The criminal case highlights how the legislation is becoming increasingly tolerant of the kind of access marketing and haggling that politicians often participate in, sometimes close to receiving large funds to aid their campaigns. It's additionally a reminder these practices can still result in serious legal problems when they stray into more regulated areas, such as banking.
Calk faces two felony charges alleging he loaned Manafort $16 million in exchange for campaign chairman Trump's efforts to secure a high-level bank manager job within the Trump administration. Calk eventually got an interview with a Trump transition group called \”Tiger Team\” and was considered an undersecretary from the Army, but never landed an appointment or a job.
Because the costs are felonies, to convict Calk, the jury must find that what he received from Manafort was worth more than $1,000. If Calk is convicted, he faces up to 35 years imprisonment, but he'd likely get a lower sentence under federal guidelines.
According to the court records, prosecutors retained a specialist to aid their case the kinds of jobs Calk needs are of substantial value: Florida executive compensation consultant Jeff McCutcheon.
McCutcheon, that has more than 37 experience in the recruiting field, concluded that senior administrative positions can indeed be financially lucrative, even if lots who accept them have a pay cut when they leave. the private sector.
\”That a presidential appointment has value beyond immediate pay shouldn't be questioned,\” McCutcheon wrote in an 11-page report ready for federal prosecutors. \”Executives of a number of America's largest companies often accept government appointments that require a considerable reduction in income and often a restructuring of their investments, all for any position with extended hours, exceptional public scrutiny and reputational risk, along with a earnings of less than $200,000 per year.
The prosecution expert said the two top civilian Army positions Calk was seeking were each worth far more than the amount required to trigger the Criminal Bank Bribery Act.
\”Either the nomination could be of fabric help to Mr. Calk and also the Bank, and would have an exponential value in excess of $1,000,\” McCutcheon wrote.
McCutcheon's report concentrates on the campaign job Calk won and the military roles he was considered for and does not explicitly discuss his aspiration to guide a major federal agency. However, the pay expert discusses the financial outlook for Cabinet members and also appears to erroneously categorize the Army Secretary position like a Cabinet position.
McCutcheon studied the job trajectories of countless recent Army secretaries. He noted that Sec. David Fanning turned that position into a $1,000,000 a year job heading the Aerospace Industries Association. Fanning's predecessor, ex-Rep. John McHugh (RN.Y.), headed towards the K&L Gates law practice after using the job at the Pentagon. McHugh likely earned more than $400,000 within the lobbyist job, the expert said.
McCutcheon also concluded that Calk's appointment to some Trump campaign economic advisory board was worth \”well over $1,000\” because of the social status, connections and publicity that included this type of service. The expert said the price that participants in this council were prepared to incur out of their own pocket demonstrate the value of this kind of appointment.
When former White House communications director Anthony Scaramucci was on the stand last week, prosecutors made him point out that being named to the advisory group would add to Calk's stash.
\”It's a prestigious thing,\” Scaramucci said.
McCutcheon acknowledged that high-level US government jobs don't always help the reputations of those who hold them. \”Some appointees go out of favor,\” he noted.
Prosecutors said their expert, McCutcheon, testified on compensation issues in several court proceedings, but did not list any previous assignments to determine the worth of an alleged bribe.
\”It is unquestionably permissible for a long-time expert in executive compensation to make qualitative judgments concerning the value of prestigious positions according to their experience in evaluating candidates and formulating compensation packages,\” wrote the prosecutors.
Calk's main defense is that there wasn't any link between the task he sought and the loans to Manafort, but his lawyers also disputed whether Manafort's assistance was out of the ordinary and whether or not this had a discernible financial value.
In a court filing, Calk's attorneys rejected McCutcheon's methodology, calling it \”completely without rigor.\”
\”McCutcheon's methods are unreliable at best and, more often than not, wholly delusional,\” defense attorneys Paul Schoeman and Darren LaVerne wrote.
However, U.S. District Judge Lorna Schofield ruled before trial that McCutcheon's opinions were admissible. He has yet to speak in a trial that is expected to last several weeks.
Defense attorneys also noticed that the one thing of worth Calk would have received and also the only thing Manafort was able to offer was \”help applying for the job\”, not the task itself.
While the federal government case is still ongoing, the prosecution appears to have acknowledged the benefit Calk was seeking in Manafort was not is a job but assistance in obtaining one. During opening arguments in the event, Assistant U.S. Attorney Alexandra Rothman argued that what the bank executive was illegally seeking in return for the multi-million dollar loans was not a job or even a job. job interview, but \”favors\” from Manafort.
\”Stephen Calk received a bribe from Paul Manafort. Manafort gave him political favors and Calk gave him loans from banks, this for your – loans for political influence,\” Rothman said.
In recent years, the final Court along with other courts have veered via a series of alleged political corruption cases, often limiting the authority that prosecutors have claimed they must pursue what they see as settlement deals. corruption.
In the so-called Bridgegate case, judges dismissed charges against two then-government aides. New Jersey's Chris Christie, a Republican, about intentionally creating traffic rumbles on the federally funded bridge like a type of political retaliation against an uncooperative mayor. And within the lawsuit against former Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell, a Republican, the judges said getting a meeting or inviting an event wasn't the kind of official act that could result in to corruption charges.
A federal appeals court has also dismissed charges against former Illinois Democratic Governor Rod Blagojevich after finding that trying to swap a vacant Senate position for any Cabinet position within the Obama administration isn't It wasn't a criminal offense – even though Blagojevich was seeking the project for himself. The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has declared such exchanges to become common political \”logrolls.\”
While these sorts of rulings may appear to undermine the concept that seeking political favors in exchange for a bank loan is really a crime, legal experts said the conduct alleged in Calk's indictment is likely still illegal, although an identical compromise for any campaign donation probably wouldn't be.
\”The Top court has a special standard that distinguishes an offer contribution from a bribe,\” said Albert Alschuler, a North West law professor. The judges view it this way simply because they see it as \”a necessity to boost money to finance political campaigns\”, he said. \”The idea here is the fact that it comes down to robbing a bank. – So there's no reason for that theory to use.
Perhaps inadvertently, McCutcheon's report provides comparisons that highlight how the case against Calk contrasts with the lax approach the law normally takes to mixing money and stocks within the political arena. For example, McCutcheon shows that many embassies tend to be more or less exchanged for campaign contributions.
\”Service inside a prestigious role is considered in itself to become something of worth. Witness the main donors towards the campaign who receive roles as ambassadors in [a] pleasant environment,\” the compensation expert wrote.
Although such arrangements might be illegal, criminal cases involving such trade are almost uncommon. (In 1974, an attorney for President Richard Nixon, Herbert Kalmbach, pleaded guilty to accepting a $100,000 campaign contribution in exchange for a candidate's embassy job being transferred from a post within the Caribbean to somewhere in Europe.)
Manafort, who had been granted a pardon by Trump in December, served about 2 yrs of a combined seven-and-a-half-year sentence for various charges involving underpaying taxes, undeclared foreign bank accounts and acting as a real estate agent. unregistered foreigner. While a jury found him guilty of some charges and Manafort pleaded guilty to others, the jury was deadlocked on all four counts of bank fraud and conspiracy relating to loans from Calk's bank, leaning 11-1 for conviction.
Manafort is not expected to be known as a witness at Calk's trial, nor has he been charged with bribing Calk to help make the loans. Calk's defense seized on Manafort's alleged lies about his financial situation to reason that the banker was not attempting to push unhealthy debts on the bank and was deceived about Manafort's finances.
