By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Podcast II III
BBC - Guardian UK - Honduras - ESPN
SDNY COURTHOUSE, July 5 – After months of preliminaries, the trial of Stephen Calk for conspiracy to trade his bank's loans to Paul Manafort for the Secretary of the Army position began on June 23. Inner City Press live tweeted, here, previous coverage here, podcast here
Then the defense opening statement and first witness, here, and Inner City Press question to Calk on Scaramucci, here (& Alamy photo here)
Now on July 5, a court holiday, the US has filed opposition to Calk getting before the jury a compilation video of his TV appearances for Trump, citing SDNY Judge Loretta A. Preska disallowing such a compilation from UN briber Patrick Ho: "The Government respectfully submits this motion to exclude Defense Exhibit 50, a compilation video excerpting portions of the defendant’s television appearances advocating for the election of Donald J. Trump, as irrelevant under Federal Rule of Evidence 402, and as confusing and unfairly prejudicial under Rule 403. DX 50, which the defense first provided to the Government on July 1, 2021, is approximately 8:21 minutes long.1 The first part consists of very short clips of news anchors describing the defendant as “a” or “the” senior economic advisor to then-candidate Trump, often running just long enough to show the defendant, made up for television, offering his best smile to the camera. The remainder is Calk delivering a series of talking points designed to appeal to a broad audience—as political sound bites typically do—such as: Showing gratitude for the sacrifice... This Court should thus follow the district court in United States v. Ho, which rejected a similar effort by a defendant to offer a self-serving video compilation of his prior speeches, purportedly to show his state of mind. 17 Cr. 779, Dkt. 193, at 58-61. There, Judge Preska excluded the video, explaining that the defendant could not “testify without swearing an oath, facing cross-examination, or having his attitude and demeanor scrutinized by the jury.” Ho was convicted. Watch this site.
On June 29 came the cross examination of Anthony Scaramucci, which Inner City Press live tweeted here and below, (podcast here) Song I here.
On July 1, there was testimony from immunized witness James Brennan. Inner City Press tweeted, here:
On July 6, there was testimony from another immunized witness, Dennis Raico, told to wear a plain mask - Inner City Press tweeted here:
Q: Did Bank of Internet ultimately buy that loan? Raico: No. Q: Did the $6 million ultimately close? Raico: Yes. Q: And Mr Calk said you were going forward with the loan in Carroll Gardens? Raico: Yes
Q: Does Mr Calk typically issue term sheets for loans? Raico: No, not in my experience... I believe Mr. Manafort told Steve he could take the two points he already had with the bank. Q: Is that normal? Raico: No.
Cross examination of immunized witness Raico. Calk's lawyer: Just answer my question, did you have a second appraisal you were not forwarding to Chicago? Raico: I was holding onto it, yes.
Calk's lawyer: And you lied on the Bank of Internet applications when you said Mr. Manafort had excellent credit? Raico: It wasn't 100% accurate.
Calk's lawyer: Didn't you take a bribe or loan of $35,000 in 2016? Raico: I paid it back.
Now there is a fight about precluding OCC witness Benjamin Lemanski from saying the Calk told him he was playing a big role in picking the new Comptroller of the Currency (Joseph Otting). We'll see - watch this site.
Q: So Mr Yohai was cut out of the deal after that? Brennan: Yes... Q: Though Mr Manafort had no income, he has this political consulting business, right? Brennan: Yes. Q: And your policy was to look at the trend of 3 to 5 years? Brennan: Yes.
Q: Put the loan memo for the Summer Breeze transaction on the screen. GX 2. This is your work? Brennan: Yes. Q: Let's turn to page 9, the personal financial statement of Paul Manafort. You wrote he had $11.9 million in cash?
Brennan: That is what it says.
Judge Schofield (to jurors) Let's take a break for lunch. I know it's hard to stay awake in the afternoon. That has to do with carbs and sugar. Just noting that, before your lunch.
Then there were John Day and Jack Gomgaware
Witness being asked about Calk claiming he's a combat veteran.
Calk's lawyer asks How can you remember this conversation from four years ago?
The case is US v. Calk, 19-cr-366 (Schofield)
***
Your support means a lot. As little as $5 a month helps keep us going and grants you access to exclusive bonus material on our Patreon page. Click here to become a patron.
