Manafort lawyers rest without calling witnesses

ALEXANDRIA, Va. — Paul Manafort’s lawyers declined Tuesday to call any witnesses to defend him against charges of bank and tax fraud. Manafort, President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman, also told the judge he did not want to testify, clearing the way for closing arguments from both sides and the start of jury deliberations today.

The decision by the defense to rest without presenting its own evidence was not unusual. “The defense believes it has made its point through cross-examination,” said Nancy Gertner, a Harvard Law School professor and a former federal judge.

Manafort is letting the case go to the jury because he and his attorneys “do not believe that the government has met its burden of proof,” said Kevin Downing, the lead defense lawyer in the case.

Earlier Tuesday, Judge T.S. Ellis III of the U.S. District Court in Alexandria also denied a motion by Manafort’s lawyers to acquit him on all 18 charges without giving the case to the jury, another standard defense tactic as trials wind down. He closed the courtroom for more than two hours to discuss another defense motion that has been sealed, along with the government’s response.

Prosecutors for special counsel Robert Mueller rested their case Monday after calling roughly two dozen witnesses and introducing hundreds of exhibits. Manafort, 69, is accused of evading taxes on roughly $16.5 million in income that he earned working for pro-Russia political forces in Ukraine. When that income ran out, prosecutors claim, he fraudulently obtained more than $20 million in bank loans so he could maintain an extravagant lifestyle.

Defense lawyers made a special effort, including submitting a last-minute brief, to persuade the judge to throw out four bank fraud charges involving $16 million in loans that Manafort obtained from a small Chicago bank in late 2016 and early 2017. Richard Westling, one of Manafort’s lawyers, argued that the bank, Federal Savings Bank, was not defrauded because its chairman, Stephen M. Calk, was determined to do business with Manafort, despite questions about Manafort’s wherewithal. He also argued that bank officials were well aware of Manafort’s true financial situation.

Emails cited by the prosecution showed Manafort was trading heavily on his connection to the Trump campaign in seeking those loans, one of which he used to prevent another creditor from foreclosing on one of his homes. In August 2016, before he was forced out of his position as campaign chairman, Manafort arranged to add Calk to Trump’s economic advisory committee. In November, just days after the election, Calk sent Manafort a long list of top administration jobs for which he wanted to be considered.

Manafort then emailed Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law, recommending Calk as someone who would “be totally reliable” and would “advance D.T. agenda,” referring to the president-elect. Calk’s “preference is secretary of the Army,” he wrote. In the next two months, Calk overruled his underlings and granted Manafort more money than any other of the bank’s borrowers had obtained, bank officials testified.

Westling argued that the bank was not victimized because it would have approved Manafort’s loans “regardless of the information” he had submitted. But the judge ruled that was a question for the jury to decide, not him.