is arguing, manafort is not on trial for being rich or for spending lavishly. he thought this would unfairly besmirch manafort. it s absolutely true that while we in the audience may think the prosecution is being too meticulous and is hammering too much evidence home, the jury is not always paying attention. it s sometimes hard for juries to follow things. and what the prosecution does not want is the jury to fail to convict because they didn t understand the evidence, andrea. and as a former prosecutor, how important do you think is this decision that they re now signaling, barbara, that rick gates will in fact be on the witness stand, the former deputy chairman of the campaign? i think they did make it pretty clear, greg andres, the lead prosecutor said today they fully intend to call rick gates as a witness. today they said that they weren t sure whether they would or would not call him. today they made it pretty clear
contacted these witnesses using encrypted apps and using a technique called foldering where he wrote e-mails, he saved the e-mails in a draft folder and then sent them, then he gives somebody else the password to that e-mail account so that other person could log into the e-mail account and read that written draft that paul manafort had written without the e-mail actually ever being sent or received. it s sort of a countersurveillance trick. so the prosecutors explain that that s what manafort has been doing to communicate. we didn t know that before this hearing today. but essentially they re spelling out how manafort has been trying to evade surveillance while he s been breaking the law and contacting witnesses while he s out on bail. here s greg andres, prosecutor from the special counsel s office. it s important to note as well, judge, that this issue with the obstruction of justice, the government didn t learn about that by somehow subpoenaing or monitoring or getting a search wa
manafort s defense counsel, your honor, we would ask that the court stay in position of any remand to allow us to appeal. the judge then turns to the prosecutors, what s the government s position on that? greg andres from the special counsel s office says, judge, there are no conditions to address any of the concerns of the court. there are no conditions as the court has found to guard against the danger to the community. so we oppose that application. and then the judge says, and i m also concerned that now that i ve issued this order the risk of flight has just multiplied substantially. so, the judge says, i appreciate the request for appeal and it s a serious request, and i understand that, but i m going to deny it. and that s how it happened. and then the president s campaign chairman was taken away to jail. he waved to his wife.
these circumstances. to which the judge says, all right. thank you. then she turns to the prosecution, turns to the special counsel s office, and says, you have the burden, mr. andres, so i ll let you, since you re already standing. the prosecution from the special counsel s office is already standing at this point. it s greg andres, who s the prosecutor. and he jumps in and he says this. my colleague, meaning defense counsel who i m arguing against here, my colleague has the law absolutely wrong with respect to witness tampering. absolutely wrong. a defendant can be involved in witness tampering without a list of government witnesses, right? it s any person who may give testimony. with the happsburg group which is the person mr. manafort is reaching out to persons d-1 and d-2 about, persons d-1 and d-2 they controlled the hapsburg group. it s inconceivable he doesn t know they re potential witnesses. and that s what the law is. not that they ve been tolls that
says, you have the burden, mr. andres, so i ll let you, since you re already standing. the prosecution from the special counsel s office is already standing at this point. it s greg andres, who s the prosecutor. and he jumps in and he says this. my colleague, meaning defense counsel who i m arguing against here, my colleague has the law absolutely wrong with respect to witness tampering. absolutely wrong. a defendant can be involved in witness tampering without a list of government witnesses, right? it s any person who may give testimony. with the hapsburg group which is the person mr. manafort is reaching out to persons d-1 and d-2 about, persons d-1 and d-2 they controlled the hapsburg group. it s inconceivable he doesn t know they re potential witnesses. and that s what the law is. not that they ve been tolls that it s the witness. it isn t about a no contact list. this is about influencing the testimony of a potential witness, a crime for which mr. manafort has now been indict