they don t just do it in the bright of day, right? they do it in the dark of night. so you have to look at all types of associations in order to determine whether there s something inappropriate. so, that s why they re looking at stone, because he could provide the critical link that would lead to the c question, collusion again, i m sorry conspiracy, since this collusion, no collusion, collusion s not a crime, conspiracy is, and that s why they re looking at it. got you. i want to move to the manafort trial. 18 charges, tax and banking crimes here for paul manafort from a campaign chair for president trump. interesting this week the accountants who testified here, particularly cindy laporta. she testified that her firm falsified a loan amount at the request of rick gates to help manafort pay less taxes. does that, joey, play right into the defense that gates was the one facilitating all of this and that manafort didn t know anything about it? short answer, christi,
is that we keep learning new things. things that we didn t know a week ago, six months ago. so on all of these investigations involving michael cohen, trump/russia, and of course the nra investigation. but it was, as you noted, it was very puzzling when the nra went through this leadership change. i remember getting the press release and it was weirdly put. oliver north is poised to become nra president. not that he s been chosen nra president, but he s poised to become nra president. and as he put it, it was news to me. and no one could really explain how this very hierarchical organization, that had very strict rules of succession in terms of its leadership would all of a sudden pluck a guy out who didn t see it coming and make him president of the nra when he wasn t prepared to be. and then only recently with the butina case, did we learn about this fbi raid. and remember, her partner,
things that we didn t know a week ago, six months ago. so on all of these investigations involving michael cohen, trump/russia, and of course the nra investigation. but it was, as you noted, it was very puzzling when the nra went through this leadership change. i remember getting the press release and it was weirdly put. oliver north is poised to become nra president. not that he s been chosen nra president, but he s poised to become nra president. and as he put it, it was news to me. and no one could really explain how this very hierarchical organization, that had very strict rules of succession in terms of its leadership would all of a sudden pluck a guy out who didn t see it coming and make him president of the nra when he wasn t prepared to be. and then only recently with the butina case, did we learn about this fbi raid. and remember, her partner, romantically and politically,
conspicuously after 2014, and that despite repeatedly asking manafort if he or his family had any foreign accounts, manafort would say no. now, this is around the time of the day when paul manafort s wife, kathleen, left the courtroom. reports are that she was dabbing her eyes and she was visibly upset. and it s what happened next, when cindy laporta, the first within to testify with immunity took the stand. and this could be, if you look back at this trial, everything that happens before the trial is speculation. when we look at what s actually going on this week, this could be the turning point. laporta alleging that in september of 2015, this was when manafort was in financial trouble, she gave him an estimate of the taxes he owed, and she was told manafort couldn t pay it. quote, rick that s rick gates, who s also expected to testify said it was too high. manafort didn t have the money. manafort s solution, laporta testified, was to inflate the amount of a loan which would th
manafort s team gets in the ring, so much of this coverage is what looks bad for him. could you give us any wisdom on what they ll try to do to rebut what josh says has been a tough day? they don t have much of a rebuttal opportunity here. their best argument, the argument that they suggested that they would use in their opening statement is that it wasn t manafort, it was gates. but there was testimony from witness after witness yesterday and today, indicating that manafort was the person who provided them with final details. manafort saw and reviewed every document before it was signed and filed. it will be virtually impossible for them to make that argument. and they ll be stuck, as so many defendants are, simply with arguing that the government didn t present enough evidence to meet its burden of proof and that it s not enough for the jury to think that the defendant might be guilty. that the jury should, in essence, hold the government responsible for proving guilty beyond a rea