Three leading Hong Kong democracy campaigners behind the 2014 pro-democracy “umbrella movement” have pleaded not guilty to public nuisance charges.Sociology professor Chan Kin-man, law professor Benny Tai, and Christian minister Chu Yiu-ming – founded the Occupy Central movement in 2013 and are among nine figures to face trial on Monday on criminal charges that could send some of the city’s best known activists to prison for seven years.The justice department has prosecuted leading activists from the 2014 protests, in which huge crowds turned out to call for political reform, with some barred from standing for office and others removed from the legislature.Most of those prosecuted have been young campaigners but now it is the turn of the older generation who originally came up with the idea of taking to the streets to demand a fairer system.The campaigners called for the occupation of Hong Kong’s business district if the public was not given a fair vote for the city’s leader, who is appointed by a pro-Beijing committee. They urged people to join what became known as the Umbrella Movement as protesters used umbrellas to shield themselves from pepper spray.The campaign was overtaken by a student movement that took off in September 2014.The three men are among nine pro-democracy defendants facing public nuisance charges for their participation in the protests, which ultimately failed to win political reform, despite bringing parts of the city to a standstill for more than two months. The defendants accept that they encouraged citizens to occupy parts of the city-state but argue that the charges are unconstitutional.On Monday, as the trial was due to begin, more than 100 protesters rallied outside the court waving yellow umbrellas, a symbol of the pro-democracy movement, and chanting “I want universal suffrage”. Another protester held an umbrella with the words: “Power to the People.”Campaigners say that the case raises the question of whether Hong Kong’s 50-year governing agreement with China, due to expire in 2047, still stands. The one-country, two-systems arrangement negotiated by Margaret Thatcher promised free elections and a democratic Hong Kong. Twenty-one years since the city was handed to China by the UK, there is less autonomy and weaker civil rights.Chan has spent years negotiating for democratic changes to Hong Kong’s election system. He said: “The reason we had this protest is that China did not honour a promise to Hong Kong to let it have democracy.“We are just an example, showing how the rise of an undemocratic China can be threatening to the rest of the world.”Hong Kong’s quest for electoral autonomy coincided with a drive for stability by the Chinese president, Xi Jinping. He has worked to quell restive regions, most notably in Xinjiang, where up to 1 million Uighur Muslims are imprisoned in detention camps.Hong Kong is different by design. It’s a place within China but not completely of China, with open courts, independent news outlets and many political parties.Since the Umbrella Movement took off, the government has stifled protest and punished democracy activists, according to human rights agencies.More than 200 people face prosecutions, including many who were sentenced to prison. Judges ejected six politicians from office, who were accused of deliberatly ignoring their official oaths. Several people were barred from seeking office because the government claimed that their political stances violated the constitution.One young politician who joined a street brawl with police was sent to prison for six years. The tiny Hong Kong National party, an independence movement, was banned this summer. It was the first time a ban had been issued under national security law since the city’s handover. Soon afterwards, the city denied a work visa to Financial Times journalist Victor Mallet, who hosted the party’s convener at the Foreign Correspondents’ Club. Recently, he was barred from returning to the city.“There is a snowball effect taking place here,” said Joshua Rosenzweig, the East Asian research director with Amnesty International, who is based in Hong Kong. “Those concerns about erosion of speech is what agitates young people in particular … Things are potentially more and more risky for people to speak their minds.”Earlier this month, the UN’s Universal Periodic Review for China, a project that monitors the nation’s human rights record, recommended for the first time that China and Hong Kong strengthen civil liberties in the territory.The Hong Kong delegate, Matthew Cheung, disagreed sharply with the conclusions. “Any concerns that Hong Kong’s freedoms of speech and freedom of the press is under threat are totally groundless,” he said.Some of the defendants see the trial as a chance to reignite the city’s best public spirit traditions. Speeches made by defendants to urge people to join the occupation might encourage them to question if their constitution still protects their rights to share their views, said Tai, who first proposed the sit-in in 2013.“The thing that we want to achieve with the trial is a continuation of our civil disobedience movement,” Tai said. “We need to demonstrate [this], especially to those who have not given up hope for democracy in Hong Kong.“We can continue to strive for democracy in Hong Kong,” he added. “That may encourage or at least force people to continue their struggle, even though they may feel powerless or frustrated at this moment.”Agence France-Presse contributed to this report Topics Hong Kong Asia Pacific China Protest Human rights Freedom of speech news

An annual pro-democracy protest in Hong Kong saw sweltering heat and one of its lowest turnouts in history on Sunday.Protesters were marking the 21st anniversary of the former British colony's return to Chinese rule.Organisers said 50,000 protested, while police said they counted 9,800 at the peak of the march - the lowest recorded by both sides.Hong Kong's pro-democracy movement has been weakened in the past year, with prominent activists jailed.Hong Kong was returned to China in 1997. Under the so-called "one country, two systems" formula, Hong Kong enjoys a high degree of autonomy and certain rights and freedoms not available in mainland China.Massive demonstrations erupted in 2014 - with tens of thousands camping in the streets. Protesters accused the Chinese government of breaking its promise to allow full democracy in Hong Kong, and of encroaching more and more on the region.Hundreds of police were deployed on Sunday as demonstrators marched through the streets carrying banners. Some carried yellow umbrellas, a symbol of democratic activism. Pro-democracy activist Lui Yuk-lin burned a portrait of Chinese President Xi Jinping.The flames were extinguished by security guards.Some protesters were pictured wearing Pinocchio masks depicting Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam, who is seen by activists as a representative of Beijing's interests.Pro-democracy activist Joshua Wong, who became famous for his role in the "Umbrella protests" in 2014, spoke to supporters at the march.In response to the protest, the government said it had "been following the mottos of 'we care', 'we listen' and 'we act' sincerely".However, it criticised some of the protest slogans as "sensational and misleading", and said that slogans which did not respect the fact that Hong Kong was part of China were "not in line with Hong Kong's overall interests" and would "undermine" the territory. Various other causes have become a part of the annual protests, including recycling, environmental issues, and property prices.

(Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, was accused by federal prosecutors of lying about sharing polling data related to Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign with a business partner with alleged ties to Russian intelligence, according to portions of a court filing by Manafort’s defense team that were inadvertently made public on Tuesday. Before sending the document to a public database for federal court filings, lawyers for Manafort had tried to black out the portion on polling data and other information about Manafort’s interactions with Konstantin Kilimnik, a former business partner of Manafort’s who Mueller has claimed in court filings has ties to Russian intelligence. But some journalists, including at Vox and the Guardian, realized the redacted portions could be electronically reversed and posted uncensored versions on Twitter. Reuters did not independently review the filing, which was soon replaced in the public database with a properly redacted version. Manafort’s lawyers did not respond to a request for comment on the matter. A spokesman for Special Counsel Robert Mueller, whose office is prosecuting Manafort, declined to comment. Kilimnik could not be reached for comment. According to the unredacted versions posted online, the blacked-out sections showed that Manafort has been accused by Mueller of lying about his sharing of polling data on the 2016 campaign with Kilimnik. The sections posted online also stated that Mueller’s office believes that Manafort lied to prosecutors about his discussions with Kilimnik about a “Ukrainian peace plan” and a meeting that Manafort had with Kilimnik when they both were in Madrid. The filing did not provide further details on the Madrid meeting or the peace plan, although Mueller has scrutinized a proposal by a Ukrainian lawmaker that involved, among other outcomes, the lifting of U.S. sanctions on Russia, according to people familiar with the matter. In the document Manafort’s lawyers referenced a December court filing in which Mueller alleged that Manafort had “conceded” to discussing the peace plan, which they argued was an indication that their client was forthcoming when his memory was refreshed of past events. The inadvertent disclosures offered a rare glimpse into details that were meant to remain private while Manafort’s lawyers and Mueller’s office battle over whether Manafort has breached a plea agreement struck in September by lying. In December Mueller accused Manafort in a court filing of telling “multiple discernible lies” related to five subjects, including his interactions with Kilimnik and his contacts with Trump administration officials in 2018. At the time Manafort’s lawyers said their client never intentionally provided incorrect information to prosecutors, but asked the judge for time to consider whether they wanted to contest Mueller’s allegations or proceed to sentencing. U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson had given Manafort’s lawyers until Monday to make a decision. FILE PHOTO: President Trump's former campaign chairman Paul Manafort departs U.S. District Court after a motions hearing in Alexandria, Virginia, U.S., May 4, 2018. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst/File Photo“The defense contests the Government’s conclusion and contends that any alleged misstatements, to the extent they occurred at all, were not intentional,” Manafort’s lawyers said in the filing, which was filed on Monday and released by the court on Tuesday. In the filing Manafort’s lawyers said they would not seek an evidentiary hearing to contest Mueller’s allegations of lying, arguing that such factual matters could be addressed in a pre-sentencing report. Following the filing by Manafort’s lawyers, Jackson ordered the government to submit evidence supporting their allegations by Jan. 14, and held out the option of holding a hearing on the matter on Jan. 25. Reporting by Nathan Layne in New York; Editing by Jonathan Oatis and James DalgleishOur Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Mr. Gates’s testimony, eagerly anticipated since the trial began a week ago, was crucial to the prosecution’s effort to show that Mr. Manafort knowingly defrauded tax and bank authorities and had not simply been tripped up by lazy accountants or confusion about complex tax laws. Mr. Gates testified, for instance, that in October 2016, Mr. Manafort personally falsified a profit-and-loss statement for his firm while seeking to secure a bank loan.In an email, Mr. Gates said, Mr. Manafort sought advice on editing the statement, asking, “How do I convert the PDF into a Word document?” Mr. Gates said Mr. Manafort then changed the document to show that his firm had $3 million in profit instead of more than $600,000 in losses.He also testified that Mr. Manafort had personally ordered money wired from bank accounts in Cyprus to pay clothiers, landscapers and other expenses in the United States. He said Mr. Manafort’s accountants were never told of those payments — evidence, prosecutors claim, of millions of dollars in illegally concealed income — because “Mr. Manafort said we did not need to.”But Mr. Gates also demonstrated his own facility at falsifying documents, referring to what prosecutors said was blatant fraud in bland terms. He referred to invoices he altered for Mr. Manafort as “modified” and said that changes to Mr. Manafort’s financial documents sometimes required him to “update” or “edit the template.”When Mr. Manafort needed false loan documents — either to reduce his reported income to evade taxes or to inflate it to obtain bank loans — Mr. Gates said he called upon a law firm in Cyprus, run by a man nicknamed Dr. K., to help him create the fakes.His confident delivery turned stumbling when Mr. Manafort’s defense lawyer began delving into financial schemes that Mr. Gates executed for his own benefit, not Mr. Manafort’s. Asked how much of his own income he had illegally hidden from tax authorities, for instance, he said he could not come up with a figure, but had told prosecutors that he did not disclose it all.Pressed on how he stole $125,000 from one of Mr. Manafort’s accounts, Mr. Gates repeatedly described his transfers of funds for fake expenses as “unauthorized.” When Mr. Downing demanded to know why he refused to use the term “embezzlement,” Mr. Gates replied that Mr. Downing could use “whatever word” he wanted, before finally acknowledging that “it was embezzlement from Mr. Manafort.”

ImageThe mammy caricature, perpetuated by racist objects like dolls and ceramics, portrayed black women as subservient.CreditGabe Palmer/AlamyImageMammy kitchen items, including jars, salt and pepper shakers, and kitchen bells, grew in popularity during the Jim Crow era.CreditJeffrey Greenberg/UIG, via Getty ImagesIn a Black History Month roiled by tone-deaf scandals in politics and fashion involving blackface, shoes and balaclavas, you may have missed the one about mammy jars.Grace Coddington, a former creative director of American Vogue, was photographed with a collection of so-called mammy ceramics in her kitchen for a French lifestyle magazine. The images surfaced in early February and were condemned.“I am ashamed and embarrassed that I didn’t see the mammy jars in the photo until an Instagram commenter pointed them out to me,” the photographer, Brian Ferry, said in a statement. “I’m sorry for my mistake and the hurt it caused,” he added. “I am committed to doing better in the future.” Representatives for Ms. Coddington did not respond to repeated requests for comment.The mammy stereotype portrays black women as obedient maids to white families. Like blackface, racist objects such as mammy jars perpetuate deep-rooted stereotypes about African-Americans by portraying them as docile, dumb and animated. But some white families view these objects as keepsakes, passed down through generations as relics of the past.More than a century after the heyday of minstrel shows and the peak production of racist objects, some Americans are still learning about the how these cultural products — viewed as forms of entertainment and decorations during the Jim Crow era — dehumanize black people.This year, February — a month usually set aside for celebrating the achievements of African-Americans — was dominated by a national reckoning with blackface and a series of apologies for racist behavior.ImageA photo included on the yearbook page of Ralph Northam, the governor of Virginia, shows someone in blackface next to someone in Ku Klux Klan robes.ImageMr. Northam at a news conference last month. The discovery of the yearbook photo kicked off a series of news cycles filled with apologies for blackface.CreditParker Michels-Boyce for The New York TimesRalph S. Northam, the governor of Virginia, first apologized for appearing in a photo on his yearbook page that shows a man in blackface standing next to a man in a Ku Klux Klan robe, and then he denied appearing in the photo at all. The governor later admitted to putting shoe polish on his face to dress up as Michael Jackson. Days later, Virginia’s attorney general apologized for wearing blackface at a college party. (Both men are still in office.)Conversations about racist controversies, in politics or fashion, are often framed in terms of how they are offensive to black people, but that leaves out a crucial issue, according to Chico Colvard, the director of a new documentary about the history of racist objects. “The other part of the equation is that these are persistent markers of white supremacy,” Mr. Colvard said.Racist objects were originally used as propaganda tools to spread falsehoods about the Civil War.Their production spiked in the 1890s, said Rhae Lynn Barnes, an assistant professor of American cultural history at Princeton University.“A lot of this iconography is specifically around the kitchen and making jokes about cooking and cleaning,” Dr. Barnes said. While blackface, a signature of minstrel shows, was often performed in public by white men to mock African-Americans, black figurines were found in homes, according to Dr. Barnes. Mammy miniatures — jars, salt and pepper shakers, kitchen bells — show a black woman with exaggerated lips in a red-and-white gown and a matching head scarf. Lawn jockeys depict hunched-over black men holding lanterns. Mechanical banks feature bugged-out eyes that roll back into a man’s head when coins are inserted into his smiling mouth.ImageMammy's Cupboard, a restaurant and roadside attraction, in Natchez, Miss. The woman's skin was painted a lighter shade during the civil rights era to address criticism.CreditClassicStock/Alamy“They were everyday objects which portrayed black people as ugly, different and fun to laugh at,” said David Pilgrim, the founder of the Jim Crow Museum of Racist Memorabilia at Ferris State University in Michigan. “They were, in a word, propaganda.”The objects still show up in our society today.When Barack Obama first ran for president, “jolly Obama banks” appeared online as gag gifts.And in an episode of the Netflix comedy “Master of None,” the main character, Dev Shah, played by Aziz Ansari, ends a series of bad Tinder dates with a promising hookup. His partner asks him to grab a condom from her bedside table, and he finds one stashed in a mammy cookie jar.“Isn’t it a little racist?” Dev asks the woman, who is white.She gets defensive and asks Dev why he waited until after having sex with her to comment on the object. “Just show it to a black person sometime,” he replies.Some people collect the objects as investment pieces: At antique shows a few decades ago, the banks were priced from $400 to $600, and mammy jars were sold for $200 to $400, according to Dr. Pilgrim. But sites like eBay led to lower price points.“What an interesting culture we have, where you have price guides not just for mammy ceramics and salt and pepper shakers, but also for lynching postcards,” Dr. Pilgrim said.“Black Memorabilia,” Mr. Colvard’s documentary, which aired on PBS in February, follows a worker who makes mechanical banks at a small factory in China, a woman who sells antiques at a flea market in North Carolina and an artist who grapples with racism through performance art.Mr. Colvard, who is black, was born in Germany and raised in the United States. He grew up “unconsciously consuming a steady diet” of racist images, he said, from Aunt Jemima on boxes of pancake mix to Saturday morning specials with Shirley Temple in blackface.“A child is not going to gravitate toward a toy that’s hideous or not well designed,” Mr. Colvard said. “Of course it’s appealing — the colors are bright, welcoming and animated.”His documentary often weaves in clips from Black Lives Matter protests and the 2017 white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Va., to draw connections between the pain African-Americans feel when seeing household caricatures of themselves and the political trauma they experience today.One scene from the documentary shows Joy, the antiques dealer, at a market outpost in Massachusetts. The camera cuts to a black boy drinking water out of a spigot. “I want the little one, you’re too cute,” says Joy, who is white.An innocuous comment on its own, her words take on a darker tone in view of the types of items she sells and collects: mechanical banks, minstrel postcards, slave documents, K.K.K. pamphlets. “She sees herself as a preserver of history, of real black history,” Mr. Colvard said in an interview. “She sees this as a history of travail.”The antiques dealer says she collects the artifacts to “take the wall down between the races.” But profiting from objects that exploit black suffering may suggest a skewed understanding of African-American history and identity. “These are objects used to dehumanize us,” Mr. Colvard said.Dr. Pilgrim, who is black and has been a collector since he was a child, said some people collect the figurines to keep them off the market. “I knew people who bought them because they wanted to remind themselves of how far black people had come and how resilient black people had been,” he said.But others collect them as investment pieces and as a form of nostalgia.“Where a person like myself is likely to see the vestiges of slavery and segregation,” he said, “someone else might be reminded of good times spent with their parents or grandparents and not see the connection at all.”Nostalgia for these objects nods to the post-Reconstruction era, a time when the United Daughters of the Confederacy mapped out the blueprint for the Lost Cause, a cultural campaign that denied slavery was the reason for the Civil War.“These figurines laud that time and present a ‘moonlight and magnolias’ view of slavery,” said Keri Leigh Merritt, an Atlanta-based historian and the author of “Masterless Men: Poor Whites and Slavery in the Antebellum South.” “They show happy slaves and try to minimize the brutality and the violence and the horror that we know actually happened.”Dr. Pilgrim, whose museum houses over 5,000 collectibles, hopes the mass presentation of the memorabilia encourages people from various groups to interrogate the messages behind the figurines.“There’s a reason we need to have these things: To serve as reminders so we’ll never forget,” Mr. Colvard said.“They shouldn’t be erased from history,” he added, “but I’m not sure they should be casually bought and sold in a regular stream of commerce either.”

Enlarge this image Paul Manafort arrives for a hearing at U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., on June 15. A new court filing says Manafort is suspected of having shared polling data with a business associate who has links to the Russian intelligence service. Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images hide caption toggle caption Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images Paul Manafort arrives for a hearing at U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., on June 15. A new court filing says Manafort is suspected of having shared polling data with a business associate who has links to the Russian intelligence service. Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images Prosecutors investigating Russian interference in the last U.S. presidential election suspect former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort shared polling data with a business associate who has links to the Russian intelligence service, according to a new court filing.The disclosure emerged in a legal brief filed by Manafort's defense lawyers, who are resisting the idea he intentionally lied to special counsel Robert Mueller, lies that the investigators said should torpedo his plea deal. Politics DOJ, Largely Shut Down, Nonetheless Issued Statements On Southern Border Cases Manafort's attorneys reported he has been suffering from severe gout, anxiety and depression — conditions that may have affected his ability to recall events during his tumultuous service on the Trump campaign.But portions of their legal brief contained botched redactions that made it possible for readers to see blocked text. There, it was revealed authorities believe Manafort lied about handing 2016 polling data to Konstantin Kilimnik, a translator and business associate that Mueller has connected to Russian intelligence. Law Russian Lawyer At Trump Tower Meeting Charged In Connection To Money Laundering Case Manafort and Kilimnik were charged with conspiracy to obstruct justice by attempting to tamper with witnesses after Manafort had been already been indicted for other crimes.Prosecutors also think Manafort and Kilimnik may have met in Madrid, during the campaign, to discuss a possible Ukraine peace plan, according to another passage of the new document. And in a third redaction apparently gone wrong, defense lawyers revealed that Manafort may have greenlighted an unnamed third party to drop his name if that person secured a meeting with President Trump.Manafort met with government attorneys and agents 12 times and testified twice before the grand jury. His lawyers said there is "no identifiable pattern" to his "purported misrepresentations," even though several of them involve Kilimnik. National Security Here's What Could Be Ahead In The Russia Investigations In 2019 The defense filing followed an explosive assertion from prosecutor Andrew Weissmann that Manafort had told "multiple, discernible lies," blowing up a plea deal they reached one day before jury selection was scheduled to begin in a federal court in Washington, D.C.Judge Amy Berman Jackson has ordered the government to provide a detailed factual basis about Manafort's lies, which is due Jan. 14. National Security What Is Money Laundering? And Why Does It Matter To Robert Mueller? In another action that may be related to the ongoing Russia probe, the Supreme Court Tuesday denied an application for a stay in a case involving a bank owned by a foreign government. That case is shrouded in secrecy, but CNN and Politico have suggested it could be tied to the Mueller investigation.Reporters staked out the federal appeals court in Washington last month but were unable to observe the proceedings after security officials cleared the entire floor.The financial institution, labeled "Company A" in court documents, must pay $50,000 a day until it complies with a grand jury subpoena, but the lower court blocked execution of that penalty while the company appealed.

Jeremy Hunt, a leadership candidate for Britain's Conservative Party, gestures as he speaks during a hustings event in Belfast, Northern Ireland, July 2, 2019. Peter Morrison/Pool via REUTERSLONDON (Reuters) - Britain’s Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt said on Thursday that he had not backed violent protests in Hong Kong after Chinese state media blamed interference by Western governments for unrest in the former British colony. “Let me clear what I said. I said that I condemned, and we as the United Kingdom, condemn all violence and that people who supported the pro-democracy demonstrators would have been very dismayed by the scenes they saw,” Hunt told BBC radio. Hunt said authorities had to deal with the root causes of the protests over a now-suspended extradition law in Hong Kong. He also said there was no reason why good relations between Britain and China could not continue. Reporting by Costas Pitas; Writing by William SchombergOur Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort shared polling data on the 2016 election with a Russian man linked to Moscow’s intelligence agencies, according to special counsel Robert Mueller.Manafort, 69, is also accused of covering up other meetings and contacts with the Russian, an elusive consultant named Konstantin Kilimnik who worked for Manafort on election campaigns for pro-Kremlin politicians in eastern Europe.Attorneys for Manafort disclosed the allegations in a court filing in Washington on Tuesday. They appeared in sections of the filing that were meant to be redacted, but where text underneath blacked-out lines could be copied and viewed.A spokesman for Manafort’s team did not respond to a message asking if the faulty redactions were accidental. The document was later refiled to court with effective redactions.Mueller, who is investigating Russia’s interference in the 2016 election and any coordination with Trump’s team, said in a court filing last year that the FBI assesses that Kilimnik “has ties to a Russian intelligence service and had such ties in 2016”.Kilimnik, 48, trained at a university connected to Russia’s military intelligence agency, formerly known as the GRU, which allegedly spearheaded the Kremlin’s effort to disrupt the US election in 2016. The US has concluded that the Russian operation was ordered by President Vladimir Putin to help Trump’s campaign.Mueller has also previously said that Rick Gates, Manafort’s deputy on the Trump campaign, described Kilimnik as “a former Russian intelligence officer with the GRU”, which Kilimnik denies.In the court document made public on Tuesday, Manafort’s attorneys denied allegations that the former Trump aide lied to Mueller’s team about several topics since he began cooperating with the inquiry. They blamed his false statements on a failure to recall certain details and his lack of access in jail to records that could jog his memory.In a section of their filing meant to have been redacted, the attorneys referred to an allegation from Mueller that Manafort “lied about sharing polling data with Mr Kilimnik related to the 2016 presidential campaign”. They did not elaborate.Manafort’s attorneys did not deny that Manafort gave Kilimnik the data, instead stating that he had not lied about it but was merely “unable to recall specific details prior to having his recollection refreshed”.The attorneys also confirmed that Manafort had met Kilimnik in Madrid, claiming he “had not initially remembered” the meeting but recalled it when confronted with records showing the two were in the Spanish capital at the same time.It was previously known that Kilimnik and Manafort had met twice during 2016 in the US. The date of the Madrid meeting was not stated, but a source familiar with Manafort’s team said it was in early 2017 after Trump had entered office.Manafort’s attorneys also said on Tuesday that when presented with other records by Mueller’s team, he conceded “he discussed or may have discussed a Ukraine peace plan with Mr Kilimnik on more than one occasion”.Investigators have been looking into whether Trump associates took any action relating to Russia’s 2014 military intervention in Ukraine, and subsequent US sanctions against Moscow. Trump advisers reportedly worked to broker a backchannel deal for Trump to lift the sanctions around the time he entered office.Kilimnik was reported in February 2017 to be working on a Ukraine peace plan but denied Manafort was involved.Tuesday’s filing was Manafort’s response to allegations from Mueller that he had continued to lie to investigators even after signing a cooperation agreement. The alleged lies led Mueller to tear up the deal, under which prosecutors would have recommended a reduced prison sentence for crimes Manafort has admitted.Manafort was also accused of lying about contacts with Trump administration officials since they entered office in January 2017. His attorneys said on Tuesday he had not intentionally lied and was asked only about his contacts with two specific administration officials.In another poorly redacted section, the attorneys said Mueller specifically alleged Manafort was in contact with someone who asked him permission to use Manafort’s name “as an introduction” in the event that the person met the president.A second alleged contact with a Trump official was based on “hearsay purportedly offered by an undisclosed third party”, according to Manafort’s attorneys.They also disclosed on Tuesday that Mueller had discovered several additional contacts between Manafort and the administration, which they described as “mostly indirect”.Mueller alleged that Manafort also lied about a $125,000 payment from a pro-Trump “super Pac”, a payment he variously described as a reimbursement for money he was owed, payment for work he did, and a loan. Manafort’s team on Tuesday blamed confusion about how the money was recorded by his accountants. Topics Paul Manafort Trump-Russia investigation Robert Mueller Russia Trump administration Donald Trump US politics news

It seems all too fitting that Facebook’s plans to launch a digital coin were leaked in the second-to-last week of a year that saw the tech giant’s reputation pummeled and cryptocurrencies crash and burn. It’s like grilling a shit sandwich over a dumpster fire.Bitcoin–and the cryptocurrency industry as a whole–plunged this year, after a gravity-defying surge in recent years. The price of the digital coin hit nearly $20,000 late last year. And then in early 2018, it began to fall. Though it hit a few plateaus, the price has still tumbled; today it hovers at a little over $3,000.So what happened? And is there any hope for a recovery? To answer both, you have to look at quite a few factors.The bubbleWhen bitcoin was rising last year, it seemed like a trend everyone from your grandmother to your barista was suddenly becoming hip to. Of course plenty of folks cautioned that it could be a bubble, but it’s always hard to realize such a thing when you’re in the midst of it. It’s free money, right? Why not get in on it? (Just don’t remortgage your house!)All the signs, however, were there. Like previous bubbles, people were basing their belief in the cryptocurrency on their emotions, not any intrinsic value. Then there was the FOMO element, which only compounded things. Essentially, bitcoin became an international fever. Random companies were “pivoting to blockchain” for no apparent reason other than that it seemed like a way to create buzz. But when the bubble bursts, FOMO turns into fear of losing, which makes for an especially rapid plunge.Among those who called it, hedge fund manager Mark Dow wrote almost exactly a year ago about his decision to short bitcoin after future trading on it first began:But this time feels different. It feels like a bubble. The fever in the post-Thanksgiving moonshot ran hotter than we’d seen before. We also began to see a robust supply response. Bubbles are complex dynamics. What they all have in common, however, is they require emotion to truly go parabolic. Moreover, the less we understand the object of the bubble, the greater the scope for greed and FOMO to fill in the blanks.Dow, at the time, simply could not come up with a good reason for the crypto’s insane performance. The only logical explanation: It’s a bubble. His views were especially prescient. He told Bloomberg this month that he made a profit twice due to this canny call.Other early warning signsBut to understand the dynamic that led to this year’s depressing year for crypto, we actually should start a few years before 2018. In bitcoin’s early days, Mt. Gox was the go-to service for handling transactions. Then, in 2014, it halted transactions and slowly copped to a crypto-hack to the tune of $473 million, the biggest hack of its kind at the time, and it gave many people pause. But it was still early enough for people to believe that the blockchain system was still getting all the technical kinks out.But the hacks didn’t stop. In 2016, the DAO–a blockchain organization that was based on Ethereum–lost what was worth $50 million at the time, due to a technical error someone seized upon. This, once again, sent shockwaves through the community–but also had the unfortunate impact of normalizing these types of hacks for some people.At the end of 2017 and beginning of 2018, more people–especially those in the mainstream finance world–were paying attention to bitcoin and cryptocurrency trading. And in early January 2018, the Japanese exchange Coincheck disclosed a hack worth a whopping $534 million. This happened right around the time that bitcoin slipped from its peak value, and it certainly seemed to accelerate its drop.According to Stephen Innes, the head of Asian trading for the foreign exchange Oanda, hacks were the first element to have a chilling effect on crypto. Hearing the amount of money that thieves were able to take, he says, “Consumers got very concerned that their money could go missing.”In the wake of both Coincheck’s hack–as well as a big one that hit the South Korean exchange Coinrail–governments in East Asia began to crack down. Over the course of a few months, China, Japan, and South Korea all announced different measures to better regulate crypto-trading. The world was watching to see if this new technology would hit the mainstream–and government crackdowns following gigantic hacks helped poison the public perception.Indeed, following its nearly $20,000 peak, bitcoin in early 2018 dropped to around $10,000 and hovered there for a while.Lack of institutional supportBeyond the clampdown by some governments, what bitcoin really needed to achieve sustained success was overall mainstream acceptance. While some financial institutions announced projects exploring blockchain-based solutions, many others balked.When some of the most respected people on Wall Street make comments like that, it “takes a huge element of mainstream out of the market,” says Innes. Essentially, these heavy hitters were telling their minions that bitcoin wasn’t worth their time.Meanwhile, there has been plenty of speculation that bitcoin’s big rise may have been due to a pump-and-dump scheme. One theory that the U.S. Justice Department is reportedly looking into is that the digital coin Tether (which is supposedly pegged to the U.S. dollar to make for a less volatile cryptocurrency) was used to manipulate the bitcoin market and cause a large run-up in price. This theory stems from an academic paper, which cast Tether in a very damning light. And it also led many to believe that the initial bitcoin craze was manufactured and destined to bust.Another institutional hit for bitcoin–which probably had the most sustained effect–was the SEC’s refusal to approve a bitcoin exchange-traded fund (ETF). This would be a path for more mainstream people in finance to dabble with blockchain; it would allow investors to dip their toes in bitcoin without owning the actual asset. Not only that, but it would make bitcoin available on the most prominent financial markets. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), however, has yet to allow such a fund to exist–mostly because it is unable to monitor crypto-transactions in order to avoid market manipulation.The inability to get SEC approval really held back bitcoin and cryptocurrencies in general. It sent the message, says Innes, “that there wasn’t underlying support from Wall Street.” Meanwhile, the price dropped from around $10,000 to $6,000.Internal battlesBut it wasn’t just outside pessimism that led to the slump, but infighting as well. Blockchains are decentralized, and democratic systems require buy-in from participants in order to keep the engines running. When there’s a schism that can’t be decided by the majority, all hell breaks loose.In 2016, this became apparent with the DAO hack. One way to fix the problem was to implement what’s known as a “hard fork,” which would essentially update the Ethereum-based software to fix the technical gaffe that caused the hack to begin with. But DAO users had to agree to this change, and there were dissenters. Though the hard fork was approved, it created two active blockchains with two different sets of rules. Ultimately, this hack–coupled with the inability to deal with it–caused the DAO to end in 2016.This year we saw a similar fight break out–this time over bitcoin cash. This coin, mind you, is not bitcoin, though it is built on the same architecture. It was created by a group of miners who disagreed with some of the fundamentals of the initial bitcoin system, and so they forked a new blockchain and went their own way. In terms of market capitalization, bitcoin cash has always been one of the top cryptocurrencies–in the ranks of Ethereum and XRP.This past autumn, the bitcoin cash community–which was created due to a technical disagreement with the larger bitcoin sector–started a civil war. Essentially, bitcoin cash developers had diverging views on the software update for the system, and so they decided to implement another hard fork. This created two new bitcoin cash sects. Internally, the fork caused a lot of strife; one of the most popular bitcoin alternatives was unable to reach a consensus, and instead had to create two different paths that would essentially go to war with each other.When the hard fork arrived–and participants had to choose which path to take–the entire cryptocurrency market dropped. This is very likely what caused bitcoin to drop from the $6,000 range to around the $3,000-$4,000 range. Which brings us to today, with the cryptocurrency bottoming out at less than 80% of what it was a year ago.Is there any hope?We’re certainly in a much different place now than we were 12 months ago. What was a hot commodity has turned into a hot potato nobody wants to touch. Still, this almost certainly won’t be the end for bitcoin, or cryptocurrencies as a whole. Despite the realization that it was a bubble, even the toughest critics see some sort of a future.Dow, the man who first shorted bitcoin, for instance, even mentioned in his initial post that a person can be “simultaneously bullish on blockchain and bearish on bitcoin.” And he just announced that he’s ending his short.Meanwhile, even the most enthusiastic bitcoin evangelists are realizing that a retooling is in order. Michael J. Casey, a senior adviser for blockchain research at MIT’s Digital Currency Initiative, recently wrote about how the crypto-winter has arrived, but it may lead to better things down the line:The good news is that the glare of public opinion will eventually dissipate, and that as the spotlight diminishes, real developers will find themselves in a healthier environment within which to do the work needed to unlock this technology’s potential. We saw a similar period of constructive building during the 2014-2016 hiatus. But whatever new products are produced, they will now have a harder time struggling with acceptance. Whether we like it or not, message and image are important.That seems to be the overall message from most. Even Innes, who has been critical of bitcoin and crypto-trading for quite a while, admits that this doesn’t mean the blockchain is bunk. He, in fact, sees things looking up. “If this base can hold,” he says, “[the price will] start drifting up.” But not because of fervor or blind faith that bitcoin is the future, but due to advances on the technology side.“This is a legitimate technology–it’s going to expand,” he says, “My longer-term view is nowhere near where some of [my current] views are.” It could even perhaps hit $10,000 again, he says. But that will probably take a few years. For now, we wait and see.

ALEXANDRIA, Va. (Reuters) - Rick Gates, a star prosecution witness in the tax and bank fraud trial of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, took the witness stand on Monday. Gates is cooperating with an investigation by U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller and was called to testify against his former boss. Reporting by Nathan Layne; Writing by Eric Beech; Editing by Mohammad ZarghamOur Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

HONG KONG (Reuters) - Hong Kong authorities called for calm ahead of Monday’s annual pro-democracy march, with widespread anger over an extradition bill expected to lead to large crowds after high-profile protests this month against the proposal. FILE PHOTO - Anti-extradition graffiti is seen outside the police headquarters, after a rally ahead of the G20 summit, urging the international community to back their demands for the government to withdraw the extradition bill, in Hong Kong, China June 27, 2019. REUTERS/Tyrone SiuMore than a million people have taken to the streets at times over the past three weeks to vent their anger and frustration at Hong Kong’s Beijing-backed leader Carrie Lam, posing the greatest popular challenge to Chinese leader Xi Jinping since he came to power in 2012. China is also grappling with a trade war with Washington, a faltering economy and South China Sea tensions. Monday’s anniversary of the handover of the former British colony to Beijing in 1997 has been marked in recent years by deepening despondency about what many Hong Kong residents see as a relentless march toward mainland control. This came to a head on June 12 when protests against a proposal that would allow people to be sent to mainland China for trial led to police firing rubber bullets and tear gas near the heart of Hong Kong’s financial center, sending plumes of smoke billowing among some of the world’s tallest skyscrapers. Hong Kong’s Chief Secretary Matthew Cheung appealed for calm ahead of Monday’s rally and said in his blog on Sunday that the government has learned from its mistakes. “It is imperative to restore social order and tranquillity as soon as possible, stabilize the business environment and bring Hong Kong back on track,” Cheung said. Lam, who has apologized for the upheaval, has not been seen in public since June 18, suspended the extradition bill after some of Hong Kong’s biggest and most violent protests in decades, but stopped short of demands to scrap it. Activists are also demanding the government drop all charges against those arrested during the protests, charge police with excessive use of force and stop referring to the demonstrations as a riot, which can bring a heavier jail sentence. But in a show of support for the police, thousands gathered in heavy rain and sweltering heat, some waving the Chinese flag, and observed a moment of silence. The police estimated 53,000 attended Sunday’s rally. Former police chief Tang King-shing said he felt hurt when protesters besieged police headquarters during the week, while pro-Beijing heavyweight Maria Tam praised what she described as Hong Kong people’s civilized ways of expressing their opinions. “We can’t tolerate those who ... attack the rule of law, attack LegCo, attack the government,” Tam, who is a member of China’s National People’s Congress, said. “Some have been taking directions from foreign countries.” Organizers of Monday’s anniversary march say they are confident that anger over the city government’s failure to withdraw the extradition bill will fuel numbers. The bill has reignited a protest movement that had lost steam after pro-democracy demonstrations in 2014 failed to wrestle concessions from Beijing and led to hundreds of arrests. Local media reported that a 21-year-old Hong Kong student who fell to her death from an apartment building on Saturday had left behind a note opposing the extradition law. Hong Kong returned to Chinese rule on July 1, 1997, under a “one country, two systems” formula that allows freedoms not enjoyed in mainland China, including freedom of protest and a much-cherished independent judiciary. Opponents of the extradition bill see it as a threat to the rule of law and fear it would put them at the mercy of China’s justice system, where human rights are not guaranteed. Britain said in a statement on Sunday it will closely monitor events and continue to press the Chinese government to respect the terms under which Hong Kong was handed over. Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt said that recent protests made it even more important to reiterate that Britain’s commitment to the Sino-British Joint Declaration was unwavering. “It is a legally-binding treaty and remains as valid today as it did when it was signed and ratified over thirty years ago,” Hunt said. After promises that post-handover Hong Kong would enjoy autonomy, Beijing’s squeeze has fueled resentment and in 2014 sparked protests that paralyzed parts of the city for 79 days. The failure of those protests to wrestle concessions on democracy, coupled with prosecutions of at least 100 protesters, most of them young, had discouraged many activists from going back to the streets - until recent weeks. Slideshow (2 Images)The turnout at the handover protest in 2018 was one of the lowest ever after the disqualification of pro-democracy legislators and the jailing of some of the most prominent activists. Organizers said about 50,000 people rallied last year, while police put the number at 9,800 at its peak. Additional reporting by Jessie Pang, Felix Tam and Kate Holton; Editing by Sam Holmes, Robert Birsel, Alexander SmithOur Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

SAO PAULO/JUIZ DE FORA, Brazil (Reuters) - Brazil’s presidential race was thrown into chaos on Friday with the far-right front-runner Jair Bolsonaro in serious but stable condition in an intensive care unit after being stabbed at a rally, his wound severe enough that his son said he was unlikely to be able to return to campaigning before the Oct. 7 vote. Bolsonaro, a congressman, was knifed in the stomach while being carried atop supporters’ shoulders in a street rally on Thursday and was being treated at a Sao Paulo hospital. A Tweet posted on Bolsonaro’s verified account said he was “doing well and recuperating.” However, Flavio Bolsonaro, Jair’s son, said in a video on his verified Facebook page Friday afternoon that his father was in a “delicate situation and has trouble speaking.” “He is recuperating and he probably will not be able to head out into the streets in this campaign,” said Flavio Bolsonaro. “He cannot go to the streets, but we can.” A spokesman for the Bolsonaro campaign did not immediately return a request for comment. The attack further clouds Brazil’s most unpredictable election in three decades. Corruption investigations have jailed scores of powerful businessmen and politicians in recent years, and alienated infuriated voters. Bolsonaro, 63, has for years angered many Brazilians with extreme statements, but is also seen by his many supporters as a politically incorrect gust of fresh air in a rotten system. He has repeatedly said the country’s notoriously violent police should increase their killing of suspected drug gang members and armed criminals. That plays well with wealthier voters, but is terrifying for the 50 percent of Brazilians who said in a 2017 Datafolha poll they feared being victims of police violence. Surveys consistently give Bolsonaro around 22 percent in simulated first-round votes. However, those polls find he would badly lose to most rivals in the likely event of a runoff, which takes place if no candidate wins a majority in the first ballot. Some Bolsonaro backers and analysts, especially in financial markets, forecast the attack could give Bolsonaro a huge boost. They argue it will draw in some of the 28 percent of voters who say they are undecided or will not vote for anyone. “I just want to send a message to the thugs who tried to ruin the life of a family man, a guy who is the hope for millions of Brazilians: You just elected him president. He will win in the first round,” Flavio Bolsonaro, said earlier on Friday. Carlos Melo, a political scientist with Insper, a Sao Paulo business school, said Bolsonaro may gain some votes. But he doubted there would be a big shift his way, especially given that 44 percent of those surveyed in the latest Ibope poll say they would never cast a ballot for Bolsonaro, the stiffest rejection for any candidate. “I see no reason why voters who have previously said they reject him would now automatically support him,” Melo said. The political scientist thinks that once the commotion of the attack passes, voters may soberly think about the roots of the political polarization and aggressive rhetoric that has engulfed Brazil. “Jair Bolsonaro is a symbol of that process,” Melo said. “Voters may be awakened to the thought that politicians who propose loosening gun laws, for example, end up giving unbridled power to crazy people, like the man who carried out the attack yesterday.” Brazilian presidential candidate Jair Bolsonaro reacts after being stabbed during a rally in Juiz de Fora, Minas Gerais state, Brazil September 6, 2018. REUTERS/Raysa Campos Leite Bolsonaro was stabbed while being carried on someone’s shoulders in a crowd of cheering supporters in the city of Juiz de Fora. TV pictures showed him screaming in pain, then falling backward into the arms of those around him. Police video taken at a precinct showed suspect Adelio Bispo de Oliveira telling police he had been ordered by God to carry out the attack. Speaking earlier in an online video from hospital in Juiz de Fora, Bolsonaro said the pain of the attack at first was like being hit by a soccer ball. “It was intolerable and it seemed like maybe something worse was happening,” he said, talking in a weak, raspy voice with a tube in his nose and monitors beeping nearby. “I was preparing for this sort of thing. You run risks.” Bolsonaro was stabilized and in the intensive care unit at the Einstein hospital in Sao Paulo on Friday. Dr. Luiz Henrique Borsato, who operated on the candidate, said the internal wounds were “grave” and “put the patient’s life at risk” but that he was stable. Doctors were worried about an infection since Bolsonaro’s intestines were perforated. Bolsonaro likely needs to spend at least a week in the hospital. Being unable to campaign any more would seriously damage his run. Bolsonaro’s tiny coalition has almost no campaign time on government-regulated candidate commercial blocs on television and radio. He must rely on social media and, until now, raucous rallies around the country to drum up support. Running as the law-and-order candidate, Bolsonaro has positioned himself as the anti-politician, though he has spent nearly three decades in Congress. He has long espoused taking a radical stance on public security in Brazil, which has more homicides than any other country, according to U.N. statistics, and has openly praised Brazil’s military dictatorship, which he has said should have killed more people. Bolsonaro has stirred controversy with comments denigrating women, gay, black and indigenous people. During 2016 impeachment proceedings against former leftist President Dilma Rousseff, who was jailed and tortured during Brazil’s military dictatorship in the 1970s, Bolsonaro dedicated his vote to the colonel in charge of the prison where she was jailed for three years and tortured. In 2003, Bolsonaro pushed a congresswoman and told her: “I would never rape you because you do not deserve it.” He repeated the comment in 2014 in the chamber and as a result is facing trial for inciting rape. Slideshow (6 Images)Bolsonaro has called the charges politically motivated. His stabbing is the latest instance of political violence, which is particularly rampant at the local level. Earlier this year, Marielle Franco, a Rio city councilwoman who was an outspoken critic of police violence against slum residents, was assassinated. Reporting by Brad Brooks in Sao Paulo and Gabriel Stargardter in Juiz de Fora; Writing by Brad Brooks; Editing by Daniel Flynn and Alistair BellOur Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Federal prosecutors who have already indicted President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort on charges of money laundering, bank fraud and covertly lobbying for pro-Russian interests may have additional leverage arising from a loan he received while engaged in the bankruptcies of properties in California, several former law enforcement officials say. A property at 2401 Nottingham Ave is seen under construction in Los Angeles, California, U.S., December 13, 2017. Picture taken December 13, 2017. REUTERS/Alex GallardoReuters has found new information about Manafort’s handling of the loan and its potential link to the bankruptcies as Special Counsel Robert Mueller seeks to pressure Manafort to cooperate with his investigation into Trump’s campaign team and possible collusion with Russian efforts to interfere in the 2016 election. At issue is whether the failure to disclose a loan from a lender that was also the main creditor in the California bankruptcy cases represented an illegal concealment of material information. Reuters has also learned that over the past several months Mueller has begun focusing on Jeffrey Yohai, Manafort’s former son-in-law and his partner in four California property deals that failed and were placed in bankruptcy, as a potentially valuable witness in his probe. Last week Mueller filed new criminal charges against Manafort and Rick Gates, a former business partner who served as Trump’s deputy campaign manager. The California bankruptcies might be yet another avenue of inquiry for Mueller’s team, said Frank Figliuzzi, who was assistant director of counterintelligence for the Federal Bureau of Investigation under Mueller until 2012. “It’s all about increasing pressure on Manafort to cooperate,” he said. A Reuters review of property records and California bankruptcy court filings shows that a Manafort-controlled company secured in early 2017 a loan against a Brooklyn home from Genesis Capital LLC, now owned by Goldman Sachs, which was the top secured creditor in the bankruptcies of the four high-priced properties in the Los Angeles area. Genesis signed off on the $303,750 loan two days after a judge overseeing the bankruptcies agreed to release from creditor protection one of the properties - a Spanish colonial-style home. The move, pushed by Manafort’s lawyers and requested in court by a lawyer representing the bankrupt properties, allowed Genesis to put the property up for sale, while the loan helped Manafort finalize a $6.8 million refinancing of the Brooklyn home with another lender. (Graphic: tmsnrt.rs/2BQ5MPe) Neither Manafort, Genesis, nor the lawyer representing the bankrupt properties disclosed the Brooklyn loan to the bankruptcy court - and all told Reuters they had no obligation to do so. Yohai was also kept in the dark, his lawyer said. Under federal law, the knowing concealment of an asset or financial transaction that materially impacts a bankruptcy proceeding constitutes bankruptcy fraud. Four former federal prosecutors who reviewed Reuters’ findings said not disclosing the Brooklyn loan could amount to fraud if the loan and the Spanish colonial home’s release were connected to each other and deliberately concealed. “You can’t just do things on the side and not tell,” said Patrick Cotter, a criminal defense lawyer in Chicago and former assistant U.S. attorney in New York. Dan Guthrie, a Dallas white collar defense lawyer and former federal prosecutor, said it would be unlikely that a prosecutor would pursue an indictment without firm evidence of a “quid pro quo” “As a prosecutor you are not going to want to go forward with an indictment without solid proof of that connection,” he said. Catherine Bauer, the judge overseeing the bankruptcy cases in California, and Michael Hauser, the U.S. trustee assigned to the cases, both declined to comment. Matthew Browndorf, a partner at the law firm that represented Manafort, said all of its court filings “followed the required process and disclosures of the California Bankruptcy Court.” He declined further comment. Jeffrey Dulberg, a lawyer for Genesis, said his client was unaware of what was behind the decision to release the Spanish colonial home from bankruptcy. Of the other three properties, Genesis foreclosed on one and two remain in bankruptcy proceedings. Manafort referred questions to his spokesman, who declined to comment, citing a gag order in the criminal case. Marc Forsythe, who represented the four limited liability companies that filed for bankruptcy, said he was not required to disclose the loan because he was never told that MC Brooklyn Holdings, LLC, the Manafort company that received the loan from Genesis, was a party to or had any interest in the bankruptcies. On Thursday, Mueller filed new criminal charges against Manafort and Gates, supplementing indictments in October. The two men stand accused of laundering more than $30 million, using secret offshore accounts, duping banks to get loans, and failing to register as foreign agents for the lobbying they did for a pro-Russian Ukranian political party. On Friday, Gates pleaded guilty to conspiracy against the United States and lying to investigators, and he is cooperating with the probe, but Manafort maintains his innocence and has vowed to take his case to trial. As a close business partner Yohai was privy to many of Manafort’s financial dealings. They were 50-50 partners in parent company of the four bankrupt LLCs and were working together on refinancing strategies before they had a falling out last September over a plan to buy two of the four properties out of bankruptcy, court filings and emails show. Mueller’s prosecutors interviewed Yohai in June, asking him about Manafort’s relationship with Trump, his ties to Russian oligarchs, and his recent mortgaging of various properties in New York, two people familiar with the matter said. A Los Angeles federal prosecutor overseeing a separate probe into alleged financial wrongdoing by Yohai has recently pressured him to sign a plea deal that includes a cooperation component, they said. Reuters was unable to determine what sort of cooperation that deal sought. Yohai’s lawyers did not respond to questions about the interview or the Los Angeles investigation. A spokesman for Mueller declined to comment. The key events related to the loan for Manafort’s Brooklyn brownstone played out in early 2017. On Jan. 13, two days after bankruptcy judge Bauer agreed at a hearing to release the Spanish colonial home, Genesis gave MC Brooklyn Holdings the $303,750 loan. Slideshow (7 Images)The loan was critical for Manafort to bridge the gap between $6.8 million needed to refinance the brownstone and $6.5 million that Federal Savings Bank agreed to lend him, two people familiar with the matter said. Yohai was in an Arizona facility being treated for anxiety and was unaware of the loan at the time, according to those familiar with the matter. When he left the facility in mid-January the decision to release the Spanish colonial-style home was not yet binding and Yohai had Forsythe draft a motion arguing the initial request did not reflect his views and seeking its reversal. But Yohai did not submit the motion and eventually agreed to let the move go forward in February. Reporting by Nathan Layne; Editing by Kieran Murray and Tomasz JanowskiOur Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Enlarge this image On a recent day, the sidewalk school in Matamoros, Mexico, began with arts and crafts. Reynaldo Leaños Jr. /Texas Public Radio hide caption toggle caption Reynaldo Leaños Jr. /Texas Public Radio On a recent day, the sidewalk school in Matamoros, Mexico, began with arts and crafts. Reynaldo Leaños Jr. /Texas Public Radio It's back-to-school time on both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border, and in the border town of Matamoros, Mexico, migrant children are attending a different kind of classroom. Volunteers have created a pop-up school on a downtown sidewalk in hopes of giving the kids some sense of stability. "One, two, three, four ..." Tito, an asylum-seeker from Cuba, counts in Spanish in front of a group of children attending the sidewalk school recently. He fled his native Cuba because he feared being persecuted for being gay, and he asked that we not use his last name. Back home he works in finance; here he's leading a math class. "I try to make the situation here a bit better for the kids and for myself," Tito said in Spanish. "It satisfies me." He said he can relate to the kids because they're all asylum-seekers, like him. Tens of thousands of migrant families are waiting in Mexican border towns for their day in U.S. immigration court. Here, in Matamoros near the international bridge, asylum-seekers are camping out and the children play in the small plaza. Another volunteer teacher asks the children if they like to paint and decorate as some of them rush over. School starts with arts and crafts. The children will draw on a paper plate, then outline it with glue and drop glitter. Then they hang their creations from trees."I wanted them to see other people appreciate the artwork they did and let them know how important they are, too, even to people who are just walking past and driving by," said Felicia Rangel-Samponaro. "It's beautiful work."Samponaro organizes this sidewalk school. Every Sunday morning, about 50 children attend to learn their numbers, letters and arts and crafts. All the teachers are asylum-seekers themselves.Samponaro used to be a teacher in Houston and has volunteered for a migrant aid group that does work in Matamoros. Enlarge this image In the border town of Matamoros, Mexico, asylum-seekers camp out as they wait for their day in U.S. immigration court. Reynaldo Leaños Jr. /Texas Public Radio hide caption toggle caption Reynaldo Leaños Jr. /Texas Public Radio In the border town of Matamoros, Mexico, asylum-seekers camp out as they wait for their day in U.S. immigration court. Reynaldo Leaños Jr. /Texas Public Radio "I wanted this to feel like a community because they do have to stick together," said Samponaro. "Matamoros is one of the most dangerous cities, and they do take turns sleeping out here; they have to watch out for each other."Immigrant advocates say some asylum-seeking parents aren't sending their kids to Mexican schools because they're afraid to be apart from them. Crime is common here, and kidnappings have been reported. Other parents say registering for school in Mexico is difficult. But Samponaro wants the kids to be able to continue their education. And she says many of the asylum-seekers have skills they can put to use at the school. Parents are grateful, too. "These are just like any other parents who want the best for their children because they care about their child just like anyone else cares about their child and they want to be involved in the learning process," said Samponaro. One mom named Maria had just arrived in Matamoros the day before with her 5-year-old son, a shy boy who loves animals and whose favorite subject is science. She asked that we not use their last names because they fear for their safety. They had fled from Guatemala. She said the sidewalk school is "really beautiful" and she's glad the kids are being entertained. Another mom from Honduras, who also asked not to be named for safety reasons, brings her two kids to class. She says she knows her children will be safe at the sidewalk school, and it gives her time to meet with an immigration lawyer. Volunteer attorneys have been coming over on the weekends to give free legal advice. The asylum-seekers could wait for months to be able to make their asylum case in the U.S. Ray, another asylum-seeker from Cuba, said the process isn't easy."We are here because we were forced to come here, mostly because we were left with no other choice, but to run from our countries," said Ray. Back home, Ray was an English professor and fled his country because he also feared being persecuted. He reads with the children at the sidewalk school. He said the children look forward to it all week. He said the kids always hug him and thank him and the other teachers. "They ask you are we doing the school on Sunday, so they're very cheerful and looking forward to it," said Ray. This week the sidewalk school is adding story time on Saturday nights.

ALEXANDRIA, Virginia (Reuters) - The head of a small Chicago bank was directly involved in approving $16 million in loans to former Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort while seeking Manafort’s help securing a post in the new administration, a witness testified on Friday in Manafort’s fraud trial. Dennis Raico, a former Federal Savings Bank executive testifying under immunity, said the bank’s chief executive, Steve Calk, expressed interest in such posts as Treasury secretary or Housing and Urban Development secretary. Calk took a “personal interest” in Manafort’s loan applications and expedited them, Raico said. One loan was approved a day after a July 27, 2016, call in which Calk let it be known to Manafort he wanted a role in the administration. “I knew Steve was interested politics,” Raico said. Manafort later asked the incoming administration to consider tapping Calk for secretary of the Army, according to testimony earlier in the week. Calk, a retired Army officer and helicopter pilot, did not get any post in the administration, although he was named to a Trump campaign advisory panel in August 2016. A spokeswoman for Federal Savings did not respond to requests for comment. Calk declined to comment. Raico was one of just three witnesses called to the stand on Friday as the trial resumed after an unexpected recess that lasted into the midafternoon. The delay derailed the prosecution’s plans to wrap up its case by the end of the week. Greg Andres, a prosecutor on U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team, said he would call James Brennan, a vice president at Federal Savings Bank who was also granted immunity, and two other witnesses on Monday before resting their case. It was not clear if Manafort, who has pleaded not guilty to 18 felony counts of bank fraud, tax fraud and failing to disclose about 30 foreign bank accounts, will call any witnesses. So far Manafort’s lawyers have focused their defense on attacking Rick Gates, Manafort’s former right-hand man who cut a plea deal and is cooperating with Mueller’s probe. Raico testified that Gates had nothing to do with the two Federal Savings loans in question - a $9.5 million mortgage on Manafort’s estate in the Hamptons and a $6.5 million loan on a brownstone in Brooklyn. Prosecutors say Manafort lied about his income and provided other false information to get the loans. Raico said Calk asked him to call Manafort shortly after the Nov. 8, 2016, election, to see if he could be a candidate for the Treasury or HUD posts. Raico said the involvement of Calk in the Manafort loans was unusual and made him uncomfortable. He said had never seen loans approved so quickly at the bank. On cross-examination, defense attorney Richard Westling sought to show that the loans to Manafort were justified. Westling pointed out that the Hamptons property had been appraised at $13 million, well above the $9.5 million borrowed, and that Federal’s credit committee had approved the loans. Raico said that a letter from Gates indicating that he, not Manafort, would be paying for Yankees season tickets in 2016 lowered his debts, helping him qualify for the Federal loans. In the letter Gates said he had borrowed Manafort’s American Express card to pay for the tickets, which cost more than $200,000 a year. Gates testified this week the letter was false and a “favor” to Manafort to help him get the loans. Irfan Kirimca, senior director of ticket operations at the Yankees, testified on Friday that Manafort had purchased four season tickets since at least 2010 and that Gates never had an account with the Yankees. Kirimca said Manafort paid for the Legends Suite package, which includes food service and cushioned seats. Kirimca testified about one email exchange in which Manafort instructed a Yankees employee to send the tickets to his Trump Tower address. Andres also on Friday briefly questioned Andrew Chojnowski, chief operating officer of home lending at Federal, asking him whether Manafort had signed various documents warning that he could be prosecuted for giving false information to the bank. Chojnowski read one disclaimer which noted that mortgage fraud was punishable by up to 30 years in prison. Andres said he plans to call James Brennan, a Federal Savings executive who like Raico was granted immunity, on Monday. He then wants to recall Paula Liss, a special agent for the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, who testified earlier this week. Manafort’s lawyers have opposed Liss taking the stand again, a matter on which T.S. Ellis, the judge overseeing the case, has yet to rule. FILE PHOTO: Former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort departs from U.S. District Court in Washington, U.S., February 28, 2018. REUTERS/Yuri Gripas/File PhotoEllis said the recess on Friday could not be avoided as he had matters to attend to. Without further details, courtroom observers were left to speculate about the reason for the break and a long bench discussion with attorneys from both sides. Ellis, who reminded jurors in the morning in unusual detail about the need to “keep an open mind” about the trial and not to talk to anyone about the case, gave them the same instructions before dismissing them for the weekend. “Put it completely out of your mind until Monday. I certainly plan to do that,” Ellis said. Reporting by Nathan Layne and Karen Freifeld in Alexandria, Virginia; Editing by Jonathan Oatis and Cynthia OstermanOur Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

ALEXANDRIA, Va. — The federal judge overseeing the trial of Paul Manafort sealed a transcript on Thursday of a private discussion in front of his bench after prosecutors from the special counsel’s office argued that they needed to protect an “ongoing investigation.”The conversation concerned whether investigators had questioned Rick Gates, the government’s star witness and Mr. Manafort’s longtime deputy, about the Trump campaign.Prosecutors argued that they needed to protect the secrecy of their inquiry — though they did not specify the Russia investigation — and limit the “disclosure of new information.” The judge, T. S. Ellis III, ruled in their favor.Mr. Gates is the most important witness so far to testify against Mr. Manafort, who faces 18 charges of tax and bank fraud. Mr. Gates served as the Trump campaign’s deputy chairman under Mr. Manafort. After Mr. Manafort was forced out as the campaign’s chairman in August 2016, Mr. Gates became its liaison to the Republican National Committee.The fraud charges against Mr. Manafort are not related to the campaign or Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election. The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, sought Mr. Manafort’s indictment using his authority to investigate evidence that arises of other crimes during their investigation. Prosecutors have avoided any mention of the broader inquiry since the trial began nine days ago in Alexandria, Va.But Mr. Manafort’s lawyers have tried to edge in that direction, possibly in the hope that jurors will see their client as a victim of a politically inspired vendetta. President Trump routinely calls Mr. Mueller’s investigation “a witch hunt” aimed at him and those who helped him win the White House and has suggested Mr. Mueller’s team has treated Mr. Manafort far too harshly.On Tuesday, one of Mr. Manafort’s lawyers asked Mr. Gates, who pleaded guilty this year to two felony charges and has since been cooperating with prosecutors, whether he had been “interviewed by other members of the Office of Special Counsel about the Trump campaign.”When Mr. Gates answered yes, the lawyer, Kevin Downing, continued: “And were you interviewed on several occasions about your time at the Trump campaign?”Prosecutors then objected, and Judge Ellis called both sides to the bench to discuss the line of questioning out of the jury’s hearing.In their motion, prosecutors argued that disclosing what was said would “reveal substantive evidence pertaining to an ongoing investigation.” They added, “Sealing will minimize any risk of prejudice from the disclosure of new information relating to that ongoing investigation.”In his order, Judge Ellis agreed to seal those six pages of a 262-page transcript of the day’s proceedings “until the relevant aspect of the investigation is revealed publicly, if that were to occur.”Prosecutors plan to wrap up their case Friday. Lawyers for both sides are planning to meet with the judge then to discuss instructions to the jury, a possible sign that the defense may call few, if any, witnesses.So far Mr. Manafort’s lawyers have largely focused on attacking Mr. Gates’s credibility. On the stand, he acknowledged he had committed a host of crimes, including lying to federal investigators.

ALEXANDRIA, Va. (Reuters) - The federal judge in the trial of U.S. President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort expressed contrition on Thursday to jurors after berating prosecutors for allowing a witness to watch the proceedings, despite having given his earlier approval. The rare apology by U.S. District Court Judge T.S. Ellis surprised observers in his Alexandria, Virginia courtroom, who have watched the judge repeatedly criticize the government’s handling of the case while giving leeway to Manafort’s lawyers. “It appears I may well have been wrong,” Ellis said as the trial went into its eighth day. “But like any human, and this robe doesn’t make me anything other than human, I sometimes make mistakes.” Ellis had chastised prosecutors for allowing IRS agent Michael Welch to be in court before he testified on Wednesday, saying he did not like witnesses present before taking the stand. When prosecutor Uzo Asonye challenged Ellis, the judge barked: “Don’t do that again. When I exclude witnesses, I mean everybody.” Prosecutors had told Ellis he had approved having Welch and other expert witnesses attend the proceedings, a point they repeated in a court filing on Thursday asking for a “curative instruction” to the jury to set the record straight. Some lawyers watching the case also noted Ellis did not rebuke defense attorney Kevin Downing on Wednesday after he asked the government’s star witness Rick Gates whether he had told prosecutors about four extramarital affairs. Downing had agreed in a bench conference on Tuesday not to raise the subject with Gates, a court transcript showed. Downing later argued it was fair game because Gates had volunteered that he had one affair after being asked about his “secret life.” Ellis sustained an objection from the prosecution and Gates never answered the question about four affairs, but some observers said the damage had already been done. “It was highly inappropriate to raise the other affairs, and the judge’s response was very generous,” said Gene Rossi, a former prosecutor who has been watching the trial. “In my experience, another judge would have cut his head off.” Gates, who was indicted along with Manafort, pleaded guilty and is cooperating with an investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Manafort has pleaded not guilty to 18 felony charges of bank fraud, tax fraud and failing to disclose some 30 foreign bank accounts. He is the first person to be tried on charges brought by Mueller’s probe into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election. Prosecutors said they plan to conclude their case on Friday. It is not clear whether Manafort will call any witnesses in his defense. After wrapping up the tax portion of their case, prosecutors have moved on to bankers who were involved in extending Manafort loans during his scramble to generate cash in 2015 and 2016 after work dried up following a loss of business in Ukraine. Melinda James, a mortgage assistant at Citizens Bank, testified Thursday that Manafort provided incorrect information in applying for a $3.4 million loan on a Manhattan condominium that was granted on March 4, 2016. She said Manafort did not disclose that a brownstone he owned in Brooklyn had a mortgage against it and indicated the Manhattan condominium was a second residence, when it was listed for rent. Both moves improved the loan terms, James said. Earlier this week Gates testified Manafort directed him to present banks with false documents, including an inflated profit report for Manafort’s consulting company, DMP International, LLC, to get the loans. Defense lawyers have made blaming Gates, Manafort’s right-hand man for a decade, a key plank of their defense. Manafort lawyer Jay Nanavati appeared to make some progress toward that goal on Thursday. Under his cross-examination, James acknowledged it was Gates, using an old insurance document, who ultimately misled her about whether there was a mortgage on the brownstone days before the loan on the condominium closed. Taryn Rodriguez, a loan officer assistant at Citizens Bank, testified about an application for a $5.5 million construction loan on the brownstone that was ultimately denied. Television cameras are positioned outside the U.S. District Courthouse where former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort is being tried on charges stemming from Special Counsel Robert Mueller's ongoing investigation into Russia's role in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, in Alexandria, Virginia, U.S., August 7, 2018. REUTERS/Brian SnyderShe said Manafort failed to disclose a multi-million dollar mortgage already taken out on the property and a $1 million business loan from the Banc of California, both of which would have affected any new loan. Rodriguez said she discovered the mortgage by researching a New York City database of property records. Gary Seferian, a senior vice president at the Banc of California, said his bank gave Manafort the $1 million loan to rehabilitate and flip properties in the Los Angeles area, in part based on a financial statement for DMP International showing a profit of more than $4 million for 2015. Prosecutor Uzo Asonye asked if Manafort would have qualified for the loan if he had known DMP’s profit for that year was in fact $400,000. “I don’t think so,” Seferian said. Reporting by Sarah N. Lynch, Warren Strobel, Karen Freifeld, and Nathan Layne; Editing by Anthony Lin, Grant McCool and Chris ReeseOur Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Enlarge this image This courtroom sketch depicts former Donald Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, left, listening with his lawyer Kevin Downing to testimony earlier this week. Dana Verkouteren/AP hide caption toggle caption Dana Verkouteren/AP This courtroom sketch depicts former Donald Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, left, listening with his lawyer Kevin Downing to testimony earlier this week. Dana Verkouteren/AP Updated at 8:53 p.m. ETProsecutors in Paul Manafort's bank and tax fraud trial did not rest their case on Friday as had been expected earlier. Instead, they called a witness to the stand who highlighted the sometimes murky line for Manafort between the personal and the political, and they said they expected to call one or two more witnesses on Monday before resting then.The ninth day of Manafort's fraud trial began with an unexplained five-hour delay. During much of that time, Judge T.S. Ellis III was in conferences with prosecutors and the defense. White noise is played in the courtroom during such conferences so the public and reporters cannot hear what was being said.Some 90 minutes after the expected start to the day's testimony, the judge briefly called in the jury. Ellis issued a warning reminding jurors to keep an open mind and not discuss the case with anyone, including each other. He then announced a break for an early lunch.The banker's evidenceAfter another 45 minute delay to kick off the afternoon, Dennis Raico, a former vice president of Federal Savings Bank, finally took the witness stand for the prosecution. Raico talked about the unusual and winding process that Manafort used in qualifying for two loans from the bank in 2016 and early 2017. Manafort ultimately borrowed $16 million. Raico discussed the role the bank's CEO, Steve Calk, played in that process.Manafort met with several of the bank's executives, including Calk, for dinner in Manhattan in May of 2016. Calk wanted to meet Manafort, Raico said, after hearing he was involved in politics. Raico testified that Calk said that he'd be interested in serving in a Trump administration.Raico said that a few days after Trump was elected, Calk called him to say he hadn't spoken with Manafort in a few days. Calk asked Raico to speak with Manafort to see whether Calk was up for nomination to become secretary of the Treasury or secretary of Housing and Urban Development in the incoming Trump administration.Jurors already have heard testimony that Manafort reached out to the Trump transition team to discuss choosing Calk for secretary of the Army. Ultimately, Army Secretary Mark Esper was nominated and confirmed for that position.Raico also testified on Friday that in the fall of 2016, a loan-approval committee Calk led signed off on Manafort's loan within a day. The committee did so, Raico said, even though there were questions about significant discrepancies between the income figure on his tax return and the figure in other financial documents. "A plus B didn't equal C all the time," Raico said. He also said the political nature of Calk's involvement in the loans made him "very uncomfortable."Andrew Chojnowski, also of Federal Savings Bank, was the final witness of the day on Friday. He testified that Manafort had signed loan papers confirming that he understood that it's illegal to make false statements during the applications process.Speed bumpAs recently as Thursday, prosecutors had said they expected to rest their case on Friday after two weeks of detailed testimony from accountants, bookkeepers, luxury vendors and Manafort's former business partner. That timeline has now shifted.Now prosecutors are expected to rest Monday, sometime after court resumes at 1 p.m. ET. They've spent the past two weeks working to illustrate how they say Manafort evaded taxes on millions of dollars by hiding money in shell companies and bank accounts based mainly in Cyprus.They also allege that when Manafort's income dried up — after his most important political consulting client in Ukraine was ousted from power — Manafort lied to banks to qualify for loans to sustain his luxurious lifestyle. Once prosecutors rest their case, the defense will have an opportunity to call witnesses to the stand. It's unclear whether Manafort's team will have any witnesses testify, but the trial still seems on track to conclude next week.Manafort has pleaded not guilty and his defense attorneys have blamed any financial wrongdoing in the case on his former partner Rick Gates, who has pleaded guilty to related charges as part of an agreement with the Justice Department.Prosecutors present a paper trailRick Gates may have been the prosecution's most exciting witness — as well as the centerpiece of Manafort's defense — but he was only one of many who have appeared in the trial.Gates testified early in the week for parts of three days, but the rest of the trial has been consumed on both ends of his testimony by accountants and bankers who worked on Manafort's taxes and processed his bank loan applications, as well as vendors who sold him numerous high-priced items like luxury cars and custom suits. Law 4 Insights As Manafort Trial Enters Week 2 Throughout the trial, prosecutors also have relied on emails sent to and from Manafort about his properties, as well as the accountants who worked with his finances. That may have been a countermeasure against one of the defense's arguments, which was that Manafort was not intimately enough involved in his own finances to have deliberately committed financial crimes. Enlarge this image The defense team for Paul Manafort, including Kevin Downing (right) and Jay Nanavati (far left) walks into federal court on Thursday. After prosecutors rest, as they're expected to do Friday, the defense will have a chance to call witnesses and make its case. Jacquelyn Martin/AP hide caption toggle caption Jacquelyn Martin/AP The defense team for Paul Manafort, including Kevin Downing (right) and Jay Nanavati (far left) walks into federal court on Thursday. After prosecutors rest, as they're expected to do Friday, the defense will have a chance to call witnesses and make its case. Jacquelyn Martin/AP On Friday, the jury was shown an email Manafort sent Calk regarding the loan he was seeking, saying "I look to your cleverness in how to manage the underwriting." Prosecutors must prove to jurors that if Manafort did evade taxes or misguide banks, he did so intentionally and not by mistake. The New York propertyTo that end, prosecutors on Thursday questioned Melinda James, a loan assistant at Citizens Bank, and Peggy Miceli, a vice president at Citzens Bank. Manafort received a $3.4 million refinancing loan from Citizens Bank in 2016 on a property he owned in New York. Prosecutors allege that in applying for that loan, Manafort lied by classifying it as his second home instead of an investment or rental property. Actually, they said, he was renting it out.Miceli testified that Manafort would not have been eligible for a loan that large against the property had the bank known it was being rented. Earlier in the day, a representative from Airbnb testified that the property had been listed as available for rent for much of 2015 and 2016.During James' testimony, prosecutors showed the jury an email from Manafort to his son-in-law notifying him that the bank was sending an appraiser to assess the property."Remember, he believes that you and Jessica are living there," Manafort wrote. Prosecutors said that showed Manafort knew he was misrepresenting how the home was being used.The judge ... apologizes? Enlarge this image Judge T. S. Ellis III presides over a naturalization ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery in 2008. Tracy A. Woodward/The Washington Post/Getty Images hide caption toggle caption Tracy A. Woodward/The Washington Post/Getty Images Judge T. S. Ellis III presides over a naturalization ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery in 2008. Tracy A. Woodward/The Washington Post/Getty Images Ellis has had a massive effect on the quick pace of Manafort's trial, but he has had an even larger impact on the tone of the courtroom. He has admonished prosecutors almost daily. Last week, he took them to task because he said they were sowing resentment in the jury over Manafort's wealth. The judge growled at them this week to "get to the heart of the matter."On Thursday, however, Ellis offered something different: an apology — or close to it. And on Friday, prosecutors requested another one.Ellis upbraided the government's lawyers on Wednesday for allowing an IRS expert witness into the courtroom to watch trial proceedings before he testified. But as prosecutors noted in a motion filed after court on Wednesday night, the judge had previously said the IRS witness could stay in the courtroom.Prosecutors argued in the motion that Ellis' criticism on Wednesday could imply that the government was trying to skirt rules in its trial tactics and gain an unfair advantage, when in fact Ellis had explicitly given prosecutors permission for the expert witness to stay in the room."This prejudice should be cured," prosecutors wrote.Ellis opened court on Thursday by admitting he "may have been wrong" and that he sometimes makes mistakes "like any human — and this robe doesn't make me any more than a human.""Any criticism of counsel should be put aside," the judge said. "It doesn't have anything to do with this case."He made statements during witness testimony Thursday related to bank fraud that again made prosecutors unhappy. While the government's lawyers were questioning a bank witness about a $5.5 million loan that Manafort applied for but didn't get, the judge said: "You might want to spend time on a loan that was granted."Prosecutors filed a motion Friday arguing the judge's comment "misrepresents the law regarding bank fraud conspiracy, improperly conveys the Court's opinion of the facts, and is likely to confuse and mislead the jury."Prosecutors asked the judge to provide a clarifying statement, but Ellis did not reference the motion in court on Friday. He did, however, share a lighthearted moment with prosecutor Greg Andres, a sometime antagonist inside the courtroom.Andres admitted that he'd forgotten to submit something into evidence, and Ellis remarked that "confession is good for the soul.""I think my soul's in a pretty good place," Andres piped back, as the jury laughed. "Or it should be after this process."

ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: Now we're going to turn to our Friday week in politics discussion, and we're going to begin with what we can learn from this week's elections. Contests in Ohio and Kansas are still too close to call. In the Kansas Republican primary for governor, Kris Kobach said today that he will step down as the state's elections chief until the race is resolved since he was also on the ballot. This week, we also heard a secret recording of a Republican congressman from California saying that the GOP holding onto the House is the only way to protect President Trump from the Mueller investigation.We're going to talk about all this with Guy Benson, political editor of townhall.com, and Michelle Goldberg of The New York Times. Welcome to both of you.GUY BENSON: Thanks for having me.MICHELLE GOLDBERG: Hey, thank you having - thanks for having me.SHAPIRO: Would you each just start by giving me one quick top-line conclusion from this week's votes? And then we can dig in a little deeper. Michelle, you want to go first?GOLDBERG: Well, sure. I mean, I think that, although, you know, moral victories only count for so much, if the trends that we saw on Tuesday persevere for another three months, the Democrats will probably take the House despite the structures that are arrayed against them. And I think that Democrats are a lot more unified than pundits are giving them credit for.SHAPIRO: Guy, what's your top-line conclusion?BENSON: Well, I think that when you talk to Republicans, they will say publicly that they are delighted to have apparently won the special election in Ohio. They would say during President Trump's tenure in office, of the nine special elections for red district seats, eight have been held by the GOP. But if you dig just beneath the surface of those talking points, there are certainly red flags or perhaps blue flags...SHAPIRO: (Laughter).BENSON: ...Flapping in the breeze because there are causes for concern, I would say.SHAPIRO: Well, it sounds like you both agree that on paper, Republicans have been doing OK in these special elections. And come November, you're not expecting them to hold on to control of the House.BENSON: Look; I think it's early still to make any solid bets on what the November elections are going to bring. I would - if I were to put down my own money today, I would probably put it on the Democrats to win the House, right? But it could go still either direction. What I would say - what's interesting out of Ohio, among other things, is that was a district President Trump won by 11 points. The previous Republican congressman won it in 2016 by a landslide. This was a one-point race, give or take. And without Trump coming in the weekend before to fire up some elements of the base plus, crucially, a very strong endorsement from Governor John Kasich, who is not fond of the president but they are both Republicans - they actually had this unusual alliance where they...SHAPIRO: Yeah.BENSON: ...Teamed up and dragged Troy Balderson across the finish line.SHAPIRO: Michelle, what do you make of what happened in Ohio? Do you think President Trump helped or hurt the Republican there?GOLDBERG: My guess is both. I mean, I think that Guy is right. My understanding of the district is that it's pretty bifurcated between maybe kind of Kasich Republicans and Trump Republicans. So you have parts of the district that are very, you know, kind of working-class, white, rural, classic Trump voters. And their turnout actually wasn't great. So the fact that Trump came and riled people up, you know, told everybody that there was an important special election going on - you have to assume that that did something to goose the numbers there. And you didn't have to increase it by very much 'cause it was decided by about a thousand votes or will...SHAPIRO: Has yet to be decided by about a thousand votes. Michelle...GOLDBERG: ...Will probably be decided by about a thousand votes. But at the same time, the suburbs, where there was huge Democratic turnout - on the one hand, you couldn't increase it that much more because it was about as high as it could possibly be. But those people are hugely motivated by their revulsion towards Donald Trump.SHAPIRO: Will you quickly explain what you mean when you say that Democrats are more unified than political pundits say? This is something you write about in your latest column for The New York Times.GOLDBERG: Well, so Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders made several endorsements. And when the people they endorsed didn't win their primaries, there were a lot of headlines saying, you know, that the night was a big loss for the left, that, you know, socialists are going down. And to me, those were strange headlines first of all because the number of likely members of democratic socialists of America who will almost certainly be elected to Congress in November has gone from one to two - you know, from...SHAPIRO: Yeah, right.GOLDBERG: ...Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to, you know, the first Muslim woman who will probably be elected to Congress out of Michigan - and also because the candidates who are considered, quote, unquote, "establishment," you know, even four or eight years ago would have been considered extremely progressive.SHAPIRO: I know...GOLDBERG: And so you can really see the whole center of gravity of the party moving towards the - I think towards the beliefs of a large part of the base that had been previously pretty frustrated with the party's leadership.SHAPIRO: Guy, I want to let you jump in here. Do you think that move to the left is an opportunity for Republicans?BENSON: I think the Republicans would say yes. And the shift to the left of the Democratic Party as a whole I think is undeniable at this point. And it's going to be something that I think will bubble to the surface maybe not as prominently in 2018 but perhaps in 2020. And the...SHAPIRO: For the presidential race, you mean.BENSON: The reason why is this. I'm having flashbacks of 2010. Now, I have no idea. The Democrats are probably not going to win the 63 House seats.SHAPIRO: 2010 is the Tea Party wave right after President...BENSON: Right, a huge wave...SHAPIRO: ...Obama was elected, right.BENSON: Right, huge wave election for the GOP. The Republican base was crawling over broken glass, desperate to win that election, and they did. And then the fissures began within the Republican sort of coalition...SHAPIRO: Yeah.BENSON: ...Between some of these elements once they won. And...SHAPIRO: And so Mitt Romney lost the race for president is the...BENSON: And I think you'll start to see a tug of war - if the Democrats take the House, there will be a tug of war about what type of policies are they actually going to pursue. But now we're getting way ahead of ourselves.SHAPIRO: Just to talk about what is at stake in November - we heard leaked audio played on MSNBC's Rachel Maddow's show from Congressman Devin Nunes of California, chair of the House Intelligence Committee, in which he said that if Republicans do not hang on to the majority, they cannot protect Trump from Mueller. What do each of you briefly make of that, Michelle?GOLDBERG: I think like so many other things coming out of the Republican Party, it's both totally shocking and totally unsurprising. You know, on the one hand, it's no secret that Devin Nunes doesn't see his role as the head of the Intelligence Committee as actually getting to the bottom of what happened with Russia in the 2016 election. He sees his role purely as protecting Donald Trump even though he admitted in that audio that getting intelligence from a foreign...SHAPIRO: Yeah.GOLDBERG: ...Power would be a crime. He nevertheless sees his position as being sort of akin to Donald Trump's defense attorney. And...SHAPIRO: And I want to give Guy an opportunity to weigh in on this, too - Guy?BENSON: I think a lot of people view the Senate Intelligence Committee investigation into this matter as more credible than the House one, which has been very fraught with nastiness and partisanship. I will say overall, it is not a surprising Republican talking point behind closed doors or in public that a Republican House can protect the president from impeachment, which is - the I-word is something that a lot of...SHAPIRO: A little bit different from protect him from Mueller.BENSON: Sure, but related to this Russia matter...SHAPIRO: Yeah.BENSON: ...And the Russia investigation broadly, the impeachment word is one that Republicans I think in some close districts are going to highlight.SHAPIRO: That's Guy Benson, political editor of townhall.com, and Michelle Goldberg of The New York Times. Thanks to both of you.BENSON: Sure.GOLDBERG: Thank you so much.Copyright © 2018 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

ALEXANDRIA, Virginia (Reuters) - The head of a small Chicago bank was directly involved in approving $16 million in loans to former Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort while seeking Manafort’s help securing a post in the new administration, a witness testified on Friday in Manafort’s fraud trial. Dennis Raico, a former Federal Savings Bank executive testifying under immunity, said the bank’s chief executive, Steve Calk, expressed interest in such posts as Treasury secretary or Housing and Urban Development secretary. Calk took a “personal interest” in Manafort’s loan applications and expedited them, Raico said. One loan was approved a day after a July 27, 2016, call in which Calk let it be known to Manafort he wanted a role in the administration. “I knew Steve was interested politics,” Raico said. Manafort later asked the incoming administration to consider tapping Calk for secretary of the Army, according to testimony earlier in the week. Calk, a retired Army officer and helicopter pilot, did not get any post in the administration, although he was named to a Trump campaign advisory panel in August 2016. A spokeswoman for Federal Savings did not respond to requests for comment. Calk declined to comment. Raico was one of just three witnesses called to the stand on Friday as the trial resumed after an unexpected recess that lasted into the midafternoon. The delay derailed the prosecution’s plans to wrap up its case by the end of the week. Greg Andres, a prosecutor on U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team, said he would call James Brennan, a vice president at Federal Savings Bank who was also granted immunity, and two other witnesses on Monday before resting their case. It was not clear if Manafort, who has pleaded not guilty to 18 felony counts of bank fraud, tax fraud and failing to disclose about 30 foreign bank accounts, will call any witnesses. So far Manafort’s lawyers have focused their defense on attacking Rick Gates, Manafort’s former right-hand man who cut a plea deal and is cooperating with Mueller’s probe. Raico testified that Gates had nothing to do with the two Federal Savings loans in question - a $9.5 million mortgage on Manafort’s estate in the Hamptons and a $6.5 million loan on a brownstone in Brooklyn. Prosecutors say Manafort lied about his income and provided other false information to get the loans. Raico said Calk asked him to call Manafort shortly after the Nov. 8, 2016, election, to see if he could be a candidate for the Treasury or HUD posts. Raico said the involvement of Calk in the Manafort loans was unusual and made him uncomfortable. He said had never seen loans approved so quickly at the bank. On cross-examination, defense attorney Richard Westling sought to show that the loans to Manafort were justified. Westling pointed out that the Hamptons property had been appraised at $13 million, well above the $9.5 million borrowed, and that Federal’s credit committee had approved the loans. Raico said that a letter from Gates indicating that he, not Manafort, would be paying for Yankees season tickets in 2016 lowered his debts, helping him qualify for the Federal loans. In the letter Gates said he had borrowed Manafort’s American Express card to pay for the tickets, which cost more than $200,000 a year. Gates testified this week the letter was false and a “favor” to Manafort to help him get the loans. Irfan Kirimca, senior director of ticket operations at the Yankees, testified on Friday that Manafort had purchased four season tickets since at least 2010 and that Gates never had an account with the Yankees. Kirimca said Manafort paid for the Legends Suite package, which includes food service and cushioned seats. Kirimca testified about one email exchange in which Manafort instructed a Yankees employee to send the tickets to his Trump Tower address. Andres also on Friday briefly questioned Andrew Chojnowski, chief operating officer of home lending at Federal, asking him whether Manafort had signed various documents warning that he could be prosecuted for giving false information to the bank. Chojnowski read one disclaimer which noted that mortgage fraud was punishable by up to 30 years in prison. Andres said he plans to call James Brennan, a Federal Savings executive who like Raico was granted immunity, on Monday. He then wants to recall Paula Liss, a special agent for the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, who testified earlier this week. Manafort’s lawyers have opposed Liss taking the stand again, a matter on which T.S. Ellis, the judge overseeing the case, has yet to rule. FILE PHOTO: Former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort departs from U.S. District Court in Washington, U.S., February 28, 2018. REUTERS/Yuri Gripas/File PhotoEllis said the recess on Friday could not be avoided as he had matters to attend to. Without further details, courtroom observers were left to speculate about the reason for the break and a long bench discussion with attorneys from both sides. Ellis, who reminded jurors in the morning in unusual detail about the need to “keep an open mind” about the trial and not to talk to anyone about the case, gave them the same instructions before dismissing them for the weekend. “Put it completely out of your mind until Monday. I certainly plan to do that,” Ellis said. Reporting by Nathan Layne and Karen Freifeld in Alexandria, Virginia; Editing by Jonathan Oatis and Cynthia OstermanOur Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.