 1994:10, 1994:14,
ladies [1] - 2047:18
instead [1] - 2009:24 1996:6, 1996:8, 1997:15, 1997:23,
large [3] - 2008:22, 2020:3, 2020:5
instructed [1] - 2061:10 1997:24, 1998:19, 1998:23, 1999:3,
1999:5, 1999:14, 1999:19, 1999:22, largely [1] - 1997:7
instruction [2] - 2064:15, 2069:12 last [12] - 1999:12, 2006:25, 2008:3,
instructions [2] - 2044:6, 2070:5 1999:23, 2000:3, 2000:5, 2001:25,
2002:6, 2002:9, 2003:23, 2003:24, 2008:4, 2009:9, 2014:13, 2028:22,
integrity [1] - 2043:4 2034:11, 2037:12, 2042:14, 2042:20
2005:9, 2005:18, 2005:22, 2006:17,
intended [1] - 2015:10 late [1] - 2050:4
2006:24, 2007:3, 2007:6, 2007:8,
2079
launch [2] - 2013:5, 2022:10 mail [24] - 1994:19, 1994:21, 1996:10, 2060:20
law [5] - 2002:25, 2003:3, 2003:8, 1996:16, 1999:17, 2011:4, 2012:19, meetings [2] - 2034:12, 2060:7
2008:11, 2043:6 2013:15, 2016:11, 2017:7, 2018:18, members [2] - 2038:17, 2045:9
lawyer [1] - 2017:19 2018:22, 2025:6, 2025:16, 2034:4, memos [1] - 1997:8
lay [1] - 2053:13 2040:17, 2043:3, 2043:9, 2054:13, mention [1] - 2032:25
lead [2] - 2062:7, 2062:14 2060:14, 2061:10, 2062:5, 2063:20 mentioned [3] - 2021:23, 2023:22,
leader [1] - 2009:18 maintain [1] - 2007:18 2052:8
leading [1] - 2057:3 major [1] - 2068:6 mentions [1] - 2065:23
leak [1] - 2036:15 Manafort [57] - 1996:11, 1996:18, Mercury [8] - 2029:7, 2036:11, 2037:6,
learn [1] - 2050:4 1998:4, 2011:3, 2015:7, 2018:20, 2037:9, 2045:15, 2045:22, 2046:5,
learned [2] - 2026:14, 2039:17 2018:22, 2025:14, 2026:17, 2026:19, 2051:1
least [3] - 2051:16, 2064:3, 2068:6 2027:6, 2034:4, 2040:1, 2040:5, merited [1] - 2007:15
lecture [1] - 2057:23 2044:3, 2044:10, 2044:23, 2048:15, merits [1] - 2009:19
led [1] - 2049:2 2048:23, 2048:24, 2048:25, 2049:5, message [1] - 2057:14
Lee [2] - 2037:3, 2037:14 2049:6, 2049:10, 2054:3, 2054:16, messages [2] - 2048:14, 2048:17
left [3] - 2013:9, 2068:5, 2068:15 2054:18, 2058:21, 2059:6, 2060:4, messaging [8] - 1996:15, 1996:16,
left-hand [1] - 2013:9 2060:20, 2060:24, 2061:2, 2061:7, 1996:24, 1997:8, 1999:12, 1999:13,
leftover [1] - 2037:15 2061:8, 2061:10, 2061:12, 2061:20, 2002:13, 2010:8
2062:2, 2062:3, 2062:5, 2062:10, met [2] - 2070:11, 2070:12
legal [6] - 2002:25, 2003:3, 2008:10,
2062:16, 2062:22, 2063:4, 2063:10, mid [1] - 2039:14
2008:11, 2013:10, 2070:4
2063:13, 2063:24, 2064:14, 2064:23, mid-December [1] - 2039:14
legitimacy [1] - 2004:19
2065:2, 2065:3, 2065:11, 2066:2, Middle [2] - 2050:17, 2050:19
less [2] - 2049:3, 2068:25
2066:3, 2066:11 middle [2] - 2041:20, 2055:2
level [2] - 2015:2, 2030:2
Manafort's [6] - 2024:10, 2035:7, midnight [1] - 2020:16
liberty [2] - 2006:7, 2008:1
2043:3, 2044:6, 2054:13, 2059:18
lie [4] - 2032:15, 2046:10, 2046:13, might [11] - 1997:11, 1998:1, 2007:4,
management [1] - 2004:21
2047:18 2017:17, 2026:6, 2027:25, 2028:3,
marked [1] - 2015:23 2035:13, 2043:15, 2055:20
lied [1] - 2045:16
Master [1] - 2040:8 MILLER [1] - 1992:3
lies [2] - 2046:23, 2047:6
master [5] - 2015:2, 2020:22, 2021:11, mind [8] - 2024:1, 2024:3, 2024:7,
life [1] - 2009:24
2034:7, 2042:15 2024:9, 2024:12, 2026:9, 2026:11,
light [1] - 2030:19
material [1] - 2024:22 2057:17
likely [2] - 2007:14, 2068:10
matrix [2] - 2029:17, 2029:20 Minister [1] - 2043:8
line [4] - 2013:21, 2033:20, 2035:24
Matrix [1] - 2036:8 Minister's [1] - 2017:18
lines [1] - 2064:25
matter [9] - 2012:4, 2043:20, 2052:24, Ministry [4] - 1998:10, 2009:12,
link [1] - 2064:5
2053:25, 2054:1, 2057:21, 2067:16, 2018:12, 2044:11
list [9] - 2013:20, 2023:9, 2027:16,
2067:18, 2069:1 minutes [5] - 2038:10, 2038:14,
2029:22, 2031:17, 2036:22, 2037:1,
matters [1] - 2067:21 2038:20, 2038:24, 2064:3
2047:8, 2068:5
McCullough [1] - 1991:16 misleading [1] - 2031:18
listed [1] - 2042:15
MCW [2] - 2029:4, 2029:7 missed [1] - 1999:20
LLP [2] - 1991:20, 1991:23
MD [1] - 1991:21 mix [1] - 2068:10
log [1] - 2014:13
mean [5] - 1996:18, 2030:13, 2038:18, models [1] - 2023:24
look [30] - 1994:19, 1995:8, 1996:4,
2048:11, 2063:17 MOJ [1] - 1996:22
1996:15, 1998:24, 1999:7, 2011:6,
meaningful [1] - 2070:6 Molly [1] - 1991:13
2013:21, 2016:23, 2017:6, 2018:15,
meaningfully [1] - 2069:10 moment [3] - 1994:16, 2030:21,
2023:3, 2023:4, 2024:22, 2025:4,
meant [1] - 2031:25 2031:25
2027:13, 2028:24, 2029:1, 2030:10,
media [17] - 2021:15, 2022:15, Monday [2] - 2068:17, 2069:4
2030:21, 2032:7, 2034:3, 2039:22,
2027:11, 2035:22, 2036:4, 2037:2, months [2] - 2024:5, 2030:16
2039:25, 2040:25, 2041:13, 2051:4,
2041:25, 2044:13, 2044:14, 2044:16, morning [6] - 2043:18, 2045:15,
2055:22, 2058:2, 2067:17
2044:24, 2045:3, 2045:11, 2048:13, 2046:24, 2047:9, 2051:15, 2067:20
looked [3] - 1999:6, 2035:24, 2058:20
2050:24, 2051:11, 2058:16
looking [5] - 1994:17, 1998:25, most [5] - 2003:15, 2009:11, 2043:13,
meet [1] - 2025:8
2003:15, 2017:21, 2051:14 2065:9, 2068:15
meeting [35] - 2019:13, 2019:17, motivated [5] - 1998:12, 2009:15,
looks [1] - 2041:17
2020:20, 2020:23, 2021:20, 2021:22, 2009:22, 2010:12, 2011:19
looming [1] - 2070:2
2022:5, 2022:16, 2023:5, 2023:9,
lower [6] - 2012:17, 2016:10, 2018:17, motivation [2] - 1994:18, 2010:3
2023:13, 2023:18, 2023:19, 2024:10,
2029:1, 2034:20, 2039:25 mouth [2] - 2056:5, 2057:25
2024:15, 2024:16, 2024:19, 2024:20,
Lyovochkin [1] - 2015:12 move [3] - 2016:4, 2047:23, 2059:11
2024:23, 2025:1, 2025:12, 2025:20,
MR [79] - 1997:13, 1997:16, 1997:20,
2025:22, 2025:23, 2026:1, 2026:5,
M 2027:9, 2035:17, 2044:19, 2048:1,
1999:1, 2001:16, 2001:18, 2001:20,
2002:2, 2006:11, 2006:15, 2010:20,
2048:16, 2050:8, 2054:13, 2060:10,
ma'am [1] - 2059:1
2080
2011:21, 2011:25, 2012:21, 2016:6, needed [2] - 2049:19, 2049:24 1991:14, 1991:16
2016:19, 2021:4, 2021:6, 2021:8, needle [1] - 2070:21 offense [1] - 2003:4
2024:13, 2031:1, 2031:4, 2031:7, never [8] - 2017:22, 2023:15, 2023:25, offered [2] - 2002:18, 2057:21
2031:10, 2035:14, 2042:17, 2042:19, 2034:15, 2060:12, 2060:16, 2060:18 Office [1] - 2047:6
2046:4, 2047:23, 2047:25, 2049:8, nevertheless [2] - 2018:11, 2019:9 office [1] - 2054:13
2051:23, 2052:3, 2052:5, 2052:6, new [2] - 2008:10, 2040:8 OFFICE [1] - 1991:13
2053:6, 2053:8, 2053:10, 2053:16, New [2] - 2021:8, 2037:3 officials [2] - 2014:11, 2030:2
2054:2, 2054:10, 2056:8, 2056:14, news [2] - 2067:16, 2067:17 often [1] - 2048:13
2056:17, 2056:21, 2056:22, 2057:7, next [25] - 1996:23, 1997:9, 2000:17, once [1] - 2067:15
2057:9, 2057:13, 2058:5, 2058:9, 2000:19, 2003:25, 2004:1, 2004:11, one [38] - 1996:2, 1998:20, 1999:6,
2059:3, 2059:4, 2059:23, 2060:3, 2004:17, 2004:25, 2005:23, 2008:4, 2003:25, 2004:11, 2004:17, 2004:25,
2060:6, 2061:1, 2061:8, 2061:15, 2008:20, 2014:10, 2023:7, 2026:14, 2005:10, 2005:23, 2006:25, 2007:2,
2061:18, 2062:25, 2063:8, 2064:14, 2032:13, 2034:10, 2036:13, 2036:25, 2008:4, 2008:20, 2013:18, 2015:9,
2064:18, 2065:5, 2066:10, 2066:16, 2037:3, 2047:22, 2052:4, 2052:5, 2015:12, 2016:23, 2017:15, 2019:12,
2066:22, 2066:24, 2067:2, 2068:9, 2059:2, 2066:7 2027:18, 2029:3, 2038:19, 2040:8,
2068:14, 2068:22, 2068:25, 2069:3, nice [1] - 2011:23 2042:7, 2042:10, 2042:14, 2044:18,
2069:7, 2070:3, 2070:14, 2070:16 night [2] - 2021:6, 2021:8 2049:23, 2051:12, 2055:20, 2055:24,
MS [92] - 1994:10, 1994:14, 1996:6, nobody [3] - 2032:3, 2049:20, 2056:4 2055:25, 2056:23, 2056:25, 2059:13,
1996:8, 1997:15, 1997:23, 1997:24, non [1] - 2063:12 2068:6
1998:19, 1998:23, 1999:3, 1999:5, non-hearsay [1] - 2063:12 ones [1] - 2058:17
1999:14, 1999:19, 1999:22, 1999:23, none [2] - 2015:22, 2057:23 open [5] - 2002:8, 2007:13, 2033:14,
2000:3, 2000:5, 2001:25, 2002:6, 2058:8, 2066:9
nonetheless [1] - 2055:19
2002:9, 2003:23, 2003:24, 2005:9, open-ended [1] - 2007:13
note [3] - 2013:8, 2065:8, 2069:21
2005:18, 2005:22, 2006:17, 2006:24, operating [1] - 2028:14
notes [3] - 2023:4, 2023:10, 2050:2
2007:3, 2007:6, 2007:8, 2011:1, opine [1] - 2009:21
nothing [2] - 2024:25, 2042:5
2011:6, 2011:8, 2011:23, 2012:10,
notice [2] - 1994:21, 2029:2 opinion [4] - 2001:14, 2002:16,
2012:22, 2012:23, 2016:4, 2016:9,
notified [1] - 2041:2 2003:7, 2056:2
2016:25, 2017:4, 2017:5, 2019:24,
notion [1] - 2032:14 opinions [1] - 2055:11
2020:1, 2021:10, 2024:24, 2025:3,
November [1] - 2039:12 opponent [1] - 2009:16
2026:22, 2026:24, 2027:2, 2027:8,
NR [1] - 1996:16 opportunity [2] - 2003:10, 2020:19
2031:3, 2031:6, 2031:20, 2031:22,
nuanced [1] - 2057:24 opposed [2] - 2042:24, 2046:8
2032:2, 2032:22, 2033:12, 2033:15,
number [6] - 2001:1, 2008:22, opposition [1] - 2009:19
2035:8, 2035:10, 2035:16, 2038:9,
2019:21, 2023:23, 2043:5, 2044:13 order [5] - 1995:23, 2007:18, 2009:16,
2038:16, 2039:6, 2042:4, 2042:9,
Number [1] - 2039:1 2042:12, 2068:23
2042:14, 2047:21, 2049:1, 2051:18,
numbers [1] - 2034:22 ordinary [1] - 2070:4
2052:20, 2055:6, 2055:14, 2055:18,
NW [4] - 1991:14, 1991:17, 1991:24, organized [3] - 2000:15, 2006:20,
2055:22, 2058:23, 2059:8, 2059:11,
1992:4 2025:11
2059:20, 2060:9, 2060:12, 2060:15,
2061:5, 2061:9, 2061:14, 2061:16, original [1] - 2037:17
2061:25, 2062:20, 2066:8, 2067:9, O out-of-court [3] - 2057:19, 2057:20
2068:13 outlet [1] - 2036:15
multiple [3] - 2042:7, 2042:8, 2042:9 oath [1] - 1994:7 outlined [1] - 2023:24
Murphy [1] - 1991:19 object [4] - 2016:19, 2032:6, 2053:11, outreach [2] - 2027:16, 2037:1
MURPHY [3] - 2021:4, 2021:6, 2021:8 2057:3 outside [1] - 2015:6
must [1] - 2008:13 objected [2] - 2053:14, 2061:18 overly [1] - 2068:17
Myers [2] - 2037:4, 2037:14 objection [27] - 1997:13, 1997:19, overturn [1] - 2010:3
2005:6, 2006:11, 2010:20, 2011:21, own [4] - 2017:19, 2059:16, 2063:22,
Myers' [1] - 2037:18
2011:25, 2016:6, 2024:13, 2031:1, 2070:12
2035:14, 2047:21, 2049:1, 2051:18,
N 2052:20, 2053:14, 2053:19, 2054:23, P
name [12] - 2021:24, 2037:18, 2055:5, 2058:23, 2059:8, 2059:20,
2043:15, 2046:2, 2050:23, 2051:16, 2064:25, 2065:9, 2066:3, 2067:13 p.m [2] - 2021:6, 2070:25
2051:21, 2052:8, 2056:18, 2058:17, Objection [1] - 1997:16 P.M [1] - 1994:2
2064:15, 2065:17 objectionable [1] - 2062:2 package [1] - 2042:10
narrow [1] - 2010:1 objective [2] - 2007:19, 2009:23 packet [1] - 2041:11
nature [1] - 2055:3 obviously [1] - 2069:12 PAGE [1] - 1993:5
necessarily [1] - 2065:24 occasion [3] - 1998:2, 1998:4, 2043:4 page [46] - 1994:19, 1994:20, 1996:23,
necessary [1] - 2003:3 occurred [2] - 2023:19, 2054:3 1997:9, 1998:9, 1998:24, 1998:25,
need [5] - 2032:7, 2038:18, 2055:10, October [5] - 2036:21, 2039:10, 1999:7, 2000:12, 2000:16, 2000:17,
2057:23, 2058:2 2050:5, 2051:14, 2058:17 2000:19, 2000:23, 2001:5, 2001:8,
OF [5] - 1991:1, 1991:3, 1991:9, 2010:10, 2011:6, 2012:17, 2013:7,
2081
2013:19, 2014:10, 2014:13, 2021:12, phrase [1] - 2017:4 presentation [1] - 2008:20
2021:13, 2023:5, 2023:8, 2028:5, physical [1] - 2050:25 presented [1] - 2007:16
2028:6, 2029:1, 2030:21, 2031:3, picked [1] - 2004:3 presenting [1] - 2006:21
2034:10, 2034:20, 2036:13, 2036:25, piece [1] - 2065:19 President [2] - 2015:13, 2019:6
2037:2, 2037:3, 2041:18, 2041:19, pieces [1] - 1995:4 presidential [1] - 2009:18
2041:20, 2042:6, 2042:13, 2051:12 Pinchuk [1] - 2043:25 presumption [1] - 2028:15
pages [3] - 2004:22, 2005:10, 2041:15 PJM [1] - 1996:16 pretty [4] - 1995:6, 2018:5, 2041:2,
pages' [1] - 2020:2 place [2] - 2021:20, 2064:2 2041:17
paid [2] - 2015:1, 2044:1 placeholder [2] - 2037:19, 2037:20 previous [2] - 1996:2, 2011:4
paper [5] - 1995:13, 1999:25, 2019:20, plan [19] - 1999:13, 2002:5, 2010:24, previously [1] - 2025:23
2041:13, 2065:19 2022:15, 2022:23, 2022:25, 2028:22, primarily [1] - 2027:20
paragraph [2] - 2003:14, 2006:14 2029:11, 2036:8, 2037:22, 2038:5, primary [1] - 2048:12
pardon [3] - 1997:15, 2020:4, 2029:16 2039:20, 2041:25, 2044:16, 2044:24, Prime [2] - 2017:18, 2043:7
part [12] - 2009:20, 2012:17, 2018:17, 2045:3, 2045:11, 2061:3 principles [1] - 2057:12
2020:23, 2022:15, 2023:21, 2023:23, plans [5] - 2027:11, 2044:14, 2050:24, print [1] - 2042:12
2025:14, 2034:21, 2037:12, 2047:11, 2058:16 printed [1] - 2042:9
2051:9 pleadings [1] - 2069:17 private [1] - 2040:16
participate [2] - 2064:9, 2064:10 pleasant [1] - 2068:1 problem [2] - 2055:8, 2056:20
participated [1] - 2060:7 Podesta [12] - 2036:11, 2037:7, problematic [1] - 2007:17
particular [2] - 2015:10, 2059:15 2037:9, 2045:15, 2045:19, 2045:21, proceed [1] - 2069:12
particularly [3] - 2027:25, 2038:2, 2046:1, 2046:3, 2046:10, 2046:16 proceeding [1] - 2008:21
2043:7 point [16] - 1995:1, 2017:25, 2028:14, Proceedings [2] - 1992:5, 2070:25
parties [3] - 1997:11, 1997:25, 2003:1 2030:12, 2031:13, 2031:24, 2033:1, proceedings [2] - 2008:10, 2067:22
pass [8] - 2062:13, 2062:17, 2062:18, 2033:5, 2033:6, 2035:25, 2037:22, process [5] - 2003:18, 2004:15,
2062:24, 2063:4, 2063:6, 2066:19 2048:4, 2048:12, 2049:16, 2066:4, 2028:1, 2047:12, 2051:9
past [1] - 2058:3 2069:20 produced [1] - 1992:6
pasted [1] - 2016:11 pointed [1] - 2033:16 project [8] - 1998:7, 2013:23, 2013:24,
path [1] - 2049:22 points [3] - 2001:1, 2004:22, 2024:4 2013:25, 2024:4, 2043:3, 2043:17,
patience [1] - 2057:9 political [10] - 1994:18, 2009:11, 2043:24
PATRICIA [1] - 1992:3 2009:16, 2009:23, 2009:24, 2010:2, Project [1] - 1996:16
Paul [4] - 1996:18, 2025:12, 2040:5, 2034:12, 2034:19, 2035:22, 2035:25 proposed [2] - 1998:9, 2037:1
2064:14 politically [5] - 1998:11, 2009:15, prosecution [8] - 1999:8, 2009:9,
Paul's [1] - 2025:8 2009:22, 2010:11, 2011:19 2009:11, 2009:15, 2009:17, 2009:22,
Paula [1] - 1991:23 popping [1] - 2061:6 2010:1, 2064:24
Pause [1] - 2066:23 portion [6] - 1994:17, 2016:10, 2029:1, Prosecutor's [1] - 2047:6
pay [1] - 2067:16 2039:25, 2041:22, 2065:9 proved [1] - 2069:14
payment [2] - 2044:1, 2044:4 portions [1] - 2005:3 provided [5] - 1994:22, 2010:2,
pdf [6] - 1998:24, 2000:12, 2000:23, posed [1] - 2070:22 2011:12, 2042:1, 2045:5
2021:13, 2028:6, 2028:24 position [2] - 2044:9, 2048:6 providing [1] - 2013:17
pdfs [1] - 2042:11 positions [1] - 2054:17 purpose [5] - 2015:14, 2024:18,
Pennsylvania [1] - 1991:17 possibly [2] - 2023:13, 2036:15 2024:20, 2063:11, 2063:12
people [10] - 2021:17, 2032:23, potentially [2] - 2022:7, 2058:20 purposes [2] - 2019:12, 2066:12
2036:11, 2043:13, 2049:25, 2054:24, PR [5] - 2023:5, 2045:12, 2050:10, put [24] - 1997:8, 1997:10, 2005:2,
2054:25, 2055:7, 2063:16 2050:24, 2051:17 2005:25, 2011:7, 2022:20, 2027:18,
people's [1] - 2054:25 practice [1] - 2007:21 2027:20, 2029:20, 2030:20, 2031:19,
percent [1] - 2056:10 Pratt [1] - 1991:20 2032:7, 2032:25, 2033:3, 2033:5,
perfect [1] - 2055:22 precedent [1] - 2009:25 2037:6, 2037:18, 2041:18, 2042:12,
period [3] - 2013:2, 2064:1, 2065:22 precise [1] - 2062:1 2050:23, 2054:7, 2054:11, 2064:15,
permit [1] - 2009:1 precisely [1] - 2065:21 2064:20
permitted [4] - 2008:25, 2057:13, prejudice [2] - 2005:7, 2005:16 puts [1] - 2061:3
2065:10, 2065:21 preparation [1] - 1998:3 putting [1] - 2029:17
person [10] - 2027:1, 2028:8, 2037:3, prepare [2] - 2003:11, 2003:16
2044:8, 2045:22, 2049:23, 2053:3, prepared [3] - 2010:9, 2027:22, Q
2058:11, 2064:21, 2064:22 2041:12
personal [3] - 2043:9, 2046:8, 2059:16 preparing [1] - 1996:1 QNA [1] - 1996:22
personalized [1] - 2043:15 presence [1] - 2060:21 quarter [1] - 2067:24
personally [5] - 2024:2, 2030:7, present [10] - 1994:4, 1994:5, 2006:19, questions [19] - 2018:19, 2031:9,
2032:10, 2032:21, 2061:2 2009:3, 2009:6, 2038:22, 2039:5, 2042:20, 2043:19, 2044:13, 2044:14,
Philip [1] - 2029:14 2048:16, 2053:1, 2068:3 2045:15, 2045:17, 2046:23, 2048:3,
phone [2] - 2056:8, 2060:7 2048:8, 2056:12, 2060:1, 2062:15,
2082
2063:7, 2064:5, 2066:6, 2067:2 refined [1] - 2068:4 2008:10, 2008:15, 2018:10
quick [1] - 2034:8 reflect [1] - 2011:12 represented [1] - 2008:13
quickly [1] - 2041:2 reflected [1] - 2050:2 reprisal [1] - 2009:15
quite [1] - 2005:8 reflects [1] - 2032:14 request [3] - 2004:12, 2008:23,
quoting [1] - 1999:11 refresh [1] - 2051:15 2008:24
refreshing [1] - 2052:1 requested [1] - 2015:7
R refusal [1] - 2009:3 requirements [1] - 2003:3
refused [2] - 2004:19, 2009:1 requires [1] - 2008:12
raft [1] - 2041:9 regardless [1] - 2054:3 respect [3] - 2035:22, 2048:13,
raise [1] - 2005:15 regime [1] - 2009:17 2061:20
raised [3] - 2005:5, 2019:1, 2056:16 related [3] - 1996:2, 2001:3, 2050:24 respects [1] - 2009:19
raises [2] - 2006:6, 2007:24 relationship [2] - 2022:7, 2022:14 response [1] - 2018:24
rarely [1] - 2007:20 relay [1] - 2048:15 responsibilities [1] - 2013:18
rather [3] - 2007:4, 2020:3, 2020:5 relayed [1] - 2061:3 responsibility [1] - 2034:22
re [1] - 2039:1 release [2] - 2017:25, 2030:17 responsive [3] - 2054:20, 2054:21,
re-calling [1] - 2039:1 released [5] - 1998:1, 2030:19, 2056:16
reach [2] - 2028:15, 2037:22 2039:7, 2039:14, 2039:18 rest [1] - 2069:3
reached [1] - 2059:14 relevance [1] - 2033:5 result [2] - 2005:9, 2005:17
reaches [2] - 2063:18, 2065:22 relevant [2] - 2056:3, 2057:16 resume [3] - 1994:9, 2038:20, 2038:24
reaching [3] - 2037:25, 2038:1, 2038:2 reluctance [1] - 2023:22 REV [1] - 1996:17
react [2] - 2017:16, 2065:3 remain [1] - 2032:6 reversal [2] - 2048:9, 2049:13
read [20] - 1995:19, 1995:21, 1995:22, remember [1] - 2048:5 reverse [1] - 2003:19
1995:24, 1997:6, 2002:16, 2003:20, remind [1] - 1994:6 reversed [1] - 2035:12
2005:12, 2006:13, 2006:16, 2007:3, removal [2] - 2005:1, 2005:15 reversing [2] - 2025:19, 2048:6
2007:4, 2008:6, 2009:10, 2011:15, removals [1] - 2005:13 review [4] - 2006:6, 2007:24, 2024:21,
2011:19, 2012:12, 2020:19, 2031:22, remove [1] - 2009:23 2028:6
2034:8 render [1] - 2003:7 reviewed [1] - 2020:22
reading [3] - 2001:23, 2002:4, 2006:19 renew [1] - 2059:20 revised [2] - 2011:2, 2036:12
real [1] - 2034:8 repeat [2] - 2017:3, 2035:15 revisions [3] - 1996:18, 1996:19,
realize [1] - 2012:2 repeats [4] - 2014:13, 2021:14, 2011:13
really [2] - 2062:4, 2067:9 2021:16 RICHARD [2] - 1993:3, 1994:11
reason [6] - 2018:21, 2043:1, 2053:4, repetition [2] - 2033:8, 2033:10 rights [1] - 2017:19
2058:18, 2058:19 rephrase [1] - 2016:25 risk [1] - 2007:17
reasons [1] - 2055:20 replowing [1] - 2032:17 risks [1] - 2033:7
recapitulation [1] - 2032:18 report [60] - 1994:18, 1995:2, 1995:4, RMR [1] - 1992:3
receive [1] - 2045:4 1995:7, 1995:10, 1995:16, 1995:20, rollout [1] - 2045:3
received [3] - 2042:2, 2045:2, 2054:14 1995:21, 1995:22, 1995:24, 1995:25, room [3] - 2005:2, 2054:24, 2067:23
receiving [2] - 2020:7, 2043:6 1996:3, 1997:1, 1997:11, 1998:1, Room [1] - 1992:3
Recess [1] - 2038:25 1998:11, 1998:16, 1998:18, 1999:4, Rule [1] - 2069:10
recognize [1] - 2016:1 1999:15, 1999:17, 2000:7, 2000:13, ruled [2] - 2054:9
recollection [6] - 2020:24, 2022:2, 2000:14, 2000:15, 2001:9, 2001:10, rules [1] - 2070:21
2051:15, 2051:19, 2052:1, 2055:23 2001:21, 2001:24, 2002:5, 2004:6, ruling [1] - 2009:17
recommended [1] - 2057:14 2006:20, 2006:22, 2006:23, 2009:20, run [3] - 2001:13, 2064:21
record [8] - 2003:18, 2007:17, 2009:21, 2010:7, 2010:11, 2010:18,
2009:25, 2045:25, 2053:10, 2054:11, 2011:16, 2011:18, 2012:13, 2016:17, S
2054:23, 2064:6 2017:8, 2017:14, 2018:1, 2018:4,
RECROSS [1] - 1993:2 2030:13, 2030:18, 2039:7, 2040:9, SA [4] - 2027:16, 2031:15, 2033:22,
recurring [1] - 2070:1 2041:21, 2041:22, 2042:2, 2049:20, 2040:9
redirect [5] - 2042:16, 2049:4, 2049:25, 2051:12, 2064:20, 2064:21 safer [1] - 2043:11
2053:18, 2054:22, 2058:3 Report [3] - 2010:15, 2040:3, 2044:9 SANCHEZ [54] - 1997:13, 1997:16,
REDIRECT [2] - 1993:2, 2042:18 report's [1] - 2024:21 1997:20, 1999:1, 2001:16, 2001:18,
reduced [1] - 2022:19 reported [2] - 1992:5, 2053:1 2001:20, 2002:2, 2006:11, 2006:15,
refer [1] - 2015:3 reporter [7] - 2017:16, 2017:17, 2010:20, 2011:21, 2011:25, 2016:6,
reference [3] - 2014:24, 2045:11, 2022:1, 2022:6, 2026:1, 2029:8, 2016:19, 2024:13, 2031:1, 2031:4,
2047:2 2036:15 2031:7, 2031:10, 2035:14, 2042:17,
referenced [1] - 2015:13 Reporter [1] - 1992:3 2042:19, 2046:4, 2047:23, 2047:25,
referred [1] - 2019:6 reporters [1] - 2058:20 2049:8, 2051:23, 2052:3, 2052:5,
referring [1] - 2051:6 represent [1] - 2049:19 2052:6, 2056:8, 2056:14, 2056:17,
refers [1] - 2013:23 representation [5] - 2008:5, 2008:8, 2056:21, 2058:9, 2059:3, 2059:4,
2059:23, 2060:3, 2060:6, 2061:1,
2083
2061:8, 2061:15, 2061:18, 2062:25, September [18] - 1995:9, 1996:9, speaking [1] - 2013:16
2066:10, 2066:16, 2066:22, 2066:24, 1996:10, 1999:7, 2000:6, 2002:11, Special [1] - 2047:6
2067:2, 2068:9, 2068:14, 2068:22 2010:8, 2012:20, 2012:22, 2015:25, specific [9] - 1998:17, 2010:2, 2022:6,
Sanchez [1] - 1991:12 2018:2, 2027:13, 2028:20, 2030:9, 2024:8, 2026:12, 2055:10, 2055:11,
Sanger [26] - 2014:8, 2021:24, 2022:4, 2035:18, 2039:8, 2050:5, 2063:25 2058:19, 2063:3
2022:6, 2022:10, 2023:1, 2026:1, Session [1] - 1991:5 specifically [6] - 2022:18, 2024:5,
2026:4, 2028:16, 2036:18, 2037:23, SESSION [2] - 1991:9, 1994:1 2024:6, 2043:14, 2050:18, 2060:20
2041:22, 2050:23, 2051:16, 2052:15, set [2] - 2034:22, 2040:2 specifics [1] - 2037:24
2053:3, 2056:18, 2057:4, 2059:5, sets [2] - 2013:5, 2042:20 staff [1] - 2015:13
2060:13, 2061:11, 2062:5, 2062:12, setup [1] - 2034:21 stage [5] - 2008:21, 2028:17, 2037:21,
2063:19, 2063:20, 2066:18 several [1] - 2000:20 2037:24, 2038:6
sanger [12] - 2051:8, 2052:19, shared [3] - 2029:25, 2045:8, 2050:13 stakeholder [1] - 2015:3
2056:13, 2058:11, 2059:14, 2060:16, sharp [1] - 2002:17 stakeholders [5] - 2015:1, 2034:12,
2060:21, 2061:21, 2062:13, 2062:18, short [6] - 2019:7, 2044:15, 2056:11, 2034:19, 2035:22, 2035:25
2065:22, 2066:25 2067:7, 2067:9, 2068:16 stand [1] - 2066:1
Sanger's [4] - 2052:8, 2058:17, short-circuit [1] - 2056:11 standard [2] - 2070:12, 2070:13
2064:15, 2065:16 shorter [1] - 2058:10 standards [8] - 2004:8, 2006:3,
satisfy [1] - 2003:3 shorthand [1] - 1992:5 2007:15, 2007:21, 2008:12, 2008:14,
Saturday [2] - 2021:6, 2021:8 shortly [1] - 2024:16 2009:4, 2010:4
Saunders [1] - 2052:12 show [1] - 2031:4 standing [1] - 2006:18
saw [1] - 2051:1 showed [4] - 2011:5, 2013:15, start [3] - 2017:18, 2042:20, 2067:22
scenario [1] - 2016:18 2037:18, 2051:21 started [1] - 2054:17
scope [2] - 2003:4, 2059:12 shown [4] - 2050:1, 2050:3, 2051:11, starts [2] - 2000:23, 2001:9
scribes [1] - 2069:21 2058:16 state [1] - 2057:17
scroll [2] - 2012:17, 2036:25 shows [2] - 1995:9, 2000:6 statement [9] - 1998:9, 1998:16,
scrutiny [1] - 2009:19 side [2] - 2032:16, 2064:12 1998:17, 2054:18, 2057:15, 2057:19,
seated [1] - 1994:8 sides [3] - 2032:16, 2069:22, 2070:23 2057:20, 2057:21, 2057:22
second [4] - 1998:20, 2000:14, sides' [1] - 2033:6 statements [5] - 1997:10, 1997:25,
2002:24, 2016:23 significantly [1] - 2018:5 1998:2, 1998:3, 1998:5
secret [1] - 2064:12 silence [1] - 2009:16 States [3] - 2028:7, 2028:8, 2039:2
section [2] - 1997:7, 2033:17 simply [2] - 2057:2, 2062:4 STATES [3] - 1991:1, 1991:3, 1991:10
see [16] - 1994:24, 1995:23, 1997:5, simultaneously [1] - 1995:6 statutory [1] - 2003:4
1998:14, 2000:14, 2000:15, 2010:13, single [2] - 2055:25, 2056:1 stenotype [1] - 1992:5
2012:24, 2017:8, 2017:14, 2034:13, sit [3] - 2047:17, 2050:22, 2052:7 step [1] - 1999:16
2036:22, 2040:10, 2041:6, 2051:24, sitting [1] - 2005:14 steps [1] - 2007:18
2054:25 situation [1] - 2049:7 Steven [2] - 2037:3, 2037:14
seed [1] - 2022:8 SKA [1] - 2014:4 sticking [1] - 2030:22
seeded [1] - 2063:2 Skadden [18] - 2003:6, 2010:15, still [13] - 1994:6, 1995:1, 1995:3,
seeding [2] - 2051:9, 2066:13 2014:4, 2017:16, 2018:7, 2033:22, 1995:4, 1997:18, 2001:20, 2022:21,
seem [1] - 1999:13 2040:3, 2040:17, 2042:24, 2043:6, 2022:22, 2030:22, 2036:2, 2036:14,
segments [1] - 2034:6 2043:11, 2043:13, 2043:23, 2044:2, 2037:20, 2067:22
selection [2] - 2004:1, 2004:7 2044:4, 2044:9, 2045:9, 2049:19 stipulation [1] - 2021:2
selective [4] - 1999:8, 2009:9, Skadden's [1] - 2043:20 stood [1] - 2065:1
2009:11, 2010:1 skip [1] - 2057:2 stop [1] - 2062:19
send [6] - 2013:14, 2018:21, 2040:19, slash [1] - 2034:24 story [3] - 2022:8, 2036:15
2042:3, 2044:16, 2061:10 slightly [1] - 2052:1 Street [3] - 1991:14, 1991:20, 1991:24
sending [4] - 1996:14, 2012:20, snipe [1] - 2012:2 strike [5] - 2020:6, 2023:3, 2044:21,
2018:20, 2040:2 solve [1] - 2056:20 2046:17, 2059:11
sensitive [1] - 2043:6 someone [8] - 2010:22, 2035:2, stuff [3] - 2015:15, 2015:17, 2020:2
sent [18] - 1994:20, 1994:21, 2000:7, 2052:25, 2057:5, 2059:14, 2060:20, subject [7] - 2007:10, 2024:9,
2000:10, 2013:15, 2016:3, 2020:12, 2060:21 2026:12, 2026:16, 2026:20, 2027:3,
2020:15, 2021:3, 2040:15, 2040:22, somewhere [1] - 2050:19 2064:18
2041:8, 2041:9, 2042:21, 2044:18, soon [1] - 2018:3 submitted [1] - 2067:19
2044:23, 2060:14, 2063:19 sorry [12] - 1996:6, 2001:18, 2006:13, submitting [2] - 2069:22
sentence [1] - 2005:12 2025:24, 2035:15, 2037:12, 2039:23, substantially [1] - 2004:21
sentencing [3] - 2006:5, 2007:13, 2039:24, 2046:3, 2057:10, 2060:9, suffer [1] - 2005:16
2007:24 2068:14 suffered [1] - 2005:7
separate [3] - 2007:16, 2042:11, sort [2] - 2013:4, 2016:16 sufficiency [2] - 2069:5, 2070:6
2050:13 SPAEDER [2] - 1991:20, 1991:23 sufficient [1] - 2010:3
separation [1] - 2065:14
2084
suggested [1] - 2059:7 2038:11, 2038:17, 2038:23, 2039:1, true [1] - 2058:1
suggesting [2] - 2032:3, 2033:7 2039:3, 2042:6, 2042:8, 2042:11, Trump [3] - 2024:11, 2024:15, 2027:9
suggestion [1] - 2007:16 2042:16, 2045:25, 2046:3, 2047:22, truth [3] - 2052:24, 2053:25, 2057:21
Suite [2] - 1991:21, 1991:24 2049:2, 2049:6, 2051:20, 2051:25, try [4] - 2012:2, 2036:6, 2058:10,
summarize [1] - 2004:12 2052:4, 2052:21, 2052:23, 2053:7, 2067:17
summarizes [1] - 1997:4 2053:9, 2053:13, 2053:17, 2054:8, trying [11] - 2006:18, 2006:19,
summary [7] - 1997:6, 2000:24, 2054:11, 2055:12, 2055:15, 2055:19, 2006:24, 2012:4, 2027:1, 2032:5,
2005:20, 2006:12, 2006:22, 2007:15, 2056:4, 2056:11, 2056:15, 2056:19, 2051:23, 2056:17, 2057:2, 2057:9,
2010:8 2056:24, 2057:8, 2057:11, 2057:19, 2062:1
superb [1] - 2069:21 2058:7, 2058:24, 2059:1, 2059:2, turn [14] - 1995:10, 1996:14, 1997:9,
supports [1] - 2064:13 2059:10, 2059:13, 2059:18, 2059:19, 2000:12, 2012:15, 2013:7, 2013:19,
supposed [2] - 2058:25, 2063:20 2059:21, 2059:25, 2060:4, 2060:10, 2015:23, 2016:3, 2017:24, 2018:23,
supposedly [1] - 2029:13 2060:14, 2060:19, 2061:12, 2061:19, 2032:7, 2036:13, 2036:20
sustained [1] - 2064:25 2062:7, 2062:23, 2063:3, 2063:15, two [11] - 2003:21, 2005:13, 2009:1,
sworn [1] - 1994:12 2064:17, 2064:19, 2065:13, 2066:14, 2027:21, 2035:20, 2059:25, 2064:4,
2066:15, 2067:4, 2067:7, 2067:11, 2064:5, 2064:7, 2064:13, 2065:14
2068:4, 2068:12, 2068:18, 2068:24, Tymoshenko [14] - 1998:11, 2003:8,
T 2069:2, 2069:6, 2069:18, 2070:8, 2003:11, 2004:19, 2006:3, 2007:10,
table [1] - 2000:17 2070:15, 2070:17 2007:22, 2008:7, 2008:21, 2009:2,
tactics [1] - 2004:21 theme [1] - 2070:1 2009:14, 2010:2, 2010:11, 2043:8
tailored [1] - 2058:3 thereafter [1] - 2065:16 Tymoshenko's [3] - 2004:2, 2007:14,
talks [2] - 2001:2, 2034:21 thinking [1] - 2065:2 2009:6
tall [1] - 2067:7 third [1] - 2003:10 typed [1] - 2035:6
targeted [1] - 2056:12 thousand [1] - 2064:19
TAYLOR [22] - 2012:21, 2053:6, threading [1] - 2070:20 U
2053:8, 2053:10, 2053:16, 2054:2, three [4] - 2003:22, 2003:23, 2029:19,
2054:10, 2056:22, 2057:7, 2057:9, 2063:7 U.S [6] - 1991:13, 1991:16, 1992:3,
2057:13, 2058:5, 2063:8, 2064:14, throughout [2] - 2024:4, 2030:16 2021:7, 2021:15, 2027:25
2064:18, 2065:5, 2068:25, 2069:3, tightly [1] - 2062:8 UK [2] - 2020:14, 2020:15
2069:7, 2070:3, 2070:14, 2070:16 tired [1] - 2025:24 Ukraine [10] - 2001:3, 2004:14,
Taylor [2] - 1991:22, 2053:13 today [6] - 2044:14, 2047:17, 2050:22, 2009:24, 2017:18, 2019:6, 2030:20,
team [8] - 2013:23, 2013:24, 2013:25, 2051:1, 2052:7, 2055:23 2035:2, 2046:11, 2046:14, 2046:21
2045:9, 2052:14, 2053:21, 2055:4 together [6] - 1997:10, 2027:18, Ukraine's [2] - 2017:19, 2044:8
template [1] - 2027:21 2027:20, 2050:20, 2062:2, 2065:15 Ukrainian [4] - 2002:25, 2003:2,
tender [1] - 2065:9 tomorrow [3] - 2067:20, 2068:23, 2003:8, 2008:11
tensions [1] - 2012:3 2069:4 ultimately [1] - 2059:5
tenure [1] - 2004:7 ton [1] - 2063:16 under [13] - 1994:7, 2001:1, 2002:25,
terms [1] - 2028:2 Tony [4] - 2029:14, 2045:21, 2046:3, 2003:8, 2006:2, 2007:9, 2007:15,
territory [1] - 2032:17 2046:16 2007:21, 2008:14, 2009:4, 2010:4,
testified [1] - 1994:12 took [2] - 2021:20, 2064:2 2016:13, 2023:5
testify [6] - 2009:1, 2009:2, 2053:23, top [4] - 2012:16, 2018:25, 2030:2, undermined [1] - 2009:3
2060:22, 2063:14, 2067:8 2051:5 underscore [1] - 2070:17
testimony [6] - 2032:18, 2054:3, totally [1] - 2062:2 understood [3] - 2003:6, 2026:12,
2055:9, 2061:19, 2064:6, 2064:14 Tower [3] - 2024:11, 2024:16, 2027:9 2036:3
THE [137] - 1991:1, 1991:9, 1991:13, track [1] - 1999:21 undertaken [1] - 2009:16
1994:3, 1994:5, 1996:5, 1997:18, Transcript [1] - 1992:6 undertaking [1] - 2003:7
1997:21, 1998:21, 1999:11, 1999:16, TRANSCRIPT [1] - 1991:9 unfair [1] - 2032:1
1999:20, 2000:2, 2000:4, 2001:17, transcription [1] - 1992:6 unique [1] - 2043:16
2002:4, 2002:7, 2003:22, 2005:8, transmitting [1] - 1999:17 UNITED [3] - 1991:1, 1991:3, 1991:10
2005:12, 2005:20, 2006:13, 2006:21, transpired [1] - 2064:7 United [3] - 2028:7, 2039:2
2007:1, 2007:4, 2007:7, 2010:21, travel [1] - 2014:13 unjustified [1] - 2007:13
2011:4, 2012:1, 2016:7, 2016:21, traveling [1] - 2050:4 unless [1] - 2067:13
2016:23, 2017:2, 2019:23, 2019:25, trial [14] - 1998:11, 2003:15, 2004:21, unlikely [1] - 2003:17
2021:2, 2021:5, 2021:7, 2021:9, 2005:3, 2005:25, 2006:4, 2007:23, unsuccessful [1] - 2009:18
2024:15, 2024:17, 2024:18, 2024:20, 2008:13, 2008:24, 2010:11, 2058:4, untended [1] - 2032:19
2025:1, 2025:2, 2026:20, 2026:23, 2068:2 untimely [1] - 2008:23
2026:25, 2027:3, 2027:5, 2027:6, TRIAL [2] - 1991:5, 1991:9 up [22] - 2000:14, 2011:7, 2012:16,
2027:7, 2031:8, 2031:11, 2031:13, trip [1] - 2050:11 2016:15, 2022:22, 2025:19, 2025:21,
2031:21, 2031:24, 2032:3, 2033:2, trips [1] - 2014:17 2025:23, 2031:19, 2033:19, 2034:22,
2033:13, 2035:6, 2035:9, 2035:15, troubling [1] - 2005:16 2041:18, 2041:21, 2046:22, 2051:21,
2085
2053:17, 2058:2, 2061:6, 2064:3, wish [2] - 2029:22, 2031:17
2065:1, 2066:1, 2070:5 wishes [1] - 2008:12
update [1] - 2028:20 witness [12] - 2038:21, 2054:12,
updated [4] - 2027:21, 2028:12, 2062:20, 2065:3, 2065:20, 2067:4,
2037:11, 2037:13 2067:7, 2067:8, 2067:9, 2068:4,
updates [1] - 2048:14 2068:7, 2068:19
upper [2] - 2013:9, 2041:21 Witness [1] - 2067:6
urge [1] - 2068:1 WITNESS [17] - 1993:2, 2011:4,
useful [1] - 2038:11 2016:23, 2017:2, 2019:25, 2024:17,
utmost [1] - 2069:25 2024:20, 2025:2, 2027:5, 2027:7,
uttered [1] - 2055:23 2035:9, 2042:8, 2046:3, 2049:6,
2059:1, 2059:18, 2066:15
V witnesses [9] - 2008:8, 2008:15,
2008:22, 2008:25, 2009:2, 2009:6,
value [1] - 2032:23 2054:5, 2068:10, 2068:15
van [9] - 2016:3, 2025:15, 2040:13, word [2] - 2002:16, 2055:23
2040:16, 2041:9, 2042:22, 2045:2, words [3] - 2056:5, 2057:25, 2061:9
2045:5, 2045:8 worry [1] - 2022:9
various [4] - 1997:10, 2001:2, worst [1] - 2016:18
2014:11, 2048:14 worst-case [1] - 2016:18
Veritas [1] - 1996:16 worth [2] - 2020:2, 2033:11
version [13] - 2002:10, 2002:13, write [2] - 2010:24, 2065:18
2011:2, 2014:21, 2014:25, 2015:10, written [2] - 2016:17, 2032:1
2015:11, 2018:4, 2028:19, 2028:20, wrote [1] - 2018:21
2030:10, 2036:12, 2037:15
versions [4] - 2014:22, 2044:24, Y
2045:3, 2045:11
view [1] - 2024:12 Yanukovych [1] - 2004:3
viewed [1] - 2008:16 yes-or-no [1] - 2010:23
views [1] - 2069:16 York [2] - 2021:8, 2037:3
vigorously [1] - 2003:1 yourself [6] - 2011:3, 2025:6, 2036:20,
Vin [6] - 2045:23, 2046:5, 2046:6, 2040:1, 2044:16, 2048:5
2056:1, 2065:14
violated [3] - 2004:8, 2008:7, 2017:18 Z
violation [4] - 2003:19, 2004:14,
2008:16, 2054:4 zoom [2] - 2051:5, 2051:13
ZUCKERMAN [2] - 1991:20, 1991:23
W Zwaan [7] - 2016:3, 2025:15, 2040:13,
2041:9, 2045:2, 2045:5, 2045:8
wait [3] - 1999:11, 2005:8, 2035:6 Zwaan's [2] - 2040:16, 2042:22
waived [1] - 2065:6
Washington [5] - 1991:6, 1991:15,
1991:17, 1991:25, 1992:4
wearing [1] - 2032:19
weber [15] - 2029:8, 2050:12, 2051:2,
2052:18, 2055:9, 2056:12, 2056:13,
2057:1, 2057:4, 2057:14, 2058:5,
2058:11, 2058:14, 2058:21, 2065:23
Weber [7] - 2045:23, 2046:5, 2046:6,
2046:13, 2056:1, 2065:15, 2065:18
Weber's [5] - 2055:11, 2056:2, 2056:5,
2057:17, 2057:25
Western [8] - 2004:8, 2006:3, 2007:15,
2007:21, 2008:11, 2008:14, 2009:4
whole [9] - 2006:13, 2006:19, 2008:6,
2020:22, 2029:2, 2031:22, 2033:17,
2041:9, 2070:10
William [2] - 1991:19, 1991:22
willing [6] - 2022:20, 2022:21, 2030:4,
2030:5, 2030:6, 2049:23
Exhibit 3
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2
3 United States of America, ) Criminal Action

) No. 19-CR-018
4 Plaintiff, )
) JURY TRIAL
5 vs. ) Day 5 - Morning Session
)
6 Roger Jason Stone, Jr., ) Washington, DC
) Date: November 12, 2109
7 Defendant ) Time: 9:30 a.m.
___________________________________________________________
8
9 HELD BEFORE
THE HONORABLE JUDGE AMY BERMAN JACKSON
____________________________________________________________
11
12 A P P E A R A N C E S
13
For the Plaintiff: Jonathan Ian Kravis
14 Michael John Marando
Adam Jed
15 Aaron Simcha Jon Zelinsky
U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR THE
(202) 252-7068
18 e-mail: Jonathan.kravis3@usdoj.gov
e-mail: Asjz@usdoj.gov
19 e-mail: Michael.marando@usdoj.gov
20
For the Defendant: Bruce S. Rogow
21 LAW OFFICE OF BRUCE S. ROGOW, P.A.
100 NE 3rd Avenue
22 Suite 1000
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
23 (954) 767-8909
e-mail: Brogow@rogowlaw.com
24
25
1 For the Defendant: Robert C. Buschel

Tara A. Campion
2 BUSCHEL & GIBBONS, P.A.
One Financial Plaza
3 100 S.E. Third Avenue
Suite 1300
4 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33394
(954) 530-5301
5 e-mail: Buschel@bglaw-pa.com
Grant J. Smith
6 STRATEGYSMITH, P.A.
401 East Las Olas Boulevard
7 Suite 130-120
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
8 (954) 328-9064
e-mail: Gsmith@strategysmith.com
9 Chandler Paige Routman
LAW OFFICE OF CHANDLER P. ROUTMAN
10 501 East Las Olas Blvd.
Suite #331
11 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33316
(954) 235-8259
12 e-mail: Routmanc@gmail.com
13 ____________________________________________________________
14 Court Reporter: Janice E. Dickman, RMR, CRR, CRC

15 United States Courthouse, Room 6523
333 Constitution Avenue, NW
202-354-3267
17 e-mail: JaniceDickmanDCD@gmail.com
18 * * *
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1 INDEX
2 Witnesses:
3 Richard Gates
Direct Examination By Mr. Zelinsky.............908
4 Cross-Examination By Mr. Rogow.................947
Redirect Examination By Mr. Zelinsky...........967
5
Michelle Taylor (Recalled)
6 Direct Examination By Mr. Kravis...............969
Cross-Examination By Mr. Rogow.................974
7
8 Exhibits:
Government Exhibit 6-B..............................972
9 Government Exhibit 209..............................977
Government Exhibit 201..............................977
10 Government Exhibit 202..............................977
Government Exhibit 214..............................974
11
12 Plaintiff Rests.........................................979
13 * * *
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1 THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Good morning, Your Honor.
2 This morning we have Criminal Case Number 19-18, United States
3 of America v. Roger Stone. Mr. Stone is present in the
4 courtroom.
5 Counsel, please, approach the lectern, identify
6 yourself for the record.
7 MR. KRAVIS: Good morning, Your Honor.
8 Jonathan Kravis for the United States. With me at counsel
9 table are Aaron Zelinsky, Michael Marando, Adam Jed, and
10 Amanda Rohde, all from the D.C. Attorney's Office, and
11 Christopher Keefe from the FBI.
12 THE COURT: All right. Good morning.
13 MR. BUSCHEL: Good morning, Judge. Robert Buschel,
14 Tara Campion, Grant Smith, Bruce Rogow, and Chandler Routman on
15 behalf of Mr. Stone.
16 THE COURT: Do we have any preliminary matters?
17 MR. KRAVIS: At the conclusion of the government's
18 case, which I expect will likely be this morning, we were
19 intending to recall Ms. Taylor to admit a few more exhibits
20 that we did not get to the first time around.
21 One of the exhibits that we would like to admit is
22 the transcript of the relevant scene of The Godfather II. I
23 think the Court, in its ruling denying our motion in limine on
24 this subject, ruled that we could admit the transcripts. We
25 just want to confirm that we're permitted to do that before we

1 recall Ms. Taylor.
2 THE COURT: All right. And how is it going to be
3 authenticated?
4 MR. KRAVIS: Well, Ms. Taylor has seen the movie
5 several times, including very recently. She has watched the
6 movie with a copy of the transcript in front of her, and she
7 can confirm that the transcript is fair and accurate. We've
8 also sent the transcript we propose to use to defense counsel,
9 I think three times over the last few weeks. I haven't heard
10 any objection from them.
11 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Buschel, I know your
12 objection to its admission on relevance grounds and prejudice
13 grounds is noted, and I've overruled it.
14 Do you have any objection to the accuracy of the
15 transcription.
16 MR. BUSCHEL: We don't have an objection to the
17 accuracy of the transcription. There are some descriptors in
18 there that we object to, like, what is going on, It's a
19 smoke-filled room. I think noting our objection, the Court has
20 noted it.
21 I just want to draw the Court's attention, we found
22 in the transcript, on page 690, that Mr. Credico explained what
23 he felt the movie -- or, what the comment of Frank Pentangeli
24 meant to him, and we believe that's the only relevance.
25 That being said, I think if the government were to

1 remove the descriptors and just put in the words, the
2 transcript of that scene itself, it would be less
3 objectionable.
4 THE COURT: All right. Why don't we do this: Why
5 don't we have her identify the transcript -- the exhibit as a
6 transcript, which she has compared to the scene, and it
7 accurately reflects the words said in the scene, without then
8 publishing it or having it -- read it to the jury at that time.
9 It will then be in evidence, and they'll have it.
10 She's already described the scene anyway, as has
11 Credico, and then I will have an opportunity to look at it and
12 suggest any redactions based on this objection. But I don't
13 think we have to resolve them right now. We can resolve it
14 before we send it back to the jury room.
15 Does that make sense?
16 MR. KRAVIS: That makes sense. Thank you, Your
17 Honor.
18 THE COURT: Okay. So I'll take a look at it with
19 that in mind.
20 All right. Anything before we bring in -- is it
21 Mr. Gates is next?
22 MR. KRAVIS: Mr. Gates is next. Thank you.
23 Nothing further. Thank you, Your Honor.
24 THE COURT: All right. So, let's bring in the jury,
25 then.
1 (Jurors enter the courtroom.)
2 THE COURT: All right. Good morning. I'm glad to
3 see that all the jurors are present. And I know that everyone
4 was on time, again, this morning. It has been a long weekend,
5 and I hope you had a pleasant weekend. Some of it was sunny.
6 But I guess I just want to confirm that none of you
7 has been approached by anyone to discuss the case, none of you
8 have discussed the case or done any research or have any issues
9 that you need to bring to my attention before we proceed.
10 I'm going to assume, since everyone is either shaking
11 their head or nodding their head and no one has raised their
12 hand to speak to me, that your answer to my question is that
13 you have not discussed the case or done any research.
14 And, therefore, I will call on the government to call
15 its next witness.
16 MR. ZELINSKY: The United States calls Rick Gates,
17 Your Honor.
18 RICHARD WILLIAMS GATES, III,
19 was called as a witness and, having been first duly sworn, was
22 BY MR. ZELINSKY:
23 Q. Good morning, sir.
24 A. Good morning.
25 Q. Could you state and spell your name for the record, please?
1 A. Yes. Richard Williams Gates, III. R-I-C-H-A-R-D,
2 W-I-L-L-I-A-M, G-A-T-E-S.
3 Q. Mr. Gates, how old are you?
4 A. 47 years old.
5 Q. Where do you live?
6 A. I live in Richmond, Virginia.
7 Q. What's your educational background?
8 A. I received a bachelor of arts from the College of William &
9 Mary, and then a master of arts from George Washington
10 University.
11 Q. And since graduation, what field have you worked in?
12 A. Largely, political consulting.
13 Q. Can you briefly describe the jobs that you've held?
14 A. Yes. My first job out of college was with a political
15 consulting firm called Black, Manafort, Stone and Kelly.
16 I then went to work for one of their clients for a
17 number of years called Gtech Corporation.
18 Following that, I came back to work with a business
19 partner in a firm called Business Strategies and Insight.
20 And then worked for another company called Scientific
21 Games.
22 And then in 2006, came to work for a firm called
23 Davis Manafort Partners.
24 Q. At the beginning of your employment history, you mentioned
25 a firm named Black, Manafort and Stone; is that right?

1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Who was the "Stone" in Black, Manafort and Stone?
3 A. Mr. Roger Stone.
4 Q. Is that the defendant in this case?
5 A. It is.
6 Q. Did you interact with Mr. Stone when you were employed by
7 Black, Manafort and Stone?
8 A. I did not.
9 Q. And you also mentioned another name there, Manafort.
10 A. Mr. Paul Manafort. He was another one of the primary
11 partners at the firm.
12 Q. You mentioned another firm that you went to work at in 2006
13 called Davis Manafort; is that right?
15 Q. Who is the "Manafort" in Davis Manafort that you went to
16 work at in 2006?
17 A. It's the same, Mr. Paul Manafort.
18 Q. I want to turn your attention now to January of 2016, sir.
19 In January of 2016, what was your job?
20 A. At the time, I was still employed by Davis Manafort
21 Partners.
22 Q. What was Paul Manafort's job?
23 A. At the time, he was still the primary partner in Davis
24 Manafort Partners.
25 Q. And what kind of work did Davis Manafort Partners do at

1 that time?
2 A. At that time, it was largely international political
3 elections, and Mr. Manafort was responsible for building
4 political parties in different foreign countries.
5 Q. Did there come a time when you became involved with the
6 Trump campaign on a volunteer basis?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. When did you first become involved with the Trump campaign
9 on a volunteer basis?
10 A. I started working for the campaign at the end of March of
11 2016.
12 Q. In March of 2016, what was your role on the campaign?
13 A. At the time, it was deputy convention manager.
14 Q. Who was the convention manager?
15 A. It was Mr. Paul Manafort.
16 Q. And you mentioned a convention. What convention is that?
17 A. In the political world, in a presidential election, each
18 party has its respective convention. Our part was the
19 Republican National Convention, which was held in July of 2016.
20 Q. Did Mr. Manafort eventually become the chairman of the
21 Trump campaign?
22 A. He did.
23 Q. Around when was that?
24 A. I believe that was June of 2016.
25 Q. Did you get a promotion when Mr. Manafort became the

1 campaign's chairman?
2 A. I did.
3 Q. What was your job?
4 A. I was deputy campaign manager at that time.
5 Q. Before joining the Trump campaign, did you commit crimes
6 with Paul Manafort?
7 A. I did.
8 Q. And were you indicted for some of those crimes?
9 A. I was.
10 Q. Were you arrested?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And did you make a decision about how to resolve those
13 charges?
14 A. I did.
15 Q. What was your decision?
16 A. I pled to those charges.
17 Q. When did you plead guilty?
18 A. I pled in February of 2018.
19 Q. As part of your guilty plea, did you enter into a written
20 agreement with the government?
21 A. I did.
22 Q. And does that document contain all the terms of your
23 agreement with the government?
24 A. It does.
25 MR. ZELINSKY: Could we turn now to Exhibit 162.

1 It's been previously admitted.
2 BY MR. ZELINSKY:
3 Q. Sir, do you recognize this document?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And what is it?
6 A. It is my plea agreement with the United States government.
7 MR. ZELINSKY: I would like to turn to the last page
8 of this exhibit, page 12.
9 BY MR. ZELINSKY:
10 Q. Do you see a signature there that says, "Richard W. Gates,
11 III"?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Did you sign the plea agreement?
14 A. I did.
15 Q. Did your lawyer sign the plea agreement?
16 A. He did.
17 Q. Turning to the previous page, page 11, did the
18 United States government also sign the plea agreement?
19 A. Yes, it did.
20 MR. ZELINSKY: I want to turn now to the first page
21 of this exhibit.
22 BY MR. ZELINSKY:
23 Q. Do you see a section there, sir, called "Charges and
24 Statutory Penalties"?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. How many charges were you required to plead to?
2 A. I pled to two charges.
3 Q. And are they listed there in the paragraph under Charges
4 and Statutory Penalties?
5 A. They are.
6 MR. ZELINSKY: Ms. Rohde, if we could enlarge that
7 paragraph, please.
8 BY MR. ZELINSKY:
9 Q. With respect to paragraph 1.(a), what were you charged
10 with?
11 A. I was charged with a conspiracy against United States.
12 Q. And with respect to 1.(b), the second count, what were you
13 charged with?
14 A. I was charged with making a false statement to a federal
15 government official.
16 Q. Moving now to 1(a), the conspiracy against the
17 United States.
18 With whom did you conspire?
19 A. Mr. Manafort.
20 Q. And did that conspiracy cover a series of crimes?
21 A. It did.
22 Q. What crimes did that conspiracy cover?
23 A. It was three components: One was not registering for
24 foreign registrations -- as a foreign registration agent [sic];
25 the second one was helping Mr. Manafort file false tax returns;
1 and the third one was not reporting a foreign bank account.
2 Q. You also said that you pled guilty to a second charge, of
3 making a false statement. Can you explain that charge a little
4 bit?
5 A. Yes. Prior to my plea agreement, in the course of the
6 interviews that I held with the Special Counsel's Office at the
7 time, I made a statement regarding a meeting that I did not
8 attend. I did not tell the truth to the government at that
9 time.
10 Q. Were there consequences to lying to the government?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And what was the consequence?
13 A. The consequence, that a second charge was added to my plea
14 agreement.
15 Q. And what is the impact of that second charge?
16 A. The second charge could impose an additional penalty of up
17 to five years imprisonment and up to $250,000 fine.
18 Q. When you pled guilty, did you appear in front of a judge?
19 A. I did.
20 Q. And did she explain the maximum potential penalties to you?
21 A. Yes, she did.
22 Q. I would like to turn now back to page one of the Exhibit.
23 For Count 1, Conspiracy against the United States,
24 what are the maximum penalties for the charge?
25 A. The maximum penalty is up to five years imprisonment and up

1 to $250,000 fine.
2 Q. And for Count 2 that you pled guilty to, what are the
3 maximum possible penalties?
4 A. It is the same, up to five years imprisonment and up to
5 $250,000 fine.
6 Q. So what is the total amount of time, maximum, that you
7 could be facing?
8 A. Up to ten years.
9 Q. As part of your written agreement with the government, did
10 you make promises?
11 A. I did.
12 Q. And what did you promise?
13 A. To the government, I promised to tell the truth, I promised
14 to assist them in any investigation that they were conducting,
15 and I promised to provide them with emails and documents from
16 my records.
17 MR. ZELINSKY: Let's turn to page 6 of this Exhibit.
18 BY MR. ZELINSKY:
19 Q. As part of the written plea agreement, did the government
20 also make promises?
21 A. Yes, it did.
22 Q. And what promises did the government make?
23 A. The government promised to drop additional charges from a
24 separate indictment. It promised not to oppose my attorney's
25 idea of submitting probation as a potential punishment. And

1 then it also agreed to write a 5K1 letter, if I fully
2 cooperated and lived up to the terms of the agreement.
3 Q. I want to go through that a little more in detail.
4 You mentioned that the government agreed to dismiss a
5 second indictment; is that right?
7 Q. What was that second indictment?
8 A. The second indictment was in another jurisdiction, in the
9 Eastern District of Virginia, and it related to additional
10 financial crimes that were put into indictment against myself
11 and Mr. Manafort.
12 Q. Has the government dismissed those charges in the Eastern
13 District of Virginia?
14 A. It has.
15 Q. Could they be brought again, sir?
16 A. They could.
17 Q. Under what circumstances?
18 A. If I do not fulfil the terms of my plea agreement, then
19 that plea agreement could be revoked by the government, and I
20 would be facing additional charges.
21 Q. If you lie during your testimony today, would that violate
22 your plea agreement?
23 A. Yes, it would.
24 Q. And what would be the impact of a lie today?
25 A. I would end up facing a greater list of punishments.

1 Q. And you mentioned earlier that the government agreed to
2 write a 5K letter for you?
4 Q. What is a 5K letter?
5 A. A 5K letter is a description of the things that I've done
6 on behalf of the government, or for the government, and it
7 details the cooperation that I provided. That letter is
8 submitted to the judge, and the judge can use that letter for
9 purposes of the sentencing guidelines.
10 Q. And you mentioned earlier that if you fulfilled your plea
11 agreement, the government would not oppose a sentence of
12 probation; is that right?
14 Q. Who ultimately decides on your sentence?
15 A. Ultimately, the judge decides the sentence.
16 Q. And what judge ultimately decides that sentence?
17 A. Judge Jackson, in my case.
18 Q. Moving on to your testimony today.
19 Prior to your testimony here, did you also testify in
20 other proceedings?
21 A. I did.
22 Q. And did you meet with the government to prepare for those
23 other proceedings?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Did you review documents and other materials?

1 A. I did.
2 Q. Approximately how many times did you meet with the
3 government to prepare for those other proceedings?
4 A. Over 50 times in the other two proceedings.
5 Q. And did you also meet with the government to prepare for
6 this proceeding?
7 A. I did.
8 Q. And how many times did you meet with the government to
9 prepare for this proceeding?
10 A. Two times for this proceeding.
11 Q. Let's turn now to the spring of 2016.
12 In May of 2016, what was your role on the Trump
13 campaign?
14 A. In May of 2016, I was promoted to deputy campaign manager.
15 And I was responsible for a lot of the logistical aspects of
16 the campaign at that time.
17 Q. And what was Mr. Manafort's role on the Trump campaign?
18 A. Mr. Manafort had -- was progressing. He was leading both
19 the convention and the head of delegates, and was very shortly
20 after promoted to the campaign chair.
21 Q. Did you interact with Mr. Stone in May of 2016, while you
22 were working for the campaign?
23 A. I did.
24 Q. And how did you interact with him?
25 A. Primarily by phone, via voice conversation, and some texts.

1 Q. Do you know if Roger Stone had worked for the Trump
2 campaign in the past?
3 A. Yes. It was my understanding that Mr. Stone served as an
4 adviser to Mr. Trump prior to me and Mr. Manafort joining the
5 campaign.
6 Q. In May 2016, what was your understanding of Mr. Stone's
7 formal role on the campaign?
8 A. At that time, it was my understanding he did not have a
9 formal role with the campaign.
10 Q. What was your understanding of Mr. Stone's informal role on
11 the campaign?
12 A. Mr. Stone still had people that he knew on the campaign and
13 had the ability to access those people.
14 Q. What was your understanding of Mr. Stone's relationship to
15 then-candidate Trump?
16 A. At that point in time, it was my understanding that it was
17 somewhat tense, based on that Mr. Stone had worked for the
18 campaign and then had left the campaign. But, they had had a
19 30-plus year relationship, based on what I was told.
20 Q. Who were Stone's main points of contact on the campaign?
21 A. For the one that I was aware of, was primarily
22 Mr. Manafort.
23 Q. And were you also a point of contact?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And when Mr. Bannon joined the campaign, was he a point of

1 contact to Mr. Stone?
2 A. Yes, he was.
3 Q. I want to continue talking with you about May of 2016 for a
4 moment.
5 In May of 2016, did you and Roger Stone talk about
6 Julian Assange?
7 A. We talked about WikiLeaks, yes.
8 Q. What did Mr. Stone tell you about WikiLeaks?
9 A. Mr. Stone indicated that he had information that would be
10 coming out at some point, although a date was never given. And
11 that was the information that he had passed along.
12 THE COURT: When you said, "He said he had
13 information," who were the "he's" in that?
14 THE WITNESS: Sorry. Mr. Stone had indicated that he
15 had information that WikiLeaks would be submitting or dropping
16 information, but no information on dates or anything of that
17 nature.
18 BY MR. ZELINSKY:
19 Q. Who was the campaign's primary person regarding WikiLeaks's
20 information at that time?
21 A. The only person that I'm aware of that had information at
22 that time was Mr. Stone.
23 Q. I want to talk now, for a moment, about June 12th, 2016.
24 Do you remember Julian Assange's announcement on
25 June 12th, 2016 that WikiLeaks had information related to

1 then-candidate Clinton, and that the information would be
2 released?
3 A. I do.
4 Q. What was the attitude within the campaign to
5 Julian Assange's announcement?
6 MR. ROGOW: Your Honor, I object.
7 THE COURT: On what grounds?
8 MR. ROGOW: The attitude of the campaign. He can't
9 speak for the attitude of the campaign.
10 THE COURT: All right. Can you just come to the
11 bench for a second?
13 THE COURT: So your objection is lack of foundation
14 to his personal knowledge, not the relevance?
15 MR. ROGOW: Yes. Well, personal knowledge. No
16 personal knowledge. Calls for speculation in terms of what the
17 attitude of the campaign was.
18 THE COURT: Okay. He's just testified that he was
19 the deputy chief of the campaign.
20 MR. ROGOW: So he can testify as to what his feeling
21 was. But, the whole campaign, has hundreds of people on the
22 campaign.
23 MR. ZELINSKY: Your Honor, I'm happy to modify it to,
24 What was the leadership of the campaign's attitude at that
25 point? Mr. Gates clearly observed what the attitude of the

1 leadership of the campaign was. As he said, he's the deputy
2 chairman of the campaign. I don't think --
3 THE COURT: Well, I guess, are you including the
4 candidate, or are you just talking about Manafort and Gates?
5 Who is that question supposed to refer to?
6 MR. ZELINSKY: It will refer to Mr. Manafort. It
7 will refer to Mr. Gates. It will refer to other senior
8 campaign leadership, like Mr. Miller, Mr. Kushner. I can go
9 through in detail the names.
10 THE COURT: All right. Well, I think what you can
11 ask is, you know, At the time, was it discussed within senior
12 levels of the campaign? And then ask him, What was the
13 reaction? But, I think you need to be careful not to -- you
14 don't want to be eliciting hearsay.
15 But, I think he can, as the number two person on the
16 campaign, speak for the campaign. He's not saying the
17 candidate and he's not saying 100 percent of the people on the
18 campaign. But, I think from his position as deputy chief, what
19 was their reaction, I think he has established a basis to
20 answer.
21 MR. ROGOW: You know, it's like if the dean of the
22 law school is asked a question, How did the law school -- how
23 did all the professors feel about it, I don't think the dean
24 can answer that question.
25 THE COURT: Well, that's a different question, "How

1 did all the professors feel about it?" He didn't say, How did
2 everybody; he said the campaign. And then I think he needs to
3 know what to -- what was the reaction of the -- you know, Was
4 this discussed at the senior level of the campaign?
5 And he can say yes.
6 And, you know, Between you and Manafort?
7 Yes.
8 And then without -- then he needs to say, Without
9 announcing what anybody else said to you, what was the reaction
10 of the senior level of the campaign?
11 I mean --
12 MR. ROGOW: Then we get into the hearsay, What was
13 said to you? And his answers are based upon hearsay.
14 THE COURT: Well, I don't -- I think he was part of
15 the conversations. And it's not for the truth of the matter
16 asserted. He's asking what the reaction was. Were they
17 interested? Were they not interested? Were they dismissive?
18 I think he can testify to that as being at the top of the -- he
19 was the deputy chief of the campaign.
20 MR. ROGOW: He was. But, what is the relevance? I
21 object on relevance grounds. So, what's the relevance of
22 the --
23 THE COURT: Okay.
24 MR. ROGOW: -- of the campaign's feelings about it?
25 If something happened, it happened. If actions were taken, it

1 was taken. But, the relevance of the campaign's feeling about
2 this --
3 THE COURT: All right. So what's --
4 MR. ZELINSKY: Your Honor, an essential element of
5 the government's case is that Mr. Stone's motive for lying to
6 the House Intelligence Committee was to cover up his
7 relationship with the campaign and his role as the WikiLeaks
8 person, that he had an important role on the campaign, and that
9 the campaign was both receptive to and interested in the
10 WikiLeaks matters.
11 The campaign's response to the Wikileaks's -- to
12 Julian Assange's announcement is critical to explaining to the
13 jury what Mr. Stone's motive for lying is. Mr. Gates has
14 already said that he and Mr. Stone were in discussion about
15 that prior to the announcement by Mr. Assange. And how the
16 campaign responded to this information is critical to
17 understanding Mr. Stone's motive for subsequently covering up
18 that activity.
19 THE COURT: Are you anticipating an answer to this
20 question?
21 MR. ZELINSKY: "Euphoric," Your Honor.
22 MR. ROGOW: The campaign is not on trial.
23 THE COURT: It's illegal for them to --
24 MR. ROGOW: I understand.
25 THE COURT: He is laying the background for, number

1 one, why these questions were important to the House
2 investigation. They were investigating the campaign's interest
3 in the hacked information. And he's investigating what
4 Mr. Stone said or didn't say to other people, and whether that
5 comports with what he told Congress he said or didn't say to
6 other people.
7 So, I think that background, without going into more
8 detail, is relevant. I don't think that he's trying to prove
9 that he had had influence with Wikileaks. But, he professed to
10 have, to the campaign and publicly, communications and
11 information and connections, which he denied professing when he
12 went before Congress.
13 So, I think that goes to the heart of whether the
14 particular statements that they're trying to say were true or
15 untrue, were true or untrue. So, you can add one more
16 foundational question about whether he was present at
17 discussions at senior levels of the campaign, and then say, you
18 know, Without going into what he said, what was the general
19 reaction at the top of the campaign when this happened? And
20 then go on to the next question, and get to Mr. Stone.
21 MR. ROGOW: Thank you, Your Honor.
22 (Open court:)
23 BY MR. ZELINSKY:
24 Q. Mr. Gates, we were just discussing Julian Assange's
25 June 12th, 2016 announcement that he had information about

1 Hillary Clinton that was pending publication; is that right?
2 A. Correct.
3 Q. After that announcement, did you either discuss or were you
4 present for discussions with senior leadership of the campaign
5 about the announcement?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And what was the reaction -- without getting into the
8 specifics of what anyone said, what was the reaction of the
9 campaign to Julian Assange's announcement?
10 A. It was twofold. One, it was one of -- of happiness. A
11 competing campaign was going to have some information. It was,
12 in a way, a gift that we had not sought, but was coming out.
13 And the other piece is, we were kind of in disbelief,
14 to be honest. We had heard for so long that the information
15 would be coming out as early as April, but it still had never
16 come out. And even though the announcement was an indication
17 that Mr. Assange had the emails, we still had no proof or
18 evidence that the information had actually been leaked at that
19 time.
20 Q. Mr. Gates, you said you'd heard since April that the
21 information would be coming out. Who had you heard that
22 information from?
23 A. Mr. Stone.
24 Q. What was Mr. Stone's reaction to the June 12th
25 announcement?
1 A. He was happy. From my recollection, it was an indication
2 that the information he had provided earlier would, in fact,
3 you know, potentially become true, that information would be
4 leaked out.
5 MR. ZELINSKY: Let's turn now to Exhibit 21.
6 If we could enlarge the e-mail at the bottom.
7 BY MR. ZELINSKY:
8 Q. Who is this e-mail -- all the way at the bottom, the one
9 that begins on June 13, 2016, at 18:17, who is that e-mail
10 from?
11 A. The e-mail is from Mr. Stone.
12 Q. What did Mr. Stone write?
13 A. "Need guidance on many things. Call me."
14 Q. Who was this e-mail to?
15 A. The e-mail was sent to me.
16 Q. What is the date this e-mail was sent?
17 A. June 13th.
18 Q. And that's one day after the June 12th announcement we just
19 discussed, correct?
20 A. Correct.
21 Q. Could you -- you just read what Mr. Stone said.
22 And then you responded to Mr. Stone; is that right?
23 A. I did.
24 Q. And what did you say?
25 A. "Barely. Will call in about an hour."

1 Q. You just read that Mr. Stone wrote that he needed guidance
2 on many things. Did you understand Wikileaks to be one of the
3 things that Mr. Stone needed guidance on?
4 A. It was one of many things in the conversation, yes.
5 Q. I want to turn now to June 14th, 2016.
6 Do you recall, sir, that on June 14th, 2016, the
7 Democratic National Committee announced that it had been hacked
8 by the Russian government?
9 A. Yes, I do.
10 Q. And did you have conversations with senior leadership of
11 the campaign regarding the Democratic National Committee's
12 announcement?
13 A. We did.
14 Q. Without getting into the substance of what anyone said,
15 what was the campaign's attitude toward the Democratic National
16 Committee's announcement that he had been hacked by the Russian
17 government?
18 A. Again, we were kind of in disbelief. We believed, again,
19 that if information were to come out, that based on what we
20 were told that information might be about, there were a number
21 of us that felt that it would give our campaign a leg up.
22 Q. After the announcement, did you speak with Mr. Stone?
23 A. I did.
24 MR. ZELINSKY: Let's turn now to Exhibit 20, page 4.
25 If we could enlarge the messages, Ms. Rohde, on

1 June 15, 2016.
2 BY MR. ZELINSKY:
3 Q. These messages are sent June 15th, 2016. Do you see that,
4 sir?
5 A. I do.
6 Q. And that's one day after the events we just spoke about; is
7 that correct?
9 Q. And what did Roger Stone text to you?
10 A. "Call me. Important."
11 Q. And what did you write back?
12 A. "On con call, but will call right after. Thanks."
13 Q. What did Mr. Stone respond?
14 A. "Please."
15 Q. And then?
16 A. "Awake?"
17 Q. And you wrote back?
18 A. "Yep."
19 Q. And Mr. Stone wrote?
20 A. "Call me."
21 Q. Did you subsequently speak with Mr. Stone?
22 A. I did.
23 Q. Did you discuss the Democratic National Committee's
24 announcement that it had been hacked by the Russian government?
25 A. Yes. We discussed that information would be potentially

1 forthcoming.
2 Q. What did Mr. Stone tell you regarding the Democratic
3 National Committee's announcement?
4 A. At that point, he said that more information would be
5 coming out of the DNC hack.
6 Q. Did Mr. Stone tell you that he wanted to get in touch with
7 anyone else at the campaign about these matters?
8 A. He did.
9 MR. ZELINSKY: We're turning now to Exhibit 22. If
10 we can enlarge the bottom e-mail, please.
11 BY MR. ZELINSKY:
12 Q. Who is the e-mail from?
13 A. From Mr. Stone.
14 Q. Who is the e-mail to?
15 A. It is to me.
16 Q. What is the date?
17 A. The date is June 15th.
18 Q. That's the day after the Democratic National Committee's
19 announcement; is that correct?
21 Q. It's the same day as the text messages we were just going
22 over; is that correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Could you read what Mr. Stone wrote you, please?
25 A. "I need contact for Murphy. I need contact information for

1 Jared."
2 Q. Who's Jared?
3 A. Jared is Jared Kushner.
4 Q. What was Mr. Kushner's role in the Trump campaign at that
5 point?
6 A. At that time, he was a senior advisor to the campaign.
7 Q. Was Mr. Kushner also related to then-candidate Trump?
8 A. Yes, he was.
9 Q. How was Mr. Kushner related to then-candidate Trump?
10 A. Mr. Kushner is Mr. Trump's son-in-law.
11 Q. Did you know why Mr. Stone was asking you for Mr. Kushner's
12 contact information at that time?
13 A. Mr. Stone indicated that he wanted to reach out to
14 Mr. Kushner and Mr. Murphy to debrief them on the developments
15 of the DNC announcement.
16 Q. During the balance of June -- we're still in June of
17 2016 -- did you continue to discuss WikiLeaks with Mr. Stone?
18 A. Yes, off and on.
19 Q. Why did you continue, in June, to continue to discuss
20 WikiLeaks with Mr. Stone?
21 A. Because at that point, both myself and Mr. Manafort didn't
22 believe the information was coming because it still hadn't come
23 out. And Mr. Manafort had asked me from time to time to check
24 with Mr. Stone to see if the information was still real and
25 viable.
1 Q. And when you say the "information," you mean releases from
2 WikiLeaks; is that correct?
4 Q. I want to talk now about July of 2016.
5 Do you recall that on July 22nd, 2016, WikiLeaks
6 released a large amount of emails related to the Democratic
7 National Committee?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. I want to talk to you for a moment about the period in
10 July, before the release of those emails.
11 A. Um-hum.
12 Q. Let's speak for a moment now about July 22nd, 2016, prior
13 to the DNC release.
14 What did Roger Stone tell you in July 2016 prior to
15 the DNC release, about WikiLeaks?
16 A. He had indicated that information was still forthcoming,
17 although, again, nothing had come out at that point. So we
18 were -- or, I was and Mr. Manafort were in -- were -- you know,
19 did not believe the information was coming out.
20 Q. Did Mr. Stone indicate if his information, that he knew
21 WikiLeaks would be releasing things, if that was public or
22 private?
23 A. It was not public information.
24 Q. I'm sorry, sir. It was not public --
25 A. Not public information.

1 Q. In response to Mr. Stone's nonpublic information, did the
2 campaign do anything?
3 A. At that point, nothing had come out. So, the campaign did
4 nothing prior to July 22nd.
5 Q. On July -- were there any brainstorming sessions held at
6 that point?
7 A. Oh, yeah. Prior to July, there were brainstorming sessions
8 on the idea of if the information was leaked, what would the
9 campaign say and respond? But, again, up to that point,
10 nothing had materialized, so there was no action to be taken.
11 Q. Without saying what they said, who was involved in those
12 brainstorming sessions about what to do if information was
13 leaked?
14 A. Sure. It was Mr. Manafort; myself; Mr. Jason Miller, who
15 was our director of communications; and Mr. Stephen Miller, who
16 was our director of policy at the time.
17 Q. And were those brainstorming sessions based, in part, on
18 Mr. Stone's predictions?
19 A. It was based, in part, on, yes, the Assange release --
20 press release and Mr. Stone's predictions.
21 Q. I want to turn now to July 22nd, 2016.
22 Do you recall the release of the Democratic National
23 Committee emails by WikiLeaks on July 22nd, 2016?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. I want to talk briefly now about the time period

1 immediately following that July 22nd, 2016 release.
2 Did you have discussions with senior campaign
3 leadership about the campaign's attitude toward the release?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. What was the campaign's attitude toward the release?
6 A. The fact that the information had come out, the campaign
7 was in a state of happiness. This was, again, information that
8 had come out on our competitor. It had come out through, you
9 know, channels not related to us.
10 Anytime you're in a campaign and damaging information
11 comes out against, you know, your competitor, it's helpful. I
12 mean, it's the -- similar to the example when the Access
13 Hollywood tape came out, you know, on Mr. Trump. I mean, it
14 was information that hurt him. But, at the time, the other
15 side had that information.
16 Q. Did you discuss the release of the Democratic National
17 Committee emails with Mr. Manafort?
18 A. I did.
19 Q. What was Mr. Manafort's reaction?
20 A. Mr. Manafort's --
21 MR. ROGOW: Objection. Speculation, Your Honor.
23 BY MR. ZELINSKY:
24 Q. Let's move on to shortly after the WikiLeaks release.
25 Did you overhear a conversation between Mr. Manafort

1 and Mr. Stone?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. I want to talk to you now about that conversation.
4 Was that conversation on the phone?
5 A. It was.
6 Q. And how did you come to overhear that conversation between
7 Mr. Manafort and Mr. Stone?
8 A. Mr. Manafort had put the phone on speaker phone.
9 Q. And, sir, can you recognize Mr. Stone's voice?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And did you hear it on that phone call?
12 A. I did.
13 Q. And what did Mr. Stone say to Mr. Manafort on that call?
14 A. Mr. Stone, at that point, had indicated that the
15 information had come out, and that additional information would
16 be coming out down the road.
17 Q. And what did Mr. Manafort reply to Mr. Stone?
18 A. Mr. Manafort thought that would be great, that it was
19 coming out. He was quite surprised because Mr. Stone had
20 indicated for so long that the information would come out, but
21 nothing had come out to that point. Mr. Manafort was, you
22 know, really uncertain how much of the information that was
23 still going to come out was actually going to come out.
24 Q. After that call, did you also have a direct conversation
25 with Mr. Stone about the information that had come out?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And what did Mr. Stone say?
3 A. Mr. Stone had indicated that additional information would
4 be coming, but that this was the start of information that had
5 finally come out, which he had indicated much earlier.
6 Q. Did you continue to talk with Mr. Stone about additional
7 information during the summer?
8 A. Yes. Less frequently because my role on the campaign
9 changed, but we did have subsequent conversations.
10 Q. Did you continue to speak with Mr. Manafort?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Did you perceive Mr. Manafort to be under pressure?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And what did you perceive Mr. Manafort to be under pressure
15 with respect to?
16 A. Again, up until July 22nd, for months information had been
17 talked about, rumored that it would be coming out, and nothing
18 had ever come out up until July 22nd. The first time that the
19 information came out, at that time it was, again, one of
20 disbelief because for so long it had been talked about coming
21 out and, finally, it had finally come out.
22 Q. And to be clear, sir, when you say "for so long it had been
23 talked about," who was talking about it?
24 A. Initially, Mr. Stone. And then, obviously, it gained
25 attention in the public domain as well.

1 Q. Did Mr. Manafort instruct you to do anything in this time
2 related to Mr. Stone?
3 A. Yes. He asked me to follow up with Mr. Stone on occasion
4 to find out when the additional information might be coming
5 out.
6 Q. And did Mr. Manafort tell you what he intended to do with
7 the information that you would provide from Mr. Stone?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. What did Mr. Manafort tell you he intended to do?
10 A. He indicated that he would be updating other people on the
11 campaign, including the candidate.
12 Q. And the "candidate," that's Mr. Trump; is that correct?
13 A. Correct.
14 Q. So, Mr. Manafort indicated to you that he would be updating
15 the candidate on the information you got; is that right?
16 A. Among others, yes.
17 Q. I want to move now to the period, again, shortly after the
18 July 22nd, 2016 release of information.
19 Did there come a time when you heard another phone
20 call with Mr. Stone?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. I want to talk for a moment about that phone call.
23 Do you remember approximately when that phone call
24 took place?
25 A. It took -- the latter part of July.

1 Q. Was it after the July 22nd release of emails?
2 A. It was.
3 Q. After the July 22nd release of DNC emails, what time of
4 day, if you remember, was that phone call?
5 A. It was during the evening.
6 Q. And how did you know that Mr. Stone was on the phone?
7 A. I saw his cell phone number on the caller ID display on the
8 phone.
9 Q. Could you hear Mr. Stone's voice at all?
10 A. I could hear the voice. I could not hear the conversation.
11 Q. So you could hear that it was his voice, but you couldn't
12 make out the content; is that correct?
13 A. Correct.
14 Q. Who else was on that phone call?
15 A. At that time it was the candidate, Mr. Trump.
16 Q. Immediately after the call with Mr. Stone ended, did
17 Mr. Trump say anything to you?
18 A. Yes. He had made a remark in regards to the call.
19 Q. And what did Mr. --
20 MR. ROGOW: Your Honor, objection.
21 THE COURT: All right. Ask the question.
22 Don't answer the question.
23 Just ask the question.
24 And then you can object to the question, then we'll
25 discuss it. But, I want to get the record clear as to what

1 you're about to ask.
2 MR. ZELINSKY: Thank you, Your Honor.
3 BY MR. ZELINSKY:
4 Q. Immediately after the phone call with Mr. Stone ended, what
5 did Mr. Trump say to you?
6 THE COURT: All right. Don't answer the question.
7 Come to the bench.
8 Do you object?
9 MR. ROGOW: Yes.
10 THE COURT: You can tell me why.
12 MR. ROGOW: Because it's hearsay, Your Honor.
13 MR. ZELINSKY: Your Honor, it's not being put in for
14 the truth of the matter asserted. We anticipate that the
15 witness will answer that Mr. Trump told him there would be
16 additional dumps of information coming out. It's a prediction,
17 therefore, it's not hearsay. He isn't saying Mr. Stone told
18 him that. He's just making a statement that additional dumps
19 of information would be coming out. That's all that we plan to
20 elicit from this witness.
21 THE COURT: Okay. So, I think if the statement had
22 been, Roger just told me that additional documents were going
23 to be coming out, that I would sustain the objection, because
24 it asserts a fact that Mr. Stone had just told him that. This
25 also is assuming the fact that it's asserting a fact that

1 they're not seeking to introduce for the truth of the matter
2 asserted; they're seeking to introduce for the fact that he
3 said it, which is ascribed to be inference that that's what
4 Mr. Stone said to him. But, they're not making a huge thing,
5 use of the statement.
6 So, why is it objectionable under the hearsay rule?
7 MR. ROGOW: Because the only conclusion to be drawn
8 from the statement is this is what was said. The connection
9 between the timing in the telephone call and what they're
10 seeking to get from Mr. Gates is, I think, classic hearsay for
11 the truth of it. For them to say it's not being offered for
12 the truth, I think, is being willfully blind to what it is
13 being offered for.
14 THE COURT: Well, you can admit statement --
15 out-of-court statements just for the fact that they are said,
16 if it's relevant. I understand that it's prejudicial, but
17 that's not -- just the fact that it's evidence against someone
18 doesn't mean it's not admissible. They're saying that -- did
19 Mr. Trump say anything? So what did Mr. Trump say at that
20 point? In other words, what was his state of mind? What did
21 he say?
22 And, so, it's immediately after he gets off the call.
23 It does give rise to the inference that that's what he learned
24 from your client. But, I don't understand how that's covered
25 under the definition of hearsay. Hearsay is a statement that

1 is being introduced for the truth of the matter asserted, not
2 for the fact that it was said.
3 They're not -- the matter asserted in the statement
4 was, There will be more releases. So, they're only introducing
5 it for the fact that it was said at that time and in that
6 context; yes, it's true. But, I don't see how that's
7 prohibited by the rule against hearsay because I don't see how
8 it's hearsay.
9 MR. ROGOW: Well, certainly -- I mean, I start with
10 it's being offered for the purpose of the truth of the Stone
11 statement without any basis for what Stone said, because the
12 inference they're trying to draw is that after that
13 conversation, when Mr. Trump says something, there's going to
14 be more coming or whatever it is he's going to say, is being
15 offered to make the connection to Stone based on a statement
16 that has no content at all.
17 I mean, this is -- when he's relating what Mr. Trump
18 said, he is relating the statement of another. And I think
19 what the issue is -- for me is, there's no question he's
20 offering it for the truth and the inference from the truth.
21 THE COURT: Well, he's offering it for the --
22 MR. ROGOW: Yes.
23 THE COURT: -- inference that he learned it from
24 Stone, no question. But, I guess what I'm saying is, he's not
25 offering the words that came out of the president's mouth for
1 the truth of the words that came out of the president's mouth,
2 which takes it outside of hearsay.
3 And then the question is, why would it be
4 inadmissible that he hung up the phone and said that? He said
5 it. And it's just the fact that it was said that they're
6 trying to bring out.
7 Now, it seems to me, on cross, you can say, You
8 didn't hear what Stone told him. You don't know what Stone
9 told him.
10 MR. ROGOW: Of course.
11 THE COURT: You don't know if he was just making his
12 prediction, do you?
13 So, I think the inference may not be as strong as
14 they put it out to be. They can argue later that he said that
15 that's what Stone told him. I mean, all we know is that he
16 called the president, and when the president hung up, the
17 president was talking about more releases. And what Mr. Stone
18 told the committee is, I didn't talk to anybody in the campaign
19 about any releases.
20 So, this tends to go to the truth or falsity. It
21 doesn't prove it outright, but it's evidence that bears on it.
22 So, it certainly seems relevant. I don't think it's as strong
23 as the government wants it to be.
24 But, he wouldn't be able to say, Roger Stone just
25 told me X. But, I don't see why they can't -- why X is going

1 to happen with the jury being instructed that that's only
2 admissible for the fact that Mr. Stone said it and not the
3 truth of it.
4 I don't know how it meets the definition of hearsay.
5 If it doesn't meet the definition of hearsay, it's not excluded
6 by the hearsay rules. I mean, I understand what you're trying
7 to tell me, but I think that all goes to the weight of it and
8 not the admissibility of it, and those are relevance issues and
9 not hearsay issues.
10 I mean, this is a serious objection. I'm taking it
11 seriously.
12 MR. ROGOW: I understand. And I understand Your
13 Honor's --
14 THE COURT: It's hearsay to just say, Oh, man, dah,
15 dah, dah. Whatever he said after he got off the phone, if he's
16 not making a statement of fact that they are trying to
17 introduce for the truth of the fact, then it's not hearsay.
18 It's outside the hearsay rules. All the hearsay exceptions,
19 first you have to start with hearsay.
20 MR. ROGOW: I understand. I mean, I made my
21 objection. I understand where Your Honor is coming from to
22 that extent.
23 THE COURT: Okay. All right. All right. I think --
24 and you're sure he's not going to say --
25 MR. ZELINSKY: Yes, Your Honor.

1 THE COURT: -- President told me --
2 MR. ZELINSKY: I've been very careful about this. I
3 am 100 percent confident.
4 THE COURT: Okay.
5 MR. ZELINSKY: One other thing I just want to make
6 the record clear, Your Honor had noted that it might not be as
7 strong as the government contended it was. Just for the record
8 to be clear, there's been no prior conversation at all with the
9 Court regarding this statement and what the government does or
10 does not intend this statement to mean. We just mean it for
11 the facts; that is, we're putting it in for the fact that the
12 statement was made after that call.
13 THE COURT: Okay. Well, at some point --
14 MR. ZELINSKY: And we will argue it at some point,
15 yes, Your Honor.
16 THE COURT: -- you'll argue to the jury that he was
17 asked, when he was before Congress, if he communicated with the
18 campaign about WikiLeaks. And if you're not planning to point
19 to this, then I don't know why you're bringing it up. So,
20 assuming that you're going to you point to this.
21 MR. ZELINSKY: Yes, Your Honor, that is correct.
22 THE COURT: All right. Okay.
23 MR. ZELINSKY: Thank you.
24 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
25 (Open court:)
1 BY MR. ZELINSKY:
2 Q. Mr. Gates, we had just been discussing a phone call between
3 then-candidate Trump and Mr. Stone; is that correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And you said that you had heard Mr. Stone's voice on the
6 phone, but you couldn't --
7 THE COURT: All right. You need to repeat the
8 direct. Let's go to the question that was asked.
10 BY MR. ZELINSKY:
11 Q. Mr. Gates, after Mr. Trump got off the phone with
12 Mr. Stone, what did then-candidate Trump say?
13 A. He indicated that more information would be coming.
14 Q. Do you recall that on October 7th, 2016 WikiLeaks released
15 emails related to John Podesta?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. After WikiLeaks released these emails, did you speak with
18 Roger Stone?
19 A. Yes, at some point after that date.
20 Q. And what did Mr. Stone tell you about the release?
21 A. That he had indicated that the information was out,
22 confirming that it was out. And that is something that he had
23 mentioned earlier, both, I think, privately and publicly, that
24 the information would be coming.
25 Q. When you say he had mentioned it earlier, did Mr. Stone say
1 he had predicted the Podesta release?
2 A. Yes, that there would be more information coming.
3 Q. We've talked a lot about statements that Mr. Stone was
4 making to you about the material that might be coming.
5 Did you understand Mr. Stone's updates about
6 WikiLeaks to be based on public information?
7 A. Mr. Stone never indicated where he got the information
8 from. But, I did not believe that they were public
9 information.
10 Q. That is, you believed it was nonpublic information?
11 A. I believe, yeah, he had other sources that he was getting
12 the information from.
13 MR. ZELINSKY: No further, questions Your Honor.
14 THE COURT: All right. Cross-examination?
16 BY MR. ROGOW:
17 Q. Mr. Gates, I'm Bruce Rogow, and I'll be asking you some
18 questions this morning.
19 A. Okay.
20 Q. You said earlier that you met twice with the government
21 regarding this case, although you said that you'd met 40 or 50
22 times, altogether, with the government regarding other cases;
23 is that right?
25 Q. In those 40 or 50 times, are you saying that you were never

1 questioned about Roger Stone in those other interviews you had
2 with the government?
3 A. There was a combination of interviews pertaining to my plea
4 agreement, and then there was case preparation for the two
5 cases that I was at trial. In the interviews, yes, I was
6 questioned on a number of issues related to Mr. Stone.
7 Q. So it's not accurate to say that the only two times --
8 MR. ZELINSKY: Objection.
9 THE COURT: Well, I think the question he was asked
10 on direct is, Did you meet -- how many times did you meet to
11 prepare for this testimony?
12 And he answered, Twice.
13 MR. ROGOW: And --
14 THE COURT: So, ask your question.
15 BY MR. ROGOW:
16 Q. So it is not accurate that you only met with the government
17 twice regarding information about Roger Stone?
18 A. Well, that wasn't the question. The question was how many
19 times did I meet to prepare for this trial? That was two. If
20 you ask the question differently, how many times did the
21 government ask me about Mr. Stone, it would be -- there would
22 be more interviews, that's correct.
23 Q. Would it be 20 times? 30 times? 40 times?
24 A. With respect to just Mr. Stone?
25 Q. Not just -- in the questioning of you, did they, over this

1 period of time, when you met with them -- I think you said over
2 50 times -- did they ask you during those periods of
3 questioning questions about Roger Stone? Yes or no?
4 A. On certain occasions, yes, they did ask me about Mr. Stone.
5 Q. Did you ever tell the government that Stone never talked
6 about WikiLeaks to Gates, to you, and that you were not aware
7 of Stone talking about WikiLeaks to Manafort?
8 A. No, I never said that.
9 Q. Let me show you something.
10 MR. ZELINSKY: Your Honor, objection.
11 THE COURT: All right. Can you approach the bench?
13 THE COURT: What did you just hand him?
14 MR. ROGOW: The 302 that says on 1-30 --
15 THE COURT: Okay. I think what you need to say, you
16 need to -- he didn't write the 302. I think you can say to
17 him, Did you meet with this agent on this date, at that time,
18 and did you say the following? You can -- and he either admits
19 it or denies it. But, then you complete the impeachment
20 through someone else. But he didn't write the 302.
21 MR. ROGOW: I understand. The question I asked him
22 simply was, did he say -- did you make the statement?
23 THE COURT: And he denied it. And now you want to
24 impeach him. And you're entitled to impeach him, but you can't
25 impeach him with the 302. What you can say is, Did you -- you
1 can lay the foundation. Did you meet with an agent on this
2 day? Was your lawyer there? Were you here? Were you there?
3 And did you say the following? And he'll either admit it or
4 deny it.
5 But, that's it. Then you can't move the document in
6 through him because it's not his document. It's like a grand
7 jury transcript.
8 MR. ROGOW: I'm not moving it, but I'm giving him a
9 chance to look at it. That's all. I understand. I'll do it
10 your way.
11 THE COURT: That's incorrect to give it to him,
12 because it looks like it's his statement. So, I think you just
13 need to ask the questions. You can impeach him with statements
14 made to FBI agents, but it's a different process than if it's
15 his statement.
16 MR. ROGOW: I understand.
17 MR. ZELINSKY: Your Honor, to be clear, the
18 government objects to the use of any 302 being handed up to the
19 witness that is not written by the witness. I just want to be
20 clear with Mr. Rogow about going forward, because he's just
21 handed a document to the witness that is not proper.
22 THE COURT: Okay. I think you need to take it back.
23 I think that you asked the appropriate predicate question, Did
24 you ever tell him that Roger Stone did these things? He said,
25 No. And now you can direct him to the date and time and who he
1 was talking to and ask him again.
2 But, then you have to decide, in your case in chief,
3 if you want to put the agent on to say that didn't happen.
4 But, you can't move the statement in and you can't use the
5 statement. I mean, you're not refreshing his recollection;
6 you're impeaching him. So, why did you give him the statement?
7 MR. ROGOW: I gave him the statement so he could tell
8 me whether or not, if he said it or didn't say it. That's all.
9 THE COURT: Right. It's not his.
10 MR. ROGOW: No. I understand.
11 THE COURT: So, you can't just hand it off like that.
12 All right.
13 (Open court:)
14 BY MR. ROGOW:
15 Q. Do you remember being questioned on January 30th, 2018?
16 A. I don't recall that specific date, but I remember being
17 questioned on a number of dates.
18 Q. Do you remember being questioned by an FBI agent who asked
19 you questions with regard to you talking to Mr. Stone about
20 WikiLeaks?
21 A. I don't recall specifically being asked questions that
22 date, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.
23 Q. Do you remember being asked that question, putting aside
24 the date?
25 A. Yes. On several occasions.

1 Q. And did you answer that you did not speak to Stone about
2 WikiLeaks?
3 A. I do not recall answering that way. In fact, there were a
4 number of occasions where I indicated that he had. It was a
5 big piece of why he was reaching out to a number of people on
6 the campaign.
7 Q. You just simply don't remember if you answered the question
8 the way I asked?
9 A. I don't recall answering the question that Mr. Stone had
10 never indicated anything about WikiLeaks. I think that is
11 either -- that's not what I recall.
12 Q. Let me ask you a couple of questions about the telephone
13 call that we were just talking about.
14 Did you hear the content of the telephone call?
15 A. I did not.
16 Q. Do you know what Mr. Stone said to Mr. Trump?
17 A. I do not.
18 Q. Do you -- you heard his voice; is that right?
19 A. Correct.
20 Q. But you could not tell the content of the communication?
22 Q. And where were you when this call took place?
23 A. In the car with Mr. Trump.
24 Q. Were you going from Trump Tower to LaGuardia Airport?

1 Q. And how long a ride is that?
2 A. Roughly, 20 minutes with the motorcade.
3 Q. And in that car -- what kind of car were you in?
4 A. It was a Suburban, I believe.
5 Q. And were you sitting in the back with Mr. Trump?
6 A. I was sitting diagonal in the back to him, yes.
7 Q. You say "diagonal in the back to him." He was in the front
8 seat?
9 A. Well, he's in the middle seat, and then I was in the far
10 back.
11 Q. The far back?
12 A. Correct.
13 Q. Who else was in the car?
14 A. I don't recall who else was in the car at that time.
15 Q. Were there other people in the car?
16 A. The Secret Service, yes.
17 Q. How many Secret Service agents were in the car?
18 A. Two.
19 Q. And where were they sitting?
20 A. In the front seat. One was driving and one was in the
21 front passenger seat.
22 Q. So this was a three-row Suburban?
23 A. Two and a half.
24 Q. And you were in the half?
25 A. Exactly.
1 Q. Okay. The other crimes that were dropped against you in
2 Alexandria, do you recall what they were?
3 A. Yes. Most of them pertain to foreign bank accounts and not
4 submitting accurate tax returns.
5 Q. I'm sorry. I didn't hear the last part.
6 A. Not submitting accurate tax returns.
7 Q. And how inaccurate were the tax returns?
8 A. There were, I think, at least, before we corrected them,
9 three years of tax returns where income was not fully reported.
10 Q. And how much income was not fully reported?
11 A. It varied by year, depending on the year.
12 Q. Do you have --
13 THE COURT: Which tax returns are we talking about?
14 THE WITNESS: My personal tax returns.
15 BY MR. ROGOW:
16 Q. Do you have any idea about how much was not reported?
17 A. I don't.
18 Q. Was it more than 100,000?
19 A. Yes, it was.
20 Q. Do you have tax liability now, as a result?
21 A. I do.
22 Q. Was a money laundering charge dropped also?
23 A. It was.
24 Q. What was that about?
25 A. That was pertaining to money Mr. Manafort had earned from

1 his foreign political contracts, in terms of not reporting the
2 amount of income he received on his U.S. tax returns.
3 Q. And you will not be prosecuted for those crimes now that
4 they're dropped, unless you don't answer honestly here? Is
5 that your understanding?
7 Q. Where there other untruths that you said along the way for
8 which you were not prosecuted?
9 A. In what regard?
10 Q. In regard to --
11 A. The second charge?
12 THE COURT: Can you just be more clear with the
13 question? "Along the way," are -- to whom?
14 BY MR. ROGOW:
15 Q. The charges that were brought against you in Alexandria
16 that were dropped, money laundering charges were dropped; is
17 that correct?
19 Q. Failure to file accurate personal tax returns were dropped;
20 is that correct?
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. And have you committed other crimes, besides those crimes,
23 for which you were not prosecuted?
25 THE COURT: All right. I'm sorry to continue with

1 the bench conferences, but these are important matters, and
2 everybody is allowed to be heard.
3 Can you come to bench, please.
5 THE COURT: What's your objection?
6 MR. ZELINSKY: Your Honor, it's a completely
7 open-ended question. You can't impeach a witness by asking if
8 they've ever committed any other crimes for which they haven't
9 been prosecuted. If Mr. Rogow has a particular thing in mind.
10 But, to ask a witness to declare every criminal act they've
11 ever committed which the government has put on prosecution is
12 not --
13 THE COURT: You don't even know if --
14 You are allowed to lead this witness, and you are
15 allowed to cross-examine this witness about anything that is
16 subject to this plea agreement, anything that the government is
17 aware of that he has admitted to that he's not going to be
18 prosecuted for. And you can take him through it line-by-line,
19 as you're well aware has already been done in other cases,
20 because you have transcripts from other cases.
21 MR. ROGOW: Of course.
22 THE COURT: But asking him these open-ended
23 questions -- Have you told any other untruths along the way? I
24 don't even know what that question meant. Have you committed
25 any other crimes? That's not the way to do it.

1 You're allowed to get to the subject matter,
2 absolutely, but I think you have to ask more specific, more
3 focused questions. Because it isn't just what he's done; it's
4 what has the government agreed not to prosecute him for.
5 MR. ROGOW: That, we have out already.
8 (Open court:)
9 BY MR. ROGOW:
10 Q. The charge of conspiracy with Mr. Manafort filing the false
11 tax returns, how much was involved in that?
12 A. Approximately $6 million, for Mr. Manafort.
13 THE COURT: And whose tax returns was that related
14 to?
15 THE WITNESS: Mr. Manafort's returns.
16 BY MR. ROGOW:
17 Q. On your tax returns, did you take false expense deductions?
18 A. Yes, I did.
19 Q. On your personal return, did you lie about foreign bank
20 accounts?
21 A. I did.
22 Q. You had foreign bank accounts --
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. -- correct?
25 And there's a question on the tax return as to

1 whether or not you have foreign bank accounts, correct?
2 A. Correct.
3 Q. And you --
4 THE COURT: Are we talking about the particular
5 returns that were at issue in the Virginia case?
7 THE COURT: What years were those?
8 THE WITNESS: Those were from 2011 to 2013.
9 THE COURT: Okay.
10 BY MR. ROGOW:
11 Q. Did you lie to the tax preparer who prepared your tax
12 returns?
13 A. I had two. So, I'm not sure which one you're referring to.
14 Q. Either one.
15 A. The first one never asked about foreign bank accounts. The
16 second one took over my taxes in 2014. So, the time had -- he
17 was not aware until we went back and redid the tax returns.
18 Q. And did you have accounts in Cyprus?
19 A. Yes. Mr. Man- -- I set up accounts for Mr. Manafort in
20 Cyprus.
21 Q. Did you take any steps to try to avoid taxes in Cyprus?
22 A. Actually, in Cyprus, taxes were paid.
23 Q. Pardon me?
24 A. I said, actually, in Cyprus, taxes were paid.
25 Q. Did you take any money from that account in Cyprus or from
1 any account with Mr. Manafort and not tell him?
2 A. I did.
3 Q. Did you pay taxes on the money that you took from
4 Mr. Manafort's account?
5 A. Some of it, not all of it.
6 Q. Not all of it?
7 A. Correct.
8 Q. All right. Did you tell the truth to banks from whom you
9 were seeking loans during this period of time when you were
10 working with Mr. Manafort?
11 A. I actually had very little contact with the banks. The
12 forms that were prepared were prepared by me and Mr. Manafort's
13 accountant, and then those were submitted by Mr. Manafort.
14 Q. And did the accountants seek any information from you when
15 they were preparing those loan requests?
16 A. Yes. They were seeking articles of incorporation from some
17 of the different companies that Mr. Manafort had established.
18 Q. Did you --
19 THE COURT: The bank loans that we're talking about
20 here were loans to whom?
21 THE WITNESS: To Mr. Manafort.
22 BY MR. ROGOW:
23 Q. How about loans to yourself?
24 A. I'm not sure what you're -- I don't believe I had any
25 loans.
1 Q. Did you ever seek loans for yourself from a bank or any
2 financial institution?
4 A. A mortgage.
5 THE COURT: Mr. Rogow, there's an objection.
6 MR. ROGOW: I don't have another question on that.
7 So, I don't know what --
8 THE COURT: Okay. I don't think there was a -- there
9 was a count related to any bank loan to Mr. Gates.
10 BY MR. ROGOW:
11 Q. Did you alter documents to give to banks to secure loans
12 for yourself or for Mr. Manafort?
13 THE COURT: You have to ask one or the other. I
14 think there's only one at issue.
15 You keep saying "your loan," and they weren't
16 necessarily his personal loans. So, I think you need to be
17 specific with the verbiage of your question.
18 BY MR. ROGOW:
19 Q. Did you alter any documents in order to secure loans for
20 yourself when you sought loans from the bank?
21 A. For myself -- for Mr. Manafort, yes. Not for myself.
22 Q. Did you --
23 THE COURT: Okay. Can you come back to the bench,
24 please?
1 THE COURT: Do you have any factual basis to ask him
2 whether he defrauded banks in connection with loans to himself?
3 MR. ROGOW: Yes. The question was asked before. And
4 he answered it, in the Craig trial, that he altered documents
5 for bank loans.
6 THE COURT: To himself?
7 MR. ROGOW: I don't recall if it was to himself or
8 not.
9 THE COURT: They weren't to himself. You can't ask
10 questions suggesting facts that are not in evidence for which
11 you have no factual basis. He was involved in the transmission
12 of the documents that were entered in evidence in the Eastern
13 District of Virginia case involving -- only Manafort was
14 charged with defrauding the banks, but he participated in
15 helping him prepare the documents.
16 MR. ROGOW: Yes.
17 THE COURT: You've asked three times about loans to
18 him. And you're allowed to ask him questions, if you have a
19 factual basis that there's some crime out there that he's not
20 being prosecuted for. But, you can't just put those -- but,
21 those questions are going to be stricken from the record
22 because you don't have a factual basis for them.
23 If you would like to consult the Craig transcript and
24 come back and tell me, No, he did admit to falsifying documents
25 related to himself, then it's totally fair game. But, I

1 believe that you have to be specific here. You keep saying
2 "you" when sometimes it's Manafort, sometimes it's Davis
3 Manafort. And you have to be clear.
4 And I don't believe there's any evidence in the
5 record in any of these cases that he defrauded anyone in
6 connection with the loan to himself. You've got plenty of
7 other things he committed. But, you've now suggested twice
8 that he did that with your question, and I don't think you have
9 a factual basis to ask that question.
10 MR. ROGOW: I hear you.
11 THE COURT: All right. Well, do you think you do?
12 Because if you can't tell me what it is, then I'm just going to
13 say questions related to --
14 MR. ROGOW: Well, I think, from my reading of the
15 Craig transcript -- and maybe I didn't read it as carefully as
16 it needed to be read with regard to that -- but, he went
17 through a whole long litany, including lying to Visa for his
18 Visa card.
19 So, isn't that getting credit from a bank? Because
20 he did lie about that, too.
21 THE COURT: Mr. Rogow, the more specific you are to
22 questions, the less objectionable they're going to be. You
23 said, Did you ever apply for a loan?
24 And he said, I applied for one mortgage. He said, I
25 didn't alter documents in connection with any loan to me.

1 Now, I just think you have to be specific. You can't
2 just kind of throw stuff up there and see what sticks. It's
3 not fair to this witness. It's -- you have to have a basis of
4 fact for your questions.
5 And Mr. Smith is leaving you a note on your lectern.
6 I don't know if you want to get it to see if it relates to this
7 issue.
8 MR. ROGOW: I will. But, I'm going to ask him the
9 Visa question, for which I have a basis.
10 THE COURT: Okay. Well, just be specific with your
11 questions. And if you go back to the Eastern District matter
12 or Cyprus bank accounts or anything else, not paying taxes, I
13 just think in your question you have to talk about whether it's
14 his taxes, Manafort's taxes, you know, the partnership's taxes,
15 just so it's clear. I'm not saying you can't cross-examine
16 him, but you can't just put stuff out there.
18 (Open court:)
19 THE COURT: All right. The objection to the question
20 about altering documents in connection with a loan for himself
21 is sustained. And the question will be stricken from the
22 record.
23 BY MR. ROGOW:
24 Q. Did you lie to Visa to get a better credit card for
25 yourself?
1 A. I misrepresented the amount of income I had on a credit
2 card application, correct.
3 Q. Did you lie in a deposition to conceal Mr. Manafort's
4 Cyprus bank accounts?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. When will you be sentenced?
7 A. The date has not been set yet.
8 Q. You've testified as a government witness in two cases; is
9 that correct?
10 A. Prior to this, yes, two.
11 Q. Yes. And this is the third case?
12 A. It is, yes.
13 Q. And what was the outcome --
16 BY MR. ROGOW:
17 Q. Is it not true that WikiLeaks made public announcements of
18 its intention to release materials?
19 A. It did make public announcements, correct.
20 Q. And were you aware of those public announcements?
21 A. At the time they were released, yes.
22 Q. And Mr. Stone never indicated to you, did he, what his
23 alleged source of information was?
24 A. He did not.
25 Q. And you don't know whether or not he had a source of

1 information, do you?
2 A. I do not.
3 Q. How much time elapsed between the telephone call in the car
4 and the statement that you said was made by Mr. Trump later on?
5 A. Oh, the statement was in the car. It was within, you know,
6 less than 30 seconds after the call finished.
7 Q. You were on your way to the airport?
9 Q. Did you arrive at the airport?
10 A. Yes, we did.
11 Q. Directly?
12 A. Yeah, we went straight to the airport.
13 Q. And who was at the airport waiting for you?
14 A. There were people in the plane there already there. I
15 don't recall specifically, other than the pilot and a couple of
16 the Secret Service people.
17 Q. Did you ever say to any government agent that the statement
18 that you're talking about from Mr. Trump was made on the plane?
19 A. No. I don't believe this specific statement was made on
20 the plane.
21 Q. Do you have any knowledge of WikiLeaks or Julian Assange
22 from any personal knowledge that you've gained with regard to
23 the release of the documents?
24 A. I do not.
25 Q. In Exhibit 20 that was shown to you, which were the series

1 of texts, Please call me, was there any mention in those
2 documents, in those e-mail text exchanges, of WikiLeaks or
3 Assange?
4 A. There were not.
5 Q. Mr. Stone's role in the campaign dealt with voter
6 registration lists, primarily, didn't it?
7 A. I didn't know what Mr. Stone was responsible for prior to
8 when I arrived. When I arrived, Mr. Stone had already left the
9 campaign.
10 Q. Did Mr. Stone continually ask questions about voter
11 registration lists?
12 A. He did.
13 Q. When the campaign received word about the WikiLeaks
14 responses, they received that from public sources, did they
15 not?
16 A. Which time are you referencing?
17 Q. In any of the WikiLeaks drops of information.
18 A. So starting July 22nd, with the first drop --
19 Q. Yes.
20 A. -- of information?
21 Yes. The first instance that myself and
22 Mr. Manafort -- I can't speak to the other people -- heard it
23 was through the TV.
24 Q. And any other leak of information?
25 A. The subsequent leak of the Podesta emails, again, I believe

1 it was done through -- we found out via the television, or
2 public media.
3 Q. So Mr. Stone, before any of this information was released,
4 did not tell you that there would be this specific information
5 released; isn't that correct?
7 MR. ROGOW: Let me check, Your Honor, but I don't
8 think I have anything more.
10 (Pause.)
11 (Mr. Zelinsky approaching podium.)
12 THE COURT: Well, he's -- hasn't sat down yet.
13 MR. ROGOW: Nothing further, Your Honor.
14 THE COURT: All right. Any redirect?
17 BY MR. ZELINSKY:
18 Q. Mr. Gates, you were just asked a lot of questions on cross-
19 examination about "Mr. Stone had told you"; is that right?
20 A. Correct.
21 Q. Prior to the release of information, did Mr. Stone tell you
22 there was more information coming?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Did he do that on a number of occasions?
25 A. He did.
1 Q. And the -- what did you understand to be the source of
2 Mr. Stone's information on those occasions?
3 A. He didn't reference a specific individual or person. But,
4 given that the information was coming from WikiLeaks, I assumed
5 it was WikiLeaks.
6 Q. And did you understand it to be public information?
7 A. No. Because the press releases hadn't come out yet. So,
8 it was information in advance of those releases.
9 MR. ZELINSKY: Nothing further, Your Honor.
10 THE COURT: All right. Can this witness be excused?
11 MR. ZELINSKY: (Nods head.)
12 THE COURT: All right. Sir, you're excused. Thank
13 you.
15 THE COURT: I think you have another witness; is that
16 correct?
17 MR. ZELINSKY: Yes, Your Honor, one more.
18 THE COURT: All right. So why don't we take our
19 mid-morning break before that happens.
20 Members of the jury, we're going to take the promised
21 break this morning. We'll resume at 10 after 11. Please leave
22 your notebooks here. Please don't discuss the case among
23 yourselves.
24 (Jurors leave the courtroom.)
25 THE COURT: All right. We'll resume in approximately

1 10 or 15 minutes. And let's have the next government witness
2 waiting outside the door when we come back.
3 MR. ZELINSKY: Yes, Your Honor.
5 (Recess.)
6 THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Your Honor, recalling Criminal
7 Case Number 19-18, United States of America v. Roger Stone.
8 THE COURT: All right. Let's bring in the jury.
9 (Jurors enter the courtroom.)
10 THE COURT: Okay. The government can call its next
11 witness.
12 MR. ZELINSKY: Your Honor, the government recalls
13 Ms. Michelle Taylor.
14 MR. KRAVIS: Your Honor, we'll use the Elmo for this.
15 Thank you.
16 THE COURT: All right. Ms. Taylor, I just want to
17 remind you that you were sworn to tell the truth, and you
18 remain under oath at this time.
19 THE WITNESS: Thanks.
21 MICHELLE TAYLOR,
22 having been previously sworn, testified as follows:
24 BY MR. KRAVIS:
25 Q. Good morning, Ms. Taylor.

1 A. Good morning.
2 Q. When you first testified last week, do you remember
3 testifying about the release of some emails of the Democratic
4 National Committee by an organization called WikiLeaks on
5 July 22nd, 2016?
6 A. Yes, I do.
7 Q. What was the name of the online persona or figure who took
8 credit for hacking or obtaining those documents from the
9 Democratic National Committee?
10 A. Guccifer 2.0.
11 Q. During Mr. Stone's testimony before the House Intelligence
12 Committee, was he asked about that persona, Guccifer 2.0, and
13 that alleged hack?
14 A. Yes, he was.
15 MR. ZELINSKY: I would like to publish now, please,
16 for the witness and the jury, what's been admitted as
17 Government's Exhibit 1. This is page 28 of Government's
18 Exhibit 1.
19 BY MR. ZELINSKY:
20 Q. Ms. Taylor, I want to direct your attention to the portion
21 of -- oh, and, Ms. Taylor, just to remind the jury, what is
22 Government's Exhibit 1?
23 A. This is a transcript of Mr. Stone's testimony before HPSCI.
24 Q. I've put on the screen in front of you page 28 of the
25 transcript.
1 Can you read for us, please, the question and answer
2 that I have highlighted there?
3 A. "MR. SWALWELL: In 2016, August of 2016, you and the
4 American public are aware, from press reporting, that Russia is
5 accused of hacking democratic emails, is that --
6 "MR. STONE. Yes."
7 Q. I want to direct your attention now to page 29, the next
8 page of the same exhibit.
9 Can you read, please, the question and answer that
10 I've highlighted on page 29 of Government's Exhibit 1, the
11 transcript?
12 A. "MR. SWALWELL: It took me a while, too.
13 "Were you aware when you wrote that article, the
14 Breitbart one, that Guccifer 2.0 was assessed by the
15 Intelligence Community as a cutout for the Russian intelligence
16 services?
17 "MR. STONE: I was aware of that claim, but I don't
18 subscribe to it. There's a substantial amount of information
19 you can find online that questions that. I realize it's an
20 assertion, but as I said in my statement, our intelligence
21 agencies are often wrong."
22 Q. Finally, Ms. Taylor, I would like to direct your attention
23 to page 113, bottom of 113 to the top of 114 of the same
24 exhibit, the transcript.
25 First, can you read for us, please, the question that
1 starts at the bottom of page 113 of the transcript?
2 A. "MR. SCHIFF: Mr. Stone, you've acknowledged that it's the
3 conclusion of the intelligence community that Guccifer 2 is a
4 cutout of the Russian intelligence agencies."
5 Q. And Mr. Stone's response?
6 A. "MR. STONE: They have said that, yes."
7 Q. Now, did the report prepared by the House Intelligence
8 Committee include any discussion of WikiLeaks?
9 A. Yes.
10 MR. ZELINSKY: Could I have this for the witness
11 only, for the moment, please.
12 BY MR. ZELINSKY:
13 Q. Ms. Taylor, I'm going to show you what has been marked, for
14 the moment, for identification only as Government's Exhibit
15 6-B.
16 Do you recognize Government's Exhibit 6-B?
17 A. Yes. It's a page of the HPSCI report.
18 MR. ZELINSKY: At this time, the government moves
19 Exhibit 6-B into evidence.
20 THE COURT: Any objection?
21 MR. ROGOW: It's in evidence.
22 THE COURT: Yeah. Do you mean all of the -- all
23 right. There's no -- is there any objection?
24 MR. ROGOW: No objection.
25 THE COURT: All right. It's in evidence.

1 MR. KRAVIS: And may I publish it for the jury,
2 please?
3 THE COURT: Yes.
4 BY MR. KRAVIS:
5 Q. Ms. Taylor, can you read for us, please, the paragraph that
6 I've highlighted at the bottom of the first column?
7 A. "WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks played a key role in Russian's
8 malign influence campaign, and served as a third-party
9 intermediary for Russian intelligence during the period leading
10 up to the 2016 U.S. presidential election."
11 Q. Finally, Ms. Taylor, I've handed you what's been marked for
12 identification as Government's Exhibit 214.
13 Do you recognize Government's 214?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. What is it?
16 A. It is a transcript of the Frank Pentangeli testimony scene
17 from The Godfather II.
18 Q. And have you seen The Godfather, Part II?
19 A. Yes, I have.
20 Q. Once or more than once?
21 A. More than once.
22 Q. And this particular scene in the movie The Godfather, Part
23 II, have you seen this scene more than once?
24 A. Definitely more than once.
25 Q. When was the last time you saw that scene in the movie?
1 A. Last night.
2 Q. And based on having seen this portion of the movie -- oh,
3 and have you had a chance to review Government's Exhibit 214,
4 the transcript?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Based on your review of the transcript and your viewing of
7 the movie, is Government's Exhibit 214 a fair and accurate
8 transcript of the Frank Pentangeli congressional testimony
9 scene in the movie?
10 A. Yes.
11 MR. ZELINSKY: All right. Subject to further
12 redaction, the government moves Exhibit 214 into evidence.
13 THE COURT: All right. It will be admitted pursuant
14 to the rulings earlier.
15 MR. KRAVIS: Thank you, Your Honor.
16 Thank you, Ms. Taylor.
17 No further questions.
18 THE COURT: Any cross-examination with respect to
19 these matters?
21 BY MR. ROGOW:
22 Q. Good morning, again, Ms. Taylor.
23 A. Good morning.
24 Q. Do you know, independently, whether or not Guccifer is
25 Russian?
1 A. I don't.
2 Q. Did Mr. Stone turn over his communications with Guccifer
3 that he mentioned in the transcript?
4 A. He did.
5 Q. Did you find any other communications between Mr. Stone and
6 Guccifer?
7 A. I'm not aware of any.
8 MR. ROGOW: Nothing further, Your Honor?
9 THE COURT: All right. Can this witness be excused?
10 MR. KRAVIS: Yes. Thank you, Your Honor.
11 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you very much. You can step
12 down.
13 All right. Does the government have any other
14 witnesses to call?
15 MR. KRAVIS: No further witnesses. The government
16 does have some additional exhibits to move into evidence at
17 this time.
18 THE COURT: All right. Do we need to do that in the
19 presence of the jury?
20 MR. KRAVIS: There are two stipulations that have
21 been signed by the defense that we would like to read for the
22 jury.
23 THE COURT: Okay. All right.
25 THE COURT: Let's do that now.

1 MR. KRAVIS: The first is Government's Exhibit 203,
2 this has been marked and previously admitted. It's a
3 stipulation regarding the location of the hearing.
4 And may I read it to the jury?
5 THE COURT: Yes.
6 But, first, I would like to tell you, a stipulation
7 is an agreement between the parties of the facts that are about
8 to be read to you. And you can consider that as evidence in
9 the case.
10 Go ahead.
11 MR. KRAVIS: Thank you, Your Honor. Government's
12 Exhibit 203.
13 The parties stipulate to the following fact:
14 Defendant Roger J. Stone's testimony before the United States
15 House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on
16 Intelligence on September 26th, 2017 occurred in the District
17 of Columbia.
18 I have one further stipulation to read for the jury.
19 This is Government's Exhibit 210. It's a stipulation regarding
20 identification that's been signed by the parties.
22 MR. KRAVIS: The parties hereby agree and stipulate
23 as follows: The defendant is the individual named Roger Stone
24 referenced in the trial testimony and the exhibits admitted
25 into evidence in this case.

1 THE COURT: Are there any other stipulations that
2 you're planning to introduce at this time?
3 MR. KRAVIS: Your Honor, at this time the government
4 moves into evidence Exhibits 201 and 202, stipulations
5 regarding phone numbers and email. But I'm not asking to read
6 them to the jury. I would like to just move them.
7 THE COURT: All right. They'll be admitted, and
8 they'll be available.
9 One simply relates to whose phone number is whose of
10 the documents you've reviewed. And the other identifies whose
11 email address is whose. And you've been seeing documents
12 identified in that way through the testimony, but you will have
13 the stipulation that the parties have agreed to with respect to
14 those matters.
15 MR. KRAVIS: And finally, Your Honor, the government
16 moves into evidence the portion of Mr. Bannon's grand jury
17 transcripts referenced in his testimony on Friday, Exhibit 209.
18 THE COURT: Is it in evidence? Can you approach the
19 bench about that?
20 MR. KRAVIS: Yes, Your Honor.
22 THE COURT: I understand it's a sworn out-of-court
23 statement that was inconsistent with his in-court testimony.
24 But, after you read it to him, didn't he adopt it as his
25 testimony? Is it necessary to move it in?

1 MR. KRAVIS: He did not adopt it as his testimony.
2 He acknowledged that the words were read correctly. But I
3 think that given the state of the record, we're entitled to
4 move in the prior inconsistent statement.
5 THE COURT: All right. Do you object?
6 MR. BUSCHEL: We object. He certainly, when I tried
7 to impeach him with his statement that had been made to a
8 federal agent, or the actual grand jury, he harmonized it and
9 said, Oh, the access point was -- we considered it an access
10 point for the campaign, and then he harmonized it.
11 THE COURT: I think it was the frequent, is that the
12 one you want?
13 MR. KRAVIS: Yes. And we don't have to resolve this
14 right now, subject to the admission. But, I believe the rule
15 is that once he's made the inconsistent statement, the prior
16 statement comes into evidence.
17 THE COURT: If it's sworn, it's admissible under the
18 rules. I think that's true. I just -- but, I think it would
19 be helpful for you to give both sides exactly the excerpt that
20 you're planning to introduce, so that we can make a ruling
21 based on that rather than the general statement. So we'll do
22 that later.
23 MR. KRAVIS: Certainly. I was raising it now only to
24 preserve it before we rest.
25 MR. BUSCHEL: Well -- I'm sorry.

1 THE COURT: Yeah. I mean, I want to hear your
2 objection, but I think you should at least see which statement
3 he's intending to introduce before we rule on it.
4 MR. BUSCHEL: May I?
5 THE COURT: Yes.
6 MR. BUSCHEL: I didn't mean to cut off the Court.
7 If the government is resting, we do have a Rule 29 to
8 file and a jury -- proposed jury instruction that we are giving
9 to the government, just for timing-wise.
10 THE COURT: Well, what I was planning to do is if he
11 says, With that, the government rests, to excuse the jury for
12 lunch, and then to chitchat with you about what's happening
13 next.
14 And if you give me something to read, I want to read
15 it before we discuss it.
16 MR. BUSCHEL: Right.
17 THE COURT: And so we'll talk about scheduling after
18 we've excused them from the room. I think that's the best
19 approach.
20 MR. BUSCHEL: Okay.
23 (Open court:)
24 MR. KRAVIS: With that, the government rests.
25 THE COURT: All right. Before we proceed to what

1 comes next in the trial, there's a number of legal and
2 logistical matters that we need to discuss with the parties
3 that I think it would be better for everyone if we are able to
4 discuss them without your having to listen to the husher.
5 So what I think I'm going to do is excuse you for an
6 early lunch. It's a little dicey to figure out exactly when I
7 would need you to return. But, at this point I'm going say
8 until 1:30, that we'll resume at 1:30. The people here may be
9 here for some or all of that period of time, so that may get
10 revised. But, at the very least, you all are excused now for
11 two hours, and to be ready, again, at 1:30.
12 While the government has said it rests -- and that
13 means it's not planning to introduce any further exhibits at
14 this time -- that doesn't mean the case has been submitted to
15 you. You have not yet heard whether there is additional
16 evidence to be introduced. You have not received the
17 instructions of law from me. You have not heard the closing
18 arguments of the parties. And, therefore, you are still not
19 yet at a point where you can discuss the matters among
20 yourselves.
21 So, enjoy your long lunch break and discuss something
22 else. Thank you.
23 (Jurors leave the courtroom.)
24 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Buschel. Okay. So I
25 understand that you intend to make the motion at the close of

1 the government's case, but that you have something you would
2 like me to read in connection with that motion?
3 MR. BUSCHEL: Yes, Judge, under Rule 29. We'll
4 submit it momentarily.
5 THE COURT: Okay. Do you have a copy that you could
6 hand to Mr. Haley?
7 MR. BUSCHEL: We're making some last minute edits.
8 So, no.
9 THE COURT: Okay. And then if I, for example,
10 reserve on the motion, what will transpire thereafter?
11 MR. BUSCHEL: The defense will move into evidence
12 everything it has agreed; some government exhibits that weren't
13 presented and some defense exhibits that will not be objected
14 to will be moved into evidence.
15 The only request the defense has is that we publish a
16 certain portion of the audio HPSCI testimony that Mr. Stone
17 gave. It is 50 minutes long. We just ask to publish it to the
18 jury. And then after that, the defense will rest.
19 THE COURT: All right. Have you -- is it a 50-minute
20 contiguous portion of the transcript, or is it chunks that
21 together make up 50 minutes?
22 MR. BUSCHEL: There are two portions. They are
23 relatively contiguous. The first clip is 7 minutes and 19
24 seconds long. It is from page 47 to page 52.
25 The second clip is 45 minutes and 17 seconds. It is

1 from page 84 to page 117.
2 THE COURT: All right. And you're going to play the
3 audio?
4 MR. BUSCHEL: Yes.
5 THE COURT: Okay. At that time, is the jury also
6 going to have the transcript to follow along?
7 MR. BUSCHEL: We just want the jury to listen.
8 THE COURT: Okay. All right. And the audio has
9 already been authenticated as the actual audio?
10 MR. BUSCHEL: It is in evidence as Government's 1-A.
11 THE COURT: All right. And you said you have an
12 additional jury instruction. I don't know, even if we do all
13 that this afternoon, that we would have time to have the jury
14 instruction conference at the end of that. So, that would
15 probably be something that we would do first thing in the
16 morning and then have the jurors come. I don't see why we
17 wouldn't close tomorrow.
18 I don't think I need briefing on any of the issues
19 that are open. It's largely what I'm going to say about
20 reasonable doubt and a few other little gray snips that you all
21 disagreed about. And I'm probably going to stick as close to
22 the standard jury instructions as possible. But, I'm going to
23 look at everything again.
24 One issue that came to my -- I think the verdict form
25 needs to be tinkered with. I think the defendant's is he

1 guilty of Count 2 in the indictment, Count 3 in the indictment
2 is problematical because I'm not sending the indictment to the
3 jury room because I do think it is unduly prejudicial to send
4 it to the jury room.
5 So, I do believe that the verdict form has to say,
6 With respect to this testimony, do you find that that was a
7 false statement in violation of?
8 So, I think is it has to be more similar to what the
9 government provided than what the defense provided with respect
10 to the false statements. But, I also think it has to kind of
11 paraphrases this. And I think I want a verdict form that
12 specifies exactly what it is that they have to consider in each
13 count as being false.
14 So, I think it needs to be redone. And, perhaps, the
15 government can take the laboring oar on that.
16 My question is with respect to Count 1. Count 1 in
17 the indictment charged obstruction through a number of
18 different circumstances. And I haven't seen an instruction
19 that they -- whether they have to be unanimous about what it
20 was that was the obstructive conduct, or if they only have to
21 be unanimous that he obstructed or not. So, and there may not
22 be an issue with respect to that. But, it may be something
23 that requires special interrogatories or a special unanimity
24 instruction.
25 So, I want to know what the parties' positions are

1 about that. And if you think something more is needed than
2 Count 1, up or down, then I need that in writing before
3 tomorrow morning.
4 MR. BUSCHEL: (Nods head.)
5 THE COURT: Well, I can't tell you when we're going
6 to hear -- I would like to read what you gave me. And I will
7 give you a chance to argue the Rule 29 motion before I take it
8 up. So, the sooner you can get it to me the better. And then
9 maybe we can reconvene at 12:30 or 12:45, or something like
10 that, to talk about it.
11 My other question is, I just want to make sure I
12 understand what is in evidence right now when I'm considering
13 the portions of the House report that could bear on the
14 arguments that you're about to make to me about intent and
15 materiality.
16 His entire testimony is in evidence; is that correct?
17 MR. BUSCHEL: Yes.
18 THE COURT: So I could refer to anything in that.
19 MR. BUSCHEL: Yes.
20 THE COURT: Okay. And with respect to the majority
21 report, the original exhibit binder has the whole report. But,
22 then, I think it was compressed into excerpts; is that correct?
23 MR. KRAVIS: Yes, Your Honor.
24 THE COURT: Okay. So the excerpts that are in
25 evidence are just the ones that were shown to the witness? Or
1 is it more that was marked as -- as, like, the renewed -- is
2 there a revised version of Government's Exhibit 6?
3 MR. KRAVIS: At this time, Your Honor, I believe what
4 is in evidence is Government's Exhibit 6-A, which is what I
5 showed Ms. Taylor last week. I think that's about ten pages,
6 nonconsecutive pages from the report. And also Government 6-B,
7 which is a single page that I showed to Ms. Taylor this
8 morning.
9 THE COURT: Okay.
10 MR. KRAVIS: The defense had on their exhibit list
11 some additional portions of the report that were discussed at
12 the pretrial conference. I don't think that those have been
13 yet --
14 THE COURT: Have not been moved in evidence.
15 MR. KRAVIS: But our position is the position that we
16 stated at the conference with respect to that.
17 THE COURT: Which is?
18 MR. KRAVIS: Well, a better way to put this is, the
19 Court ruled on this.
20 THE COURT: Okay.
21 MR. KRAVIS: So the portions that the Court ruled are
22 admissible, obviously, the defense can move in in their case.
23 But, I don't think they're yet in evidence.
24 THE COURT: Some of them I think -- did you ask
25 Ms. Taylor about any portions of the defense exhibits during

1 her testify?
2 MR. KRAVIS: I -- oh, you're not talking to me.
3 THE COURT: Mr. Buschel?
4 MR. BUSCHEL: No, I don't believe so.
5 THE COURT: All right. So, would you happen to have
6 handy a copy of 6-A and 6-B?
7 MR. KRAVIS: I do.
8 THE COURT: All right. That would be useful for me.
9 MR. KRAVIS: Just for the record, I'm showing defense
10 counsel, first, 6-B, the page that we admitted this morning,
11 and I'm handing that up.
12 I'm now showing defense counsel what we, I believe,
13 marked, admitted, and showed to the witness as Government's
14 Exhibit 6-A during Ms. Taylor's testimony last week. This
15 Exhibit is a total of 18 pages -- they're not consecutive
16 pages -- from the report.
17 THE COURT: What is your point of view about -- well,
18 wait a minute. I may not have to ask that question.
19 What is your point of view about whether I can take
20 judicial notice of definitions of terms used in the report that
21 are defined, for example, on pages 2 and 3 of the report?
22 MR. BUSCHEL: Do you have an example?
23 THE COURT: Well, on page 2 they talk about active
24 measures taken by the Russians. And they define that as
25 "multi-facetted leverage cyber attacks, covert platforms,

1 social media, third-party intermediaries," etcetera. And I
2 think it bears on what they meant when they said they were
3 investigating Russian interference or Russian active measures
4 and materiality.
5 I don't know that that particular excerpt has been
6 moved in evidence. At one point, the entire report was marked
7 as an exhibit. But, it is a public document that you're both
8 relying on.
9 So, should I ignore other aspects of it? Or am I
10 allowed to consider other aspects of it?
11 MR. BUSCHEL: I think the Court should only consider
12 what is in evidence.
13 THE COURT: All right. We'll do that at this point.
14 When are you going to give me the thing you want me
15 to read?
16 MR. BUSCHEL: We're good to go.
17 THE COURT: Okay. But you don't have a printer. You
18 just have to docket it? Or can you --
19 MR. BUSCHEL: We have a thumb drive for Mr. Haley.
20 THE COURT: Okay. Or email it to him and he can
21 print it out and bring it to me in chambers, in addition to if
22 you're going to docket it. I'll get it faster that way.
23 So, why don't we break. And why don't we resume
24 at -- this is hard because I like to fit in lunch for
25 everybody, too. The jury is not even getting -- why don't

1 we resume at 12:30. And then, perhaps, when we're done with
2 this discussion, then we'll take a lunch break, if we haven't
3 had it before. And we can start the jury a little later with
4 what you plan to introduce.
5 Okay. I appreciate the update, and I'll wait for
6 this pleading.
7 Thank you.
8 (Recess.)
9 * * *
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
4 I, JANICE DICKMAN, do hereby certify that the above and
5 foregoing constitutes a true and accurate transcript of my
6 stenographic notes and is a full, true and complete transcript
7 of the proceedings to the best of my ability.
8 Dated this 12th day of November, 2019
10
11 ________________________________
12 Janice E. Dickman, CRR, CMR, CCR

13 Room 6523
333 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
# 904:9
4
2011 [1] - 958:8
#331 [1] - 903:10 2013 [1] - 958:8 4 [1] - 929:24
2014 [1] - 958:16 40 [3] - 947:21, 947:25, 948:23
$ 2016 [35] - 910:18, 910:19, 401 [1] - 903:6
911:11, 911:12, 911:19, 911:24, 45 [1] - 981:25
$250,000 [3] - 915:17, 916:1, 919:11, 919:12, 919:14, 919:21, 47 [2] - 909:4, 981:24
916:5 920:6, 921:3, 921:5, 921:23,
921:25, 926:25, 928:9, 929:5, 5
1 929:6, 930:1, 930:3, 932:17,
933:4, 933:5, 933:12, 933:14, 5 [1] - 902:5
1 [8] - 915:23, 970:17, 970:18, 934:21, 934:23, 935:1, 938:18, 50 [6] - 919:4, 947:21, 947:25,
970:22, 971:10, 983:16, 984:2 946:14, 970:5, 971:3, 973:10 949:2, 981:17, 981:21
1(a [1] - 914:16 2017 [1] - 976:16 50-minute [1] - 981:19
1-30 [1] - 949:14 2018 [2] - 912:18, 951:15 501 [1] - 903:10
1-A [1] - 982:10 2019 [1] - 989:8 52 [1] - 981:24
1.(a [1] - 914:9 202 [2] - 902:17, 977:4 530-5301 [1] - 903:4
1.(b [1] - 914:12 202-354-3267 [1] - 903:16 555 [1] - 902:16
10 [2] - 968:21, 969:1 202..............................977 [1] - 5K [3] - 918:2, 918:4, 918:5
100 [4] - 902:21, 903:3, 923:17, 904:10 5K1 [1] - 917:1
945:3 203 [2] - 976:1, 976:12
100,000 [1] - 954:18 20530 [1] - 902:17 6
1000 [1] - 902:22 209 [1] - 977:17
11 [2] - 913:17, 968:21 209..............................977 [1] - 6 [3] - 916:17, 957:12, 985:2
113 [3] - 971:23, 972:1 904:9 6-A [3] - 985:4, 986:6, 986:14
114 [1] - 971:23 21 [1] - 928:5 6-B [6] - 972:15, 972:16,
117 [1] - 982:1 210 [1] - 976:19 972:19, 985:6, 986:6, 986:10
12 [2] - 902:6, 913:8 2109 [1] - 902:6 6-B..............................972 [1] -
12:30 [2] - 984:9, 988:1 214 [5] - 973:12, 973:13, 974:3, 904:8
12:45 [1] - 984:9 974:7, 974:12 6523 [2] - 903:15, 989:13
12th [6] - 921:23, 921:25, 214..............................974 [1] - 690 [1] - 906:22
926:25, 927:24, 928:18, 989:8 904:10
13 [1] - 928:9 22 [1] - 931:9 7
130-120 [1] - 903:7 22nd [13] - 933:5, 933:12,
1300 [1] - 903:3 934:4, 934:21, 934:23, 935:1, 7 [1] - 981:23
13th [1] - 928:17 937:16, 937:18, 938:18, 939:1, 767-8909 [1] - 902:23
14th [2] - 929:5, 929:6 939:3, 966:18, 970:5 7th [1] - 946:14
15 [2] - 930:1, 969:1 235-8259 [1] - 903:11
15th [2] - 930:3, 931:17 252-7068 [1] - 902:17 8
162 [1] - 912:25 26th [1] - 976:16
17 [1] - 981:25 28 [2] - 970:17, 970:24 84 [1] - 982:1
18 [1] - 986:15 29 [5] - 971:7, 971:10, 979:7,
18:17 [1] - 928:9 981:3, 984:7 9
19 [1] - 981:23
954 [4] - 902:23, 903:4, 903:8,
19-18 [2] - 905:2, 969:7 3 903:11
19-CR-018 [1] - 902:3
3 [2] - 983:1, 986:21 9:30 [1] - 902:7
1:30 [3] - 980:8, 980:11
30 [2] - 948:23, 965:6
2 30-plus [1] - 920:19 A
302 [5] - 949:14, 949:16,
a.m [1] - 902:7
2 [5] - 916:2, 972:3, 983:1, 949:20, 949:25, 950:18
Aaron [2] - 902:15, 905:9
986:21, 986:23 30th [1] - 951:15
ability [2] - 920:13, 989:7
2.0 [3] - 970:10, 970:12, 971:14 328-9064 [1] - 903:8
able [2] - 943:24, 980:3
20 [4] - 929:24, 948:23, 953:2, 333 [2] - 903:15, 989:13
absolutely [1] - 957:2
965:25 33301 [2] - 902:22, 903:7
access [3] - 920:13, 978:9
20001 [2] - 903:16, 989:14 33316 [1] - 903:11
Access [1] - 935:12
2006 [3] - 909:22, 910:12, 33394 [1] - 903:4
account [4] - 915:1, 958:25,
910:16 3rd [1] - 902:21
959:1, 959:4
201 [1] - 977:4
accountant [1] - 959:13
201..............................977 [1] -
accountants [1] - 959:14 965:12, 965:13 arts [2] - 909:8, 909:9

accounts [9] - 954:3, 957:20, Airport [1] - 952:24 ascribed [1] - 941:3
957:22, 958:1, 958:15, 958:18, Alexandria [2] - 954:2, 955:15 aside [1] - 951:23
958:19, 963:12, 964:4 alleged [2] - 964:23, 970:13 asjz@usdoj.gov [1] - 902:18
accuracy [2] - 906:14, 906:17 allowed [6] - 956:2, 956:14, aspects [3] - 919:15, 987:9,
accurate [8] - 906:7, 948:7, 956:15, 957:1, 961:18, 987:10 987:10
948:16, 954:4, 954:6, 955:19, alter [3] - 960:11, 960:19, Assange [6] - 921:6, 925:15,
974:7, 989:5 962:25 927:17, 934:19, 965:21, 966:3
accurately [1] - 907:7 altered [1] - 961:4 Assange's [5] - 921:24, 922:5,
accused [1] - 971:5 altering [1] - 963:20 925:12, 926:24, 927:9
acknowledged [2] - 972:2, altogether [1] - 947:22 asserted [5] - 924:16, 940:14,
978:2 Amanda [1] - 905:10 941:2, 942:1, 942:3
act [1] - 956:10 America [3] - 902:3, 905:3, asserting [1] - 940:25
Action [1] - 902:3 969:7 assertion [1] - 971:20
action [1] - 934:10 American [1] - 971:4 asserts [1] - 940:24
actions [1] - 924:25 amount [5] - 916:6, 933:6, assessed [1] - 971:14
active [2] - 986:23, 987:3 955:2, 964:1, 971:18 assist [1] - 916:14
activity [1] - 925:18 AMY [1] - 902:9 assume [1] - 908:10
actual [2] - 978:8, 982:9 announced [1] - 929:7 assumed [1] - 968:4
Adam [2] - 902:14, 905:9 announcement [18] - 921:24, assuming [2] - 940:25, 945:20
add [1] - 926:15 922:5, 925:12, 925:15, 926:25, attacks [1] - 986:25
added [1] - 915:13 927:3, 927:5, 927:9, 927:16, attend [1] - 915:8
addition [1] - 987:21 927:25, 928:18, 929:12, 929:16, attention [7] - 906:21, 908:9,
additional [15] - 915:16, 916:23, 929:22, 930:24, 931:3, 931:19, 910:18, 937:25, 970:20, 971:7,
917:9, 917:20, 936:15, 937:3, 932:15 971:22
937:6, 938:4, 940:16, 940:18, announcements [3] - 964:17, attitude [9] - 922:4, 922:8,
940:22, 975:16, 980:15, 982:12, 964:19, 964:20 922:9, 922:17, 922:24, 922:25,
985:11 announcing [1] - 924:9 929:15, 935:3, 935:5
address [1] - 977:11 answer [11] - 908:12, 923:20, Attorney's [1] - 905:10
admissibility [1] - 944:8 923:24, 925:19, 939:22, 940:6, ATTORNEY'S [1] - 902:15
admissible [4] - 941:18, 944:2, 940:15, 952:1, 955:4, 971:1, attorney's [1] - 916:24
978:17, 985:22 971:9 audio [4] - 981:16, 982:3, 982:8,
admission [2] - 906:12, 978:14 answered [3] - 948:12, 952:7, 982:9
admit [6] - 905:19, 905:21, 961:4 August [1] - 971:3
905:24, 941:14, 950:3, 961:24 answering [2] - 952:3, 952:9 authenticated [2] - 906:3, 982:9
admits [1] - 949:18 answers [1] - 924:13 available [1] - 977:8
admitted [9] - 913:1, 956:17, anticipate [1] - 940:14 Avenue [4] - 902:21, 903:3,
970:16, 974:13, 976:2, 976:24, anticipating [1] - 925:19 903:15, 989:13
977:7, 986:10, 986:13 anytime [1] - 935:10 avoid [1] - 958:21
adopt [2] - 977:24, 978:1 anyway [1] - 907:10 awake [1] - 930:16
advance [1] - 968:8 appear [1] - 915:18 aware [11] - 920:21, 921:21,
adviser [1] - 920:4 application [1] - 964:2 949:6, 956:17, 956:19, 958:17,
advisor [1] - 932:6 applied [1] - 962:24 964:20, 971:4, 971:13, 971:17,
afternoon [1] - 982:13 apply [1] - 962:23 975:7
agencies [2] - 971:21, 972:4 appreciate [1] - 988:5
agent [7] - 914:24, 949:17, approach [4] - 905:5, 949:11, B
950:1, 951:3, 951:18, 965:17, 977:18, 979:19
978:8 approached [1] - 908:7 bachelor [1] - 909:8
agents [2] - 950:14, 953:17 approaching [1] - 967:11 background [3] - 909:7, 925:25,
agree [1] - 976:22 appropriate [1] - 950:23 926:7
agreed [6] - 917:1, 917:4, April [2] - 927:15, 927:20 balance [1] - 932:16
918:1, 957:4, 977:13, 981:12 argue [4] - 943:14, 945:14, bank [14] - 915:1, 954:3,
agreement [18] - 912:20, 945:16, 984:7 957:19, 957:22, 958:1, 958:15,
912:23, 913:6, 913:13, 913:15, arguments [2] - 980:18, 984:14 959:19, 960:1, 960:9, 960:20,
913:18, 915:5, 915:14, 916:9, arrested [1] - 912:10 961:5, 962:19, 963:12, 964:4
916:19, 917:2, 917:18, 917:19, arrive [1] - 965:9 banks [5] - 959:8, 959:11,
917:22, 918:11, 948:4, 956:16, arrived [2] - 966:8 960:11, 961:2, 961:14
976:7 article [1] - 971:13 bannon [1] - 920:25
ahead [1] - 976:10 articles [1] - 959:16 bannon's [1] - 977:16
airport [4] - 965:7, 965:9, barely [1] - 928:25
based [12] - 907:12, 920:17, 979:6, 979:16, 979:20, 981:3, 947:21, 948:4, 951:2, 958:5,
920:19, 924:13, 929:19, 934:17, 981:7, 981:11, 981:22, 982:4, 961:13, 964:11, 968:22, 976:9,
934:19, 942:15, 947:6, 974:2, 982:7, 982:10, 984:4, 984:17, 976:25, 980:14, 981:1, 985:22
974:6, 978:21 984:19, 986:4, 986:22, 987:11, cases [6] - 947:22, 948:5,
basis [11] - 911:6, 911:9, 987:16, 987:19 956:19, 956:20, 962:5, 964:8
923:19, 942:11, 961:1, 961:11, buschel@bglaw [1] - 903:5 CCR [1] - 989:12
961:19, 961:22, 962:9, 963:3, buschel@bglaw-pa.com [1] - cell [1] - 939:7
963:9 903:5 certain [2] - 949:4, 981:16
bear [1] - 984:13 business [1] - 909:18 certainly [4] - 942:9, 943:22,
bears [2] - 943:21, 987:2 Business [1] - 909:19 978:6, 978:23
became [2] - 911:5, 911:25 BY [34] - 908:22, 913:2, 913:9, CERTIFICATE [1] - 989:2
become [3] - 911:8, 911:20, 913:22, 914:8, 916:18, 921:18, certify [1] - 989:4
928:3 926:23, 928:7, 930:2, 931:11, chair [1] - 919:20
BEFORE [1] - 902:9 935:23, 940:3, 946:1, 946:10, chairman [3] - 911:20, 912:1,
beginning [1] - 909:24 947:16, 948:15, 951:14, 954:15, 923:2
begins [1] - 928:9 955:14, 957:9, 957:16, 958:10, chambers [1] - 987:21
behalf [2] - 905:15, 918:6 959:22, 960:10, 960:18, 963:23, chance [3] - 950:9, 974:3, 984:7
bench [13] - 922:11, 922:12, 964:16, 967:17, 969:24, 970:19, Chandler [2] - 903:9, 905:14
940:7, 940:11, 949:11, 949:12, 972:12, 973:4, 974:21 CHANDLER [1] - 903:9
956:1, 956:3, 956:4, 960:23, changed [1] - 937:9
960:25, 977:19, 977:21 C channels [1] - 935:9
BERMAN [1] - 902:9 charge [9] - 915:2, 915:3,
best [2] - 979:18, 989:7 caller [1] - 939:7
915:13, 915:15, 915:16, 915:24,
better [4] - 963:24, 980:3, campaign [73] - 911:6, 911:8, 954:22, 955:11, 957:10
984:8, 985:18 911:10, 911:12, 911:21, 912:4, charged [6] - 914:9, 914:11,
between [7] - 935:25, 936:6, 912:5, 919:13, 919:14, 919:16, 914:13, 914:14, 961:14, 983:17
941:9, 946:2, 965:3, 975:5, 919:17, 919:20, 919:22, 920:2,
charges [9] - 912:13, 912:16,
976:7 920:5, 920:7, 920:9, 920:11,
914:1, 914:2, 916:23, 917:12,
Between [1] - 924:6 920:12, 920:18, 920:20, 920:25,
917:20, 955:15, 955:16
big [1] - 952:5 922:4, 922:8, 922:9, 922:17,
Charges [2] - 913:23, 914:3
922:19, 922:21, 922:22, 923:1,
binder [1] - 984:21 check [2] - 932:23, 967:7
923:2, 923:8, 923:12, 923:16,
bit [1] - 915:4 chief [4] - 922:19, 923:18,
923:18, 924:2, 924:4, 924:10,
Black [4] - 909:15, 909:25, 924:19, 951:2
924:19, 925:7, 925:8, 925:9,
910:2, 910:7 chitchat [1] - 979:12
925:16, 925:22, 926:10, 926:17,
blind [1] - 941:12 Christopher [1] - 905:11
926:19, 927:4, 927:9, 927:11,
Blvd [1] - 903:10 chunks [1] - 981:20
929:11, 929:21, 931:7, 932:4,
bottom [6] - 928:6, 928:8, circumstances [2] - 917:17,
932:6, 934:2, 934:3, 934:9,
931:10, 971:23, 972:1, 973:6 983:18
935:2, 935:6, 935:10, 937:8,
Boulevard [1] - 903:6 claim [1] - 971:17
938:11, 943:18, 945:18, 952:6,
brainstorming [4] - 934:5, classic [1] - 941:10
966:5, 966:9, 966:13, 973:8,
934:7, 934:12, 934:17 clear [9] - 937:22, 939:25,
978:10
break [5] - 968:19, 968:21, 945:6, 945:8, 950:17, 950:20,
campaign's [10] - 912:1,
980:21, 987:23, 988:2 955:12, 962:3, 963:15
921:19, 922:24, 924:24, 925:1,
Breitbart [1] - 971:14 clearly [1] - 922:25
925:11, 926:2, 929:15, 935:3,
briefing [1] - 982:18 935:5 client [1] - 941:24
briefly [2] - 909:13, 934:25 Campion [2] - 903:1, 905:14 clients [1] - 909:16
bring [6] - 907:20, 907:24, candidate [12] - 920:15, 922:1, Clinton [2] - 922:1, 927:1
908:9, 943:6, 969:8, 987:21 923:4, 923:17, 932:7, 932:9, clip [2] - 981:23, 981:25
bringing [1] - 945:19 938:11, 938:12, 938:15, 939:15, close [3] - 980:25, 982:17,
brogow@rogowlaw.com [1] - 946:3, 946:12 982:21
902:23 car [9] - 952:23, 953:3, 953:13, closing [1] - 980:17
brought [2] - 917:15, 955:15 953:14, 953:15, 953:17, 965:3, CMR [1] - 989:12
Bruce [3] - 902:20, 905:14, 965:5 College [1] - 909:8
947:17 card [3] - 962:18, 963:24, 964:2 college [1] - 909:14
BRUCE [1] - 902:21 careful [2] - 923:13, 945:2 COLUMBIA [2] - 902:1, 902:16
building [1] - 911:3 carefully [1] - 962:15 Columbia [1] - 976:17
Buschel [5] - 903:1, 905:13, Case [2] - 905:2, 969:7 column [1] - 973:6
906:11, 980:24, 986:3 case [19] - 905:18, 908:7, 908:8, combination [1] - 948:3
BUSCHEL [24] - 903:2, 905:13, 908:13, 910:4, 918:17, 925:5, coming [24] - 921:10, 927:12,
906:16, 978:6, 978:25, 979:4,
927:15, 927:21, 931:5, 932:22, considering [1] - 984:12 Court [10] - 903:14, 903:14,
933:19, 936:16, 936:19, 937:4, conspiracy [5] - 914:11, 905:23, 906:19, 945:9, 979:6,
937:17, 937:20, 938:4, 940:16, 914:16, 914:20, 914:22, 957:10 985:19, 985:21, 987:11, 989:12
940:19, 940:23, 942:14, 944:21, Conspiracy [1] - 915:23 COURT [142] - 902:1, 905:12,
946:13, 946:24, 947:2, 947:4, conspire [1] - 914:18 905:16, 906:2, 906:11, 907:4,
967:22, 968:4 constitutes [1] - 989:5 907:18, 907:24, 908:2, 921:12,
comment [1] - 906:23 Constitution [2] - 903:15, 922:7, 922:10, 922:13, 922:18,
commit [1] - 912:5 989:13 923:3, 923:10, 923:25, 924:14,
committed [5] - 955:22, 956:8, consult [1] - 961:23 924:23, 925:3, 925:19, 925:23,
956:11, 956:24, 962:7 consulting [2] - 909:12, 909:15 925:25, 935:22, 939:21, 940:6,
committee [1] - 943:18 contact [7] - 920:20, 920:23, 940:10, 940:21, 941:14, 942:21,
Committee [10] - 925:6, 929:7, 921:1, 931:25, 932:12, 959:11 942:23, 943:11, 944:14, 944:23,
933:7, 934:23, 935:17, 970:4, contain [1] - 912:22 945:1, 945:4, 945:13, 945:16,
970:9, 970:12, 972:8, 976:15 contended [1] - 945:7 945:22, 945:24, 946:7, 947:14,
Committee's [5] - 929:11, content [4] - 939:12, 942:16, 948:9, 948:14, 949:11, 949:13,
929:16, 930:23, 931:3, 931:18 952:14, 952:20 949:15, 949:23, 950:11, 950:22,
communicated [1] - 945:17 context [1] - 942:6 951:9, 951:11, 954:13, 955:12,
communication [1] - 952:20 contiguous [2] - 981:20, 981:23 955:25, 956:5, 956:13, 956:22,
communications [4] - 926:10, continually [1] - 966:10 957:6, 957:13, 958:4, 958:7,
934:15, 975:2, 975:5 958:9, 959:19, 960:5, 960:8,
continue [7] - 921:3, 932:17,
Community [1] - 971:15 960:13, 960:23, 961:1, 961:6,
932:19, 937:6, 937:10, 955:25
community [1] - 972:3 961:9, 961:17, 962:11, 962:21,
contracts [1] - 955:1
companies [1] - 959:17 963:10, 963:19, 964:15, 967:9,
convention [6] - 911:13,
company [1] - 909:20 967:12, 967:14, 968:10, 968:12,
911:14, 911:16, 911:18, 919:19
compared [1] - 907:6 968:15, 968:18, 968:25, 969:4,
Convention [1] - 911:19
competing [1] - 927:11 969:8, 969:10, 969:16, 969:20,
conversation [10] - 919:25,
972:20, 972:22, 972:25, 973:3,
competitor [2] - 935:8, 935:11 929:4, 935:25, 936:3, 936:4,
974:13, 974:18, 975:9, 975:11,
complete [2] - 949:19, 989:6 936:6, 936:24, 939:10, 942:13,
975:18, 975:23, 975:25, 976:5,
completely [1] - 956:6 945:8
976:21, 977:1, 977:7, 977:18,
components [1] - 914:23 conversations [3] - 924:15,
977:22, 978:5, 978:11, 978:17,
comports [1] - 926:5 929:10, 937:9
979:1, 979:5, 979:10, 979:17,
compressed [1] - 984:22 cooperated [1] - 917:2
979:21, 979:25, 980:24, 981:5,
con [1] - 930:12 cooperation [1] - 918:7
981:9, 981:19, 982:2, 982:5,
conceal [1] - 964:3 copy [3] - 906:6, 981:5, 986:6
982:8, 982:11, 984:5, 984:18,
conclusion [3] - 905:17, 941:7, Corporation [1] - 909:17 984:20, 984:24, 985:9, 985:14,
972:3 correct [45] - 910:14, 917:6, 985:17, 985:20, 985:24, 986:3,
conduct [1] - 983:20 918:3, 918:13, 927:2, 928:19, 986:5, 986:8, 986:17, 986:23,
conducting [1] - 916:14 928:20, 930:7, 930:8, 931:19, 987:13, 987:17, 987:20, 989:2
conference [3] - 982:14, 931:20, 931:22, 933:2, 933:3, court [9] - 926:22, 941:15,
985:12, 985:16 938:12, 938:13, 939:12, 939:13, 945:25, 951:13, 957:8, 963:18,
conferences [1] - 956:1 945:21, 946:3, 947:24, 948:22, 977:22, 977:23, 979:23
confident [1] - 945:3 952:19, 952:21, 952:25, 953:12, Court's [1] - 906:21
confirm [3] - 905:25, 906:7, 955:6, 955:17, 955:18, 955:20,
Courthouse [1] - 903:15
908:6 955:21, 957:24, 958:1, 958:2,
COURTROOM [2] - 905:1,
confirming [1] - 946:22 959:7, 964:2, 964:9, 964:19,
969:6
Congress [3] - 926:5, 926:12, 965:8, 967:5, 967:6, 967:20,
courtroom [5] - 905:4, 908:1,
945:17 968:16, 984:16, 984:22
968:24, 969:9, 980:23
congressional [1] - 974:8 corrected [1] - 954:8
cover [3] - 914:20, 914:22,
connection [7] - 941:8, 942:15, correctly [1] - 978:2
925:6
961:2, 962:6, 962:25, 963:20, counsel [5] - 905:5, 905:8,
covered [1] - 941:24
981:2 906:8, 986:10, 986:12
covering [1] - 925:17
connections [1] - 926:11 Counsel's [1] - 915:6
covert [1] - 986:25
consecutive [1] - 986:15 count [3] - 914:12, 960:9,
Craig [3] - 961:4, 961:23,
consequence [2] - 915:12, 983:13
962:15
915:13 Count [7] - 915:23, 916:2,
CRC [1] - 903:14
consequences [1] - 915:10 983:1, 983:16, 984:2
Credico [2] - 906:22, 907:11
consider [4] - 976:8, 983:12, countries [1] - 911:4
credit [4] - 962:19, 963:24,
987:10, 987:11 couple [2] - 952:12, 965:15
964:1, 970:8
considered [1] - 978:9 course [3] - 915:5, 943:10,
crime [1] - 961:19
956:21
crimes [11] - 912:5, 912:8, 986:9, 986:12 discussions [3] - 926:17,

914:20, 914:22, 917:10, 954:1, define [1] - 986:24 927:4, 935:2
955:3, 955:22, 956:8, 956:25 defined [1] - 986:21 dismiss [1] - 917:4
criminal [1] - 956:10 definitely [1] - 973:24 dismissed [1] - 917:12
Criminal [3] - 902:3, 905:2, definition [3] - 941:25, 944:4, dismissive [1] - 924:17
969:6 944:5 display [1] - 939:7
critical [2] - 925:12, 925:16 definitions [1] - 986:20 DISTRICT [4] - 902:1, 902:1,
cross [6] - 943:7, 947:14, defrauded [2] - 961:2, 962:5 902:10, 902:16
956:15, 963:15, 967:18, 974:18 defrauding [1] - 961:14 District [5] - 917:9, 917:13,
Cross [2] - 904:4, 904:6 delegates [1] - 919:19 961:13, 963:11, 976:16
CROSS [2] - 947:15, 974:20 democratic [1] - 971:5 DNC [5] - 931:5, 932:15,
Cross-Examination [2] - 904:4, Democratic [11] - 929:7, 933:13, 933:15, 939:3
904:6 929:11, 929:15, 930:23, 931:2, docket [2] - 987:18, 987:22
cross-examination [2] - 931:18, 933:6, 934:22, 935:16, document [6] - 912:22, 913:3,
947:14, 974:18 970:3, 970:9 950:5, 950:6, 950:21, 987:7
CROSS-EXAMINATION [2] - denied [2] - 926:11, 949:23 documents [16] - 916:15,
947:15, 974:20 denies [1] - 949:19 918:25, 940:22, 960:11, 960:19,
cross-examine [2] - 956:15, deny [1] - 950:4 961:4, 961:12, 961:15, 961:24,
963:15 denying [1] - 905:23 962:25, 963:20, 965:23, 966:2,
CRR [2] - 903:14, 989:12 deposition [1] - 964:3 970:8, 977:10, 977:11
cut [1] - 979:6 deputy [7] - 911:13, 912:4, domain [1] - 937:25
cutout [2] - 971:15, 972:4 919:14, 922:19, 923:1, 923:18, done [7] - 908:8, 908:13, 918:5,
cyber [1] - 986:25 924:19 956:19, 957:3, 967:1, 988:1
Cyprus [8] - 958:18, 958:20, DEPUTY [2] - 905:1, 969:6 door [1] - 969:2
958:21, 958:22, 958:24, 958:25, describe [1] - 909:13 doubt [1] - 982:20
963:12, 964:4 described [1] - 907:10 down [4] - 936:16, 967:12,
description [1] - 918:5 975:12, 984:2
D descriptors [2] - 906:17, 907:1 draw [2] - 906:21, 942:12
detail [3] - 917:3, 923:9, 926:8 drawn [1] - 941:7
D.C [2] - 905:10, 989:14 details [1] - 918:7 drive [1] - 987:19
dah [3] - 944:14, 944:15 developments [1] - 932:14 driving [1] - 953:20
damaging [1] - 935:10 diagonal [2] - 953:6, 953:7 drop [2] - 916:23, 966:18
date [11] - 921:10, 928:16, dicey [1] - 980:6 dropped [6] - 954:1, 954:22,
931:16, 931:17, 946:19, 949:17, DICKMAN [1] - 989:4 955:4, 955:16, 955:19
950:25, 951:16, 951:22, 951:24, Dickman [2] - 903:14, 989:12 dropping [1] - 921:15
964:7 different [5] - 911:4, 923:25, drops [1] - 966:17
Date [1] - 902:6 950:14, 959:17, 983:18 duly [1] - 908:19
Dated [1] - 989:8 differently [1] - 948:20 dumps [2] - 940:16, 940:18
dates [2] - 921:16, 951:17 DIRECT [2] - 908:21, 969:23 during [10] - 917:21, 932:16,
Davis [7] - 909:23, 910:13, Direct [2] - 904:3, 904:6 937:7, 939:5, 949:2, 959:9,
910:15, 910:20, 910:23, 910:25, direct [7] - 936:24, 946:8, 970:11, 973:9, 985:25, 986:14
962:2 948:10, 950:25, 970:20, 971:7,
DC [3] - 902:6, 902:17, 903:16 971:22 E
dealt [1] - 966:5 directly [1] - 965:11
dean [2] - 923:21, 923:23 director [2] - 934:15, 934:16 e-mail [19] - 902:18, 902:18,
debrief [1] - 932:14 disagreed [1] - 982:21 902:19, 902:23, 903:5, 903:8,
decide [1] - 951:2 disbelief [3] - 927:13, 929:18, 903:12, 903:17, 928:6, 928:8,
decides [3] - 918:14, 918:15, 937:20 928:9, 928:11, 928:14, 928:15,
918:16 discuss [13] - 908:7, 927:3, 928:16, 931:10, 931:12, 931:14,
decision [2] - 912:12, 912:15 966:2
930:23, 932:17, 932:19, 935:16,
declare [1] - 956:10 939:25, 968:22, 979:15, 980:2, early [2] - 927:15, 980:6
deductions [1] - 957:17 980:4, 980:19, 980:21 earned [1] - 954:25
Defendant [3] - 902:7, 902:20, discussed [7] - 908:8, 908:13, East [2] - 903:6, 903:10
903:1 923:11, 924:4, 928:19, 930:25, Eastern [4] - 917:9, 917:12,
defendant [3] - 910:4, 976:14, 985:11 961:12, 963:11
976:23 discussing [2] - 926:24, 946:2 edits [1] - 981:7
defendant's [1] - 982:25 discussion [9] - 922:12, educational [1] - 909:7
defense [12] - 906:8, 975:21, 925:14, 940:11, 949:12, 956:4, either [6] - 908:10, 927:3,
981:11, 981:13, 981:15, 981:18, 960:25, 972:8, 977:21, 988:2 949:18, 950:3, 952:11, 958:14
983:9, 985:10, 985:22, 985:25, elapsed [1] - 965:3
election [2] - 911:17, 973:10 Exhibit [31] - 904:8, 904:9, Financial [1] - 903:2
elections [1] - 911:3 904:9, 904:10, 904:10, 912:25, fine [3] - 915:17, 916:1, 916:5
element [1] - 925:4 915:22, 916:17, 928:5, 929:24, finished [1] - 965:6
elicit [1] - 940:20 931:9, 965:25, 970:17, 970:18, firm [6] - 909:15, 909:19,
eliciting [1] - 923:14 970:22, 971:10, 972:14, 972:16, 909:22, 909:25, 910:11, 910:12
Elmo [1] - 969:14 972:19, 973:12, 974:3, 974:7, first [18] - 905:20, 908:19,
email [3] - 977:5, 977:11, 974:12, 976:1, 976:12, 976:19, 909:14, 911:8, 913:20, 937:18,
987:20 977:17, 985:2, 985:4, 986:14, 944:19, 958:15, 966:18, 966:21,
emails [13] - 916:15, 927:17, 986:15 970:2, 971:25, 973:6, 976:1,
933:6, 933:10, 934:23, 935:17, exhibit [8] - 907:5, 913:8, 976:6, 981:23, 982:15, 986:10
939:1, 939:3, 946:15, 946:17, 913:21, 971:8, 971:24, 984:21, fit [1] - 987:24
966:25, 970:3, 971:5 985:10, 987:7 five [3] - 915:17, 915:25, 916:4
employed [2] - 910:6, 910:20 exhibits [8] - 905:19, 905:21, FL [4] - 902:22, 903:4, 903:7,
employment [1] - 909:24 975:16, 976:24, 980:13, 981:12, 903:11
end [3] - 911:10, 917:25, 982:14 981:13, 985:25 focused [1] - 957:3
ended [4] - 939:16, 940:4, Exhibits [2] - 904:8, 977:4 follow [2] - 938:3, 982:6
956:7, 956:22 expect [1] - 905:18 following [5] - 909:18, 935:1,
enjoy [1] - 980:21 expense [1] - 957:17 949:18, 950:3, 976:13
enlarge [4] - 914:6, 928:6, explain [2] - 915:3, 915:20 follows [3] - 908:20, 969:22,
929:25, 931:10 explained [1] - 906:22 976:23
enter [3] - 908:1, 912:19, 969:9 explaining [1] - 925:12 FOR [2] - 902:1, 902:15
entered [1] - 961:12 extent [1] - 944:22 foregoing [1] - 989:5
entire [2] - 984:16, 987:6 foreign [10] - 911:4, 914:24,
entitled [2] - 949:24, 978:3 F 915:1, 954:3, 955:1, 957:19,
essential [1] - 925:4 957:22, 958:1, 958:15
established [2] - 923:19, facetted [1] - 986:25 form [3] - 982:24, 983:5, 983:11
959:17 facing [3] - 916:7, 917:20, formal [2] - 920:7, 920:9
etcetera [1] - 987:1 917:25 forms [1] - 959:12
euphoric [1] - 925:21 fact [18] - 928:2, 935:6, 940:24, Fort [2] - 902:22, 903:7
evening [1] - 939:5 940:25, 941:2, 941:15, 941:17, forthcoming [2] - 931:1, 933:16
942:2, 942:5, 943:5, 944:2, forward [1] - 950:20
events [1] - 930:6
944:16, 944:17, 945:11, 952:3, foundation [2] - 922:13, 950:1
eventually [1] - 911:20
963:4, 976:13 foundational [1] - 926:16
evidence [30] - 907:9, 927:18,
facts [3] - 945:11, 961:10, 976:7
941:17, 943:21, 961:10, 961:12, Fourth [1] - 902:16
factual [5] - 961:1, 961:11,
962:4, 972:19, 972:21, 972:25, Frank [3] - 906:23, 973:16,
961:19, 961:22, 962:9
974:12, 975:16, 976:8, 976:25, 974:8
failure [1] - 955:19
977:4, 977:16, 977:18, 978:16, frequent [1] - 978:11
980:16, 981:11, 981:14, 982:10, fair [4] - 906:7, 961:25, 963:3, frequently [1] - 937:8
984:12, 984:16, 984:25, 985:4, 974:7
Friday [1] - 977:17
985:14, 985:23, 987:6, 987:12 false [8] - 914:14, 914:25,
front [6] - 906:6, 915:18, 953:7,
exactly [4] - 953:25, 978:19, 915:3, 957:10, 957:17, 983:7,
953:20, 953:21, 970:24
980:6, 983:12 983:10, 983:13
Ft [2] - 903:4, 903:11
EXAMINATION [5] - 908:21, falsifying [1] - 961:24
fulfil [1] - 917:18
947:15, 967:16, 969:23, 974:20 falsity [1] - 943:20
fulfilled [1] - 918:10
Examination [5] - 904:3, 904:4, far [2] - 953:9, 953:11
full [1] - 989:6
904:4, 904:6, 904:6 faster [1] - 987:22
fully [3] - 917:1, 954:9, 954:10
examination [3] - 947:14, FBI [3] - 905:11, 950:14, 951:18
967:19, 974:18 February [1] - 912:18
federal [2] - 914:14, 978:8
G
examine [2] - 956:15, 963:15
examined [1] - 908:20 feelings [1] - 924:24 G-A-T-E-S [1] - 909:2
example [4] - 935:12, 981:9, felt [2] - 906:23, 929:21 gained [2] - 937:24, 965:22
986:21, 986:22 few [3] - 905:19, 906:9, 982:20 game [1] - 961:25
exceptions [1] - 944:18 field [1] - 909:11 Games [1] - 909:21
excerpt [2] - 978:19, 987:5 figure [2] - 970:7, 980:6 gates [2] - 907:21, 907:22
excerpts [2] - 984:22, 984:24 file [3] - 914:25, 955:19, 979:8 GATES [1] - 908:18
exchanges [1] - 966:2 filing [1] - 957:10 Gates [18] - 904:3, 908:16,
excluded [1] - 944:5 filled [1] - 906:19 909:1, 909:3, 913:10, 922:25,
excuse [2] - 979:11, 980:5 finally [6] - 937:5, 937:21, 923:4, 923:7, 925:13, 926:24,
excused [5] - 968:10, 968:12, 971:22, 973:11, 977:15 927:20, 941:10, 946:2, 946:11,
975:9, 979:18, 980:10 financial [2] - 917:10, 960:2 947:17, 949:6, 960:9, 967:18
general [2] - 926:18, 978:21 Haley [2] - 981:6, 987:19 hope [1] - 908:5
George [1] - 909:9 half [2] - 953:23, 953:24 hour [1] - 928:25
GIBBONS [1] - 903:2 hand [4] - 908:12, 949:13, hours [1] - 980:11
gift [1] - 927:12 951:11, 981:6 House [6] - 925:6, 926:1,
given [3] - 921:10, 968:4, 978:3 handed [3] - 950:18, 950:21, 970:11, 972:7, 976:15, 984:13
glad [1] - 908:2 973:11 HPSCI [3] - 970:23, 972:17,
Godfather [4] - 905:22, 973:17, handing [1] - 986:11 981:16
973:18, 973:22 handy [1] - 986:6 huge [1] - 941:4
government [60] - 906:25, happiness [2] - 927:10, 935:7 hum [1] - 933:11
908:14, 912:20, 912:23, 913:6, happy [2] - 922:23, 928:1 hundreds [1] - 922:21
913:18, 914:15, 915:8, 915:10, hard [1] - 987:24 hung [2] - 943:4, 943:16
916:9, 916:13, 916:19, 916:22, harmonized [2] - 978:8, 978:10 hurt [1] - 935:14
916:23, 917:4, 917:12, 917:19, head [5] - 908:11, 919:19, husher [1] - 980:4
918:1, 918:6, 918:11, 918:22, 968:11, 984:4
919:3, 919:5, 919:8, 929:8, hear [11] - 936:11, 939:9, I
929:17, 930:24, 943:23, 945:7, 939:10, 939:11, 943:8, 952:14,
945:9, 947:20, 947:22, 948:2, 954:5, 962:10, 979:1, 984:6 Ian [1] - 902:13
948:16, 948:21, 949:5, 950:18, heard [11] - 906:9, 927:14, ID [1] - 939:7
956:11, 956:16, 957:4, 964:8, 927:20, 927:21, 938:19, 946:5, idea [3] - 916:25, 934:8, 954:16
965:17, 969:1, 969:10, 969:12, 952:18, 956:2, 966:22, 980:15, identification [3] - 972:14,
972:18, 974:12, 975:13, 975:15, 980:17 973:12, 976:20
977:3, 977:15, 979:7, 979:9, hearing [1] - 976:3 identified [1] - 977:12
979:11, 979:24, 980:12, 981:12, hearsay [21] - 923:14, 924:12, identifies [1] - 977:10
983:9, 983:15 924:13, 940:12, 940:17, 941:6, identify [2] - 905:5, 907:5
Government [6] - 904:8, 904:9, 941:10, 941:25, 942:7, 942:8, ignore [1] - 987:9
904:9, 904:10, 904:10, 985:6 943:2, 944:4, 944:5, 944:6, II [4] - 905:22, 973:17, 973:18,
Government's [17] - 970:17, 944:9, 944:14, 944:17, 944:18, 973:23
970:22, 971:10, 972:14, 972:16, 944:19 III [3] - 908:18, 909:1, 913:11
973:12, 973:13, 974:3, 974:7, heart [1] - 926:13 illegal [1] - 925:23
976:1, 976:11, 976:19, 982:10, HELD [1] - 902:9 immediately [4] - 935:1,
985:2, 985:4, 986:13 held [4] - 909:13, 911:19, 915:6, 939:16, 940:4, 941:22
government's [3] - 905:17, 934:5 impact [2] - 915:15, 917:24
925:5, 981:1 helpful [2] - 935:11, 978:19 impeach [6] - 949:24, 949:25,
graduation [1] - 909:11 helping [2] - 914:25, 961:15 950:13, 956:7, 978:7
grand [3] - 950:6, 977:16, 978:8 hereby [2] - 976:22, 989:4 impeaching [1] - 951:6
Grant [2] - 903:5, 905:14 highlighted [3] - 971:2, 971:10, impeachment [1] - 949:19
gray [1] - 982:20 973:6 important [4] - 925:8, 926:1,
great [1] - 936:18 Hillary [1] - 927:1 930:10, 956:1
greater [1] - 917:25 himself [7] - 961:2, 961:6, impose [1] - 915:16
grounds [4] - 906:12, 906:13, 961:7, 961:9, 961:25, 962:6, imprisonment [3] - 915:17,
922:7, 924:21 963:20 915:25, 916:4
gsmith@strategysmith.com history [1] - 909:24 IN [1] - 902:1
[1] - 903:8 Hollywood [1] - 935:13 in-court [1] - 977:23
Gtech [1] - 909:17 honest [1] - 927:14 inaccurate [1] - 954:7
Guccifer [7] - 970:10, 970:12, honestly [1] - 955:4 inadmissible [1] - 943:4
971:14, 972:3, 974:24, 975:2, Honor [47] - 905:1, 905:7, include [1] - 972:8
975:6 907:17, 907:23, 908:17, 922:6, including [4] - 906:5, 923:3,
guess [3] - 908:6, 923:3, 942:24 922:23, 925:4, 925:21, 926:21, 938:11, 962:17
guidance [3] - 928:13, 929:1, 935:21, 939:20, 940:2, 940:12, income [4] - 954:9, 954:10,
929:3 940:13, 944:21, 944:25, 945:6, 955:2, 964:1
guidelines [1] - 918:9 945:15, 945:21, 946:9, 947:13, inconsistent [3] - 977:23,
guilty [6] - 912:17, 912:19, 949:10, 950:17, 956:6, 957:7, 978:4, 978:15
915:2, 915:18, 916:2, 983:1 963:17, 967:7, 967:13, 967:15, incorporation [1] - 959:16
968:9, 968:17, 969:3, 969:6, incorrect [1] - 950:11
H 969:12, 969:14, 974:15, 975:8, independently [1] - 974:24
975:10, 975:24, 976:11, 977:3, INDEX [1] - 904:1
hack [2] - 931:5, 970:13 977:15, 977:20, 979:22, 984:23, indicate [1] - 933:20
hacked [4] - 926:3, 929:7, 985:3 indicated [16] - 921:9, 921:14,
929:16, 930:24 Honor's [1] - 944:13 932:13, 933:16, 936:14, 936:20,
hacking [2] - 970:8, 971:5 HONORABLE [1] - 902:9
937:3, 937:5, 938:10, 938:14, international [1] - 911:2 970:5

946:13, 946:21, 947:7, 952:4, interrogatories [1] - 983:23 June [16] - 911:24, 921:23,
952:10, 964:22 interviews [5] - 915:6, 948:1, 921:25, 926:25, 927:24, 928:9,
indication [2] - 927:16, 928:1 948:3, 948:5, 948:22 928:17, 928:18, 929:5, 929:6,
indicted [1] - 912:8 introduce [8] - 941:1, 941:2, 930:1, 930:3, 931:17, 932:16,
indictment [9] - 916:24, 917:5, 944:17, 977:2, 978:20, 979:3, 932:19
917:7, 917:8, 917:10, 983:1, 980:13, 988:4 jurisdiction [1] - 917:8
983:2, 983:17 introduced [2] - 942:1, 980:16 jurors [6] - 908:1, 908:3,
individual [2] - 968:3, 976:23 introducing [1] - 942:4 968:24, 969:9, 980:23, 982:16
inference [6] - 941:3, 941:23, investigating [3] - 926:2, 926:3, JURY [2] - 902:4, 902:8
942:12, 942:20, 942:23, 943:13 987:3 jury [32] - 907:8, 907:14,
influence [2] - 926:9, 973:8 investigation [2] - 916:14, 907:24, 925:13, 944:1, 945:16,
informal [1] - 920:10 926:2 950:7, 968:20, 969:8, 970:16,
information [84] - 921:9, involved [5] - 911:5, 911:8, 970:21, 973:1, 975:19, 975:22,
921:11, 921:13, 921:15, 921:16, 934:11, 957:11, 961:11 976:4, 976:18, 977:6, 977:16,
921:20, 921:21, 921:25, 922:1, involving [1] - 961:13 978:8, 979:8, 979:11, 981:18,
925:16, 926:3, 926:11, 926:25, issue [6] - 942:19, 958:5, 982:5, 982:7, 982:12, 982:13,
927:11, 927:14, 927:18, 927:21, 960:14, 963:7, 982:24, 983:22 982:22, 983:3, 983:4, 987:25,
927:22, 928:2, 928:3, 929:19, issues [5] - 908:8, 944:8, 944:9, 988:3
929:20, 930:25, 931:4, 931:25, 948:6, 982:18
932:12, 932:22, 932:24, 933:1, itself [1] - 907:2 K
933:16, 933:19, 933:20, 933:23,
933:25, 934:1, 934:8, 934:12, Keefe [1] - 905:11
J keep [2] - 960:15, 962:1
935:6, 935:7, 935:10, 935:14,
935:15, 936:15, 936:20, 936:22, JACKSON [1] - 902:9 Kelly [1] - 909:15
936:25, 937:3, 937:4, 937:7, Jackson [1] - 918:17 key [1] - 973:7
937:16, 937:19, 938:4, 938:7, JANICE [1] - 989:4 kind [6] - 910:25, 927:13,
938:15, 938:18, 940:16, 940:19, Janice [2] - 903:14, 989:12 929:18, 953:3, 963:2, 983:10
946:13, 946:21, 946:24, 947:2, JaniceDickmanDCD@gmail. knowledge [5] - 922:14,
947:6, 947:7, 947:9, 947:10, com [1] - 903:17 922:15, 922:16, 965:21, 965:22
947:12, 948:17, 959:14, 964:23, January [3] - 910:18, 910:19, KRAVIS [34] - 905:7, 905:17,
965:1, 966:17, 966:20, 966:24, 951:15 906:4, 907:16, 907:22, 969:14,
967:3, 967:4, 967:21, 967:22, Jared [4] - 932:1, 932:2, 932:3 969:24, 973:1, 973:4, 974:15,
968:2, 968:4, 968:6, 968:8, Jason [2] - 902:6, 934:14 975:10, 975:15, 975:20, 975:24,
971:18 Jed [2] - 902:14, 905:9 976:1, 976:11, 976:22, 977:3,
Insight [1] - 909:19 job [4] - 909:14, 910:19, 910:22, 977:15, 977:20, 978:1, 978:13,
instance [1] - 966:21 912:3 978:23, 979:22, 979:24, 984:23,
institution [1] - 960:2 jobs [1] - 909:13 985:3, 985:10, 985:15, 985:18,
instruct [1] - 938:1 985:21, 986:2, 986:7, 986:9
John [2] - 902:14, 946:15
instructed [1] - 944:1 Kravis [2] - 902:13, 905:8
joined [1] - 920:25
instruction [5] - 979:8, 982:12, kravis...............969 [1] - 904:6
joining [2] - 912:5, 920:4
982:14, 983:18, 983:24 Kushner [6] - 923:8, 932:3,
Jon [1] - 902:15
instructions [2] - 980:17, 932:7, 932:9, 932:10, 932:14
Jonathan [2] - 902:13, 905:8
982:22 Kushner's [2] - 932:4, 932:11
jonathan.kravis3@usdoj.gov
intelligence [5] - 971:15, [1] - 902:18
971:20, 972:3, 972:4, 973:9 Jr [1] - 902:6 L
Intelligence [5] - 925:6, 970:11, Judge [3] - 905:13, 918:17,
971:15, 972:7, 976:16 laboring [1] - 983:15
981:3
intend [2] - 945:10, 980:25 lack [1] - 922:13
judge [5] - 915:18, 918:8,
intended [2] - 938:6, 938:9 LaGuardia [1] - 952:24
918:15, 918:16
intending [2] - 905:19, 979:3 large [1] - 933:6
JUDGE [2] - 902:9, 902:10
intent [1] - 984:14 largely [3] - 909:12, 911:2,
judicial [1] - 986:20
intention [1] - 964:18 982:19
Julian [7] - 921:6, 921:24,
interact [3] - 910:6, 919:21, Las [2] - 903:6, 903:10
922:5, 925:12, 926:24, 927:9,
919:24 last [9] - 906:9, 913:7, 954:5,
965:21
interest [1] - 926:2 970:2, 973:25, 974:1, 981:7,
July [20] - 911:19, 933:4, 933:5,
interested [3] - 924:17, 925:9 985:5, 986:14
933:10, 933:12, 933:14, 934:4,
interference [1] - 987:3 latter [1] - 938:25
934:5, 934:7, 934:21, 934:23,
intermediaries [1] - 987:1 Lauderdale [4] - 902:22, 903:4,
935:1, 937:16, 937:18, 938:18,
intermediary [1] - 973:9 903:7, 903:11
938:25, 939:1, 939:3, 966:18,
laundering [2] - 954:22, 955:16 M means [1] - 980:13

law [4] - 923:22, 932:10, 980:17 meant [3] - 906:24, 956:24,
LAW [2] - 902:21, 903:9 ma'am [1] - 958:6 987:2
lawyer [2] - 913:15, 950:2 mail [19] - 902:18, 902:18, measures [2] - 986:24, 987:3
lay [1] - 950:1 902:19, 902:23, 903:5, 903:8, media [2] - 967:2, 987:1
laying [1] - 925:25 903:12, 903:17, 928:6, 928:8, meet [10] - 918:22, 919:2,
lead [1] - 956:14 928:9, 928:11, 928:14, 928:15, 919:5, 919:8, 944:5, 948:10,
leadership [6] - 922:24, 923:1, 928:16, 931:10, 931:12, 931:14, 948:19, 949:17, 950:1
923:8, 927:4, 929:10, 935:3 966:2 meeting [1] - 915:7
leading [2] - 919:18, 973:9 main [1] - 920:20 meets [1] - 944:4
leak [2] - 966:24, 966:25 majority [1] - 984:20 members [1] - 968:20
leaked [4] - 927:18, 928:4, malign [1] - 973:8 mention [1] - 966:1
934:8, 934:13 man [2] - 944:14, 958:19 mentioned [10] - 909:24, 910:9,
learned [2] - 941:23, 942:23 Manafort [60] - 909:15, 909:23, 910:12, 911:16, 917:4, 918:1,
least [3] - 954:8, 979:2, 980:10 909:25, 910:2, 910:7, 910:9, 918:10, 946:23, 946:25, 975:3
leave [3] - 968:21, 968:24, 910:10, 910:13, 910:15, 910:17, messages [3] - 929:25, 930:3,
980:23 910:20, 910:24, 910:25, 911:3, 931:21
leaving [1] - 963:5 911:15, 911:20, 912:6, 914:19, met [4] - 947:20, 947:21,
lectern [2] - 905:5, 963:5 914:25, 917:11, 920:4, 920:22, 948:16, 949:1
left [2] - 920:18, 966:8 923:4, 923:6, 924:6, 932:21, Michael [2] - 902:14, 905:9
leg [1] - 929:21 932:23, 933:18, 934:14, 935:17, michael.marando@usdoj.gov
legal [1] - 980:1 935:25, 936:7, 936:8, 936:13, [1] - 902:19
less [4] - 907:2, 937:8, 962:22, 936:17, 936:18, 936:21, 937:10, Michelle [2] - 904:5, 969:13
965:6 937:12, 937:14, 938:1, 938:6, MICHELLE [1] - 969:21
letter [6] - 917:1, 918:2, 918:4, 938:9, 938:14, 949:7, 954:25, mid [1] - 968:19
918:5, 918:7, 918:8 957:12, 958:19, 959:1, 959:10, mid-morning [1] - 968:19
level [2] - 924:4, 924:10 959:13, 959:17, 959:21, 960:12, middle [1] - 953:9
levels [2] - 923:12, 926:17 960:21, 961:13, 962:2, 962:3, might [4] - 929:20, 938:4,
966:22 945:6, 947:4
leverage [1] - 986:25
manafort [3] - 911:25, 919:18, Miller [3] - 923:8, 934:14,
liability [1] - 954:20
957:10 934:15
lie [7] - 917:21, 917:24, 957:19,
Manafort's [6] - 910:22, 935:19, million [1] - 957:12
958:11, 962:20, 963:24, 964:3
957:15, 959:12, 963:14, 964:3 mind [3] - 907:19, 941:20, 956:9
likely [1] - 905:18
manafort's [3] - 919:17, 935:20, minute [2] - 981:7, 986:18
limine [1] - 905:23
959:4 minutes [6] - 953:2, 969:1,
line [2] - 956:18
manager [4] - 911:13, 911:14, 981:17, 981:21, 981:23, 981:25
line-by-line [1] - 956:18
912:4, 919:14 misrepresented [1] - 964:1
list [2] - 917:25, 985:10
Marando [2] - 902:14, 905:9 modify [1] - 922:23
listed [1] - 914:3
March [2] - 911:10, 911:12 moment [7] - 921:4, 921:23,
listen [2] - 980:4, 982:7
marked [6] - 972:13, 973:11, 933:9, 933:12, 938:22, 972:11,
lists [2] - 966:6, 966:11
976:2, 985:1, 986:13, 987:6 972:14
litany [1] - 962:17
Mary [1] - 909:9 momentarily [1] - 981:4
live [2] - 909:5, 909:6
master [1] - 909:9 money [5] - 954:22, 954:25,
lived [1] - 917:2
material [1] - 947:4 955:16, 958:25, 959:3
loan [7] - 959:15, 960:9, 960:15,
materiality [2] - 984:15, 987:4 months [1] - 937:16
962:6, 962:23, 962:25, 963:20
materialized [1] - 934:10 Morning [1] - 902:5
loans [13] - 959:9, 959:19,
materials [2] - 918:25, 964:18 morning [21] - 905:1, 905:2,
959:20, 959:23, 959:25, 960:1,
matter [7] - 924:15, 940:14, 905:7, 905:12, 905:13, 905:18,
960:11, 960:16, 960:19, 960:20,
941:1, 942:1, 942:3, 957:1, 908:2, 908:4, 908:23, 908:24,
961:2, 961:5, 961:17
963:11 947:18, 968:19, 968:21, 969:25,
location [1] - 976:3
matters [8] - 905:16, 925:10, 970:1, 974:22, 974:23, 982:16,
logistical [2] - 919:15, 980:2
931:7, 956:1, 974:19, 977:14, 984:3, 985:8, 986:10
look [4] - 907:11, 907:18, 950:9,
980:2, 980:19 mortgage [2] - 960:4, 962:24
982:23
maximum [5] - 915:20, 915:24, most [1] - 954:3
looks [1] - 950:12
915:25, 916:3, 916:6 motion [5] - 905:23, 980:25,
lunch [5] - 979:12, 980:6,
mean [19] - 924:11, 933:1, 981:2, 981:10, 984:7
980:21, 987:24, 988:2
935:12, 935:13, 941:18, 942:9, motive [3] - 925:5, 925:13,
lying [4] - 915:10, 925:5,
942:17, 943:15, 944:6, 944:10, 925:17
925:13, 962:17
944:20, 945:10, 951:5, 951:22, motorcade [1] - 953:2
972:22, 979:1, 979:6, 980:14 mouth [2] - 942:25, 943:1
move [10] - 935:24, 938:17, Murphy [2] - 931:25, 932:14 978:6

950:5, 951:4, 975:16, 977:6, objected [1] - 981:13
977:25, 978:4, 981:11, 985:22 N objection [24] - 906:10, 906:12,
moved [3] - 981:14, 985:14, 906:14, 906:16, 906:19, 907:12,
987:6 N.W [1] - 989:13 922:13, 935:21, 939:20, 940:23,
moves [4] - 972:18, 974:12, name [3] - 908:25, 910:9, 970:7 944:10, 944:21, 948:8, 949:10,
977:4, 977:16 named [2] - 909:25, 976:23 955:24, 956:5, 960:3, 960:5,
movie [8] - 906:4, 906:6, names [1] - 923:9 963:19, 964:14, 972:20, 972:23,
906:23, 973:22, 973:25, 974:2, National [12] - 911:19, 929:7, 972:24, 979:2
974:7, 974:9 929:11, 929:15, 930:23, 931:3, objectionable [3] - 907:3,
moving [3] - 914:16, 918:18, 931:18, 933:7, 934:22, 935:16, 941:6, 962:22
950:8 970:4, 970:9 objects [1] - 950:18
MR [179] - 905:7, 905:13, nature [1] - 921:17 observed [1] - 922:25
905:17, 906:4, 906:16, 907:16, NE [1] - 902:21 obstructed [1] - 983:21
907:22, 908:16, 908:22, 912:25, necessarily [1] - 960:16 obstruction [1] - 983:17
913:2, 913:7, 913:9, 913:20, necessary [1] - 977:25 obstructive [1] - 983:20
913:22, 914:6, 914:8, 916:17, need [16] - 908:9, 923:13, obtaining [1] - 970:8
916:18, 921:18, 922:6, 922:8, 928:13, 931:25, 946:7, 949:15, obviously [2] - 937:24, 985:22
922:15, 922:20, 922:23, 923:6, 949:16, 950:13, 950:22, 960:16, occasion [1] - 938:3
923:21, 924:12, 924:20, 924:24, 975:18, 980:2, 980:7, 982:18, occasions [5] - 949:4, 951:25,
925:4, 925:21, 925:22, 925:24, 984:2 952:4, 967:24, 968:2
926:21, 926:23, 928:5, 928:7, needed [4] - 929:1, 929:3, occurred [1] - 976:16
929:24, 930:2, 931:9, 931:11, 962:16, 984:1 October [1] - 946:14
935:21, 935:23, 939:20, 940:2, needs [4] - 924:2, 924:8, OF [6] - 902:1, 902:8, 902:16,
940:3, 940:9, 940:12, 940:13, 982:25, 983:14 902:21, 903:9, 989:2
941:7, 942:9, 942:22, 943:10, never [9] - 921:10, 927:15, offered [4] - 941:11, 941:13,
944:12, 944:20, 944:25, 945:2, 947:7, 947:25, 949:5, 949:8, 942:10, 942:15
945:5, 945:14, 945:21, 945:23, 952:10, 958:15, 964:22 offering [3] - 942:20, 942:21,
946:1, 946:9, 946:10, 947:13, next [9] - 907:21, 907:22, 942:25
947:16, 948:8, 948:13, 948:15, 908:15, 926:20, 969:1, 969:10, OFFICE [3] - 902:15, 902:21,
949:10, 949:14, 949:21, 950:8, 971:7, 979:13, 980:1 903:9
950:16, 950:17, 951:7, 951:10, night [1] - 974:1 Office [2] - 905:10, 915:6
951:14, 954:15, 955:14, 955:24, nonconsecutive [1] - 985:6 official [1] - 914:15
956:6, 956:21, 957:5, 957:7, none [2] - 908:6, 908:7 OFFICIAL [1] - 989:2
957:9, 957:16, 958:10, 959:22, nonpublic [2] - 934:1, 947:10 Official [2] - 903:14, 989:12
960:3, 960:6, 960:10, 960:18, note [1] - 963:5 often [1] - 971:21
961:3, 961:7, 961:16, 962:10, notebooks [1] - 968:22 Olas [2] - 903:6, 903:10
962:14, 963:8, 963:17, 963:23, noted [3] - 906:13, 906:20, old [2] - 909:3, 909:4
964:14, 964:16, 967:7, 967:13, 945:6 once [6] - 973:20, 973:21,
967:15, 967:17, 968:9, 968:11, notes [1] - 989:6 973:23, 973:24, 978:15
968:17, 969:3, 969:12, 969:14,
nothing [10] - 907:23, 933:17, one [36] - 905:21, 908:11,
969:24, 970:15, 970:19, 971:3,
934:3, 934:4, 934:10, 936:21, 909:16, 910:10, 914:23, 914:25,
971:6, 971:12, 971:17, 972:2,
937:17, 967:13, 968:9, 975:8 915:1, 915:22, 920:21, 926:1,
972:6, 972:10, 972:12, 972:18,
notice [1] - 986:20 926:15, 927:10, 928:8, 928:18,
972:21, 972:24, 973:1, 973:4,
noting [1] - 906:19 929:2, 929:4, 930:6, 937:19,
974:11, 974:15, 974:21, 975:8,
November [2] - 902:6, 989:8 945:5, 953:20, 958:13, 958:14,
975:10, 975:15, 975:20, 975:24,
number [13] - 909:17, 923:15, 958:15, 958:16, 960:13, 960:14,
976:1, 976:11, 976:22, 977:3,
925:25, 929:20, 939:7, 948:6, 962:24, 968:17, 971:14, 976:18,
977:15, 977:20, 978:1, 978:6,
951:17, 952:4, 952:5, 967:24, 977:9, 978:12, 982:24, 987:6
978:13, 978:23, 978:25, 979:4,
977:9, 980:1, 983:17 One [1] - 903:2
979:6, 979:16, 979:20, 979:22,
Number [2] - 905:2, 969:7 ones [1] - 984:25
979:24, 981:3, 981:7, 981:11,
numbers [1] - 977:5 online [2] - 970:7, 971:19
981:22, 982:4, 982:7, 982:10,
NW [2] - 902:16, 903:15 open [9] - 926:22, 945:25,
984:4, 984:17, 984:19, 984:23,
985:3, 985:10, 985:15, 985:18, 951:13, 956:7, 956:22, 957:8,
985:21, 986:2, 986:4, 986:7, O 963:18, 979:23, 982:19
986:9, 986:22, 987:11, 987:16, open-ended [2] - 956:7, 956:22
oar [1] - 983:15 opportunity [1] - 907:11
987:19
oath [1] - 969:18 oppose [2] - 916:24, 918:11
multi [1] - 986:25
object [7] - 906:18, 922:6, order [1] - 960:19
multi-facetted [1] - 986:25
924:21, 939:24, 940:8, 978:5, organization [1] - 970:4
original [1] - 984:21 people [13] - 920:12, 920:13, 980:7, 980:19, 986:17, 986:19,
out-of-court [2] - 941:15, 922:21, 923:17, 926:4, 926:6, 987:6, 987:13
977:22 938:10, 952:5, 953:15, 965:14, points [1] - 920:20
outcome [1] - 964:13 965:16, 966:22, 980:8 policy [1] - 934:16
outright [1] - 943:21 perceive [2] - 937:12, 937:14 political [6] - 909:12, 909:14,
outside [3] - 943:2, 944:18, percent [2] - 923:17, 945:3 911:2, 911:4, 911:17, 955:1
969:2 perhaps [2] - 983:14, 988:1 portion [5] - 970:20, 974:2,
overhear [2] - 935:25, 936:6 period [7] - 933:9, 934:25, 977:16, 981:16, 981:20
overruled [1] - 906:13 938:17, 949:1, 959:9, 973:9, portions [5] - 981:22, 984:13,
980:9 985:11, 985:21, 985:25
P periods [1] - 949:2 position [3] - 923:18, 985:15
Permanent [1] - 976:15 positions [1] - 983:25
P.A [3] - 902:21, 903:2, 903:6 permitted [1] - 905:25 possible [2] - 916:3, 982:22
pa.com [1] - 903:5 person [5] - 921:19, 921:21, potential [2] - 915:20, 916:25
page [24] - 906:22, 913:7, 923:15, 925:8, 968:3 potentially [2] - 928:3, 930:25
913:8, 913:17, 913:20, 915:22, persona [2] - 970:7, 970:12 predicate [1] - 950:23
916:17, 929:24, 970:17, 970:24, personal [8] - 922:14, 922:15, predicted [1] - 947:1
971:7, 971:8, 971:10, 971:23, 922:16, 954:14, 955:19, 957:19, prediction [2] - 940:16, 943:12
972:1, 972:17, 981:24, 982:1, 960:16, 965:22 predictions [2] - 934:18, 934:20
985:7, 986:10, 986:23 pertain [1] - 954:3 prejudice [1] - 906:12
pages [5] - 985:5, 985:6, pertaining [2] - 948:3, 954:25 prejudicial [2] - 941:16, 983:3
986:15, 986:16, 986:21 phone [21] - 919:25, 936:4, preliminary [1] - 905:16
paid [2] - 958:22, 958:24 936:8, 936:11, 938:19, 938:22, preparation [1] - 948:4
Paige [1] - 903:9 938:23, 939:4, 939:6, 939:7, prepare [7] - 918:22, 919:3,
paragraph [4] - 914:3, 914:7, 939:8, 939:14, 940:4, 943:4, 919:5, 919:9, 948:11, 948:19,
914:9, 973:5 944:15, 946:2, 946:6, 946:11, 961:15
paraphrases [1] - 983:11 977:5, 977:9 prepared [4] - 958:11, 959:12,
pardon [1] - 958:23 piece [2] - 927:13, 952:5 972:7
Part [2] - 973:18, 973:22 pilot [1] - 965:15 preparer [1] - 958:11
part [9] - 911:18, 912:19, 916:9, place [2] - 938:24, 952:22 preparing [1] - 959:15
916:19, 924:14, 934:17, 934:19, Plaintiff [3] - 902:4, 902:13, presence [1] - 975:19
938:25, 954:5 904:12 present [4] - 905:3, 908:3,
participated [1] - 961:14 plan [2] - 940:19, 988:4 926:16, 927:4
particular [5] - 926:14, 956:9, plane [3] - 965:14, 965:18, presented [1] - 981:13
958:4, 973:22, 987:5 965:20 preserve [1] - 978:24
parties [8] - 911:4, 976:7, planning [5] - 945:18, 977:2, president [3] - 943:16, 943:17
976:13, 976:20, 976:22, 977:13, 978:20, 979:10, 980:13 President [1] - 945:1
980:2, 980:18 platforms [1] - 986:25 president's [2] - 942:25, 943:1
parties' [1] - 983:25 play [1] - 982:2 presidential [2] - 911:17,
partner [2] - 909:19, 910:23 played [1] - 973:7 973:10
Partners [4] - 909:23, 910:21, Plaza [1] - 903:2 press [3] - 934:20, 968:7, 971:4
910:24, 910:25 plea [14] - 912:19, 913:6, pressure [2] - 937:12, 937:14
partners [1] - 910:11 913:13, 913:15, 913:18, 915:5, pretrial [1] - 985:12
partnership's [1] - 963:14 915:13, 916:19, 917:18, 917:19, previous [1] - 913:17
party [3] - 911:18, 973:8, 987:1 917:22, 918:10, 948:3, 956:16 previously [3] - 913:1, 969:22,
passed [1] - 921:11 plead [2] - 912:17, 914:1 976:2
passenger [1] - 953:21 pleading [1] - 988:6 primarily [3] - 919:25, 920:21,
past [1] - 920:2 pleasant [1] - 908:5 966:6
Paul [5] - 910:10, 910:17, pled [6] - 912:16, 912:18, 914:2, primary [3] - 910:10, 910:23,
910:22, 911:15, 912:6 915:2, 915:18, 916:2 921:19
pause [1] - 967:10 plenty [1] - 962:6 print [1] - 987:21
pay [1] - 959:3 Podesta [3] - 946:15, 947:1, printer [1] - 987:17
paying [1] - 963:12 966:25 private [1] - 933:22
Penalties [2] - 913:24, 914:4 podium [1] - 967:11 privately [1] - 946:23
penalties [3] - 915:20, 915:24, point [28] - 920:16, 920:23, probation [2] - 916:25, 918:12
916:3 920:25, 921:10, 922:25, 931:4, problematical [1] - 983:2
penalty [2] - 915:16, 915:25 932:5, 932:21, 933:17, 934:3, proceed [2] - 908:9, 979:25
pending [1] - 927:1 934:6, 934:9, 936:14, 936:21, proceeding [3] - 919:6, 919:9,
Pentangeli [3] - 906:23, 973:16, 941:20, 945:13, 945:14, 945:18, 919:10
974:8 945:20, 946:19, 978:9, 978:10,
proceedings [5] - 918:20, R regards [1] - 939:18

918:23, 919:3, 919:4, 989:7 registering [1] - 914:23
process [1] - 950:14 raised [1] - 908:11 registration [3] - 914:24, 966:6,
professed [1] - 926:9 raising [1] - 978:23 966:11
professing [1] - 926:11 rather [1] - 978:21 registrations [1] - 914:24
professors [2] - 923:23, 924:1 reach [1] - 932:13 related [13] - 917:9, 921:25,
progressing [1] - 919:18 reaching [1] - 952:5 932:7, 932:9, 933:6, 935:9,
prohibited [1] - 942:7 reaction [10] - 923:13, 923:19, 938:2, 946:15, 948:6, 957:13,
promise [1] - 916:12 924:3, 924:9, 924:16, 926:19, 960:9, 961:25, 962:13
promised [6] - 916:13, 916:15, 927:7, 927:8, 927:24, 935:19 relates [2] - 963:6, 977:9
916:23, 916:24, 968:20 read [22] - 907:8, 928:21, 929:1, relating [2] - 942:17, 942:18
promises [3] - 916:10, 916:20, 931:24, 962:15, 962:16, 971:1, relationship [3] - 920:14,
916:22 971:9, 971:25, 973:5, 975:21, 920:19, 925:7
promoted [2] - 919:14, 919:20 976:4, 976:8, 976:18, 977:5, relatively [1] - 981:23
promotion [1] - 911:25 977:24, 978:2, 979:14, 981:2, release [20] - 933:10, 933:13,
proof [1] - 927:17 984:6, 987:15 933:15, 934:19, 934:20, 934:22,
proper [1] - 950:21 reading [1] - 962:14 935:1, 935:3, 935:5, 935:16,
propose [1] - 906:8 ready [1] - 980:11 935:24, 938:18, 939:1, 939:3,
proposed [1] - 979:8 real [1] - 932:24 946:20, 947:1, 964:18, 965:23,
prosecute [1] - 957:4 realize [1] - 971:19 967:21, 970:3
prosecuted [6] - 955:3, 955:8, really [1] - 936:22 released [7] - 922:2, 933:6,
955:23, 956:9, 956:18, 961:20 reasonable [1] - 982:20 946:14, 946:17, 964:21, 967:3,
prosecution [1] - 956:11 Recalled [1] - 904:5 967:5
prove [2] - 926:8, 943:21 recalling [1] - 969:6 releases [6] - 933:1, 942:4,
provide [2] - 916:15, 938:7 received [5] - 909:8, 955:2, 943:17, 943:19, 968:7, 968:8
provided [4] - 918:7, 928:2, 966:13, 966:14, 980:16 releasing [1] - 933:21
983:9 recently [1] - 906:5 relevance [8] - 906:12, 906:24,
public [15] - 933:21, 933:23, receptive [1] - 925:9 922:14, 924:20, 924:21, 925:1,
933:24, 933:25, 937:25, 947:6, Recess [1] - 988:8 944:8
947:8, 964:17, 964:19, 964:20, recess [1] - 969:5 relevant [4] - 905:22, 926:8,
966:14, 967:2, 968:6, 971:4, recognize [4] - 913:3, 936:9, 941:16, 943:22
987:7 972:16, 973:13 relying [1] - 987:8
publication [1] - 927:1 recollection [2] - 928:1, 951:5 remain [1] - 969:18
publicly [2] - 926:10, 946:23 reconvene [1] - 984:9 remark [1] - 939:18
publish [4] - 970:15, 973:1, record [10] - 905:6, 908:25, remember [9] - 921:24, 938:23,
981:15, 981:17 939:25, 945:6, 945:7, 961:21, 939:4, 951:15, 951:16, 951:18,
publishing [1] - 907:8 962:5, 963:22, 978:3, 986:9 951:23, 952:7, 970:2
punishment [1] - 916:25 records [1] - 916:16 remind [2] - 969:17, 970:21
punishments [1] - 917:25 redaction [1] - 974:12 remove [1] - 907:1
purpose [1] - 942:10 redactions [1] - 907:12 renewed [1] - 985:1
purposes [1] - 918:9 redid [1] - 958:17 repeat [1] - 946:7
pursuant [1] - 974:13 Redirect [1] - 904:4 reply [1] - 936:17
put [11] - 907:1, 917:10, 936:8, redirect [1] - 967:14 report [11] - 972:7, 972:17,
940:13, 943:14, 951:3, 956:11, REDIRECT [1] - 967:16 984:13, 984:21, 985:6, 985:11,
961:20, 963:16, 970:24, 985:18 redone [1] - 983:14 986:16, 986:20, 986:21, 987:6
putting [2] - 945:11, 951:23 refer [5] - 923:5, 923:6, 923:7, reported [3] - 954:9, 954:10,
984:18 954:16
REPORTER [1] - 989:2
Q reference [1] - 968:3
referenced [2] - 976:24, 977:17 Reporter [3] - 903:14, 903:14,
questioned [5] - 948:1, 948:6, referencing [1] - 966:16 989:12
951:15, 951:17, 951:18 referring [1] - 958:13 reporting [3] - 915:1, 955:1,
questioning [2] - 948:25, 949:3 reflects [1] - 907:7 971:4
questions [21] - 926:1, 947:13, refreshing [1] - 951:5 Representatives [1] - 976:15
947:18, 949:3, 950:13, 951:19, regard [5] - 951:19, 955:9, Republican [1] - 911:19
951:21, 952:12, 956:23, 957:3, 955:10, 962:16, 965:22 request [1] - 981:15
961:10, 961:18, 961:21, 962:13, regarding [11] - 915:7, 921:19, requests [1] - 959:15
962:22, 963:4, 963:11, 966:10, 929:11, 931:2, 945:9, 947:21, required [1] - 914:1
967:18, 971:19, 974:17 947:22, 948:17, 976:3, 976:19, requires [1] - 983:23
quite [1] - 936:19 977:5 research [2] - 908:8, 908:13
reserve [1] - 981:10
resolve [4] - 907:13, 912:12, 949:21, 950:8, 950:16, 951:7, 917:5, 917:7, 917:8, 922:11,
978:13 951:10, 951:14, 954:15, 955:14, 955:11, 958:16, 981:25
respect [12] - 914:9, 914:12, 956:21, 957:5, 957:9, 957:16, seconds [3] - 965:6, 981:24,
937:15, 948:24, 974:18, 977:13, 958:10, 959:22, 960:6, 960:10, 981:25
983:6, 983:9, 983:16, 983:22, 960:18, 961:3, 961:7, 961:16, Secret [3] - 953:16, 953:17,
984:20, 985:16 962:10, 962:14, 963:8, 963:23, 965:16
respective [1] - 911:18 964:16, 967:7, 967:13, 972:21, section [1] - 913:23
respond [2] - 930:13, 934:9 972:24, 974:21, 975:8 secure [2] - 960:11, 960:19
responded [2] - 925:16, 928:22 Rogow.................947 [1] - see [12] - 908:3, 913:10, 913:23,
response [3] - 925:11, 934:1, 904:4 930:3, 932:24, 942:6, 942:7,
972:5 Rogow.................974 [1] - 943:25, 963:2, 963:6, 979:2,
responses [1] - 966:14 904:6 982:16
responsible [3] - 911:3, 919:15, Rohde [3] - 905:10, 914:6, seeing [1] - 977:11
966:7 929:25 seek [2] - 959:14, 960:1
rest [2] - 978:24, 981:18 role [12] - 911:12, 919:12, seeking [5] - 941:1, 941:2,
resting [1] - 979:7 919:17, 920:7, 920:9, 920:10, 941:10, 959:9, 959:16
rests [3] - 979:11, 979:24, 925:7, 925:8, 932:4, 937:8, Select [1] - 976:15
980:12 966:5, 973:7 send [2] - 907:14, 983:3
Rests........................................ room [5] - 906:19, 907:14, sending [1] - 983:2
.979 [1] - 904:12 979:18, 983:3, 983:4 senior [9] - 923:7, 923:11,
result [1] - 954:20 Room [2] - 903:15, 989:13 924:4, 924:10, 926:17, 927:4,
resume [5] - 968:21, 968:25, roughly [1] - 953:2 929:10, 932:6, 935:2
980:8, 987:23, 988:1 Routman [2] - 903:9, 905:14 sense [2] - 907:15, 907:16
return [3] - 957:19, 957:25, ROUTMAN [1] - 903:9 sent [4] - 906:8, 928:15, 928:16,
980:7 routmanc@gmail.com [1] - 930:3
returns [16] - 914:25, 954:4, 903:12 sentence [4] - 918:11, 918:14,
954:6, 954:7, 954:9, 954:13, row [1] - 953:22 918:15, 918:16
954:14, 955:2, 955:19, 957:11, rule [4] - 941:6, 942:7, 978:14, sentenced [1] - 964:6
957:13, 957:15, 957:17, 958:5, 979:3 sentencing [1] - 918:9
958:12, 958:17 Rule [3] - 979:7, 981:3, 984:7 separate [1] - 916:24
review [3] - 918:25, 974:3, ruled [3] - 905:24, 985:19, September [1] - 976:16
974:6 985:21 series [2] - 914:20, 965:25
reviewed [1] - 977:10 rules [3] - 944:6, 944:18, 978:18 serious [1] - 944:10
revised [2] - 980:10, 985:2 ruling [2] - 905:23, 978:20 seriously [1] - 944:11
revoked [1] - 917:19 rulings [1] - 974:14 served [2] - 920:3, 973:8
Richard [3] - 904:3, 909:1, rumored [1] - 937:17 Service [3] - 953:16, 953:17,
913:10 Russia [1] - 971:4 965:16
RICHARD [2] - 908:18, 909:1 Russian [9] - 929:8, 929:16, services [1] - 971:16
Richmond [1] - 909:6 930:24, 971:15, 972:4, 973:9, Session [1] - 902:5
Rick [1] - 908:16 974:25, 987:3 sessions [4] - 934:5, 934:7,
ride [1] - 953:1 Russian's [1] - 973:7 934:12, 934:17
rise [1] - 941:23 Russians [1] - 986:24 set [2] - 958:19, 964:7
RMR [1] - 903:14 several [2] - 906:5, 951:25
road [1] - 936:16 S shaking [1] - 908:10
Robert [2] - 903:1, 905:13 shortly [3] - 919:19, 935:24,
Roger [17] - 902:6, 905:3, S.E [1] - 903:3 938:17
910:3, 920:1, 921:5, 930:9, sat [1] - 967:12 show [2] - 949:9, 972:13
933:14, 940:22, 943:24, 946:18, saw [2] - 939:7, 973:25 showed [3] - 985:5, 985:7,
948:1, 948:17, 949:3, 950:24, scene [10] - 905:22, 907:2, 986:13
969:7, 976:14, 976:23 907:6, 907:7, 907:10, 973:16, showing [2] - 986:9, 986:12
Rogow [7] - 902:20, 905:14, 973:22, 973:23, 973:25, 974:9 shown [2] - 965:25, 984:25
947:17, 950:20, 956:9, 960:5, scheduling [1] - 979:17 sic [1] - 914:24
962:21 SCHIFF [1] - 972:2 side [1] - 935:15
ROGOW [57] - 902:21, 922:6, school [2] - 923:22 sides [1] - 978:19
922:8, 922:15, 922:20, 923:21, Scientific [1] - 909:20 sign [3] - 913:13, 913:15,
924:12, 924:20, 924:24, 925:22, screen [1] - 970:24 913:18
925:24, 926:21, 935:21, 939:20, seat [4] - 953:8, 953:9, 953:20, signature [1] - 913:10
940:9, 940:12, 941:7, 942:9, 953:21 signed [2] - 975:21, 976:20
942:22, 943:10, 944:12, 944:20, second [13] - 914:12, 914:25, Simcha [1] - 902:15
947:16, 948:13, 948:15, 949:14, 915:2, 915:13, 915:15, 915:16,
similar [2] - 935:12, 983:8 969:7, 976:14 strong [3] - 943:13, 943:22,
simply [3] - 949:22, 952:7, Statutory [2] - 913:24, 914:4 945:7
977:9 stenographic [1] - 989:6 stuff [2] - 963:2, 963:16
single [1] - 985:7 step [1] - 975:11 subject [5] - 905:24, 956:16,
sitting [3] - 953:5, 953:6, Stephen [1] - 934:15 957:1, 974:11, 978:14
953:19 steps [1] - 958:21 submit [1] - 981:4
Smith [3] - 903:5, 905:14, 963:5 stick [1] - 982:21 submitted [3] - 918:8, 959:13,
smoke [1] - 906:19 sticks [1] - 963:2 980:14
smoke-filled [1] - 906:19 still [11] - 910:20, 910:23, submitting [4] - 916:25, 921:15,
snips [1] - 982:20 920:12, 927:15, 927:17, 932:16, 954:4, 954:6
social [1] - 987:1 932:22, 932:24, 933:16, 936:23, subscribe [1] - 971:18
someone [2] - 941:17, 949:20 980:18 subsequent [2] - 937:9, 966:25
sometimes [2] - 962:2 stipulate [2] - 976:13, 976:22 subsequently [2] - 925:17,
somewhat [1] - 920:17 stipulation [5] - 976:3, 976:6, 930:21
son [1] - 932:10 976:18, 976:19, 977:13 substance [1] - 929:14
son-in-law [1] - 932:10 stipulations [3] - 975:20, 977:1, substantial [1] - 971:18
sooner [1] - 984:8 977:4 Suburban [2] - 953:4, 953:22
sorry [5] - 921:14, 933:24, STONE [3] - 971:6, 971:17, suggest [1] - 907:12
954:5, 955:25, 978:25 972:6 suggested [1] - 962:7
sought [2] - 927:12, 960:20 Stone [112] - 902:6, 905:3, suggesting [1] - 961:10
source [3] - 964:23, 964:25, 905:15, 909:15, 909:25, 910:2, Suite [4] - 902:22, 903:3, 903:7,
968:1 910:3, 910:6, 910:7, 919:21, 903:10
sources [2] - 947:11, 966:14 920:1, 920:3, 920:12, 920:17, summer [1] - 937:7
speaker [1] - 936:8 921:1, 921:5, 921:8, 921:9, sunny [1] - 908:5
special [2] - 983:23 921:14, 921:22, 925:14, 926:4, supposed [1] - 923:5
Special [1] - 915:6 926:20, 927:23, 928:11, 928:12, surprised [1] - 936:19
specific [10] - 951:16, 957:2, 928:21, 928:22, 929:1, 929:3, sustain [1] - 940:23
960:17, 962:1, 962:21, 963:1, 929:22, 930:9, 930:13, 930:19, sustained [3] - 935:22, 963:21,
963:10, 965:19, 967:4, 968:3 930:21, 931:2, 931:6, 931:13, 964:15
specifically [2] - 951:21, 965:15 931:24, 932:11, 932:13, 932:17, SWALWELL [2] - 971:3, 971:12
specifics [1] - 927:8 932:20, 932:24, 933:14, 933:20, sworn [5] - 908:19, 969:17,
specifies [1] - 983:12 936:1, 936:7, 936:13, 936:14, 969:22, 977:22, 978:17
936:17, 936:19, 936:25, 937:2,
speculation [2] - 922:16,
937:3, 937:6, 937:24, 938:2,
935:21
938:3, 938:7, 938:20, 939:6,
T
spell [1] - 908:25
939:16, 940:4, 940:17, 940:24, table [1] - 905:9
spring [1] - 919:11
941:4, 942:10, 942:11, 942:15, tape [1] - 935:13
standard [1] - 982:22
942:24, 943:8, 943:15, 943:17, Tara [2] - 903:1, 905:14
start [4] - 937:4, 942:9, 944:19,
943:24, 946:3, 946:12, 946:18, tax [17] - 914:25, 954:4, 954:6,
988:3
946:20, 946:25, 947:3, 947:7, 954:7, 954:9, 954:13, 954:14,
started [1] - 911:10
948:1, 948:6, 948:17, 948:21, 954:20, 955:2, 955:19, 957:11,
starting [1] - 966:18
948:24, 949:3, 949:4, 949:5, 957:13, 957:17, 957:25, 958:11,
starts [1] - 972:1
949:7, 950:24, 951:19, 952:1, 958:17
state [4] - 908:25, 935:7,
952:9, 952:16, 964:22, 966:7, taxes [9] - 958:16, 958:21,
941:20, 978:3 966:8, 966:10, 967:3, 967:19, 958:22, 958:24, 959:3, 963:12,
statement [37] - 914:14, 915:3, 967:21, 969:7, 972:2, 975:2,
915:7, 940:18, 940:21, 941:5, 963:14
975:5, 976:23, 981:16
941:8, 941:14, 941:25, 942:3, Taylor [13] - 904:5, 906:4,
stone [1] - 944:2 969:13, 969:16, 969:25, 970:20,
942:11, 942:15, 942:18, 944:16,
Stone's [20] - 920:6, 920:10, 972:13, 973:5, 973:11, 974:16,
945:9, 945:10, 945:12, 949:22,
920:14, 920:20, 925:5, 925:17, 974:22, 985:5, 985:25
950:12, 950:15, 951:4, 951:5,
927:24, 934:1, 934:18, 934:20, TAYLOR [1] - 969:21
951:6, 951:7, 965:4, 965:5,
936:9, 939:9, 946:5, 947:5,
965:17, 965:19, 971:20, 977:23, taylor [5] - 905:19, 906:1,
966:5, 968:2, 970:11, 970:23,
978:4, 978:7, 978:15, 978:16, 970:21, 971:22, 985:7
972:5, 976:14
978:21, 979:2, 983:7 Taylor's [1] - 986:14
stone's [1] - 925:13
statements [5] - 926:14, telephone [4] - 941:9, 952:12,
straight [1] - 965:12
941:15, 947:3, 950:13, 983:10 952:14, 965:3
Strategies [1] - 909:19
STATES [2] - 902:1, 902:10 television [1] - 967:1
STRATEGYSMITH [1] - 903:6
States [12] - 902:3, 903:15, ten [2] - 916:8, 985:5
Street [1] - 902:16
905:2, 905:8, 908:16, 913:6, tends [1] - 943:20
stricken [2] - 961:21, 963:21
913:18, 914:11, 914:17, 915:23, tense [1] - 920:17
terms [6] - 912:22, 917:2, they've [2] - 956:8, 956:10 943:1, 943:20, 944:3, 944:17,
917:18, 922:16, 955:1, 986:20 Third [1] - 903:3 959:8, 969:17
testified [5] - 908:20, 922:18, third [4] - 915:1, 964:11, 973:8, try [1] - 958:21
964:8, 969:22, 970:2 987:1 trying [6] - 926:8, 926:14,
testify [4] - 918:19, 922:20, third-party [2] - 973:8, 987:1 942:12, 943:6, 944:6, 944:16
924:18, 986:1 three [5] - 906:9, 914:23, turn [12] - 910:18, 912:25,
testifying [1] - 970:3 953:22, 954:9, 961:17 913:7, 913:20, 915:22, 916:17,
testimony [19] - 917:21, 918:18, three-row [1] - 953:22 919:11, 928:5, 929:5, 929:24,
918:19, 948:11, 970:11, 970:23, throw [1] - 963:2 934:21, 975:2
973:16, 974:8, 976:14, 976:24, thumb [1] - 987:19 turning [2] - 913:17, 931:9
977:12, 977:17, 977:23, 977:25, timing [2] - 941:9, 979:9 TV [1] - 966:23
978:1, 981:16, 983:6, 984:16, timing-wise [1] - 979:9 twice [3] - 947:20, 948:17,
986:14 tinkered [1] - 982:25 962:7
text [3] - 930:9, 931:21, 966:2 today [3] - 917:21, 917:24, Twice [1] - 948:12
texts [2] - 919:25, 966:1 918:18 two [15] - 914:2, 919:4, 919:10,
THE [154] - 902:1, 902:1, 902:9, together [1] - 981:21 923:15, 948:4, 948:7, 948:19,
902:15, 905:1, 905:12, 905:16, tomorrow [2] - 982:17, 984:3 953:18, 953:23, 958:13, 964:8,
906:2, 906:11, 907:4, 907:18, took [7] - 938:24, 938:25, 964:10, 975:20, 980:11, 981:22
907:24, 908:2, 921:12, 921:14, 952:22, 958:16, 959:3, 970:7, twofold [1] - 927:10
922:7, 922:10, 922:13, 922:18, 971:12
923:3, 923:10, 923:25, 924:14, top [3] - 924:18, 926:19, 971:23 U
924:23, 925:3, 925:19, 925:23, total [2] - 916:6, 986:15
925:25, 935:22, 939:21, 940:6, totally [1] - 961:25 U.S [3] - 902:15, 955:2, 973:10
940:10, 940:21, 941:14, 942:21, touch [1] - 931:6 ultimately [3] - 918:14, 918:15,
942:23, 943:11, 944:14, 944:23, toward [3] - 929:15, 935:3, 918:16
945:1, 945:4, 945:13, 945:16, 935:5 um-hum [1] - 933:11
945:22, 945:24, 946:7, 947:14, Tower [1] - 952:24 unanimity [1] - 983:23
948:9, 948:14, 949:11, 949:13, unanimous [2] - 983:19, 983:21
TRANSCRIPT [1] - 902:8
949:15, 949:23, 950:11, 950:22, uncertain [1] - 936:22
transcript [25] - 905:22, 906:6,
951:9, 951:11, 954:13, 954:14, under [9] - 914:3, 917:17,
906:7, 906:8, 906:22, 907:2,
955:12, 955:25, 956:5, 956:13, 937:12, 937:14, 941:6, 941:25,
907:5, 907:6, 950:7, 961:23,
956:22, 957:6, 957:13, 957:15, 969:18, 978:17, 981:3
962:15, 970:23, 970:25, 971:11,
958:4, 958:6, 958:7, 958:8, unduly [1] - 983:3
971:24, 972:1, 973:16, 974:4,
958:9, 959:19, 959:21, 960:5, UNITED [2] - 902:1, 902:10
974:6, 974:8, 975:3, 981:20,
960:8, 960:13, 960:23, 961:1, United [12] - 902:3, 903:15,
982:6, 989:5, 989:6
961:6, 961:9, 961:17, 962:11, 905:2, 905:8, 908:16, 913:6,
transcription [2] - 906:15,
962:21, 963:10, 963:19, 964:15, 913:18, 914:11, 914:17, 915:23,
906:17
967:9, 967:12, 967:14, 968:10, 969:7, 976:14
transcripts [3] - 905:24, 956:20,
968:12, 968:14, 968:15, 968:18, University [1] - 909:10
977:17
968:25, 969:4, 969:6, 969:8, unless [1] - 955:4
transmission [1] - 961:11
969:10, 969:16, 969:19, 969:20, untrue [2] - 926:15
transpire [1] - 981:10
972:20, 972:22, 972:25, 973:3, untruths [2] - 955:7, 956:23
trial [6] - 925:22, 948:5, 948:19,
974:13, 974:18, 975:9, 975:11, up [27] - 915:16, 915:17,
961:4, 976:24, 980:1
975:18, 975:23, 975:25, 976:5, 915:25, 916:4, 916:8, 917:2,
TRIAL [2] - 902:4, 902:8
976:21, 977:1, 977:7, 977:18, 917:25, 925:6, 925:17, 929:21,
tried [1] - 978:6
977:22, 978:5, 978:11, 978:17, 934:9, 937:16, 937:18, 938:3,
979:1, 979:5, 979:10, 979:17, true [8] - 926:14, 926:15, 928:3,
942:6, 964:17, 978:18, 989:5, 943:4, 943:16, 945:19, 950:18,
979:21, 979:25, 980:24, 981:5, 958:19, 963:2, 973:10, 981:21,
981:9, 981:19, 982:2, 982:5, 989:6
Trump [31] - 911:6, 911:8, 984:2, 984:8, 986:11
982:8, 982:11, 984:5, 984:18,
911:21, 912:5, 919:12, 919:17, update [1] - 988:5
984:20, 984:24, 985:9, 985:14,
920:1, 920:4, 920:15, 932:4, updates [1] - 947:5
985:17, 985:20, 985:24, 986:3,
932:7, 932:9, 935:13, 938:12, updating [2] - 938:10, 938:14
986:5, 986:8, 986:17, 986:23,
939:15, 939:17, 940:5, 940:15, useful [1] - 986:8
987:13, 987:17, 987:20
then-candidate [6] - 920:15, 941:19, 942:13, 942:17, 946:3,
922:1, 932:7, 932:9, 946:3, 946:11, 946:12, 952:16, 952:23, V
946:12 952:24, 953:5, 965:4, 965:18
Trump's [1] - 932:10 varied [1] - 954:11
thereafter [1] - 981:10
truth [17] - 915:8, 916:13, verbiage [1] - 960:17
therefore [3] - 908:14, 940:17,
924:15, 940:14, 941:1, 941:11, verdict [3] - 982:24, 983:5,
980:18
941:12, 942:1, 942:10, 942:20, 983:11
version [1] - 985:2 words [6] - 907:1, 907:7,

via [2] - 919:25, 967:1 941:20, 942:25, 943:1, 978:2
viable [1] - 932:25 world [1] - 911:17
view [2] - 986:17, 986:19 write [6] - 917:1, 918:2, 928:12,
viewing [1] - 974:6 930:11, 949:16, 949:20
violate [1] - 917:21 writing [1] - 984:2
violation [1] - 983:7 written [4] - 912:19, 916:9,
Virginia [5] - 909:6, 917:9, 916:19, 950:19
917:13, 958:5, 961:13 wrote [5] - 929:1, 930:17,
Visa [4] - 962:17, 962:18, 963:9, 930:19, 931:24, 971:13
963:24
voice [7] - 919:25, 936:9, 939:9, Y
939:10, 939:11, 946:5, 952:18
volunteer [2] - 911:6, 911:9 year [3] - 920:19, 954:11
voter [2] - 966:5, 966:10 years [8] - 909:4, 909:17,
vs [1] - 902:5 915:17, 915:25, 916:4, 916:8,
954:9, 958:7
yourself [6] - 905:6, 959:23,
W
960:1, 960:12, 960:20, 963:25
wait [2] - 986:18, 988:5 yourselves [2] - 968:23, 980:20
waiting [2] - 965:13, 969:2
wants [1] - 943:23 Z
Washington [5] - 902:6,
902:17, 903:16, 909:9, 989:14 ZELINSKY [60] - 908:16,
watched [1] - 906:5 908:22, 912:25, 913:2, 913:7,
week [3] - 970:2, 985:5, 986:14 913:9, 913:20, 913:22, 914:6,
weekend [2] - 908:4, 908:5 914:8, 916:17, 916:18, 921:18,
weeks [1] - 906:9 922:23, 923:6, 925:4, 925:21,
926:23, 928:5, 928:7, 929:24,
weight [1] - 944:7
930:2, 931:9, 931:11, 935:23,
whole [3] - 922:21, 962:17,
940:2, 940:3, 940:13, 944:25,
984:21
945:2, 945:5, 945:14, 945:21,
Wikileaks [36] - 921:7, 921:8,
945:23, 946:1, 946:9, 946:10,
921:15, 921:25, 925:7, 925:10,
947:13, 948:8, 949:10, 950:17,
926:9, 929:2, 932:17, 932:20,
955:24, 956:6, 957:7, 960:3,
933:2, 933:5, 933:15, 933:21,
963:17, 964:14, 967:15, 967:17,
934:23, 935:24, 945:18, 946:14,
968:9, 968:11, 968:17, 969:3,
946:17, 947:6, 949:6, 949:7,
969:12, 970:15, 970:19, 972:10,
951:20, 952:2, 952:10, 964:17,
972:12, 972:18, 974:11
965:21, 966:2, 966:13, 966:17,
zelinsky [1] - 967:11
968:4, 968:5, 970:4, 972:8,
Zelinsky [2] - 902:15, 905:9
973:7
Zelinsky.............908 [1] - 904:3
Wikileaks's [2] - 921:19, 925:11
Zelinsky...........967 [1] - 904:4
willfully [1] - 941:12
WILLIAM [1] - 909:2
William [1] - 909:8
WILLIAMS [1] - 908:18
Williams [1] - 909:1
wise [1] - 979:9
WITNESS [8] - 921:14, 954:14,
957:15, 958:6, 958:8, 959:21,
968:14, 969:19
witness [22] - 908:15, 908:19,
940:15, 940:20, 950:19, 950:21,
956:7, 956:10, 956:14, 956:15,
963:3, 964:8, 968:10, 968:15,
969:1, 969:11, 970:16, 972:10,
975:9, 984:25, 986:13
witnesses [3] - 904:2, 975:14,
975:15
word [1] - 966:13

Rick Gates - Prosecuton Sentencing Memo PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Rick Gates - Prosecuton Sentencing Memo PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 643 Filed 12/10/19 Page 1 of 19

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

GOVERNMENT’S MOTION FOR A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE AND

downward departure, pursuant to the United States Sentencing Guidelines (“Guidelines” or

the Eastern District of Virginia, and his subsequent guilty plea.

I. District of Columbia Indictment

his bookkeepers, tax preparers, and lawyers.

II. Eastern District of Virginia Indictment

v. Manafort and Gates, 1:18-cr-83 (TSE) (ECF No. 9).

District of Virginia against both defendants.

overseas accounts by falsely characterizing that income as loans.

overseas accounts to accounts he controlled—some of which he stole from Manafort, totaling

receive any proceeds.

III. Guilty Plea and Cooperation Agreement

statements to the Justice Department, in violation of 22 U.S.C. §§ 612, 618.

Investigation on February 1, 2018, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a). This conduct involved

the meeting addressed Ukraine, Gates admitted the truth.

exclusively or principally from these crimes, Gates sometimes profited as well.

schemes, although he received no money from the fraudulently procured loans.

which he pled guilty.

range—before any departure under Section 5K1.1—is appropriate.

A. Gates’ Advisory Guidelines Range

responsibility, pursuant to U.S.S.G. §§ 3E1.1(a) and (b). Id. at 13.

criminal history category of I, his advisory Guidelines range is 46 to 57 months’ imprisonment.

B. Section 3553(a) Factors

personal financial benefit from his crimes.

since entering his plea.

Manafort’s and Gates’ merit a significant prison sentence.

A. Nature of Gates’ Cooperation

criminality. His assistance has been substantial.

had taken this money from Manafort.

know the nature of Gates’ false testimony.

ii. Sworn Testimony

federal criminal trials.

1. Testimony in the Eastern District of Virginia, United States v.

involving multiple bank fraud and bank fraud conspiracies.

townhouse in Brooklyn on Union Street, a SoHo condominium in Manhattan on Howard Street,

been sentenced in both that district and before this Court.

2. Testimony in the District of Columbia, United States v. Craig, 19-cr-

Gates’ testimony in U.S. v. Craig is enclosed as Exhibit 2.

Times article on the Report—as successes for Ukraine.

3. Testimony in the District of Columbia, United States v. Stone, 19-cr-

of Gates’ testimony in U.S. v. Stone is enclosed as Exhibit 3.

November 15, 2019.

iii. Voluntary Surrender of Valuable Evidence

iv. Manafort Breach Issue

v. Commitment to Continue Cooperation

condition of any probationary sentence that he may receive.

B. Considerations Under Guidelines Section 5K1.1

and the timeliness of the defendant’s assistance. See U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1(a).

of Manafort and Stone, and to other investigation that are ongoing.

cooperate with the government, including assurances of monetary assistance. He should be

American politics and society.

Based on his substantial assistance, the government recommends a downward departure

and does not oppose Gates’ request for a probationary sentence.

make Gates’ continued cooperation a condition of his sentence.

By: /s/ Molly Gaston

/s/ Molly Gaston

Tonia M. Harris OCR-USDC/EDVA 703-646-1438

3 On behalf of the Government:

4 Cindy Laporta (cont'd from 8/3/18)

5 Cross-examination by Mr. Downing................. 990