Special counsel Robert Mueller and his team of prosecutors notched a victory Tuesday with the conviction of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort on eight counts of tax and bank fraud. But the trial remained firmly focused on Manafort’s financial crimes, raising the profile of his upcoming trial in federal court in the District of Columbia as Mueller’s investigation into Russian meddling continues.
The trial in federal court in Alexandria, Va., was the first for Mueller since he was tapped last year to oversee the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, and many believed that findings of guilt would provide momentum for the special counsel’s investigation, particularly as he faces repeated cries of “witch hunt” from President Trump.
While the trial garnered intense attention from the media and the public — as well as a rare glimpse at some of the prosecutors working for Mueller — it largely steered clear of the primary task before the special counsel: examining allegations of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.
“From the public’s standpoint, the trial involves Trump’s campaign manager, millions and millions of dollars that was allegedly being paid and not disclosed, and an extravagant lifestyle,” Kendall Coffey, a former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida, told the Washington Examiner. “I think the basic images that will be absorbed by the public are Trump’s campaign manager, something to do with Russia, lots of money and criminal conduct.”
[Opinion: Here’s why Trump will probably pardon Paul Manafort one year from now]
During the trial’s 10 days of testimony from 27 witnesses, there were no specific references to collusion and scant mention of Trump, which was expected, as prosecutors said before the start of the trial they didn’t plan to discuss collusion.
The trial neared the orbit of Mueller’s probe on one occasion, during the testimony of Rick Gates, Manafort’s former deputy and a cooperating witness for the prosecution.
While on the stand, Manafort’s lawyer Kevin Downing pressed Gates about whether the special counsel’s office had interviewed him about his time working for the Trump campaign.
The line of questioning prompted an objection from Greg Andres, one of Mueller’s prosecutors, and a subsequent bench conference with lawyers for both parties.
Mueller asked U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III to place under seal a portion of a sidebar discussion that occurred during Gates’ testimony, writing in a court filing “it would reveal evidence pertaining to an ongoing investigation.”
It’s unclear which part of the bench conference Mueller’s team asked to keep private, but Ellis granted the request.
Gates was indicted alongside Manafort but struck a deal with the government in February.
It’s unclear what information, beyond Manafort’s involvement in the bank and tax fraud scheme, Gates may have for the special counsel, but Coffey described him as a “wildcard.”
“His time, the continuation of his involvement with the Trump campaign and even with the inauguration, the transition team, suggests that he’s a wildcard who may have second-hand knowledge about a lot of things, even if his first-hand knowledge is limited,” Coffey said.
During his testimony, which spanned three days, Gates detailed to the jury the cast of Ukrainian oligarchs who paid Manafort for his political consulting and policy work for Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, backed by the Kremlin, and the Party of Regions.
In total, Manafort made more than $60 million for his work in Ukraine, according to a forensic accountant with the FBI.
Though the topic of Russian collusion was never broached during Manafort’s trial, Seth Waxman, a former federal prosecutor with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, said those relationships Manafort cultivated over the years could be of importance to the Russia probe.
“Conspiracies don’t fall out of the sky,” he told the Washington Examiner. “If there was a conspiracy in the spring of 2016 leading up to the election, in my experience, those relationships had been developed over time.”
“What we’re seeing in the Manafort trial may be the backstory to how the Russians felt comfortable reaching out to the Trump campaign knowing that call would be received well and maybe have a friendly ear in Manafort,” Waxman, a partner at the firm Dickinson Wright, continued. “That could be the history of the conspiracy.”
Manafort joined the Trump campaign in March 2016 and worked for free, a decision that stands in contrast to his firm’s financial health at the time.
According to witness testimony, Davis Manafort Partners International raked in millions of dollars while working for Yanukovych, but after he was forced from power in 2014, the firm’s income tanked.
In 2015, for example, Manafort’s firm reported income of $338,542 and in 2016, a loss of nearly $1.2 million.
His bookkeeper also told the jury how Manafort appeared to be struggling to pay his bills toward the beginning of 2016, as she emailed him several times requesting funds to settle his personal and business expenses.
Waxman said it’s difficult to determine whether Manafort’s “financial need” relates to the Russia probe, but noted that he likely identified the “potential financial benefit down the line” of working for the Trump campaign.
“Being campaign manager for six to eight months, whether he got a position in the administration or not, could put him in the position to further his relationships with his Russians or others,” Waxman said. “There’s a heck of a lot more to be made being a liaison rather than a government employee.”
Mueller’s team charged Manafort with 18 counts of bank and tax fraud, and the jury rendered its verdict Tuesday after four days of deliberations.
Of the 18 counts, Manafort was found guilty of five counts of filing false income tax returns from 2010 to 2014, one count of failing to file reports of foreign bank and financial accounts in 2012, and two counts of bank fraud.
Ellis declared a mistrial on the remaining 10 counts after the jury said it could not come to a consensus.
After the verdict was announced, Trump told reporters that Manafort was a “good man,” but said the case “has nothing to do with Russian collusion” and did not involve him.
The president’s comments about Manafort raised questions as to whether Trump would pardon his former campaign chairman. But White House press secretary Sarah Sanders told reporters Wednesday “that’s not something that has been up for discussion.”
“The Manafort case doesn’t have anything to do with the president, doesn’t have anything to do with his campaign, doesn’t have anything to do with the White House,” she said.
Mark Corallo, a former spokesman for Trump’s legal team, predicted the president’s lawyers will continue to hammer the point that the trial was unrelated to Russian meddling despite the conviction.
He also said the special counsel’s office made a “misstep” by choosing to prosecute Manafort rather than handing over the evidence to the U.S. attorney with jurisdiction, as it did with Michael Cohen, Trump’s longtime personal lawyer, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York.
“Instead, it takes on an unnecessary political weight and may have unintended negative consequences for the special counsel,” Corallo told the Washington Examiner.
Many believe the special counsel’s office chose to pursue the bank and tax fraud charges against Manafort with the intent of pressuring him to cooperate, and his conviction could provide Mueller with more leverage.
“This whole trial as well as the D.C. trial has primarily been done to flip Manafort,” Waxman said, referencing his upcoming trial in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
While the trial in Virginia remained focused on Manafort’s scheme to conceal income from the Internal Revenue Service and his efforts to defraud banks, the trial in federal court in D.C. could shed more light on the allegations of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.
“We have to wait and see. In the Virginia trial, that is. We’re done. There’s not going to be anything else coming. It didn’t have anything to do with Russian meddling and that’s the end of it,” Corallo said. “Maybe we’ll find out when they start the D.C. trial that there is a link to Russian government attempts of meddling and collusion by the Trump campaign.”
Manafort’s next trial is scheduled to begin Sept. 17.
