“The Court’s sharp reprimand of government counsel in front of the jury on August 8 was therefore erroneous,” the prosecutors wrote. “And, while mistakes are a natural part of the trial process, the mistake here prejudiced the government by conveying to the jury that the government had acted improperly and had violated court rules or procedures. The exchange could very well lead the jury to reach two erroneous inferences: (a) that Mr. Welch’s testimony is not credible because he was improperly privy to the testimony of other witnesses, and (b) that the government sought to secure an unfair advantage by secreting its expert in the courtroom without permission . . . This prejudice should be cured.”<doc-sep>Sign Up For Newsletters Woman receives gift of motherhood after cancer diagnosis Stacey Abrams on writing herself into the story – and history Maya Angelou and Sally Ride to be honored on quarters Dancers seek to rid ballet performances of Asian stereotypes China's censors cut some new friends from the "Friends" reunion Lawmakers call for ambassador to protect Afghan women Boat carrying 20 overturns heading from Cuba to Florida SolarWinds hackers have launched new campaign, Microsoft says "3-martini lunch" tax break should be axed, lawmakers say Flying over Memorial Day? Expect long lines at airports Some great white sharks are getting closer to humans, videos show Be the first to know Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting. Not Now Turn On<doc-sep>A transcript of the first day of the trial last week shows that prosecutor Uzo Asonye (standing) specifically asked that witnesses be excluded "with the exception of our expert and our [FBI] case agent." | Dana Verkouteren via AP Manafort trial Manafort trial Day 8: A heated exchange, judge admits fault, Airbnb enters the spotlight The federal judge overseeing the Paul Manafort trial took another shot at special counsel Robert Mueller's team Thursday afternoon. The federal judge overseeing the Paul Manafort trial took another shot at special counsel Robert Mueller's team Thursday afternoon, even after conceding earlier in the day that a criticism he leveled at prosecutors on Wednesday was erroneous. The prosecution spent about 40 minutes Thursday afternoon questioning a bank employee about Manafort’s unsuccessful effort to get a $5.5 million construction loan on a Brooklyn brownstone, only to have Judge T.S. Ellis III suggest that the issue was unworthy of such extensive discussion at the trial. Notably, Ellis made the remark with the jury present. “You might want to spend time on a loan that was granted,” the judge scoffed as prosecutor Uzo Asonye sat down after concluding his questioning of Citizens Bank employee Taryn Rodriguez. That prompted Asonye, who had sat down, to jump back up. “Your honor, this is a charged count in the indictment,” the prosecutor said. “I know that,” Ellis shot back. The tense exchange was the latest example of Ellis making comments that could lead jurors to question the prosecution's case or its tactics in the tax- and bank-fraud trial that opened last week. Ellis even acknowledged that one of his prior remarks was out of line, telling the jury early Thursday that he “may well have been wrong” the day before when he slammed the Mueller team for allowing an expert witness from the IRS to remain in the courtroom while other witnesses were testifying. Typically, witnesses aren't supposed to hear anyone else's testimony in a trial so they don't influence each other, but Mueller’s team got Ellis’ permission during the trial’s opening arguments last week to have the IRS agent in the court on a regular basis. “This robe doesn’t make me anything other than human,” Ellis told the court on Thursday morning after instructing the jury to forget what he had said to the Mueller team about the IRS witness. “You’ve got to put that aside.” Playbook PM Sign up for our must-read newsletter on what's driving the afternoon in Washington. Email Sign Up By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or updates from POLITICO and you agree to our privacy policy and terms of service. You can unsubscribe at any time and you can contact us here. This sign-up form is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. Mueller’s team has been frustrated by repeated slapdowns from Ellis during the Manafort trial — now in its eighth day. Before court started on Thursday morning, they filed a written motion to formally protest how they had been called out over the IRS witness. The Mueller team asked Ellis to explain to the jury that the prosecution had done nothing wrong and cited a transcript of the first day of the trial last week showing that prosecutor Uzo Asonye specifically asked that witnesses be excluded "with the exception of our expert and our [FBI] case agent." The judge and the prosecutor went on to discuss Michael Welch by name and his expertise. And the judge unmistakably approved the exception. "The Court mistakenly faulted the government for permitting IRS revenue agent Michael Welch, the government’s expert witness, to remain in the courtroom during the proceedings, when in fact on the first day of trial the Court had expressly granted the government’s motion to do so," prosecutors complained in their motion. "The Court’s reprimand of government counsel suggested to the jury — incorrectly — that the government had acted improperly and in contravention of Court rules. This prejudice should be cured." Ellis chastised Asonye in court on Wednesday moments after he called Welch to the stand. "It's my clear recollection ... that I wasn't admitting experts," Ellis said. "You need to ask specifically. You're going to go ahead now, I'm going to permit that, but I want you to remember that." Asonye responded that prosecutors would "check the transcript," but it was their belief that they specifically asked for permission to allow expert witnesses like Welch to remain in the courtroom despite the usual prohibition. "Well, let me be clear: I don't care what the transcript says," Ellis snapped, before backing down a little. "Maybe I made a mistake. But I want you to remember. Don't do that again. When I exclude witnesses, I mean everybody. Now, it may be that I didn't make that clear." The judge's tone suggested he was disturbed by the prosecutors' actions, although he eventually declared, "It's not a big deal." In their letter, Mueller's team said the judge's action left a "negative impression" of them. "The Court’s sharp reprimand of government counsel in front of the jury on August 8 was ... erroneous. And, while mistakes are a natural part of the trial process, the mistake here prejudiced the government," Mueller's team wrote, asking Ellis to tell jurors he was mistaken and the prosecution did nothing wrong. Before the jury came in Thursday, but after the session began, Asonye asked Ellis to address the issue. The judge snapped, “Alright, I’m going to take care of that.” The judge's slap at the prosecution on Wednesday over the expert witness issue was just the latest in a series of rebukes he's delivered to Mueller's squad in recent days over topics ranging from body language to excessive informality to efforts to introduce visual imagery of Manafort's lavish lifestyle. The prickly exchanges have clearly begun to grate on the prosecution team, which has sometimes protested verbally in court, but did not formally lodge a written objection before Thursday. On Wednesday, Ellis scolded prosecutor Greg Andres for responding to the court's questions with terms the judge considered too casual, like "yeah" or "yup." “Be careful about that,” he told Andres. “This is not an informal proceeding.” Andres slipped up again moments later, offering a “yup” in response to another question from the judge. “I beg your pardon?” Ellis intoned, his irritation evident. “Yes, Judge,” Andres answered. Ellis has sometimes faulted defense attorneys, but that has been more rare. On the other hand, the prosecution has been doing most of the heavy lifting thus far as the government presents its case. With prosecutors pledging to finish presenting their evidence by the end of the day Friday, the defense's opportunity to call witnesses should come next week. Judge seals transcript that could detail Gates’ cooperation in Russia probe Ellis did go along with one potentially significant request from prosecutors Thursday: a motion asking to seal a court transcript that discusses how the prosecution’s star witness, Rick Gates, has aided Mueller’s investigation of the Trump campaign. It seems likely that cooperation pertains to Mueller’s efforts to explore Russian influence over Trump’s presidential bid, but there was no explicit mention of Russia in the Mueller motion. As Gates was testifying Tuesday, the judge held a sidebar conference out of the earshot of jurors after the defense asked the former Manafort aide about interviews with the government related to the Trump campaign. Normally, transcripts of those sidebar conferences are released within a day or so, but Mueller’s team filed a motion Thursday, asking Ellis to keep that particular courtroom discussion under seal. “Disclosing the identified transcript portions would reveal substantive evidence pertaining to an ongoing investigation,” prosecutors wrote. “The government’s interest in protecting the confidentiality of its ongoing investigations is compelling and justifies sealing the limited portion of the sidebar conference at issue here.” Ellis agreed to the sealing, signing an order that found disclosing the sidebar exchange “would reveal substantive evidence pertaining to an ongoing government investigation.” That Gates would have been questioned by Mueller on his time with the Trump campaign should come as no surprise.<doc-sep>
ALEXANDRIA, Va. – As Paul Manafort scrambled for cash in 2016 to make up for declining consulting income abroad, the former Trump campaign chairman submitted loan applications allegedly littered with false statements and misrepresentations in pursuit of more than $8 million from banks in California and New York. In one case, while seeking a $5 million loan from the Banc of California, federal prosecutors in Manafort's tax and bank fraud trial Thursday presented documents that allegedly showed $4 million in inflated business income, a failure to disclose a $3.4 million loan secured just days before his March 2016 application and sole ownership in a $25 million property that actually belonged to his wife. Gary Seferian, a senior vice president at the California bank, told a federal court jury here that bank officials later discovered the ownership discrepancy on the $25 million property and approved a lesser $1 million loan amount. Manafort sought the money, the bank officials said, to finance a plan to renovate and re-sell houses in Los Angeles. Had the bank learned that income had been overstated or that existing loans had not been disclosed, Seferian said he would have "stopped the application and spoken to our legal department." In a separate Manafort transaction in New York, prosecutors offered documents that had been submitted to Citizens Bank in January 2016 that falsely listed a rental property as a second home, failed to disclose an existing mortgage on a separate property and inflated his income by $1.5 million. Even as Manafort offered up the $3.4 million refinance loan application on the New York City loft property listed as a second home, Melinda James, a Citizens Band mortgage loan assistant, testified Thursday that she found the same property listed for rent during an online search. Manafort stood to obtain a better loan rate by classifying the property as a second home. Later, an Airbnb executive testified that the home listed for refinance and designated as a “second home” by Manafort had actually been listed for rent on the leasing agent’s website. The property was briefly removed from the site while the loan was being processed, but was re-listed for rent after the loan was approved. James alerted her superiors to the discrepancy along with concerns about the existence of an undisclosed mortgage on a second property that Manafort claimed to have owned outright. James told a federal court jury that Manafort ultimately received the $3.4 million loan in March 2016, though she did not know how her concerns had been resolved. Four days later, according to bank records offered Thursday, Manafort applied for the California loan. Earlier this week, Manafort’s business partner, Rick Gates, testified that he addressed the Citizens Bank questions by submitting phony documents, at his boss’ direction. Manafort's attorneys challenged the government's interpretation of the loan documents, in part suggesting that the income Manafort claimed was money that had been earned but not yet received. They also disputed the government's claim that Manafort did not disclose all existing mortgages. In all, prosecutors have alleged that Manafort fraudulently secured more than $20 million in bank loans. The testimony related to the bank fraud comes as prosecutors are expected to wrap up their case against Manafort by Friday. The case against Manafort – 18 criminal counts of tax evasion, bank fraud and conspiracy – is the first to be tried by special counsel Robert Mueller and focuses on Manafort's business dealings. It doesn't directly have to do with Manafort's work for President Donald Trump. More:Paul Manafort trial: Judge T.S. Ellis III known as taskmaster, unafraid to speak his mind More:Paul Manafort trial: Rick Gates admits padding expenses to pay for mistress, may have bilked inaugural committee