U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation Washington, D.C. 20535 September 1, 2020 MR. JASON LEOPOLD BUZZFEED NEWS 7TH FLOOR 1630 CONNECTICUT AVENUE NW WASHINGTON, DC 20009 FOIPA Request No.: 1432673-000 Civil Action No.: 19-cv-01278 Subject: All 302’s of individuals who were questioned/interviewed by FBI Agents working for the Office of Special Counsel Robert Mueller Dear Mr. Leopold: The enclosed documents were reviewed under the Freedom of Information/Privacy Acts (FOIPA), Title 5, United States Code, Section 552/552a. Below you will find checked boxes under applicable statutes for the exemptions asserted to protect information exempt from disclosure. The appropriate exemptions are noted on the processed pages next to redacted information. In addition, a deleted page information sheet was inserted to indicate where pages were withheld entirely pursuant to applicable exemptions. An Explanation of Exemptions is enclosed to further explain justification for withheld information. Section 552 Section 552a (d)(5) (b)(1) (b)(7)(A) (b)(2) (b)(7)(B) (j)(2) (b)(3) (b)(7)(C) (k)(1) Federal Rules of (b)(7)(D) (k)(2) Criminal Procedure 6(e) (b)(7)(E) (k)(3) 50 U.S.C § 3024(i)(1) (b)(7)(F) (k)(4) (b)(4) (b)(8) (k)(5) (b)(5) (b)(9) (k)(6) (b)(6) (k)(7) 809 pages were reviewed and 529 pages are being released. Deletions were made by the Department of Justice/Office of Information Policy (DOJ/OIP), Department of Justice/National Security Division (NSD), Department of Justice/Criminal Division (CRM), Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Office of the Inspector General (FDIC OIG), Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), and the United States Marshal Service (USMS). Please see the paragraphs below for relevant information specific to your request and the enclosed FBI FOIPA Addendum for standard responses applicable to all requests. Document(s) were located which originated with, or contained information concerning, other Government Agency (ies) [OGA]. This information has been referred to the OGA(s) for review and direct response to you. We are consulting with another agency. The FBI will correspond with you regarding this information when the consultation is completed. Please refer to the enclosed FBI FOIPA Addendum for additional standard responses applicable to your request. “Part 1” of the Addendum includes standard responses that apply to all requests. “Part 2” includes additional standard responses that apply to all requests for records on individuals. “Part 3” includes general information about FBI records that you may find useful. Also enclosed is our Explanation of Exemptions. Although your request is in litigation, we are required by law to provide you the following information: If you are not satisfied with the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s determination in response to this request, you may administratively appeal by writing to the Director, Office of Information Policy (OIP), United States Department of Justice, 441 G Street, NW, 6th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20530, or you may submit an appeal through OIP's FOIA STAR portal by creating an account following the instructions on OIP’s website: https://www.justice.gov/oip/submit-and-track-request-or-appeal. Your appeal must be postmarked or electronically transmitted within ninety (90) days of the date of my response to your request. If you submit your appeal by mail, both the letter and the envelope should be clearly marked "Freedom of Information Act Appeal." Please cite the FOIPA Request Number assigned to your request so it may be easily identified. You may seek dispute resolution services by contacting the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS). The contact information for OGIS is as follows: Office of Government Information Services, National Archives and Records Administration, 8601 Adelphi Road-OGIS, College Park, Maryland 20740-6001, e-mail at ogis@nara.gov; telephone at 202-741-5770; toll free at 1-877-684-6448; or facsimile at 202-741-5769. Alternatively, you may contact the FBI’s FOIA Public Liaison by emailing foipaquestions@fbi.gov. If you submit your dispute resolution correspondence by email, the subject heading should clearly state “Dispute Resolution Services.” Please also cite the FOIPA Request Number assigned to your request so it may be easily identified. Please direct any further inquiries about this case to the Attorney representing the Government in this matter. Please use the FOIPA Request Number and/or Civil Action Number in all correspondence or inquiries concerning your request. See additional information which follows. Sincerely, Michael G. Seidel Section Chief Record/Information Dissemination Section Information Management Division Enclosures Additional Information: In response to your Freedom of Information/Privacy Acts (FOIPA) request, enclosed is a processed copy of Bates Stamped documents, FBI (19-cv-1278)-4564 through FBI (19-cv-1278)-5372. The enclosed documents represent the tenth interim release of information responsive to your request. You were previously advised we were consulting with another agency concerning information related to your litigation. A portion of that information has been returned to the FBI and is enclosed in the following Bates Stamped documents FBI (19-cv-1278)- 1548-1559, 1829-1839, 2495-2502, 2705-2711, 3076, 3092-3096, 3109, 3162-3163, 33303350, 3587-3599, 3615-3627. FBI FOIPA Addendum As referenced in our letter responding to your Freedom of Information/Privacy Acts (FOIPA) request, the FBI FOIPA Addendum includes information applicable to your request. Part 1 of the Addendum includes standard responses that apply to all requests. Part 2 includes additional standard responses that apply to all requests for records on individuals. Part 3 includes general information about FBI records. For questions regarding Parts 1, 2, or 3, visit the www.fbi.gov/foia website under “Contact Us.” Previously mentioned appeal and dispute resolution services are also available at the web address. Part 1: The standard responses below apply to all requests: (i) 5 U.S.C. § 552(c). Congress excluded three categories of law enforcement and national security records from the requirements of the FOIA [5 U.S.C. § 552(c) (2006 & Supp. IV (2010)]. FBI responses are limited to those records subject to the requirements of the FOIA. Additional information about the FBI and the FOIPA can be found on the www.fbi.gov/foia website. (ii) National Security/Intelligence Records. The FBI can neither confirm nor deny the existence of national security and foreign intelligence records pursuant to FOIA exemptions (b)(1), (b)(3), and PA exemption (j)(2) as applicable to requests for records about individuals [5 U.S.C. §§ 552/552a (b)(1), (b)(3), and (j)(2); 50 U.S.C § 3024(i)(1)]. The mere acknowledgment of the existence or nonexistence of such records is itself a classified fact protected by FOIA exemption (b)(1) and/or would reveal intelligence sources, methods, or activities protected by exemption (b)(3) [50 USC § 3024(i)(1)]. This is a standard response and should not be read to indicate that national security or foreign intelligence records do or do not exist. Part 2: The standard responses below apply to all requests for records on individuals: (i) Requests for Records about any Individual—Watch Lists. The FBI can neither confirm nor deny the existence of any individual’s name on a watch list pursuant to FOIA exemption (b)(7)(E) and PA exemption (j)(2) [5 U.S.C. §§ 552/552a (b)(7)(E), (j)(2)]. This is a standard response and should not be read to indicate that watch list records do or do not exist. (ii) Requests for Records for Incarcerated Individuals. The FBI can neither confirm nor deny the existence of records which could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any incarcerated individual pursuant to FOIA exemptions (b)(7)(E), (b)(7)(F), and PA exemption (j)(2) [5 U.S.C. §§ 552/552a (b)(7)(E), (b)(7)(F), and (j)(2)]. This is a standard response and should not be read to indicate that such records do or do not exist. Part 3: General Information: (i) Record Searches. The Record/Information Dissemination Section (RIDS) searches for reasonably described records by searching those systems or locations where responsive records would reasonably be found. A reasonable search normally consists of a search for main files in the Central Records System (CRS), an extensive system of records consisting of applicant, investigative, intelligence, personnel, administrative, and general files compiled and maintained by the FBI in the course of fulfilling law enforcement, intelligence, and administrative functions. The CRS spans the entire FBI organization and encompasses the records of FBI Headquarters (FBIHQ), FBI Field Offices, and FBI Legal Attaché Offices (Legats) worldwide and includes Electronic Surveillance (ELSUR) records. For additional information about our record searches visit www.fbi.gov/services/information-management/foipa/requesting-fbi-records. (ii) FBI Records. Founded in 1908, the FBI carries out a dual law enforcement and national security mission. As part of this dual mission, the FBI creates and maintains records on various subjects; however, the FBI does not maintain records on every person, subject, or entity. (iii) Requests for Criminal History Records or Rap Sheets. The Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division provides Identity History Summary Checks – often referred to as a criminal history record or rap sheets. These criminal history records are not the same as material in an investigative “FBI file.” An Identity History Summary Check is a listing of information taken from fingerprint cards and documents submitted to the FBI in connection with arrests, federal employment, naturalization, or military service. For a fee, individuals can request a copy of their Identity History Summary Check. Forms and directions can be accessed at www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/identity-history-summary-checks. Additionally, requests can be submitted electronically at www.edo.cjis.gov. For additional information, please contact CJIS directly at (304) 625-5590. (iv) The National Name Check Program (NNCP). The mission of NNCP is to analyze and report information in response to name check requests received from federal agencies, for the purpose of protecting the United States from foreign and domestic threats to national security. Please be advised that this is a service provided to other federal agencies. Private citizens cannot request a name check. EXPLANATION OF EXEMPTIONS SUBSECTIONS OF TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 552 (b)(1) (A) specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and (B) are in fact properly classified to such Executive order; (b)(2) related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency; (b)(3) specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other than section 552b of this title), provided that such statute (A) requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on issue, or (B) establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld; (b)(4) trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential; (b)(5) inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency; (b)(6) personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; (b)(7) records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information ( A ) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings, ( B ) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication, ( C ) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, ( D ) could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of confidential source, including a State, local, or foreign agency or authority or any private institution which furnished information on a confidential basis, and, in the case of record or information compiled by a criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation, or by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence investigation, information furnished by a confidential source, ( E ) would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law, or ( F ) could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual; (b)(8) contained in or related to examination, operating, or condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of an agency responsible for the regulation or supervision of financial institutions; or (b)(9) geological and geophysical information and data, including maps, concerning wells. SUBSECTIONS OF TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 552a (d)(5) information compiled in reasonable anticipation of a civil action proceeding; (j)(2) material reporting investigative efforts pertaining to the enforcement of criminal law including efforts to prevent, control, or reduce crime or apprehend criminals; (k)(1) information which is currently and properly classified pursuant to an Executive order in the interest of the national defense or foreign policy, for example, information involving intelligence sources or methods; (k)(2) investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes, other than criminal, which did not result in loss of a right, benefit or privilege under Federal programs, or which would identify a source who furnished information pursuant to a promise that his/her identity would be held in confidence; (k)(3) material maintained in connection with providing protective services to the President of the United States or any other individual pursuant to the authority of Title 18, United States Code, Section 3056; (k)(4) required by statute to be maintained and used solely as statistical records; (k)(5) investigatory material compiled solely for the purpose of determining suitability, eligibility, or qualifications for Federal civilian employment or for access to classified information, the disclosure of which would reveal the identity of the person who furnished information pursuant to a promise that his/her identity would be held in confidence; (k)(6) testing or examination material used to determine individual qualifications for appointment or promotion in Federal Government service the release of which would compromise the testing or examination process; (k)(7) material used to determine potential for promotion in the armed services, the disclosure of which would reveal the identity of the person who furnished the material pursuant to a promise that his/her identity would be held in confidence. FBI/DOJ FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION FOI/PA DELETED PAGE INFORMATION SHEET Civil Action No.: 19-cv-1278 / 19-cv-1626 FOIA: 1432673-000 / 1433273-000 PDF Title:19-cv-1278 Release 10 Bates 4564-5372 Total Withheld Pages = 280 Bates Page Reference FBI(19cv1278) 1548 FBI(19cv1278) 1549 FBI(19cv1278) 1550 FBI(19cv1278) 1551 FBI(19cv1278) 1552 FBI(19cv1278) 1553 FBI(19cv1278) 1554 FBI(19cv1278) 1555 FBI(19cv1278) 1556 FBI(19cv1278) 1557 FBI(19cv1278) 1558 FBI(19cv1278) 1559 FBI(19cv1278) 1829 FBI(19cv1278) 1830 FBI(19cv1278) 1831 FBI(19cv1278) 1832 FBI(19cv1278) 1833 FBI(19cv1278) 1834 FBI(19cv1278) 1835 FBI(19cv1278) 1836 FBI(19cv1278) 1837 FBI(19cv1278) 1838 FBI(19cv1278) 4564 FBI(19cv1278) 4565 FBI(19cv1278) 4594 FBI(19cv1278) 4595 FBI(19cv1278) 4596 FBI(19cv1278) 4597 FBI(19cv1278) 4598 FBI(19cv1278) 4599 FBI(19cv1278) 4600 FBI(19cv1278) 4601 FBI(19cv1278) 4602 FBI(19cv1278) 4603 FBI(19cv1278) 4604 Reason for Withholding (i.e., exemptions with coded rationale, duplicate, sealed by order of court, etc.) b5 per DOJ/OIP; b6; b7A; b7C; b7E b5 per DOJ/OIP; b6; b7A; b7C; b7E b5 per DOJ/OIP; b6; b7A; b7C; b7E b5 per DOJ/OIP; b6; b7A; b7C; b7E b1; b3; b5 per DOJ/OIP; b6; b7A; b7C; b7E b1; b3; b5 per DOJ/OIP; b6; b7A; b7C; b7E b1; b3; b5 per DOJ/OIP; b6; b7A; b7C; b7E b1; b3; b5 per DOJ/OIP; b6; b7A; b7C; b7E b5 per DOJ/OIP; b6; b7A; b7C; b7E b1; b3; b5 per DOJ/OIP; b7A; b7E b1; b3; b5 per DOJ/OIP; b7A; b7E b1; b3; b5 per DOJ/OIP; b6; b7A; b7C; b7E b1; b3; b5 per DOJ/OIP; b6; b7A; b7C; b7E b5 per DOJ/OIP; b7A; b7E b4; b5 per DOJ/OIP; b6; b7A; b7C; b7E b4; b6; b7A; b7C; b7E b4; b6; b7A; b7C; b7E b4; b6; b7A; b7C; b7E b4; b6; b7A; b7C; b7E b4; b6; b7A; b7C; b7E b6; b7A; b7C; b7E b7A; b7E Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult b6; b7A; b7C; b7E b6; b7A; b7C; b7E b4; b6; b7A; b7C; b7E b4; b6; b7A; b7C; b7E Bates Page Reference FBI(19cv1278) 4605 FBI(19cv1278) 4606 FBI(19cv1278) 4607 FBI(19cv1278) 4608 FBI(19cv1278) 4609 FBI(19cv1278) 4610 FBI(19cv1278) 4611 FBI(19cv1278) 4612 FBI(19cv1278) 4624 FBI(19cv1278) 4625 FBI(19cv1278) 4626 FBI(19cv1278) 4627 FBI(19cv1278) 4628 FBI(19cv1278) 4629 FBI(19cv1278) 4630 FBI(19cv1278) 4631 FBI(19cv1278) 4632 FBI(19cv1278) 4637 FBI(19cv1278) 4638 FBI(19cv1278) 4639 FBI(19cv1278) 4640 FBI(19cv1278) 4641 FBI(19cv1278) 4642 FBI(19cv1278) 4643 FBI(19cv1278) 4644 FBI(19cv1278) 4652 FBI(19cv1278) 4653 FBI(19cv1278) 4654 FBI(19cv1278) 4655 FBI(19cv1278) 4656 FBI(19cv1278) 4657 FBI(19cv1278) 4673 FBI(19cv1278) 4675 FBI(19cv1278) 4676 FBI(19cv1278) 4677 FBI(19cv1278) 4678 FBI(19cv1278) 4681 FBI(19cv1278) 4682 FBI(19cv1278) 4683 FBI(19cv1278) 4684 FBI(19cv1278) 4685 FBI(19cv1278) 4686 Reason for Withholding (i.e., exemptions with coded rationale, duplicate, sealed by order of court, etc.) b4; b6; b7A; b7C; b7E b4; b6; b7A; b7C; b7E b6; b7A; b7C; b7E b6; b7A; b7C; b7E b4; b6; b7A; b7C; b7E b4; b6; b7A; b7C; b7E b4; b6; b7A; b7C; b7E b4; b6; b7A; b7C; b7E Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult b6; b7A; b7C; b7E b6; b7A; b7C; b7E b3; b6; b7A; b7C; b7E b3; b6; b7A; b7C; b7E Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult  Deleted Page(s)  No Duplication Fee for this Page    Bates Page Reference FBI(19cv1278) 4687 FBI(19cv1278) 4688 FBI(19cv1278) 4689 FBI(19cv1278) 4690 FBI(19cv1278) 4691 FBI(19cv1278) 4692 FBI(19cv1278) 4693 FBI(19cv1278) 4694 FBI(19cv1278) 4743 FBI(19cv1278) 4763 FBI(19cv1278) 4764 FBI(19cv1278) 4776 FBI(19cv1278) 4777 FBI(19cv1278) 4778 FBI(19cv1278) 4813 FBI(19cv1278) 4815 FBI(19cv1278) 4816 FBI(19cv1278) 4817 FBI(19cv1278) 4818 FBI(19cv1278) 4819 FBI(19cv1278) 4820 FBI(19cv1278) 4821 FBI(19cv1278) 4839 FBI(19cv1278) 4840 FBI(19cv1278) 4844 FBI(19cv1278) 4845 FBI(19cv1278) 4846 FBI(19cv1278) 4847 FBI(19cv1278) 4857 FBI(19cv1278) 4869 FBI(19cv1278) 4926 FBI(19cv1278) 4927 FBI(19cv1278) 4928 FBI(19cv1278) 4929 FBI(19cv1278) 4930 FBI(19cv1278) 4931 FBI(19cv1278) 4932 FBI(19cv1278) 4933 FBI(19cv1278) 4934 FBI(19cv1278) 4935 FBI(19cv1278) 4936 FBI(19cv1278) 4937 Reason for Withholding (i.e., exemptions with coded rationale, duplicate, sealed by order of court, etc.) Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult b6; b7A; b7C; b7E b6; b7A; b7C; b7E b6; b7A; b7C; b7E Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult b6; b7A, b7C, b7E b6; b7A, b7C, b7E Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult b3; b6; b7C; b7E b3; b6; b7A; b7C; b7E Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult  Deleted Page(s)  No Duplication Fee for this Page    Bates Page Reference FBI(19cv1278) 4938 FBI(19cv1278) 4939 FBI(19cv1278) 4940 FBI(19cv1278) 4941 FBI(19cv1278) 4942 FBI(19cv1278) 4943 FBI(19cv1278) 4944 FBI(19cv1278) 4945 FBI(19cv1278) 4946 FBI(19cv1278) 4947 FBI(19cv1278) 4948 FBI(19cv1278) 4978 FBI(19cv1278) 4979 FBI(19cv1278) 4980 FBI(19cv1278) 4986 FBI(19cv1278) 4987 FBI(19cv1278) 4988 FBI(19cv1278) 4989 FBI(19cv1278) 4990 FBI(19cv1278) 4991 FBI(19cv1278) 4992 FBI(19cv1278) 4993 FBI(19cv1278) 4994 FBI(19cv1278) 4995 FBI(19cv1278) 4996 FBI(19cv1278) 4997 FBI(19cv1278) 5012 FBI(19cv1278) 5013 FBI(19cv1278) 5014 FBI(19cv1278) 5015 FBI(19cv1278) 5016 FBI(19cv1278) 5017 FBI(19cv1278) 5018 FBI(19cv1278) 5019 FBI(19cv1278) 5020 FBI(19cv1278) 5021 FBI(19cv1278) 5022 FBI(19cv1278) 5023 FBI(19cv1278) 5024 FBI(19cv1278) 5025 FBI(19cv1278) 5026 FBI(19cv1278) 5027 Reason for Withholding (i.e., exemptions with coded rationale, duplicate, sealed by order of court, etc.) Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult b3 per DOJ/OIP; b6; b7A; b7C; b7E Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult b6; b7A; b7C; b7E b6; b7A; b7C; b7E b6; b7A; b7C; b7E b6; b7A; b7C; b7E b4; b6; b7A; b7C; b7E b4; b6; b7A; b7C; b7E b6; b7A; b7C; b7E b6; b7A; b7C; b7E b6; b7A; b7C; b7E b6; b7A; b7C; b7E b3; b6; b7A; b7C; b7E b3; b6; b7A; b7C; b7E  Deleted Page(s)  No Duplication Fee for this Page    Bates Page Reference FBI(19cv1278) 5028 FBI(19cv1278) 5029 FBI(19cv1278) 5030 FBI(19cv1278) 5031 FBI(19cv1278) 5032 FBI(19cv1278) 5033 FBI(19cv1278) 5034 FBI(19cv1278) 5081 FBI(19cv1278) 5082 FBI(19cv1278) 5083 FBI(19cv1278) 5088 FBI(19cv1278) 5089 FBI(19cv1278) 5090 FBI(19cv1278) 5091 FBI(19cv1278) 5092 FBI(19cv1278) 5093 FBI(19cv1278) 5094 FBI(19cv1278) 5095 FBI(19cv1278) 5096 FBI(19cv1278) 5097 FBI(19cv1278) 5098 FBI(19cv1278) 5099 FBI(19cv1278) 5100 FBI(19cv1278) 5101 FBI(19cv1278) 5102 FBI(19cv1278) 5109 FBI(19cv1278) 5110 FBI(19cv1278) 5111 FBI(19cv1278) 5116 FBI(19cv1278) 5160 FBI(19cv1278) 5161 FBI(19cv1278) 5162 FBI(19cv1278) 5163 FBI(19cv1278) 5164 FBI(19cv1278) 5165 FBI(19cv1278) 5166 FBI(19cv1278) 5167 FBI(19cv1278) 5168 FBI(19cv1278) 5169 FBI(19cv1278) 5170 FBI(19cv1278) 5171 FBI(19cv1278) 5172 Reason for Withholding (i.e., exemptions with coded rationale, duplicate, sealed by order of court, etc.) b3; b4; b6; b7A; b7C; b7E b3; b4; b6; b7A; b7C; b7E b3; b4; b6; b7A; b7C; b7E b3; b4; b6; b7A; b7C; b7E b3; b4; b6; b7A; b7C; b7E b3; b4; b6; b7A; b7C; b7E b3; b6; b7A; b7C; b7E Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult b3; b6; b7A; b7C; b7E Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult  Deleted Page(s)  No Duplication Fee for this Page    Bates Page Reference FBI(19cv1278) 5176 FBI(19cv1278) 5179 FBI(19cv1278) 5180 FBI(19cv1278) 5181 FBI(19cv1278) 5182 FBI(19cv1278) 5185 FBI(19cv1278) 5186 FBI(19cv1278) 5187 FBI(19cv1278) 5188 FBI(19cv1278) 5189 FBI(19cv1278) 5190 FBI(19cv1278) 5191 FBI(19cv1278) 5204 FBI(19cv1278) 5205 FBI(19cv1278) 5206 FBI(19cv1278) 5207 FBI(19cv1278) 5208 FBI(19cv1278) 5215 FBI(19cv1278) 5216 FBI(19cv1278) 5217 FBI(19cv1278) 5218 FBI(19cv1278) 5219 FBI(19cv1278) 5220 FBI(19cv1278) 5221 FBI(19cv1278) 5224 FBI(19cv1278) 5225 FBI(19cv1278) 5226 FBI(19cv1278) 5227 FBI(19cv1278) 5228 FBI(19cv1278) 5229 FBI(19cv1278) 5230 FBI(19cv1278) 5231 FBI(19cv1278) 5232 FBI(19cv1278) 5233 FBI(19cv1278) 5234 FBI(19cv1278) 5235 FBI(19cv1278) 5236 FBI(19cv1278) 5237 FBI(19cv1278) 5238 FBI(19cv1278) 5239 FBI(19cv1278) 5270 FBI(19cv1278) 5271 Reason for Withholding (i.e., exemptions with coded rationale, duplicate, sealed by order of court, etc.) b6; b7A; b7C; b7E Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult b6; b7A; b7C; b7E b6; b7A; b7C; b7E b6; b7A; b7C; b7E b6; b7A; b7C; b7E b6; b7A; b7C; b7E Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult b6 per DOJ/OIP and FBI; b7A; b7C per DOJ/OIP and FBI; b7E b6 per DOJ/OIP; b7A; b7C per DOJ/OIP; b7E b6 per DOJ/OIP and FBI; b7A; b7C per DOJ/OIP and FBI; b7E b6; b7A; b7C; b7E b6; b7A; b7C; b7E b6; b7A; b7C; b7E b6; b7A; b7C; b7E Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult  Deleted Page(s)  No Duplication Fee for this Page    Bates Page Reference FBI(19cv1278) 5272 FBI(19cv1278) 5273 FBI(19cv1278) 5274 FBI(19cv1278) 5275 FBI(19cv1278) 5282 FBI(19cv1278) 5283 FBI(19cv1278) 5284 FBI(19cv1278) 5285 FBI(19cv1278) 5286 FBI(19cv1278) 5287 FBI(19cv1278) 5288 FBI(19cv1278) 5289 FBI(19cv1278) 5290 FBI(19cv1278) 5291 FBI(19cv1278) 5292 FBI(19cv1278) 5293 FBI(19cv1278) 5294 FBI(19cv1278) 5295 FBI(19cv1278) 5296 FBI(19cv1278) 5307 FBI(19cv1278) 5308 FBI(19cv1278) 5309 FBI(19cv1278) 5310 FBI(19cv1278) 5313 FBI(19cv1278) 5314 FBI(19cv1278) 5331 FBI(19cv1278) 5332 FBI(19cv1278) 5333 FBI(19cv1278) 5334 FBI(19cv1278) 5335 FBI(19cv1278) 5336 FBI(19cv1278) 5337 FBI(19cv1278) 5338 FBI(19cv1278) 5339 FBI(19cv1278) 5344 FBI(19cv1278) 5345 FBI(19cv1278) 5346 FBI(19cv1278) 5347 FBI(19cv1278) 5348 FBI(19cv1278) 5349 FBI(19cv1278) 5350 FBI(19cv1278) 5351 FBI(19cv1278) 5352 FBI(19cv1278) 5353 Reason for Withholding (i.e., exemptions with coded rationale, duplicate, sealed by order of court, etc.) Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult b6; b7A; b7C; b7E b6; b7A; b7C; b7E Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult b3; b6; b7A; b7C; b7E b3; b6; b7A; b7C; b7E b3; b6; b7A; b7C; b7E b3; b6; b7A; b7C; b7E b3; b6; b7A; b7C; b7E b3; b6; b7A; b7C; b7E Referral/Consult Referral/Consult b3; b6; b7A; b7C; b7E b3; b6; b7A; b7C; b7E Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult b3; b6; b7A; b7C; b7E b3; b6; b7A; b7C; b7E Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult  Deleted Page(s)  No Duplication Fee for this Page    Bates Page Reference FBI(19cv1278) 5354 FBI(19cv1278) 5355 FBI(19cv1278) 5356 FBI(19cv1278) 5357 FBI(19cv1278) 5358 FBI(19cv1278) 5365 FBI(19cv1278) 5366 FBI(19cv1278) 5367 FBI(19cv1278) 5368 FBI(19cv1278) 5369 FBI(19cv1278) 5370 FBI(19cv1278) 5371 FBI(19cv1278) 5372 Reason for Withholding (i.e., exemptions with coded rationale, duplicate, sealed by order of court, etc.) Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult Referral/Consult  Deleted Page(s)  No Duplication Fee for this Page    h?E ,m nsni nimgmm:ssun 1 Of 3 - - :3 09f18f2014 Richard Gates, date of birth (DOBI I I was interviewed at the law offices of Miller Chevalier, 655 15th St, NW, #900, Washington, DC. Also present were Assistant Deputy Chief, Asset Forfeiture Money Laundering Section, DOJ, Dan Glamaj, and attorneys for Richard Gates, land After being advised of the identity of the interviewing Agent and the nature of the interview, Gates provided the following information: Gates stated that he was employed by DMP International. Gates stated that he originally worked for Davis Manafort Partners starting in September 2006. Gates stated that left the business the b6 company was renamed DMP International. Gates stated that he provided political and campaign consulting services to international political candidates. Originally the company provided these services to US and foreign candidates, but by 2006 the majority of their work was with international clients, including candidates in the Ukraine. Gates stated that they also worked on parliamentary elections. Gates stated that in 2006 he was hired by Paul Manafort to develop a party format in Ukraine that was based on western platforms. b6 b?C Gates added that I His background was in international business. Gates stated that Paul Manafort (Manafort}was a strategist and he {Gates} worked on structure. Gates worked on the day to day strategic documents. Gates stated that the principals of UMP were Manafort, himself, and Konstantin Kilimnik (Konstantin). Gates stated that Konstantin was a Russian citizen who lived in Ukraine and worked on the day to day operations of DMP in Ukraine. Konstantin had worked for Davis Manafort before 2006 and is still employed by DMP. Gates stated that technically he is employed employee. Gates stated that Konstantin's job was to interact with party members. He was their person on the ground in Kyiv. Gates stated that when they needed work done on a campaign such as lm'osiigttiionon 07f02f201?1 a, Washington, District Of Columbia, United States (In Person} Fileii Date dra?ed 0Tf09f201?1 me by. h7E This document contains neither nor conclusions oflne FBI. [1 is the pl?OpCl1}' of the FBI and is loaned to your agency: it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency. FBK 1 9W1 278)?2495 Fo-mza (Rm. mans-m} CommunionMED-3mm? Richard Gates .On 0Tf02f2014 .F?ngc 2 Of 8 advertising, polling or speech writing, they contracted US companies to work on the campaign. Gates opined that after working on elections they transitioned into providing policy advice to the Party of Regions. They did not have a contract but worked from a proposal. Gates added that although the proposal was accepted, they were never paid on time, but they did eventually get paid. They were hired to help move the platform toward more western governance. Gates stated that the Party of Regions changed over the years. Boris Rolesnikov was the campaign manager for Victor Yanukovych in 2010. The Party of Regions still exists but Manafort and Gates helped develop the Ukraine Development Party, which was a younger and more progressive party. Gates stated that the Party of Regions was only designed to serve the South and East regions of Ukraine. It was a regional party which is why it b6 was not successful. The new party was formed on a platform that included anti?corruption and covered all the regions of Ukraine. worked with this new party. Gates stated thatl b6 b6 Gated stated that in his position he worked with mid?level people. was on the Party of Regions. Manafort worked with the higher ranking officials. Gates stated that he met Rinat Ahkmetov a few times, not in meetings, but at a hotel lobby. Gates stated that he never did business with him. 1:16 Gates stated that he did meet two or three times. He b7A met him while he was working on the campaign for Andrei Kluyev. Gates added b?c that he met Sergei Kluyev as well. Gates stated that they worked to get the Ukraine to sign a deal with the European Union in 2013, but that it never happened. Sergei Kluyev was in the US at least twice in 2013 -- once at a US-Ukraine dinner, where Sergei was a speaker. Gates stated that he did know the US-Ukraine Business Council and had worked with them at least twice in 2010 after Yanukovych was elected. b6 Gates stated that was loyal b7: Nil-302:1 (Rm: 05-0340} h?E CommunionoE?FD-??lof Richard Gates 07f02f2014 3 of 8 b5 Gates stated that Paul Manafort was the boss of UMP. did not know about operations in Ukraine. IRI, the International Republic Institute, is a US bi-partisan group. National Party not a regions party. From IRI, Konstanin Klimnik was the person on the ground for DMP in Kyiv. worked on the first campaign as not as an hG employee. worked for Manafort prior to Gates working there. Gates stated that he and Manafort didn?t really work for officials, but were working for the Party of Regions. After 2010 they also offered policy advice. Gates stated that they were hired as consultants to assist with campaigns and they they transitioned off of campaigns and into providing direction on policy matters. Gates stated that they provided suggestions on western reform policies. Gates stated that they worked with Sergey Lyovochkin ,Yanukovych?s Chief of Staff on devising a political agenda between 2010 and 2014. After 2014 they worked with the Party of Regions on policy matters. Gates was a b5 Gates stated that they were directed to open accounts in Cyprus because it was easier for the candidates to pay them from a Cypriot account to a Cypriot account. Gates stated that invoices for campaign assistance were paid into the account in the name of Lucicle in Cyprus. Invoices for policy advice was paid into Global Endeavor account in Cyprus. Telmar paid into this account. Gates stated that the oligarchs would pass the hat to collect funds to pay for the work DMP performed on consulting proposals. Different campaign projects were paid into different accounts. Gates stated that people in Ukraine did not want other candidates to know who was working on their campaigns. Gates stated that they were told to open accounts in Cyprus for ease of payment. He was told it would be easier for DMP to be paid from a Cypriot account to another Cypriot account. Gates stated that they used standard (Rm. {15-11240} CommunionoE?FD-??lof Richard Gates 07f02f2014 4 of 8 . Page English common law contracts and the fee was included on the contract. Then they would invoice the customer for payment. Gates stated that Bletilla Ventures Ltd. and Leviathan Advisors Ltd. were used to invoice for services. Gates stated that Lilred LLC was used for Paul Manafort?s investments. Lilred LLC was not related to DMP, only to Paul Manafort. Gates stated that Yiakora Ventures was set up in Cyprus and was associated with DMP. Gates added that Loav Hdvisors was also associated with DMP. Gates stated that one of the companies was set up in Virginia. Global Endeavor was set up in St. Vincent. Another company, Jeynet was also set up in St Vincent. Gates stated that Manafort did not have other business interests in the Ukraine, only political consulting and policy consulting. Gates stated that there were no real estate investments in the Ukraine. They looked into investing in the Underground Mall, but they did not invest in it. Ukrainians wanted US investors to invest in Ukraine real estate and industries. b6 . Gates stated that did a lot of bus1ness in Ukraine. Gates stated that Rinat Ahkmetov I but b6 he added that not many Ukrainian oligarchs I ch Gates stated that he met former President Victor Yanukovych on two occasions. Gates heard rumors about Yanukovych, but did not have any first hand knowledge about his criminal activities. h6 Gates stated that he never met and did not have any information about him. Gates stated that, from 2005-2012, there was the same "group of player" in Ukrainian politics. By 2012, "the Family" members were being brought into place in government positions. Gates stated that things changed in 2012. Gates stated that people close to the Yanukovych family were being placed in key government positions. They were the ?Donetsk Clan". Older established politicians were being replaced with Yanukovych family members. Gates stated that he never met Gates heard that be organized all the deals in Ukraine but he never had contact with b7: him. (Rm: CommunionoE?FD-??lof Richard Gates 07f02f2014 5 of 8 . Page Gates stated that Andrei Kluyev was one faction of the Party of Regions. Kluyev was the Chairman of the National Security and Defense Counsel. Gates said thatl b6 Gates stated that he never met Sergei Arbuzov, b6 Gates stated that he met Yuri Boyko twice. Once at a business dinner. Gates stated that Boyko was viewed as an educated businessman and that he had a good working knowledge of the Ukrainian energy sector. Gates stated that he never metl [or] b5 Gates added that he met Itwice while he was working on the presidential campaign. Gates stated that he never metl I b6 Gates stated that he knew thatl lwas a member of the ch Yanukovych family and was involved in the sector. Gates stated that in order to score the next election, Yanukovych was moving "family members" into key positions. Gates stated that Manafort and Konstantin had contact with the US Embassy in Kyiv. Manafort had contact with the US ambassador, but did not have contact with the US Economic Section personnel. Gates stated that he did not have contact with the embassy and he was not the person on the ground in Kyiv. Gates stated that he never met Victor Pshonka, and did not think Manafort had met him either. Gates stated that he did not have any contact with Alexander Yakymenko. Gates stated that he knew that was a member of the :2 . . . Party of Regions. Gates did not have any knowledge of bu51ness deals but Konstantin might have. Gates stated that he did not know he OJ: Gates stated that Global Highway was a UHF company. Actinet Trading was a Ukrainian company, and LLC was a US company. Gates added that Evo Holdings was a company used for working on (Rm. [us?nun} Richard Gates .On .F?ngc 6 Of 8 elections. Gates stated that they never had any contracts with I be Gates stated that Sergei Lyoavochkin contacted Manafort and they met with I Lyovochkin was a behind the scenes guy. I I b5 wanted to be more western. Gates stated that :33 . . . . worked with wanted to improve his image in Manafort and Gates met with with translator. b6 b6 13733;. EurAsia 21 is a US based think tank in Eastern Europeans trying to establish themselves on the international stage. Gates stated that he had no knowledge ofI Gates stated that they pitched ideas to Ibut that he be passed on their ideas. Gates stated thatl Iintroduced them to I I was the point of contactI Irelated to b7: Iworked forI IGates stated that Manafort did not have any other deals withl Gates stated they only worked on political consulting after that point. Gates stated that he had no knowledge of Ukrainians investing money in the US or moving money out of the Ukraine. Gates was not lobbying in Ukraine and did not get involved in business stated that he was never approached to move money to the that the accounts they had were used to receive payments involved in deals. Gates US. Gates stated for services. (Rm: Gates .On OTf02f2014 ng Of 8 Gates stated that the amounts they received would match the amounts they invoiced for services. Gates added that they were always paid late and in tranches. Gates stated that all the people used by DMP to work on campaigns were selected by DMP and were US companies. Gates stated that in 2010?2014, President Yanukovych?s Chief of Staff(. Boris Kolesnikov, ran things. Manafort told the Chief of Staff that they were not going to work on the campaign if they did not get paid. Gates stated that he worked with Konstantin. he Gates stated that b7C Gates reiterated that he only worked with mid?tier officials. Gates stated that DMP kept campaign work and policy work separate. b6 I b6 Gates stated that me Gates stated that they were directed to set up accounts in Cyprus and St Vincent. The Ukrainians told them it was easier to pay them into accounts in Cyprus or to pay in US dollars or Euros. Boris Kolesnikov said it was easier to pay from a Cypriot account to a Cypriot account. The law firm also suggested setting up accounts in St. Vincent. Gates stated they also opened an account in the UK. This account was not used for payment for policy work. Gates stated that the account was set up for this reason. Setting up these accounts was at the request of the Ukrainians who wanted to keep it quiet that they were paying DMP. Gates stated that a Ukrainian introduced them to a Cypriot law firm and ran the Presidental election from Cyprus. 190-302;: (Rm. [us?nun} Richard Gates 07f02f2014 8 of 8 . Page 7- nimgma sou? 1 Of Ditto ofentn- 09K 02 f2 0 4 PAUL J. MANAFORT (MANAFORT), date Of birth (DOB) was 11::(3 interviewed at MILLER CHEVALIER CHARTERED, 655 15th St., NW, Washington, D.C. 20005. Present for this interview were Department of Justice Attorneys Daniel Claman andI I FBI Supervisory Special Agents b5 per I I FBI Special AgentI FBI MC Per CHM Forensic AccountantI I and Defense AttorneysI Iand I After being advised of the identity of the interviewing Agent and the nature of the interview, MANAFORT provided the following information: MANAEORT recalled meeting RINAT AKHMETOV in June 2005. MANAFORT was asked to step in and help ARHMETOV on political matters. AKHMETOV hired b6 Iwith Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer Feld LLP, a law firm in Washington D.C., to assist with an asset the Ukrainian government claimed AKHMETDV illegally privatized. AKHMETOV introduced MANAFORT to VIRTOR YANUKOVYCH in August 2005. b?C The company DAVIS, MANAEORT, and FREEDMAN was incorporated in 1995. The com any was com osed of RICK DAVIS, PAUL MANAFORT, In and the company became DAVIS-MANAFORT. There was a transition in 2008, and by 2009 the company was named DMP INTERNATIONAL. DAVIS worked in the Ukraine. When MANAFORT began working with AKHMETOV, he would only take advance payment for his services. AKHMETOV recognized the need to lobby the United States Government. MANAFORT advised ARHMETOV to get all of his assets in order. In 2006, MANAFORT put a strategy together for the Parliamentary Elections. MANAFORT advised his client was the PARTY of REGIONS (POR). For example, there could be 150 candidates but only client was the POR. MANAFORT did not recall who specifically wired him money for his services to the POR. MANAFORT did significant work for both OLEG DERIPASKA and RINAT AKHMETDV. MANAEORT acknowledged that he an b6 account in the name of VEGA HOLDINGS for services he did for either b?c on 07,? at Washington District Of Columbia United States I In Person} b6 Filetf I Date drafted 0Tf30f201?1 I b'i'E by This document contains neither reconmtendutious nor conclusions ofthe FBI. [1 is the pl?OpCi?l}' of the FBI and is loaned to your agency: it and its eontents are not to be distributed outside your agency. (Rm. [sax-m} of Paul Manafort .On OTf30f2014 me 2 of 7 DERIPASRA or AKHMETOV. He then received an additionall Idollars . . . . . . b6 from VEGA HOLDINGS a year of receiving the originall I b7: MANAFORT recalled that the work he did was for AKHMETOV and he would need to verify whether VEGA HOLDINGS is associated with AKHMETOV or DERIPASKA. MANAFORT worked with DERIPASKA on an initiative to democratize countries. Montenegro was the first success. All of the money from Ukraine or Ukrainians that has been transferred into MANAFORT's accounts, personal andfor business were for his services. AKHMETOV never directed MANAFORT to put money anywhere and MANAFORT did not do business deals with anyone. ANTES MANAGEMENT CORP DST WEST sent money to MANAFORT's account in July, August, September and December 2006, totaling over! I h? dollars. MANAFORT did not recall this company but stated this money could have come from POR as he was very active in the elections and polling. POR paid MANAFORT directly, but he was not in charge of the billing contracts or the invoices. There was one contract in the beginning with AKHMETOV, but after that MANAFORT did work for AKHMETOV without a specific written contract. MANAFORT stated KONSTANTIN KLIMINIK worked for firm, occupied an office in Kiev and generated paperwork for services. KLIMINIK and RICHARD GATES were in charge of collecting and tracking all monies coming in for MANAFORT's services. MANAFORT was then questioned about certain individuals: BORIS KOLESNIKOE, a.k.a. BUR, was MANAFORT's principal contact in the FOR. b6 b6 h? b6 b7C (Rm: Interview of Paul Manafort .On OTf30f2014 Jung; 3 of 7' b6 When asked, MANAFORT stated PERICLES INVESTMENTS LLC was set up to do business in the United States and may have been used as a vehicle to do the deal. MHNAFORT provided a detailed history of his work with the elections in the Ukraine. MANAFORT conducted a poll and saw a way for YANUKOVYCH to succeed. MANAFORT set up a series of meetings with YANUKOVYCH. The first meeting MRNAFORT listened to YANUKOVYCH and the next few meetings MANAFORT briefed him on the campaign strategy for the next 5 years where the goal was for YANUKOVYCH to take the lead on judicial and economic reforms. MANAFORT worked on behalf of AKHMETOV and campaigned for YANUKOVYCH. In February, 200? MANAFORT ran the election as YANUKOVYCH's campaign manager and to public surprise, won in Parliament. YANUKOVYCH became Prime Minister of Ukraine. MANAFORT had lawyers involved to insure there was no voter fraud and briefed U.S. Ambassadors in succession; John Herbst, William Taylor, John Teft, and Geoffrey Pyatt, on a regular basis. The Ukrainian government then tried to create a SNAP election because they didn't like the fact the POR had won. The west pressured YANUKOVYCH to accept. As a result, there was another election within a year. There were many factions in the POR. Towards the end of his presidency, YANUKOVYCH replaced cabinet members with members of "The Family?, which included SERGEI ARBUZOV and] MANAFORT is not friendly with anyone in the Family. MANAFORT met SERGEI ARBUZOV once and they became fast enemies. ARBUZOU became the Central Bank President b6 and then the Prime Minister of Ukraine. explained the POR as being divided into two groups: the AZAROV group which included the international economic experts and the older generation of the POR, and the LEVOCHKIN group which were the reformists who handled negotiations. MANAFORT worked with the LEVOCHKIN group on the successful IMF deal during the first year of presidency. ANDRIY KLYUYEV managed the crises within the cabinet and often YANUKOVYCH would look to him for advice and to help negotiate. MANAFORT interacted with KLYUYEU on a regular basis. MIKHAILOVYCH HZHROV met with MANAFORT in 2005. AZAROV was part Of the party leadership. MHNAFORT denied any direct knowledge of business dealings with the Fo-mza (Rm. [us?nun} b7E Of Paul Manafort .On OTK3DK2014 4 Of 7 following individuals: h? MANAFORT never did business with him. YURIY BOIKO - the Minister of Energy. MANAFORT dealt with him on energy policy issues only, never did business with him. b6 - MANAFORT met him twice but no business dealings. KLYUYEV brothers MANAPORT did not know anything about their involvement with Activ Solar and never did business with them. h? MANAFORT never met with YULIA TYMOSHENKO and does not know: me Towards the end of his Presidential term, YANUKOVYCH began replacing b6 cabinet members with members of the "Family", and began b?C consolidating power. ARBUZOV became the Central Bank President and then the Prime Minister of Ukraine. In the summer of 2013, PUTIN realized YANUKOUYCH planned to sign the UkrainefEuropean Union Association Agreement deal and started to squeeze PETRO POROSHENKO on the chocolate industry. POROSHENKO's chocolate plants are in Russia and PUTIN told YANUKOVYCH if he didn't sign the deal, PUTIN would cause economic ruin on Ukraine. MANAEORT currently feels the local level corruption is crushing the Ukraine economy. MANAFORT once asked BOYKO about the oil rig. The registered Agent was the same who signed off on something for TYMOSHENKO. MANAFORT and BOYKO had a good relationship. When asked, MANAFORT stated he talked to YANUKOVYCH about corruption as a liability but never spoke about specific names. MANAFORT demonstrated it using factual data like the polling numbers. MANAFORT feels local level corruption is responsible for damaging the economy in Ukraine. According to MANAFORT, the only person outside of PUTIN who benefited from the European Association Agreement not being signed wasl I The oligarchs, such as I EOYKO and b6 supported the signing. YANUKOPYCH would have signed the agreement if the Europeans had come up with the $3 billion dollars of economic support for Ukraine, prior to the signing. In September 2013, MANAFORT organized a meeting between STEFAN PULE, the European Commissioner of Enlargement, JOSE BARROSA, the European Commission President, and Nil-302:1 (Rm: {35-0340} Interview Of Paul Manafort .On OTFI30K2014 5 of 7 YANUKOVYCH to work towards an economic safety bridge for Ukraine. In November 2013, the Germans and Dutch realized would not sign the agreement, but by then it was too late. YANUKOVYCH is currently in Russia. MANAFDRT advised he only met with once in when it was just a small house. said he had purchased it but he and MANAFORT never met there again. In 2008, around the time of the elections, MANAFORT acknowledged he knew of several companies established in Cyprus. He advised that GATES and KLIMINIK worked with BOYKO to do what the Ukrainians wanted. Their direction came from KOLESNIKOV. MANAFCRT maintained he didn?t know who specifically set up the Cypriot accounts but verified he was never a signator on the accounts. MANAFORT said the reasoning behind the company nomenclatures was because he was high profile. The accounts were vehicles used to pay him. MANAFORT stated there was no concealment necessary when these companies were established because he was providing political services in the public eye. When asked about CMZ VENTURES in New York, MANAFORT advised he was This was the one :3 . . . A instance MANAFDRT stepped out of the political world and attempted a business deal. was to raise money overseas and buy real estate in the United States. I MANAFORT backed out of the project and never got involved in business dealing. I MANAFORT has never heard of NEOCCM or GLOBAL ENDEAVOR. GLOBAL HIGHWAY LTD and LEVIATHAN sounded familiar and any money flowing from those companies would have been money he earned from his services. MANAFORT has never been to the Seychelles and stated he had an accounting firm that would have records of all the companies. MANAFORT advised that LILRED LLC has nothing to do with Ukraine. In response to switching banks, MANAFORT stated he switched from b6 because the average American h?c bank does not like money coming from the Ukraine or other foreign jurisdictions, such as Cyprus. In closing, MANAFDRT hasn?t spoken with since December 2013. He feels YANUKOVYCH lied to him and remains committed to helping the It Interview of Paul Manafort .On OTf30f2014 Jung; 6 of 7' current leaders in power in the Ukraine. Currently MANAFORT is working be with POROSHENKO, Ukraine's President, and b7: In reference to the Oligarchs, MENAFORT advised DERIPASKA left Ukraine at the beginning of presidency, AKHMETOV remained a part of the EU faction not choose a side and lives off his Russian b5 business. 1371?. Notes taken during the interview, an outline, and a bank account chronology is maintained in a 1A envelope. (Rm: b7E Interview Of Paul Manafort .On OTFI3DK2014 7 Of 7 . Page roan), tum: 1 Of 1 FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ofentn- 12f01f2017 Timothy BARRETT, Chief of Media Relations, Office of the Director ofb3 per ODNI 136 per FBI 5 ODNI . . . . b7C FBI Washington Field Office Special Agents] per at The Office of the General Counsel, ODNI, in the presence of ODNI attorney lAfter being advised of the identity of the interviewing Agents and the nature of the interview, BARRETT provided the National Intelligence Iwas interviewed by FBI following information: On Wednesday, 11/22f2017, BARRETT received a call from Saoud MEKHENNET, a journalist who he had a previous professional relationship with as a function of his position in media relations. MEKHENNET is a German female of Muslim faith, affiliated with the Washington Post. She has recently written a book about her experiences reporting on the Islamic State in the Levant called They Told Me To Come Alone. BARRETT believed MEKHENNET generally had excellent sources and was well respected. During this call, MEKHENNET told b3 per ODNI b6 per FBI per FBI per FBI MEKHENNET was looking for some type of confirmation or denial of this information from BARRETT, as well as guidance on if there were reasons she should not publish the story. BARRETT told her he would ask around about the inquiry. BARRETT then informed the ODNI National Intelligence Officer for Russia?Eurasia, On the evening of llf28f2017, BARRETT received a follow?up call from MEKHENNET asking if there was anything he could share about the story. BARRETT said there was not, be fresc- llf29f2017 in McLean, Virginia, United States {In Person} b6 Hb?l I Dmemmkd 11f30f201? by I I This doeuntent contains neither reconnuendutions nor conclusions oflne FBI. [1 is the ptepeny of the FBI and is loaned to your agents)". it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency. FBK lgC?U'l (Rev. -1 of 5- Dntcofentn? U3f22f2018 for UBS was interviewed by FBI Special Agentl FDIC OIG Agent land Special Counsel Prosecutor Kvle Freenev. Present during the intervienrug3?%er FBI FDIC DIG 157:: per FBI FDIC DIG advised of the identities of the interviewing parties and the nature of counsel forl lAfter be the interview; the following information: Background b6 b6 b6 Loans does not have any correspondence with borrowers be during the loan process. summaries prepared by b7: underwriters and interacts with underwriters and loan officers if he has questions about the information. Financial advisors are the point of contact for customers seeking mortgages with UBS. Financial advisors gather information and documentation from the borrowers and then contact the mortgage credit specialists to initiate the loan process. The mortgage credit specialist and the financial advisor then contact the borrower to go through the information on the borrower?s loan application and the terms of the loan. After this, the loan is sent to underwriting. Underwriters work with mortgage credit specialists and financial advisors to request additional information and documentation from the borrowers as needed. 11f29f2017 EH Washington, District Of Columbia, United States (In Person} . b6 . . lif29f201? Hb# Dmem?kd by This docmnent contains neither nor conclusions oftnc FBI. [1 is the pl?OpCl1}' of the FBI and is loaned to your agency: it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency. FBK igC?U'l b6 (Rm: Interview .On 11f29f201T .Hmc 2 Of 5 Loan to value (LTV) is the ratio between the value of the property and b4 the amount of the loan. The lower the LTV, the better the risk for the hG bank. The maximum LTV for loans primary residence or investment property. that exceptions to this maximum LTV threshold can be obtained. Debt to income (DTI) is the ratio between the borrower?s income versus the borrower's debt. The purpose of calculating DTI is to determine the borrower?s ability to service the loan payments. UB8 looks at the borrower?s other mortgage debt, any consumer debt, credit card debt and other types of debt obligations. Generally, the maximum DTI threshold is but :an be acceptable in certain circumstances. h4 Income is calculated by reviewing the borrower?s W2s, tax returns, financial statements and schedule of real estate Some debt obligations will be apparent on the borrower?s credit report, but some debt may not show up on the credit report. For example, personal loans or debt in the name of LLCs may not show up on the borrower's credit report, but would still be included in DTI. The borrower?s REO is reviewed to determine what debts, expenses and income are generated from the borrower's real estate holdings. UBS is relying on the borrower's accurate disclosures of this information. Credit reports are run so UBS can see the borrower?s credit history and character as it relates to other debt payments. If a borrower has a history of making late payments, it is an indicator that they may have a future of making late payments as well. Use of proceeds letters are used with cash out refinance loans so USB can know how the funds are being used. UBS is particularly concerned with refinance proceeds being used to purchase securities, which is a violation of certain regulations. b4 b6 It is expected that the borrower provide complete and accurate information to UBS during the loan process. The reason the borrower signs the loan documents is to certify that the information is accurate and complete. Manafort b6 FD-fmza (Rm. ns-na-m} Interview .On 11f29f201T .Hmc 3 Of 5 I Iapproved Manafort's cash out refinance loan for the property at 55 I bid not specifically recall b7: reviewing Manafort's loan as he reviews between 300-500 loans per month. eviewed the Mortgage Credit Report, which is a summary of the b5 loan, the borrower, the property and any other relevant information for his decision. Manafort I Manafort alsoI I be The Residential Loan Application Supplemental Questionnaire (RLAS) is a document all borrowers are required to complete for any type of loan at UBS. The RLAS asks the borrower to indicate if more than 50? of their income/wealth is derived from a foreign country and if the borrower is, or is a close associate of a politically exposed person (PEP). If either of these questions are answered in the affirmative, the loan is elevated to the Compliance Department and Legal Department. Additional information is obtained on where the borrower?s income is derived and who the PEPs may be. During the Compliance and Legal review, the loan is stopped. It is expected that the borrower answers questions on the RLAS accurately and completely. Manafort was providing false b6 answers on his RLAS, or at any point during the loan process, he would ch have stopped the loan. The Residential Loan Application (1003) is a document all borrowers are required to complete for mortgage loans. There are usually many iterations of this document as the amount of the loan, or other items may change throughout the process. Information provided by the borrower on the 1003, such as financial information, real estate owned and disclosures, is relevant to the underwriting process. Such information factors into DTI, LTV and other decisions made by UES on whether to approve the loan. The borrower is required to sign the 1003 to certify the information is accurate and complete. Profit and Loss Statements {PaLs) are provided by self employed borrowers in lieu of tax returns if tax returns have not yet been filed. The give UBS a look at the borrower?s financial picture. The Income Analysis Worksheet is a documents prepared by the underwriter and reviewed by the credit officer. I b6 could not recall b7c b6 Nil-302:1 (Rm: 05-0340} Interview .On 11f29f201T .Hmc 4 Of 5 if Manafort?s 2012, 2013 and 2014 income years were relied upon for his DTI calculation. did not recall knowing about I be I Istated even with I Manafort may still have been able to pay the loan. Manaforts Mortgage Credit Report (MGR) was reviewed by on Manafort?s loan was conducted by PHH Mortgage b6 and not in house by UB8. PHH Mortgage has a contract with UBS for b7C underwriting. In 2015, EHH Mortgage did not have the ability to approve loans, but rather they had to be sent to 088 for approval. b6 UB8 learned of an additional property purchased by he Manafort which was not disclosed. not independently recall b7: this matter. UBS would want to know about any properties owned by Manafort and if there was any debt associated with those properties. Even if Manafort did not have a mortgage loan, he may have debt associated with the properties? association dues, taxes and insurance. not sure if Manafort?s undisclosed property affected the loan terms. If there were other properties owned by Manafort which were not disclosed, this may have affected Manafort?s DTI. Had known Manafort had a which was :gc undisclosed, he would have taken a closer look and asked additional questions about the debt. b6 In addition, Pould have been concerned with the lack of disclosure and material omissions. would stop a loan if he was concerned with material omissions. b5 190-302;: (Rm. [us?nun} b6 Communion 0F (if (U) Interview .011 1f29f2 . Page roan). tum: sax-1(1) 1 Of 1 Dateofentry 09f12f2018 I US Marshals cellular telephone number he was interviewed telephonically by FBI Special Agentl b7: After being advised of the identity of the interviewing agent andh7F Per USES the nature of the interview, provided the following information: explained that the US Marshals in the Eastern District of virginia did not have a detention facility capable of housing inmates loq: term. As such, the US Marshals practice is to utilize local jails to b7: house inmates locally. Paul Manafort was housed at the Alexandria qu per USMS Sheriff's Jail in accordance with this practice. When inmates are housed at local jails, they are required to abide by the policies and procedures of that local jail. Manafort?s defense a request to the US he Marshals for a laptop be made available to Manafort for discovery . . . . per USMS review. acted as a liaison the Alexandria Sheriff's Jail with respect to this request. laptop could be provided to Manafort; however,b6 the laptop would have to be inspected by the jail?s IT staff to make surebTC per USMS it did not have the capability to access the internet. A laptop was provided to the Alexandria Sheriff?s Jail for Manafort sometime on or before July 18, 2018. On July 18, b5 the jail refused the laptop because they discovered it was b7c capable of accessing the internet, which was forbidden. The laptop was per USMS returned to and resubmitted on July 19, 2018. b6 that a password on the laptop had been changed and files hath-7.F per USMS been hidden. no further information about these issues. On August 21, 2018, was notified by Alexandra Sheriff's Captain lm'esiigzttion on 03,? 2 1f2018 Alexandria Vi rginia United States {Phone} by This doeumeut contains neither reeonmtendutious nor conclusions oflhe FBI. [1 is the ptopeny of the F81 and is loaned to your agency: it and its eontents are not to be distributed outside your agency. FBK 19W1 109 1 Of 2 FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Dateofentn? 08f23f2018 On or around 8X312018, SAI Iinterviewed I lin Washingb? per FBI NSD DC. After being advised of the identities of the interviewing Per FBI NED the following information: At the start of the interview? a memorandum regarding b6 PAUL MANAFORT December 22, 198?. 57: b6 Ijoined DOJ's unit b7: that oversaw registration under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (PARA). Throughout his time in the FARA unit, the number of attorneys in the unit varied from four to eight. At the time of on the MANAFORT matter, the FARA unit had 5 or 6 attorneys. Inspections at the FARA Unit at DOJ were very thorough. Inspectors would compare a firm's filings to the firm?s records to evaluate whether or not the disclosures met requirements. The FARA unit would usually send accountants and paralegals to carry out inspections. The senior FARA attorneys would determine what they needed and the junior staff were responsible for copying and collecting not recall taking part in an inspection related to b6 MANAFORT. not have a present recollection of drafting the December 22, b6 1987 memo The memo related to possible criminal charges against a presidential appointee. The FARA unit primarily focused on disclosures. did not recall the memo but opined that it was so different from his normal work that he should have remembered it. Reading his memo, believed that MANAFORT was working as an agent of a foreign power. there may have been additional documentation, either from be the Assistant Attorney General's office or from the White House that he b7: would have used to compose his memorandums not recall having any 08f03f2018 :u Washington, District Of Columbia, United States (In Person} b6 13'3?: Filer.E I I Date dm?ed BEIGE-K2018 h7E by I This doeumeut contains neither recommendations nor conclusions oflhe FBI. [1 is the pnopeny of the FBI and is loaned Io your agency: it and its eontenls are not to be distribulcd outside your agency. FBK 3;.ng 162 b6 137C (Rm: Interview of[ I CommunionMED-3mm? on 8f3f2018 .On .F?ngc 2 Of 2 interaction with anyone from the White House or Attorney General?s office. Likewise, not recall having any interaction with MANAFORT, b6 MANAFORT's attorney{s), or anyone from MANAFORT's firm. Communication that came from the White House would have first gone tol I b6 13?: I knew investigations well. land is currently living inl I nimgmm:ssun -1 of 21- Dwedrmn' 02f05f2018 social securitv was interviewed bv FBI Special Agentl I FDIC OIG Special Agent Special Counsel Prosecutor Greg Andres and Assistant United States Attorneyl Present during the interview were counsel forl Iandl . After being advised of the identities of the interviewing parties and the nature of I36 per FBI 5 FDICXOIG per FBI EoIofoIs provided with a Proffer Agreement which he signed and acknowledged understanding. was told that the interview was b6 voluntary and if he chose to answer questions he needed to do so truthfully as lying to a federal agent could constitute a federal crime. the interview provided the following information: Backround b6 b6 b?C b6 b6 12f04f2017 :u Washingtonr District Of Columbia, United States (In Person} b6 b7: nun I 12/05/2017 hi I This doeument contains neither nor conclusions oflne FBI. [1 is the piepeny of the FBI and is loaned to your agency: it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agencyNil-302:1 (Rm: 05-0340} Interview .On 12f04f201T .Pmp 2 Of 21 The Federal Savings Bank Prior to this interview, spoke withl interview Idid not talk to tell the with the Special Counsel?s Office. and told was worried about the interview. substantively about the interview. truth. boss at TFSB isI DTIXDSC debt-to-income (DTI) ratio as a ratio of the borrower?s Debt ratio is used in commercial loans and factors in income versus their debt which is relied upon in residential loans. (DEC) income generated from the subject property to offset debt associated with the loan. coverage DTI is the borrower?s global income versus their global debt. The reason the bank looks at DTI is to determine whether the borrower will be able to make their loan payments. DTI is "one of the pegs" relied upon when underwriting a loan. there were "5 C's" an underwriter looked for when underwriting a loan: Credit, Character, Capacity, Collateral and another which could not recall. All are important. If a borrower had great DTI, but bad character, the bank might not do the loan. A borrower discloses debt obligations to the bank on their Form 1003 Loan (PPS). An court filings for Application (1003) and in their Personal Financial Statement underwriter also looked at the borrower?s credit report; and tax returns to see other debt the borrower may not have included in their 1003 or PFS. stated that the borrower was expected to disclose all debt obligations on the 1003 and PFS. liens, judgments and bankruptcies (Rm. 136 13763 CommunionoFFD-??luf (Ul'l Interview _On 12f04f2017 .F?ngc 3 Of 21 Debt such as mortgages, car payments and personal loans are all included in the borrower?s debt obligations. Personal loans may not appear on the credit report, but should be disclosed on the 1003 and PFS. The borrower was also expected to disclose all properties they owned and all businesses in which they had an ownership interest. Debts related to businesses owned by the borrower may factor into the underwriter?s debt calculations. A self?employed borrower's income was typically shown by providing tax returns, bank statements and K?l distribution forms. LTV 'I"l Loan-to-value (LTV) for a construction loan is calculated using the as complete" value of the property versus the loan amount. The goal of a construction loan is for the loan proceeds to be used to enhance the value of the property and in the end, for the property to be worth more than the loan amount. If the property is not going to be worth more in the end, the borrower needs to put up additional collateral to secure the loan. In a construction loan, the underwriter reviewed the construction budget, plans and specifications. These documents are provided to the appraiser to determine the "as complete" value. The cost to complete a project is central to the bank in a construction loan. If there is not enough money in the loan for the borrower to complete the project, then the borrower needs to bring money into the bank to make up the difference. The bank needs to have enough money to complete the project. The borrower was expected to provide true and complete information regarding the construction budget and cost to complete. These documents often came from the contractor or the borrower. Regardless, the borrower has to sign the contractor agreement certifying the information is true and correct and they agree with the amount. RED TFSB requires borrowers to submit a schedule of real estate owned (RED). The borrower?s RED is important to the bank because it shows if the borrower has any additional collateral to pledge in security of the loan. In addition, it shows if the borrower has any other mortgages and property carrying costs which would be included in the borrower?s debt calculation. (Rm: b6 Interview .On 12f04f201T .Pmm 4 Of 21 The borrower was expected to provide true and complete information on their RED. TFSB relied on the borrower for this information. In b6 experience, borrowers tend to inflate the value of their properties not think it was typical for borrowers to omit the fact that they own other properties. Credit Report TFSB runs a credit report for all borrowers to determine the borrower?s debt, payment history and other loans. When other mortgage loans appear on the borrower?s credit report, TFSB asks the borrower to identify which properties are collateral for these mortgages. TFSB would not know which mortgages go with which properties unless the borrower were to provide this information. The borrower was expected to provide true and complete information regarding other debts and other properties. Use of Proceeds In commercial loans, the use of refinance proceeds is limited to commercial purposes only. The reason for this is the interest rates and bank fees on a commercial loan are higher than on a residential loan. Therefore, the bank is not qualified for the same protections on commercial loans as they would be on residential loans. When TFSB extends a commercial refinance, they require the borrower to acknowledge that they are obtaining a commercial loan and verify the b6 proceeds will be used for commercial purposes only. defined b?C "commercial purposes only" as business use, or commercial real estate projects. could not think of any prohibited uses. Paul Manafort told TFSB he was using the proceeds of his $9.5 million refinance on 174 Jobs Lane, Bridgehampton {Jobs Lane) for speculative and commercial purposes. aid this included a very broad range of potential uses. Manafort was not required by TFSB to specify how he was :gc going to use the proceeds. Manafort?s use of proceeds was not very relevant to the bank's decision. The only reason TFSB asked for an explanation on Manafort?s use of proceeds was because technically, Manafort's loan was a commercial loan. Ultimately, TFSB did not know, or care how Manafort used the proceeds. Loan Process At TFSB, loans are generated by loan officers. The loan officer obtains the initial information from the borrower and is the conduit for obtaining any follow up information during the course of the loan. Fo-mza (Rm. mans-m} of (U Interview .On 12f04f201? .F?ngc The loan officer submits an email to the Portfolio Scenario Desk, which includes In this email, the loan officer writes up a portfolio loan scenario and attaches the borrower's 1003 and credit report. Sometimes, are copied on the email. The portfolio loan summary is reviewed and sometimes further summarized by whomever receives it. This scenario is then provided to the Credit Committee which consists of The Credit Committee votes and, if a unanimous vote to approve is achieved, a deal memo is generated which includes terms of the proposed deal. The borrower is sent a term sheet which they are required to sign and return with a non-refundable deposit equal to a portion of the bank?s fees. gave an example of a deposit being equal to 1 point or la of the loan amount. Once the borrower signs the term sheet and the deposit is obtained, an appraisal is ordered and underwriting begins. The underwriter's questions and requests for additional information and documentation are sent to the loan officer who communicates with the borrower. The underwriter provides the Credit Committee with a verbal and written description of what they found and generally provides an assessment of the loan. The underwriter?s job is to collect information to sufficiently answer all of their questions and then provide the facts to the Credit Committee so they can make a decision to approve, deny or restructure the loan. 5 of 21 Paul Manafort underlying documents for Manafort's loans to include, but not limited to the following: 1003, PPS, tax returns and draft tax returns, profit and loss statements for 2015 and 2016 credit report, Affidavit and Acknowledgement, RED and information Communion of of (U) Interview .On l2f0?lf2017' . Page documentation in email communication carbon copied or forwarded to did not have direct communication with Manafort until August 2017. did communicate with Manafort?s attorney, regarding legal documentation and to obtain some information related to Manafort?s loan. id not directly communicate with Manafort?s CPA or accountants, but he may have been on emails including them. either. did not communicate directly with or Rick Gates had heard of Rick Gates because Manafort had a severely delinquent $300,000 American Express payment on his credit report. This was very concerning to because of the amount and because it duration of the delinquency. This was a red flag to reflected negatively on Manafort's character and capac1ty. Manafort told TFSB the payment was made on his AMEX card by his friend, Rick Gates for New York Yankees season tickets. Gates was supposed to but had not done so yet. Eventually, the payment was never spoke with Gates about this matter. repay Manafort, made. Mananfort was brought to TFSB throughl but did not know who referred Manafort to Ifirst recollection of Manafort was in April 2016 when Manafort and were looking for financing to finish a building in Manhattan. The deal ended up going nowhere becausq went to look at the building and realized TFSB had been led to believe the blamed the project was further along than it really was. misrepresentation Fo-mza (Rm. [us?nun} Communion of of (11} Interview On 12f0c1f2017could not think of any other time in whicu a loan was approved for a borrower who did not disclose a foreclosure. knew other borrower?s who disclosed their foreclosures and subsequently had loans approved. more fees up front or something of that nature. Manafort and Manafort Issues stated that if TFSB was aware that a borrower?s property was in foreclosure they may restructure the deal to protect the bank by charging was not sure if deal was restructured in this way. h6 b6 b?C b6 b6 b7C longer involved with the Trump Campaign. but bv that time. Manafort was no b6 b7: b6 (Rm: b5 Eof2l (U) Interview .On l2f??lf2017" Ja?gc Communion of of b6 b6 b6 h'?C 136 b6 h?C Additionally, Manafort provided false information to TFSB about a variety of issues. 1:16 136 b7C (Rm. [us?nun} b6 (U) Interview .On l2f??lf2017" Jung; 9 of 21 Communion 136 137?: FBI Interview 1:36 1371?. After the interview, about the b6 interview. he had been interviewed. I was aware that they had all been interviewed as well. be 13'1?: (Rm: 136 hi": b7E .1?ngc 10 Of Communion of of (U) Interview .On CHI f2 0 b6 The loans to Manafort were unusual because there were a number of questions that were never answered. In addition, the financials received from Manafort were incorrect, which was unusual Fo-mza (Rm. [us?nun} b6 Interview 12f04f201T .OCC Investigation b6 b7: investigation found that Manafort?s income was incorrectly calculated. b6 b7: b6 b6 b6 (Rm: CominuztlionoFFD-??lof (U) Interview .011 12504/2017 h?C aware that Manafort was required to put $2.5 million "collateral" in TFSB as a requirement for the loan on Union b6 was aware the $2.5 million came from the proceeds of the cash-out b7c refinance on Jobs Lane. The $2.5 million was required by TFSB because Union St. was not sufficiently collateralized. believed the $2.5 million could also be deducted from the bank's b6 lending amount to not sure how this was structured ch as he was not involved in this matter. said cash collateral is supposed to come from the borrower's assets. b6 the OCC was aware that the $2.5 million of cash b6 collateral for Manafort actually came from a TFSB loan. TFSB provided the ch OCC with the entire file for Manafort's loans. The $2.5 million issue and the fact that Union was in foreclosure would both have been documented in the file given to the OCC. Fo-mza (Rm. [us?nun} b6 CommunionuFFD-??luf (U1 Interview .On 12f04f201? .F?ngc 13 Of 21 has reviewed the draft memo of findings from the OCC. h6 recalled a recommendation that TFSB reconstruct Manafort?s cash flow analysis. may have reviewed the final report from the OCC as well. The issues raisec by the OCC had to do with underwriting process. recalled an issue about relying on stale financial information, which he did not agree with because the financials relied upon were less than 6 months old. also recalled an issue with b6 using a credit report from April 2016. stated that credit report was used because it showed the delinquency to American Express which was removed on the subsequent credit report. was aware that a subsequent credit report showed a lower credit score for Manafort. believed the OCC mentioned there was a lack of financial :gc reporting for Manafort?s businesses which should have been present in a commercial loaru stated that because the Manafort loans started as residential loans, that was likely the reason for this lack. to Jobs Lane When Manafort decided to restructure the a cash-out refinance onl b6 h7C b6 b6 Documents 1. was shown the DMP 2015 provided by Manafort to b6 TFSB. ch 1 When TFSB b6 b?C received draft tax returns for 2015, the information on the tax Nil-302:1 (Rm: he b?E CommunionMED-3mm? (U1 Interview .On 12f04f2017' .F?ngc 14 Of 21 returns would have taken precedence over the because in b6 experience, a borrower may inflate their income to a bank; but deflate b7: their income to the IRS. 12. was shown an email dated b6 and regarding the DMP draft tax returns for 2015. stated that he recalled there was a discrepancy between the 2015 proVided by Manafort and the draft tax returns received. The draft b6 tax returns only showed $344,000 of income while the showed $4.4 million in incomeb7C (Rm. {15-11240} b6 b7E (U) Interview .On 12f04f2017? .F?ngc 15 Of 21 b6 13?: b6 1375'. 136 lwas shown an email exchange betweed I Idatedl Iwas directed to b5 email which read, recalled these questions and that neither he nor received answers to them. TFSB had received the 2015 referenced previously and a 2016 year?to?date for DMP. The 2015 showed approximately $4.4 b5 million in income while the 2016 showed a loss. Manafort told TFSE that he was expecting a $2.4 million payment in 2016 that he had not yet received. did not know what the $2.4 million was for. At some point, b6 Manafort provided an updated DMP balance sheet showing the $2.4 million had been received. 1:6 Given that Manafort?s loan was a $9.5 million cash?out refinance, he would have had to show sufficient liquidity to make up for the lack of income.l b6 b6 Nil-302:1 (Rm: 05-0340} Communion of of (U) Interview .On l2f0?lf201T Jung; 16 of 21 Manafort's liquidity was a very relevant factor given he did not have income for 2016. T. Iwas shown an email from dated I and an attached memo from stated he asked to write this memo. Manafort's mortgage on Union St. was not included in Manafort's DSC because TFSB did not know about the loan at the time they were underwriting the loan on llearned about the Union St. mortgage and the fact that the property wasl after the loan had already closed. Manafort should have disclosed this information to TFSE, but he didn?t. 1 When tried to bring this up, he was told that Manafort was a busy person and he was still involved in the Trump Campaign behind the scenes. could not recall who told him this. Manafort also had a severely delinquent payment to AMEX in the amount of $300,000 that was listed on his credit report. Manafort told TFSB he allowed Gates to purchase season tickets to the New York Yankees on his AMEX and Gates had not yet repaid him h? Fo-fmza (Rm. 137C h?E Interview .On 12f04f201T .Hmc 1? Of 21 shown the Credit Approval Form dated November 12. . . b6 2016 which was completed b? End reviewed by believed such information could have negatively affected decision on whether to approve the loan. Manafort was under intense b6 scrutiny for work he had done and money he had received for that work. With regards to the DSC rating of 2.08X, this was based upon Manafort?s 2014 and 2015 income.l he With respect to the portion of the CAF discussing the two mortgages from Citizens Bank. Manafort told TFSB that those two mortgages were secured by two separate residences. 2 0 4 b6 b6 b6 (1m: Interview .On 12f04f201T .Hmc 18 Of 21 did not know why.l knew that no money from the b5 Union St. loan went to pay off Citizens Bank. Icould not answer why the lwas not listed on the lcould not answer why the Iwere not included in Manafort?s DSC. h? . As such, TFSB only included debt obligations Manafort had during that year in their DEC coverage. Since the loan?s first year of payments was held back, this amount was not included in the DSC calculation for the Union St. loan. stated that this was not standard practice and could not think of b6 any other instance when this occurred. Typically, all of the debt is ch included from day one. b6 he b6 stated that the risk rating for the Manafort loans was not really "Average?. The loans never should have been made at all. and b6 discussed how the Manafort loans never should have closed. ch did not think he tolc (Rm. {15-11240} b6 CommunionMED-3mm? (U) Interview .On l2f0?lf201T .F?ngc 19 Of 21 21. was shown an email thread forwarded froml b6 stated that he was questioning Manafort's attorney, b7: [charging $140,000. b6 believed Manafort had two encumbered accounts at TFSB: one for $630,000 which was set up to cover the first year of payments on the Jobs b6 Lane loan; one for $2.5 million which was set up as cash collateral for b7: the Union St. loan; and one with the remaining proceeds of loan. The first two accounts were encumbered and Manafort was not able to use the funds in them. However, Manafort was free to use the remaining proceeds of the loan. Holding Company Participation Agreement In order for TFSB to stay within their legal lending limit, a portion of the Manafort loans had to be funded by TFSB's holding company. he learned about this froml Isometime in December 2016 or ch January 2017. Idid not know whose idea this was. heard of similar participation agreements several times before, but had never worked on any of those transactions. thought the concept of the holding company funding a portion of the loan seemed strange, but it was allowed by regulators. b6 The holding company was funding their participation in the Manafort loans from a line of credit at another bank. The line of credit had to be increased and then drawn down upon to fund this participation. b6 Foreclosure Issues [was shown an email from Idated b6 b?C with the subject line, (Rm: b6 I h?E CommunionoFFD-??luf (U) Interview .On 12f0?1f201T .F?ngc 20 Of 21 I Icould not recall discussing the matter with anyone else. did not know if was aware of the foreclosure. Iwas shown the memo written batedl b6 to write this 575 memo. I Iwas directed to paragraph 13 which read, 1"Little information on the hard money lenders that are funding the various California SFR projects. {loans cross collateralized, will they provide extensions on the maturity dates, current on loans}." wanted to know the status of Manafort b6 andl Iloans to that lender, if those loans were 1"falling aoart", and how those loans were going to affect Manafort and Other I Itoldl to document the issues with the Manafort loans. b6 I Iwas difficult to b7C get responses from.l h? did not know if this related to the Manafort loans. As previously stated, was going to approve the Manafort loans "no matter what?. b6 aware that Manafort obtained a third lien against Union St., which was a default of the TFSB loan which prohibited subordinate b6 financing. did not know about this third lien until February b7: 2017. TFSB has not taken any action on the default issue. Normally, TFSB would take action, but thus far, nothing has been done. D-E?za (Rm. [us?nun} 136 HR: b?E CominuztlionuFFD-??luf Interview _On 12f04f2017 .F?ngc 21 Of 21 (Rev. -l of 13- Dwedrmn' 02f05f2018 I I previously identified, was interviewed by FBI Special Agentl FDIC Special Agent Special Counsel Prosecutor Greg Andres and Assistant United States Attorneyl I I I Present during the interview were attorneys forI I I After being advised of the identities of the interviewing parties and the nature of the interview,I Iorovided 136 per FBI 5. 1375 per FBI FDICICIIG the following information: was provided with a proffer agreement which he signed and acknowledged understanding. was advised that the interview was b6 voluntary and if he chose to answer questions he needed to do so ch truthfully. Background b6 h?C I In or aroundI Iwas hired by The Federal Savings Bank (TFSB) asI I Iare the owners of TFSB.I Ipurchased Baytree Bank in or b6 around and changed the name to TFSB. purchased a bank because it was the easiest way to have a mortgage lending business licensed in all 50 states. I I is theI of TFSB. b6 b7C DTI DTI as the amount of debt a borrower has versus the amount h6 of earnings, or income. DTI's relevance in the underwriting process is b7C dependent on the type of loan. DTI to ensure a borrower tm-cstigutienon llf30f2017 at Washington, District Of Columbia, United States (In Person} b6 by I I b7E This document contains neither sac-r conclusions of the FBI. [1 is the pmpeny cf the FBI and is loaned to your agency. it EFBK distributed outside your agency. (Rm: Communion of of (U Interview could service their debt, meaning repay their loan. is a red flag. Initially .On At TFSB, DTI over 2 of 13 stated that DTI was not relevant for the loans extended to Paul Manafort because the primary source of repayment for those loans was the sale of property. extended to Manafort was a $9.5 million cash?out refinance which was wholly dependent on Manafort's cash flow for repayment. as reminded that the initial loan agreed and stated that Manafort's DTI was material to the underwriting process of the $9.5 million loan. The borrower?s income was generally obtained by reviewing W2s, returns, andfor profit and loss statements provide an tax interim financial statement for years in which tax returns have not yet been filed. current year. earned. Year?to?date Projected PaLs showed a projection of income intended to be show income earned to date in the could review a projected but he did not believe a projected could be used for calculating the OCC would not allow this. a projected were supplied to ould review a projected as a mitigating factor. If he would expect the borrower to indicate that the income was not yet earned. The borrower?s debt was generally obtained by reviewing the personal financial statement such as mortgage liens, or private loans are not usually apparent on credit reports. is required to disclose all debt on their PFS. LTV Loan-to-value is is cash out refinances collateral. maximum LTV allowed. Loan Process (PPS) and credit report. Credit reports show debt car payments and credit card payments. Unsecured The borrower the amount of the loan versus the value of the important and guidelines are to keep the LTV on to less than Loans are typically generated by bankers. of the loan to the Loan Portfolio Desk. it for DTI, LTV and "the story" to determine if it is a viable loan. which was not sure if there was a The bankers send a summary includes receives an email with a loan summary, he reviews TFSB does not have strict guidelines that each portfolio loan must follow and every loan is different. That?s at the story. Loans can have imperfections if the story makes senseh?C Fo-rmza (Rm. 05-08-10} 136 CommunionMED-3020? (U) Interview .On 11f3?f2017' .F?ngc 3 Of 13 If determines the loan to be viable, he sends it back to the banker and the banker submits it to the Credit Committee, which is b6 comprised of If the Credit Committee a roves the loan, it comes back t4 lfor underwriting. At this point, [:ff:]reguests information and documentation from the borrower through the banker and orders an appraisal. is looking for the "5 C's" when underwriting: Capacity, or the borrower's ability to repay the debt; Collateral, or the value of the property; Cash Flow, or the borrower?s income; Character, or the borrower?s history of repaying debt; and Credit, or the borrower?s credit report. completed his review, he provides the information in the form of a Credit Approval Memorandum (CAM) further :30 review. A Credit Approval Form (CAF) is a brief version of a CAM. off on the CAMJCAF and it is uploaded to the borrower?s file for regulatory purposes. Not all approved loans result in funded loans. gave the example of a recent cash-out refinance loan for a bagel shop. The loan was initially approved by the Credit Committee and came to for underwriting. During the course of underwriting the loan, requested b6 the financials for the bagel shop. The owner of the bagel shop was reluctant to provide the business' financials. Ultimately, they provided the documents, but if they hadn?t the loan would likely have not been have relayed to the Credit Committee that he did not have sufficient information to underwrite the loan and the loan would likely have died. oes not have the approve or deny loans, only the he Credit Committee can do that. oes notify the Credit Committee of b7C relevant information for their decision to approve or deny. recommendations and reports the facts. was given an example of a borrower who initially indicated their income was $4.5 million per year, but during the underwriting process, b5 :noticed their income was actually $400,000 per year. Estated he Hm woulc notify the Credit Committee of the information so they could make their decision. asked what he would do if he knew the borrower was falsifying b6 andfor doctoring financial statements to support his income. I h?E Iwould (Rm: b5 Communion of of (U) Interview .011 30f? 17" Jung; 4 of 13 also "probably" tell the Credit Committee about the discrepancy in the EEC documentation and information. would "probably" tell first. is to filter loans out. communicate directly with Paul Manafort. did not communicate with anyone on Manafort's behalf. Idid not communicate with or Rick Gates. he b7C did communicate with one of Manafort's accountants located in California after Manafort's loans closed for the purpose of a billing issue. was also copied on a number of emails which may have included Manafort and does not typically communicate directlj with borrowers and did not others listed above. Paul Manafort first learned of the Manafort loans with TFSB in or around April b6 2016 after a meeting between and Manafort in New b7: York. Manafort was seeking financing for a property in New York. I the meeting. was tasked with gathering he documentation and information on the potential deal provide b7C the scenario to Goldman Sachs. The deal never materialized. did not have any further information on this initial deal. At the time when first learned of Manafort's potential loans with be ltold to 1?'Google? Manafort. This was how learned about Manafort's involvement in the Trump Campaign. The second Manafort deall lrecalled was a construction loan for a property inl Ibelieved this hG deal was initiated sometime in or around] Iwas the underwriter for this loan. The borrower was] land the personal guarantors were Manafort andl I Manafort financing to finish construction and also to refinance the existing loans on the b5 property. There was a I which promptedl lto request additional financial on the deal. The lender for the existing lien wasl a hard money lender located in California. lcould not recall if he knew at the b6 time he was underwriting the loan that I Fo-mza (Rm. [us?nun} CommunionofFD-??lof (U) Interview .On 11f3?f2017' .F?ngc 5 Of 13 Manafort and PFSs, tax returns, draft tax returns and during the underwriting process. The deal did not not fund. could not recall why the deal did not go through. Whenl Pas close to funding, was told that it was not going to fund, but he could not recall why. did not believe he was involved after did not fund. Document 1 lwas shown the 2015 provided to TFSB for the Manafort loans. Ihad seen and reviewed this document during the underwriting process. The document showed DMP's net income for 2015 was around $4.5 million. Document 4 I lwas shown an email dated August 11, 2016 I Iwith the subject line, ?guick guestions?. Iwas directed to the portion of his email which read, ?Is DMP losing money in 2016 because he has given up his consulting business to concentrate on the Trump campaign. Why did revenues go up so much in 2015?" was also shown a copy of his Loan Memorandum dated September 13, 2016 in which he noted a number of questions he had related to Manafort's income in 2015 and 2016. trying to gather information on Manafort's income. was relying on Manafort's 2015 {Document 1) and trying to find out more information. Document 5 I lwas shown an email dated September 12, 2016 between with the subject line, "Outstanding items for Manafort [was directed to the portion of his email which read, "Additionally, I don't know where the cash is coming from to fund the debt service (Paul doesn't appear to have it). Plus, I asked several question [sic] of Paul which I only think that Trump Tower question was answered.? I has asked if Manafort's income was a relevant factor in his lstated that it was. needed to determine that Manafort had the funds to cover the debt service. as relying on Manafort?s 2015 {Document 1) to calculate his debt service coverage and still having problems showing Manafort could afford the loan payments Nil-302:1 (Rm: 05-0340} b6 CommunionMED-3mm? (U) Interview .On 11f3?f2017' .F?ngc '5 Of 13 the 2015 was falsified and Manafort?s 2015 income b6 was substantially less, it would have been relevant to the bank. Iwould have attempted to get additional information to determine if there was a justifiable reason for the misleading information. learn that Manafort?s 2015 was substantially discrepant b6 from his 2015 draft tax returns. I Idid write b7: an email others to notify them of this discrepancy. tried to obtain additional information about the discrepancy, but he was unsuccessful. could not recall if the topic of filing a SAR came up with the b6 Manafort filed SARs not know why he did ch not file on in this case. Document 9 was shown an email dated October 11, 2016 betweenI I _with the subject line, "My 2015 Tax Return - FINAL Draft".I I was directed to a portion of his email which read, "As a fyi, Manafort's b6 YE 2015 financials for International, LLC are considerably different b7C then [sic] his tax returns. 12f31f15 DMP International, LLC shows over 'n net income, yet tax returns only show I thinking the was ?kind of hinkey? because of the difference in Manafort's income on the and the tax returns. b5 tried to get back up documentation for the but he was unsuccessful. The looking at Manafort?s financials was to determine if Manafort could repay the loan. I Ihad concerns that Manafort was not providin accurate b6 information. I made these concerns known I Itold them he was receiving inaccurate information and not getting answers to his questions. Manafort deal was going to go through because the Credit Committee had approved it. was aware of other deals initially b6 approved by the Credit Committee tiat did not ultimately fund. b6 b7E CommunionoFFD-??lof (UII IInterview .011 11530/2017 .F?ngc 7 of 13 is to make sure the information provided to the bank for its lending decision is accurate. In the case of the Manafort loan, the information was not accurate. The Manafort loan should not have gone through. stated Manafort was a "prominent man" and that?s why his loan was funded. I IbelievedI Ienjoyed the "semi?celebrity" of Manafort. WhenI Iwas appointed to b6 was "please to be appointed" and posted about his b7: appointment on hisI knew Manafort had a role appointment to the b6 council. I I Manafort andI Ihad a conversation about putting b7: on theI LoldI Ithat said he wanted to help with the Trump Campaign. as interested in Manafort's in January 2017, as looking to be appointed as the] I b6 reached out to TFSB employeel I and h7c asked for an introduction.I has not sure if Manafort was involved in attempts to gain a position within the Trump Administration. Manafort andI Iwere friends and had a good relationship. this fromI I Fed I?loved" the Manafort loan and wanted it b6 to fund. Had this loan not been for Manafort, it would not have b7c funded. If had not caused this loan to fund, it would not have funded. Manafort had many issues other than the inaccurate income information, such as issues related to his work in the Ukraine. Everyone who worked on the loan knew it was a priority toI land it b6 needed to get done. did not directly, but knew this because of actions. Despite all of the issues with the loan, I:Istill funded it. ?hot for the deal" and wanted the b6 deal done. This was expressed to on in the underwriting process. only talked about Manafort two times. Once was in or around February 201? when a blog mentioned as it related to b6 Manafort?s property atI ItoldI {the _oan was ?all b7: good" and he would make the same loan again ten times not respond this. (Rm: of (U) Interview .On 11f3?f2017' .F?ngc 8 Of 13 The second conversation wit about Manafort was after the FBI and a "federal prosecutor" came to residence to interview him in or around June 2017. After the interview] tell him a bank attorney would contact him. did not know the FBI had interviewed him. had told about the interview and him. had received a call from the FBI as well. Lalledl khat evening. land iscussed how the FBI came to] Iasked what the FBI asked in the interview. ltoldl lthe FBI was interested in the Manafort loan. told] lthe primary focus wasl told he never likedl lalso told] Ithe Manafort loans were 1"all good" and he'd do them again. it was nice of to call him and check on him. did not say or what to not know if Iwas Just calling him to get information about what the FBI asked or what told them. :alledl lwhen the FBI arrived. I FBI was at his house as well. andl lspoke about the interviews afterwards, but nothing specific. linitially stated he and only talked about the "style of the interview" and not the substance then stated that he FBI asked about a memo sent to I lexpressed their concern that the FBI was interviewing them. I knew Manafort was going to come back to "bite" them. 1 said the bank never should have given this loan to Manafort. During the loan an email document everything because the FBI would be looking into the loan one day. After the interview, kept his "head down" and didn?t talk about the matter. asked if he pushing Manafort?s loan through because he wanted something from Manafort in return.l [stated that ot what he wanted from Manafort, meaningl Idid not think approved Manafort?s loan as a form of repayment. 1"?loved the collateral" for Manafort's loan. was referring to the cash?out refinance loan on 1?4 Jobs Lane in Bridgehamptonh7C two-302;: (Rm. [us?nun} b6 b7C [Interview .On 11530/2017 ~pM? 9 of 13 the Manafort deal to be . . b7C go through and no matter what in Manafort's paperwork, the deal was going to go through regardless. outline his concerns in writing. b6 not know enamored with the deal. was asked about the status of the collateral on the 377 Union St. loan stated the 377 Union St. loan was ?cash secured" by b6 Manafort was required to deposit as collateral on the loan. b7: knew about this deposit because of his involvement in the loan. then stated he had a "small role" in the loan. was asked where cash collateral should come from in a normal stated cash collateral should come from the borrower's cash b5 . 7 assets. was asked if cash collateral should come from another stated it not know that Manafort?s cash collateral came from another loan. had never seen an instance before where "cash collateral" did not hG come from the borrower?s assets. It did not make sense the h7c collateral could come from another loan. Borrowed money is not the borrower?s money. earned Manafort's cash collateral deposit came from the proceeds of his cash-out refinance on 174 Jobs Lane from sometime in be January 2017. I lwere talkin about Manafort's deals and brought it up. not seem overly concerned about the issue. Document 6 email dated September 13, 2016 from him to I he with an attached letter also written by bearing h7C the same date. him to write the letter to document the issues he had with the Manafort loanJ Ihad written letters regarding loan b6 issues before, but none this detailed. estimated he had only written b7C letters about loan issues 2?3 times before, but he could not recall what the issues were or what happened with those loans. Document 7 (Rm: b6 (U) Interview .On 11f3?f2017' .F?ngc 10 Of 13 was shown an email dated September 20, 2016 betweer and with the subject line, ?Manafort Issues". stated his :3 . . . . email boiled down the concerns he had previously sent in the letter. never received a response from his previous letter, which is why he sent another email. normally have expected a response to a letter like the one he wrote on September 13, 2016 (Document 6). kept expressing his concerns because he was not getting any he answers. b?c wanted Manafort?s loan done, not know "headstron and had approved loans before that should not have been approved. lspecifically recalled a loan forl I should not have been approved. did not believel Iprovided any false information tol I was not aware of any pre-existing relationship between Manafort b5 and Restructure did not know why the was restructured to a cash- out refinance loan on a property at 1T4 Jobs Lane. Underwriting for a be cash?out refinance is different because the primary focus is the b7c borrower?s income. Manafort's income was already a concern for Manafort did not have the cash ow to afforg such a large loan. this to loan was going to go through anyway. Manafort was etting a second loan from TFSB on 37? b6 Union St.Jr he was the Union St. loan had sure, but may have done some underwriting on the 37? Union St. loan. Document ll was shown the Credit Approval Form and Memorandum and CAM) :3 for Manafort?s loan on 174 Jobs Lane which was prepared dated November 12, 2016. included background information on Manafort in the CAM such as the hG fact that Manafort worked in Angola, allegations of undisclosed cash h?C payments for his work in Ukraine, and his resignation from the Trump (Rm. [us?nun} CommunionoFFD-??lof (U11 IInterview .011 11530/2017 .F?ngc 11 of 13 I campaign include these this information from open source outlets. Document 3 was asked if he'd seen the 2016 DMP 66L provided by in August 20161 lhad seen the document and reviewed it during the underwriting process. was shown the 2016 DMP prepared an effective date of July 31, 2016 which showed a net loss of $638,048 for DMP. stated the fact that DMP was operating on a loss in 2016 was of concern to him. The Manafort loans were still extended, despite the fact that his business did not have any income in 2016, because_ 'loved this loan". did not know the Manafort loans. The loans did not make sense. experienced in banking and considered him intelligent. did not know why made these loans. Document 11 was referred back to the and directed to the portion of the document which listed the risk rating ofl Istated he consulted assigning the risk rating. made "a mistake" in rating the loan al I believed the risk was actually higher. Al lis what was recommended by the Credit Department. did not want to start the loan as "Watch" or "Special" risk rating, which were "borderline" deals. When asked if as instructed to rate the loan a he responded, don't want to Ithen said he consulted with labout the risk rating. lwas not sure how strong his opinion was as to this loan's actual risk rating. When asked again if someone told rate the loan a said be but he was not sure. stated have anything to do with the risk rating. did not know if talked about risk rating. that this loan never should have been funded in the first place. Werel Itruly rating the risk of this loan, it would have been worse that aL__j When discussed how to write up the CHM, they both agreed that the loan should neverffijlmough to begin with.l put a put a shouldn?t be a ven though he knew (Rm: b6 h7C CommunionoFFD-??luf .On 11f3?f2017' .F?ngc 12 Of 13 I Idid not say if he was instructed to rate the loan b6 someone else. ldid not have the impression that the instruction came b7c from someone else. Even if he had rated the loan a "Watch" or "Special", it would not have gone back to the Credit Committee because the document was an internal document. was directed to the Financial Statement Analysis section of the CAM. was asked why he noted the discrepancy between the 2015 and the draft tax returns if he wasn?t going to use the income listed on the Egc tax returns in his calculations. stated this was a mistake on his part. There was a period of time when Manafort's income was being calculated by someone other their calculations in the CAM even though he had done his own calculations based upon the tax returns. The calculations done by the other person were incorrect. . . . b6 this error in the CAM for the 377 Union St. loan. not list any information about Manafort'sl Ion 377 Union St. because he did not know about I This would have b6 been relevant information and should have been included in the CAM. Legal Lending Limit was aware that holding company participated in the Union St. loan because lending about be this during a Credit Committee meeting. The holding company?s b7: participation was brought up as a way to do the not know the details of how this worked. TFSB's holding company used funds from a line of credit b6 from PNC Bank in order to participate in the Manafort loan. b7: aware of one other instance in which a participation loan was obtained due to legal lending limit. TFSB did al I b6 lpersonally participated in the loan to keep TFSB within the legal lending limit. was not aware of any other participation agreements. 55 discussed how strange the holding company participation agreement was and what a "pain in the ass" the documentation was. (Rm. I 136 b?C Interview .On 11530/2017 .Wmc 13 of 13 not want to do the participation agreement. he bank should not do the deals trouble was going to "rain down" on TFSB and there would be "investigations". b6 not know why TFSB went to such trouble to lend to Manafort. aware that the loan on Union St. was currently "hush hush" at the bank. The loan matures in January and the construction is not ESE complete. TFSB was negotiating with the federal government about what they can and can?t do. heard this was aware of Manafort's problemI b6 This was a big problem for the bank. Manafort was required to b7: I but he was unable to do so because he Manafort sent an email saying he hadI I b6 but then found outI I not sure what TFSB was going to do with the property come b5 January. Other I Idiscussed how they had to go to Washington DC for b6 interviews with the Special Counsel's Office. tell the truth. knewI Iwere also interviewed because they toldI I Iabout his interview with the Special Counsel?s Office. I Ialso toldI I I Ilast name unrecalled that he was being b6 interviewed. I Idid not tell them anything specific other than he was being interviewed. All of these people given Manafort loans which were under scrutiny. sou? -1 of 13- Ulf20f2018 I I previously identified, was interviewed by FBI Special Agent Special Counsel Prosecutor Greg Andres, Assistant United States Attorneyl and FDIC Special Agentl I Present during the interview were counsel forI I I After being advised of the identities of the interviewing parties and the nature of the interview, h? per FBI FDICIOIG the followijug information: per FBI was provided with a roffer agreement which he signed and acknowledged understanding. advised that the interview was :23 voluntary and if he chose to answer questions, he needed to be honest in his answers. Background b6 b?C b6 h6 h? b7C TFSB Loans llf20f2017 EH Washington, District Of Columbia, United States (In Person} b6 I 11527f2017 b7: WI This docmueut contains neither rcconnuendutious nor conclusions ofthc FBI. [1 is the property of the FBI and is loaned to your agency: it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency. 2?8)?36 1 Fiji-302:1 (Rm: {35433-111} I 136 h?C Interview .On lleDfEOlT 2 of 13 TFSE is a small bank with approximately $300 million in assets. When they began, they had $44 million in assets. TFSB focuses on originating residential mortgages to sell on the secondary market. The loans are not packaged together and securitized, but rather are sold individually. At least half of the loans originated by TFSB are VA or FHA loans. TFSB also originates portfolio loans, which are serviced by TFSB and not sold to other lenders. Portfolio loans generally don?t meet the guidelines for VA or FHA loans. goal is to have the borrower refinance their portfolio loans with TFSB at a time when the loan adheres to conventional guidelines and can be sold on the secondary market. Portfolio loans at TFSB are approved by the Credit Committee, which b6 consists of A unanimous decision is required for a loan to be approved. Conventional loans do not need to go through the Credit Committee, but rather are underwritten and approved through a different process. TFSB underwriters do not have approval authority for portfolio loans as they must be approved by the Credit Committee. Underwriters can approve conventional loans. TFSB has approximately 1000 employees, half of whom are salespeople. Loans are originated by salespeople. When a salesperson has a loan which does not fit into the conventional model, they submit a brief description of the loan to the Credit Committee for review. This brief description often contains information about the borrower, the collateral, b6 the loan desired and the borrower's basic financial information. If the ch Credit Committee approves the loan subject to underwriting, the salesperson, or loan officer, collects additional documents and submits the loan package to the Credit Group, which consists of and for underwriting. If the facts change, the loan may come back to the Credit Committee for review and restructuring before funding. Portfolio loans are underwritten by TFSB's Credit Group. The guidelines for portfolio loans are not as defined as they are for conventional loans. TFSB can adjust guidelines on a case to case basis he and take mitigating factors into account when underwriting portfolio b?C loans. "the story" behind a borrower and the loan are factored into decision. TFSB has extended loans to borrowers with bankruptcies, short sales and other issues. If TFSB thinks the loan will be able to be refinanced in the future, they are more likely to extend a loan with risk. The average (Rm. (15-11240; b6 b7C CommunionMED-3mm? (U) Interview .On 11f20f2017? .F?ngc 3 Of 13 life of a portfolio loan is 8 months before it is refinanced or sold to another lender. Portfolio loans are typically "good yielding assets" for TFSB. The interest rate on portfolio loans is T.25x and the loans are adjustable rate mortgages This is a good yield to the bank and motivates the borrower to refinance the loan and get a better rate. TFSB tries to get the borrower to refinance with TFSB and then tries to sell that refinanced loan to another lender. In 2016, TFSB originated approximately $4.2 billion in loans which were sold on the secondary market. They also serviced approximately $60?$70 million in portfolio loans. DTI Debt to income ration is the ratio of a borrower?s income versus the borrower?s expenses. DTI is calculated to determine the borrower?s available cash flow. TFSB often refers to debt service coverage (030} in lieu of DTI. DTI is generally used in relation to residential loans and DSC is generally used in relation to commercial loans. Income for self employed borrowers is determined by reviewing tax returns and profit loss statements {PaLs? if the tax returns have not yet been filed. TFSB looks for consistency of income and the borrower's credit history. Manafort said his 2016 income was low because he was Ego focusing on the Trump Campaign. TFSB looked at Manafort?s history of income over previous years and his ability to make that income in the future as a mitigating factor to the low income in 2016. Debt is determined by factoring in all PITI, or principal, interest, taxes and insurance payments for properties owned, as well as any other debt obligations the borrower may have. TFSB is generally looking for a 030 of 1.2K, meaning the borrower has 1.2 times the amount of their debt obligations in available cash flow. For example, if the borrower's debt obligations are $100 per month, TFSB wants to see that the borrower has at least $120 per month in available cash after paying their debt obligations. The 1.2x DSC guideline can be reduced if there are mitigating factors such as great credit history, or significant collateral. TFSB does not strictly adhere to the 1.2K DSC policy for portfolio loans. (Rm: I 136 137': CommunionoFFD-??luf (U) IInterview .On llf20f2017' .F?ngc 4 Of 13 DSC is very important to the bank and the borrower is expected to provide a complete and accurate picture of their income and debt obligations. If TFSB learned that a borrower had omitted or falsified b6 information concerning their debt obli ations, they may restructure the h?C loan to fit the actual information. gave the example of a borrower not disclosing a mortgage loan. stated TFSB would restructure the loan factoring the newly learned loan amount into the DSC. asked what TFSB would do if they learned the borrower had b6 provided falsified documentation in support of their omissions or fal information. it would depend on the situation. stated that "embellishments" were not uncommon. gave the example of a borrower not disclosing subordinate financing on a property. When TFSB found out, they recalculated DTI to h? include the additional loan debt. As a result, the DTI was too high and TFSB did not approve the loan. LTV Loan to value is the ratio between the amount of the loan and the value of the collateral. Ideally, TFSB tries to keep LTV under 80*, but there are exceptions. TFSB considers rental properties more risky than residences. TFSB would want to know if a property was a rental property so they could review the rent rolls, leases and other documentation related to the income generated from the property. TFSB tries to cross-collateralize loans with other properties to help keep LTV low. In general, TFSB will try to restructure a loan to fit in the risk profile. For example, if a borrower's DTI was TFSB may require the b4 borrower to bring in cash to close the loan and lower the amount of the loan and therefore their DTI. TFSB may ask for a co?borrower or for additional collateral to mitigate the risk of the high DTI. RED TFSB reguires borrowers to provide a schedule of real estate owned (RED) so they can see what equity the borrower has in other properties which may be able to be used as cross?collateral. The RED also shows additional debt the borrower has on other properties, which factors into DTI. FD-EEDEI (Rm. b6 137:: I b7E CommunionMED-3mm? (UII IInterview .On .F?ngc 5 Of 13 Credit reports typically show other mortgage debt the borrower may have. TFSB also relies on the borrower to accurately and completely disclose this information in their REC. Use of Proceeds The borrower is required to provide an explanation of how they intend to use the proceeds of a cash out refinance. The use of proceeds may be relevant to TFSB, but it is not generally that important. If the borrower is using the funds to purchase another property or to renovate another property, TFSB would want to know, but it would not necessarily affect the loan. The borrower is expected to provide accurate representation of how they intend to use the proceeds of the loan. Credit Reports does not deal with credit reports and is not sure if TFSB :gc reviews them for recent inquiries or other items. Paul Manafort I Idoes not usually have direct communication with borrowers.I Inever spoke with, or met Manafort. copied on emails involving Manafort. b6 communicated with I Rick Gates, or spoke with one of Manafort?s accountants located in California on one occasion. The purpose of the conversation was to get information Iknew very little about Manafort when Manafort first became a client of[ hearned that Manafort was involved in politics. I ?earned that Manafort worked as a political consultant, or advisor to presidents in foreign countries. did not analyze Manafort documentation during the underwriting process, that was Ijob. As a member of the Credit :30 Committee,I was privy to Manafort?s income, asset and debt information as that was material to his decision. Document 2? (Rm: b6 Interview .On lleDfEOlT ~pM? 6 of 13 was shown an email dated July 28, 2016 b6 Iwith the sub?ect line, "Revised Portfolio b7c Summary Paul Manafort not recall what happened with Manafort's original loan with TFSB. It was not uncommon for a borrower?s loan to not be approved, b6 not recall the reason{s) why Manafort?s original loan b7c scenario did not go through. could not recall if he worked on the original loan. In July 2016, Manafort came to TFSB for a construction loan on a property in California I There were discussions about a number of construction loans for Manafort, not recall the specifics. There was an existing lien against the propertyl Ibut not recall who the lender was. I Ibelieved the existing he loan was maturing around the time of the application, but that could have ch been a different loan. not know who ownedI I The Credit Group, specifically,I Inotifie I did not know how Idid not know if Manafort disclosed the b6 II Idid not speak with the existing lender and was not sure b7C if anyone at TFSB spoke with them. Typically, TFSB will coordinate with an existing lender when they prepare to close a loan, but that would be Ijob. When asked if the default was material to Istated ?you always want to know", but the I b6 b7C When adverse information about a borrower is learned, tries to obtain additional information to see if there are mitigating factors. In the event ofI may ask the b6 borrower what happened and the borrower?s representations may be enough to ch satisfyI would be memorialized somehow in the loan file. If a borrower was in payment default to an existing lender, this would be ?good information to know". If the borrower had made payments to the h6 (Rm. [us?nun} b7E Interview .On 11f29f201T 7 Of 13 existing letter with bounced checks or fabricated take the information into account. h6 asked why this type of information would not be a disqualifier for agreed that the information was "very important" and he would want to understand why, but it would not be an automatic disqualifier. "Most likely", TFSB would not extend a loan to a borrower that paid a previous lender with bounced checks or fake checks and was in payment default on an existing lien. it "highly unlikely" that such a loan would be closed. was asked if he had ever known a borrower was committing fraud and yet he still approved a loan for funding. stated that he has never approved such a loan. PaLs asked about the 2015 and 2016 for received by TFSB for Manafort?s loans. not believe he had reviewed these he documents previously, but he was aware they had been provided by Manafort and he had received email communication to these documents. Manafort's financial situation was relevant to the Credit Committee?s decision to lend. If there had been substantial changes in Manafort's financial situation during the loan process, the Credit Committee would want to know. that prior to the final approval and b5 closing of the loan, he learned that Manafort's financial situation had substantially changed. not recall how it had changed. was asked if he recalled Manafort's 2015 tax returns showing income of approximately $400,000 whereas the provided by Manafort for b6 2015 showed income of approx1mately.$4 million. not recall the details of this matter. believed Manafort?s income was lower because of his focus on the Trump Campaign. did not recall the difference in income being that large. A difference as large as this would be material to the Credit Committee. that Manafort submitted a falsified 2015 to make b6 DMP's income appear much greater than it actually was, this would have been material to the Credit Committee's decision. The difference in income would have been material as it related to Manafort?s ability to cover the debt service and the fact that Manafort had misrepresented information. Nil-302:1 (Rm: 05-0340} 1:16 b?E (U) Interview .On llf20f2017' Jung; 8 of 13 Communion of of stated that when Manafort?s loan was a construction loan, the source of repayment was the sale of the property and therefore the Credit Committee was more focused on the value of the property, not Manafort?s b6 income. In addition, Manafort had a number of other properties that could serve as cross-collateral for the loan. Manafort had owned some of these properties for a long period of time and he had a good history of repayment. had confidence that Manafort could make his payments on the TFSB loan. h6 b7C asked if his comments regarding the Credit Committee's focus be on the value of property rather than Manafort's income were true for the b7: $9.5 million cash out refinance TFSB extended to Manafort. stated that the primary source of repayment on the cash out refinance was Manafort's income and therefore the Credit Committee's focus would have been on Manafort's cash flow. that Manafort provided falsified documentation or false information to TFSB regarding his income, namely an altered b6 which showed approximately $4 million in income when DMP actually earned b7: approximately $400,000 in income, he would have declined the loan. did not think it likely that Manafort?s loan could have been restructured in light of the false information and the large difference in income. The mere fact that Manafort provided falsified documentation or false information was "probably enough" to deny the loan. Loan Memorandum A Loan Memorandum is a write up from the Credit Group summarizing the analysis of the loan, the borrower and the source of repayment. The Credit Group sends Loan Memoranda to the Credit Committee if the original facts change or new information is learned. recalled seeing the b5 Loan Memorandum for Manafort's loan on 377 Union St., but he did not believe he saw the Loan Memorandum for Fo-mza (Rm. [us?nun} CommunionMED-3n: of (U) Interview .On llx?20f201? .F?ngc recalled Manafort claimed to have in accounts receivable, or funds he had earned but not yet received. I lcould not recall if Manafort ever received these funds during loan process. Hccounts receivable and accounts payable, or funds due to another party but not yet paid, are factored into the borrower?s income analysis. TFSB relies on borrower disclosure to know about accounts receivable or payable. The borrower should list these items on their PFS. Document 31 9 of 13 was shown an email dated September 14, 2016 from with the subject line "Payoff letters". did not have an independent recollection of this email. Iforwarded that information to because it was new information. This is information Manafort should have disclosed to I lcould not recall what answer was given for why this information was not disclosed. did not recall a conversation this topic. thought it was explained to him that Manafort was in I Iwas asked, what if anything TFSB did to alleviate any concerns 4 Iwas more worried about Manafor? Iwas out of the deal, TFSB felt more comfortable. Iwas the person in charge of the Document 32 shown an email dated September 20, 20l6 froml with the subject line "Manfort [sic] Issues". Istated that I kmail to him because the terms of the loan were changing. directed to the portion email which read, "Consulting business for Manafort shows $638,048 in expenses and no income. Mr. Manafort says that there is in fees earned. Would Nil-302:1 (Rm: 05-0340} 136 CommunionoFFD-??lof (U) Interview .On 11f29f2017' .F?ngc 10 Of 13 like to at least receive a afr aging." was asking for be a list of all accounts receivable and how long those amounts had been outstanding. This was relevant because if the funds due had been due for a long period of time, it was more unlikely that they may not ever be received. was asked if the fact that DMP was operating on a loss of $638,048 for 2016 was of relevance to the Credit Committee. stated he that this was asked what was done by TFSB to b?c mitigate this concern. tated that TFSB focused on the income history of Manafort. Manafort was focused on the Trump Campaign in 2016 and not on DMD. However, Manafort had a history of income and had assets and cash reserves that mitigated the income issues in 2016. The fact that DMP was operating on a loss in 2016, made the 2015 income more relevant because TFSB was looking to Manafort's income history. directed to the portion which read, "Would b6 like to know the properties that are associated with the two mortgage ch loans." recalled learning that Manafort had undisclosed mortgage debt, but he did not believe he learned this until TFSB had already closed the loan on Union St. After 37? Union St. closed, TFSE did a title search and noticed an additional lien against the property to Genesis Capital. Document 32A was shown an email dated September 21, 2016 from I Fith the subject line ?Comments to agreements h? I Attached to this email was a letter written and dated September 13, 2016. directed to the portion of letter which read, ?Mr. Manafort has two mortgage loans withl I and! Credit Officer still does not know which properties these loans are associated." stated he did not have a recollection of Manafort's undisclosed mortgages to This would have been material to the Credit b6 Committee's ecision because it impacted Manafort's DTI. want to know why they were not disclosed by Manafort. Depending on the amount of the mortgages and the reason they were not previously disclosed, the Credit Committee may have chosen to restructure the loan terms. Document 33 shown an email dated October 5, 2016 from be . . . . 7 with the subject line "Manafor? [files - date post was directed to the portion Fo-mza (Rm. [us?nun} CommunionoFFD-??luf (U) Interview .On 11f20f2017? .F?ngc 11 Of 13 which read, will be receiving the 2015 draft tax returns for both and Paul by end of business tomorrow. I'm told that the gross income for and for Paul is in excess ofI Manafort?s tax returns were on extension and therefore TFSB had been relying on the 2015 TFSB had requested a draft copy of Manafort?s tax returns and that?s what Raico was referring to. did not know why believed Manafort's gross income for 2015 was in excess of Iobtained this information from Manafort or Manafort?s accountant. I Ionly knew this number because told him. I Iwas creating this number on his own. was directed to the portion which read, "One of the questions from as did Paul collect the in receivables, and he did.? did not recall this information being relayed to him. I Iobtained this information from Manafort or Manafort?s accountant. was asked if he recalled being told about a large discrepancy in Manafort's incone whict was realized when Manafort's draft tax returns were received. did not recall. not know if he was told about this and has since forgot, or if he was never told. have considered it a significant factor to know that Manafort?s did not match his draft tax returns and that the difference in income was nearly $4 million. Had known this, he "probably" would not have approved the loan. would want to know the reason for the discrepancy. The 2015 DMP provided by Manafort should have been true and complete. asked how Manafort's $9.5 million cash out refinance closed given that TFSB learned he had provided false information in the form of the 2015 don't have a good answer for you." I Istated that ?the Credit Committee owns this?. I did not close. [was asked why the $9.5 million cash out refinance loan onI ko Manafort closed in light of the issues with Manafort?s income. I Istated that TFSB was looking at historical income and counting on Manafort?s ability to make money in the future. In addition, Manafort had significant collateral for the loan (Rm: b6 CommunionoFFD-??lof (U) Interview .On llx?20f2017' .F?ngc 12 Of 13 stated that in a cash out refinance, TFSB was relying on be Manafort?s cash flow as the source of repayment and that the collateral was a secondary source of repayment. recalled the Credit Committee trying to get as much collateral be as possible for the loan. In addition, TFSB wanted involved in the loan as a co?borrower. Ultimately, the Credit Committee made the decision to approve this loan and the vote was unanimous. learned during the course of the OCC investigation earlier in b5 2017 that TFSB had incorrectly calculated Manafort's DTI. Had they b7c calculated it correctly, the loan would not likely have been approved because Manafort?s DTI was too high. Documents 34 shown an email dated October 19, 2016 froml be with the subject line "Restructure framework of Loan Agreement?. stated he recalled Manafort changed the loan from a construction loan on I lbecause he did not want the risk associated hid not know why. Document 35 b6 stated that he was opposed to the restructure proposed by b5 Manafort because it weakened the credit. that the was a construction loan on a property which would be resold resulting in repayment. the deal to remain this way because the source of repayment was the sale of the property and not Manafort?s income. discussed this matter with the Credit Committee, but he cannot recall the specifics of those discussions. The Credit Committee decided b6 to allow the restructure and approve the $9.5 million cash out refinance not recall how he became comfortable with the restructure. b6 FD-E?zzl (Rm. {15-11240} b7c Interview .On lleDfEOlT .Wmc 13 of 13 directed to his email. believed :3 . . that the idea of selling the Manafort loan to Bank of the Internet (801) was always a possibility and was a factor in the Credit Committee's decision. BOI purchases a number of non?conforming loans. could not recall what happened with EDI in the instance of Manafort?s loan. not recall if the idea of selling the loan to 801 helped him get comfortable with the loan restructure. Document 36 was shown an email dated November 10, 2016 from be an with the subject line ?Request for supporting documentation b7: Mr. Paul recalled that the "income breakdown done by the MD Ops staffwas incorrectly calculated. They counted Kl distribution income twice and counted a loan as distribution income. I I Iwith these calculations. Ijob duties included income analysis. I Idid not know the income the way she did. I Ishould have included the debt from Manafort's mortgages on Trump Tower andl ll ldid not know why these were not hG included. h?c that TFSB relied on the calculations in the attachment to this email, but he did not believe he reviewed those calculations. Other with] Iabout being interviewed by the Special b5 Counsel's Office. spoke last week when they found out b7c about the interviews. Ito coordinate schedules so someone could be inl Ifor work related matters. discussed that they were coming for an interview and did not have a substantive conversation about this matter. 7- 1 Of Dnteofentn? 06f04f2018 I I date of birth Isocial b5 security number cellular teleohone number I was b7: interviewed at residence, I after being advised of the identities of the interviewing Agents and the nature of the the following information: Background: I Icurrently works in which he described asI I b6 works for who works for b5 Association with Roger Stone: not spoken to Roger Stone for about three or four weeks at b6 the time of the Stone was mobile and he was not sure if Stone was working in New York or Florida. I Imet Stone when he wasI I aroundI Iin b5 FloridaI b7: added that on 05/!ng2018 HI I I United States (In Person} b6 b7: I I Date drafted by I I This deeumeut contains neither rte-r conclusions efthe FBI. [1 is the ptepeity of the FBI and is leaned te- yeur agency: it and its ee-ntents are net to be distributed outside your agency. FBK igC?U'l b6 137E (Rm: (U) Interview C?fl I .On .F?ngc 2 Of 7 Stone was not a ?tech guy?! b6 b6 b6 b6 Stone lived full time in Florida; but traveled to New York every week or so for a couple of days at a time] 1 b6 Stone ran his own Twitter, b6 b6 b6 b7: b6 Fo-rmza (Rm. (15-11240; CommunionoFFD-??lof (U) Interview C?fl I .On .F?ngc 3 Of 7 I ]at one point, I lmade good money with Stone, but he made ?nothing really" over the last two noted that people leave Stone when they have families, because you cannot have a family and work for Stone. Stone requires too much of your time to do anything else. never been to the home Stone currently rents in Florida. Association with Donald Trump: Stone and Donald Trump met in 1986 through Paul Manafort. Stone was their ?bulldog," not a dealmaker. Manafort and Stone worked together for a long time and know how the game is played, unlike people like Donald Trump, Jr. and Jared b7C b6 1* (Rm: Interview Ofl I .On 05f09f2018 .Hmc 4 Of 7 reviewed all of their work and they stayed clear of Board of Elections violations, but he was not sure if others did the did not b5 think Stone was a lawbreaker, nor would he break the law for Trump. b7: Stonel land b6 ran his social media. b6 the amount of time Stone spent talking about Hillary b6 Clinton and her emails was related to the fact that Stone was selling a book at the time. The ?Hillary angle? was good for book sales. the DNC hack, but did ?not really? remember talking b6 to Stone about it. He added that anybody can go online and buy anything and may not know where it came from. For example, people buying Tweets may not know that North Korea actually owned the sites where the Tweets came from. Since the election, Ihas talked to Stone about media coverage b5 related to Stone. I b7: Stone was ?all about Twitter" and the number of re-Tweets his posts received. Stone did not pay for his that when you b6 do buy re?tweets, you just go online and pay for them, there is nothing b7: complicated about it. Stone had received only two or three calls from Trump b6 since the 2016 election. Ithought it was becausel I 57C Regarding the Russia he could understand why b6 investigators would be interested in Stone(. but that he did not think there was anything there. b6 not been in contact with any Russians himself. b7: b6 190-302;: (Rm. (15-11240; b?c I Interview Of .On 05f09f2018 .1?ngc 5 Of 7 Stone's Associates: Alex Jones I lknew very little about Alex Jones, but he did not like him. be we [thought Stone started working at InfoWars because I [Em they needed Stone to cover a couple of hours in the afternoon. Stone got about a year from InfoWars. He b6 explained InfoWars realized early on the power of radio, since it is cheap b7: and effective. InfoWars is on about ?,000 radio channels and is very popular in rural areas that ?the left has forgotten. Stone was on InfoWars five days a week, for an hour or two a Stone was on in the afternoon, but he was not sure of the exact time slot. not know who did the IT work at InfoWars, but he thought it might have been He noted there b6 were[ I ch InfoWars had a more savvy digital media strategy than Stone?s team, mostly because InfoWars had more money. h6 Ithought Stone lied tol land others to get credibility with them. Stone often took credit for things he did not 80a of b5 what Stone said was putting feelers out, but not having any real facts. Then when something he mentioned came to be, Stone took credit for it. It was how Stone operated. b6 mama (Rm: {sag-1m I I be IUI Interview I .On .F?ngc 6 Of 7 1:36 1376. Stone andI Ihad a ?love?hate? relationship.I Irecalled a b6 timeI I IandI Iwas furious with Stone. Michael Caputo Michael Caputo was another person with whom Stone had a complicated relationship. They were friends,I be I ICaputo also once worked as Stone?s driver. b7: Jerome Corsi familiar with Jerome Corsi from his books on the JFK b5 assassination. Corsi thinks of himself as a writer and calls himself a b7: ?historian? on InfoWars.[ I Corsi helped Stone write one of his books, possibly the book about Bush. was not aware ofI I 156 did not immediately recognize the nameI Ibut after discussion, determined he knew the individual in question asI I b6 136 137C I Ihad never metI Ibut had seen a photo of him.I I h5 b6 190-302;: (Rm. [us?nun} ch Interview Ofl I .On 05f09f2018 .Hmc Of 7 b6 not sure if Stone used apps to communicate. They b6 communicated via email and Stone did not generally respond to text messages . investigators speak who could provide b5 additional information on Stone. He also recommended investigators speak b7: directly to Stone to clear everything up and said he did not think Stone would lie to the FBI. Administrative note: At the conclusion of the interview, reminded that it is b5 a crime to lie to law enforcement in the course of an investigation and was offered an opportunity to discuss any of the answers he previously he understood it was a crime to lie and declined to modify any of his responses. SAI land SHI lservedl lwith a federal grand jury subpoena b3 b6 b3 b6 agent interview notes and a copy of the subpoena will be maintained in the 1A section of the case file. nimgmm snug '1 Of 6' Date ofentn- 12f20f2018 FEDERAL GRAND JURY INFORMATION This document contains information pertaining to a federal grand jury proceeding. The information may not be disseminated within or outside the FBI, except as provided for under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure wherein disclosure may be made to: an attorney for the government for use in performing that attorney's official duties; or any government personnel that an attorney for the government considers necessary to assist in performing that attorney's official duties. was interviewed at the Special Counsel?s Office, located at 395 Street, SW, Washington, D.C. Present during the :2 interview were Assistant Special Counsel (ASC) Aaron Zelinsky, FBI Special ch Agentl land FBI Intelligence Analyst Also present for the interview wasl lattorne? I After being advised of the identities of the interviewing parties and the nature of the the following information: . . h3 advised that lying to the FBI was a crime. was b6 further advised that the captioned interview was voluntary in nature and could be terminated at any moment of her choosinglntesiigutionon 08f09f2018 at United States (In Person} b6 Hm?l Dmemmkd OSX2OK2DIS b7E by I This document contains neither nor conclusions oflne FBI. [1 is the pl?OpCl1}' of the FBI and is loaned to your agency: it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency. FBK 19W1 FD-rmza (Rev. 05-03-10} b3 b6 hm hm Interview of 08f09 f2?136 HR: 133 1:6 b7C 1: (Rm: Interview ?2018 .b7C FD-rmza (Rev. 05-03-10} b3 136 137:: (Uff-Fe-H-e} Interview of CommunionuFFD-??luf ?(2018 .On .F?ngc 136 137C b3 b6 b3 b6 b3 (Rm: b6 (Uf?FeHe? Interview of 08f09 f2? FD-fmza (Rex; 05?03-10} b3 b6 (Uf?fe?e} Interview of 08f09 .On 08f09f2018 .Hmc b7: (Rev. -1 of l- FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Dntcofentry U3f28f2018 I Idate of birth I was contacted at 6:52 PM on phone numberl I After the writer introduced himself and explained that he would like to speak with about his associations with the 2016 TRUMP "sure, why not." to be interviewed at 9:00 AM at the restaurant of the Beverly Wilshire Hotel on March 24, 2018. At ?:59 PM, called the writer back and declined to be interviewed the following day. said he would be getting an attorney. said he had, ?nothing to do with the TRUMP Campaign." The writer provided his contact information. Horto- 03f23f2018 at Los Angeles, California, United States {Phone} Ir?ilett.E I I Date dra?ed O3X27K2018 by I This docmnent contains neither nor conclusions ofthe FBI. [1 is the property of the FBI and is loaned to your agency: it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency. 13:6 1376. 1:6 Hit b3 b6 nim2mm:soun -1 of 14- FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Date ofentt'y 06f05f2018 I I also known asl date of birth (DOBJI I was interviewed atl IPresent for the interview were his attorneysl b6 andl I Special Agent (SA) I I bite Forensic Accountant] land Senior Assistant Special Counsel Zainab AHMAD. After being advised of the identity of the interviewing personnel and the nature of the the following information: (Agent Note: AHMAD thanked for agreeing to meet and described the Proffer agreement. AHMAD told he should feel free to privately meet with his attorneys or take breaks at anytime during this b6 interview. AHMAD described the need for honesty and indicated this interview was voluntary. not have any questions with the proffer agreement and signed it along with his h? b6 Hooc- b3 lni'esiigztiionon qu?szUlB Elt States (In Person} b5 File 4'15 DEIIC dl'EI?Cd 04 f05f2018 by This doeunierat contains neither reetmnnendntions nor conclusions oflhe FBI. [1 is the piepeny of the FBI and is loaned to your agency: it and its eontents are not to be distributed outside your agency. FBK lgC?U'l b3 (Rev. be ME ContinuationoFFD-B?lof Interview with .011 04f05f2018 .1?21gc 2 of 14 b6 136 b6 136 131A b3 b6 (Rm: Continuation of (Uh E886, Interview With I _On 04f05f2018 WC 3 of 14 136 1:19. b7C 1:16 b6 h'Hk b7C 136 137': b6 b7]! b3 FD-fmza (Rex; 05?03-10} 136 CommunionoFFD-B?lor Interview with .011 04f05f2018 WC 4 of 14 136 13TH. 156 13731 b6 1:36 136 15715:. 136 13TH. 137': 1:6 1:73. b3 b6 (Rm: Cominuztlionc-FFD-S?lof Interview With I .011 04/05f'2018 Jung; 5 Of 14 I36 131?; 1:6 1:70 156 13731 136 13TH. 137': 136 1319.. 136 h'?C 1:6 1:73. (Rev. Conlinuztlionc-FFD-R?l of (UL Interview Withl . On 04f05f2018 . Page 60f 14 : did not plan anything similar with the CLINTON Campaign. b3 b6 b6 b6 13TH 13763 136 1371; 136 1370 136 h'?C b6 b6 b3 b6 i D-and na-nH-m} UNCLASSI ComimmwGEE-mm? Interview with Du 04f05f2018 1375!. 1:16 hG b7C b6 b6 I Idoes not recall if there were discussions related to setting up a meeting with MANAFORT, but knows that no one reached out to him in an effort to set up a meeting with MANAFORT. b6 b7C b3 FD-Tmza (Rev. 05?03-10} 136 137E Cominuztlionc-FFD-??zof (Ll/(Haw Interview With I .011 04f05f'2018 .1213; 3 Of 14 136 1373. b6 IOTA 1:16 1373. hi?: I36 136 b6 bin. 1 b7: b6 136 1:19.. 137': b3 (Rm: :3 Conlinuztlionc-FFD-B?lof In'lerView With .011 04f05f2018 Jung; 9 Of 14 b6 1:6 1:73. b?C 136 137%. h?C 136 1:73. b6 b3 FD-Tmza (Rev. 05-03-10} 136 Cominuztlionc-FFD-S?lof Interview With .011 04/05f'2018 Jung; 10 Of 14 1:6 1:73; h?C b6 I36 131?; 136 13TH b3 b6 (Rm: ContinuationofFD-B?lor Interview with .011 04f05f2018 .1?21gc 11 of 14 b6 136 13TH 1370 b6 h?C After MHNAFORT resigned from Candidate with and expressed that the resignation was not something b6 abnormal. indicated] Iorl lwere not concerned with 13'3?: MANAFORT resigning, butl lwas. Iwas concerned because there was a lot of negative things he heard about Steve BANNON. b6 b7C b6 136 1313. hi?: b3 FD-Tmza (Rev. 05?03-10} 136 Cominuztlionc-FFD-S?lof Interview With .011 04/05f'2018 Jung; 12 Of 14 136 h'?C 136 h'?C b6 b6 136 13TH. 137': b6 (Rm: Interview with _On 04f05f2018 13 of 14 the opening of the TRUMP Hotel in Washington, DC. to take a photo with TRUMP, but the interaction was very quick. He also met Eric TRUMP and Donald TRUMP Jr. the Presidential Inauguration in 2017. While there he met with Donald TRUMP Jr. This was not a significant interaction, just for pictures. He also saw President h?C b3 (Rev. b6 CommunionGEE-mm? (MW) Interview with Du 04f05f2018 We 14 of 14 hG b7C 1:16 136 1:19.. 137': -1 of 11- Duteofentry DOCUMENT RESTRICTED TO CASE PARTICIPANTS This document contains information that is restricted to case participants. I I date of birthl I social security account numberl Iaddressl interviewed by FBI Supervisory Special Agentl b6 Special Agentl ISpecial Counsel Prosecutors Andrew b7: Weissmann, Greg Andres and Brian Richardson. Present during the interview was counsel forl advised of the identities of the interviewing parties and the nature of the interview, she provided the following information: advised that her participation in the interview was bl' t' b6 vo untary an was not igate to answer any ques ions. b7: told that if she chose to answer questions, she needed to answer them honestly as lying to a federal agent could constitute a crime. acknowledged that she understood. Background b6 b6 h?C Podesta Group Washington, District Of Columbia, United States {In 09f15f2017 Person} b6 b7C ?kg 09f16f201T by This document contains neither recommendations nor conclusions of the FBI. it is the property of the FBI and is loaned to your agency; it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency. FBI 1 909' 2 78)_46 1 3 b6 (Rm: Communion 0F (if (U) .On 09;? 15f2 Cl 17" JungIThis was around the time when Ukraine came to PDG as a potential Client. Ukraine b6 I Fo-mza (Rm. [us?nun} CommunionoE?FD-??lof (U) I .On 09f15f2017' Jung; 3 of ll II Ifirst recollection of Ukraine as a client was on Ia meeting with Rick Gates who represented the Ukrainian government. b6 IThere may have been earlier meetings on Ukraine at offices,[ b6 b6 knew nothing about Ukrainian issues or politics and therefore had no opinion on the client. 1:36 h? b6 b6 (Rm: CommunionoFFD-??laf (WI 09x151201did not have any personal reservations about Ukraine and did not have any conflicts among other clients, or credibility issues as it pertained to other government work. I knew that one of the reservationsl Ipeople had was that they did not want to register under the Foreign Agents Registration b6 Act (FARR) for Ukraine. it, they would have to b7C register under FARR if they made any contacts with US government officials on behalf of Ukraine. h? Icould not recall the names of any Mercurnylark Weinstock people who worked on Ukraine. Gates and Manafort The first meeting for this client was a strategy b6 session at the offices of MOW. In preparation for the first meeting, Iwas Gates, as he was the point of contact for the client. I lknew Gates worked for and reported to Paul Manafort. I b6 b6 Fo-mza (Rm. ns-na-m} Cmnmemn?FDJ?ld?iU} .On 09f15f201T .Pmm land likely, Rick Gates. It was clear tol lthat Manafort was Gates' boss. b6 b6 Gates made multiple references to Manafort meeting with members at the "highest level" of the b6 Ukrainian government. emails from Gates in which Gates would tell PDG he needed information for Manafort?s meetings with Ukrainian government officials. Gates bragged about the fact that he and Manafort worked for the Ukrainian government. ECFMU At the time of the first meeting with Gates, the European Centre for a Modern Ukraine (ECFMU) had not yet been mentioned.l b5 b7C The ECFMU was created to solve a problem the Ukrainian government had. it, the Ukrainian government's image was not favorable in the US at the time and lobbying on behalf of the Ukrainian b6 government was not going to be a very credible option for PDG or MCW. that in such situations where an entity is trying to improve its credibility and image, it is common to create a seemingly neutral third party to act on the entity's behalf. When the seemingly neutral third party talks about how great the entity is, it is more effective and credible. This is a common strategy for improving an entity?s image. b6 b6 (Rm: .On 09f15f201? .Pmm 6 Of 11 talk about needing a director for the b5 ECFMU. Initially, the person designated was a Party of Regions (FOR) member. This person was replaced with a woman named also recalled talk about needing a board of directors for the ECFMU. PUG was involved in these discussions. did not know who built the ECFMU website. The client did not change when the ECFMU was built. Although the name of the client technically changed to the ECFMU, functionally, the client was still the Ukrainian government. There was a more concerted effort at PDG to refer to ECFMU as the client on documents and in communication with US government officials and a blurb was created to describe the ECFMU as a non-governmental organization (NGO), based in Brussels. That blurb was used by PDG's external communications and publications. b5 sure who came up with the language in the blurb, but she assumed it was b7: someone on the public relations (PR) team. Internally, people at PUG referred to the client as Ukraine, not the ECFMU. b5 b7C b6 I Gates was the conduit for information and instruction to PDG and b7C the point of contact for information from PDG. Emails recalled conversations about filing PARA versus filing under the b6 Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA). One of these conversations had to do with b7: PBS and MCW filings needing to be the same. I I b6 b7C b6 b6 (Rm. ns-na-m} ch .On 09f15f201? .Pmp 7 Of 11 b6 b6 I Irecalls a conversation among PUG employees he During this conversation, all of the PDG employees were in agreement that PARA was required in this matter. I lbelieved the above described conversation was prompted by the he fact thaq lprior to filing anything, PDG was setting up ch meeting between Ukrainian government officials and US government officials. It seemed clear to this required a FARR filing. b6 b7: b6 b7C I Irecalled one of the issues with filing FARR had to do I I Iand somehow filing FARR would have an adverse effect on this. I Icould not recall specific b5 details about this issue. this was why the filing (Rm: of (U) I I 09x15x201? . Page decision took so long. I Ithought maybe PDG was trying to convince MCW to file FARR as well. 8 of ll I Iwas asked if the same issue arose as it pertained andl did not know. MCW filed under LDA.I shown a copy of the Skadden order to file letter upon which PDG relied in the Skadden letter onl I she would file FARR. The letter saw was a draft. At the had not read the PARA statute. did not think she had assumed PDG time, ever read the FARR statute at all. [did not read the letter carefully and she did not recall what facts were relied upon to justify the opinion that LDA could be used instead of FARR. the letter carefully and realized the facts upon which the opinion was based were wrong, she would have had a couple options. I Looking at the Skadden letter now, was asked what she thought about the representation that the ECFMU was independent from andfor the Ukrainian government. that she knew nothing about who financed the ECFMU, but to her, it came down to who directed and b7C b6 (Rm. b7: .On 09f15f201? .me 9 Of 11 controlled the ECFMU. it was clear that Gates was the b6 person directing PDG as it related to the client. Gates b7: was controlling strategy as it related to PDG's work for the client as well. stated that it was clear that Gates worked for and the b6 Ukrainian government. Everyone at PDG knew this, to include To seemed that the Skadden letter was the answer PDG needed in order to file LDA. Iexplained that PDG :gc needed a way to avoid FARR. In order to avoid filing FARR, the client could not be the Ukrainian government or The ECFMU was built to solve this problem. I I b6 about the representation of as it related to FARHJ I b7g I did not provide any substance of conversations with b6 b6 b6 b6 b6 (Rm: b7C CommunionoFFD-??luf (U) 09x151201that some entities andfor individuals may not want to file FARA because the reporting requirements are rigorous. FARA gives :gc complete transparency on every contact that is made. This allows a preview into everything being done for a client. This can give an advantage to opponents because they get to see who is being contacted. This can also make contacts feel uncomfortable because it becomes public knowledge that they have been lobbied on the topic. b6 b7C When PDG filed FARA retroactively, there were a number of media stories about PDG, Manafort, Gates and Ukraine. As a result, there were discussions in the office about this issue. Mostly, people were nervous about how it would affect them. Some questioned what PDG had done and why they hadn't filed FARA in the first place. Everyone knew that the client was a FARA client. I be There was also talk about reliance on b7: b6 FD-mza (Rm. CominuztlionofFD-??lof I 091151201? my; 11 of 11 outside counsel and how that covered PDG. I I :3 I ?Icould not recall having a more recent conversation withI Iabout the issue. speak withI I but he did not work on Ukraine. b6 136 h?C 1 Of 1 FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Date 09f05f2018 date of was interviewed at the Office of the Special Counsel in Washington, D.C. The interviewers were b6 FBI Special Agentl land Assistant Special Counsels (ASC) Jeannie S. Rhee and Andrew Weissmann. Present After being advised of the identities of the interviewers and the nature of the interview, provided the following information: b6 b6 not know who funded the European Centre for a Modern h?c Ukraine (ECFMU). The ECFMU newsletter had positive stories about the Ukraine and was distributed to U.S. government officials, the press and think tanks. Many people could have contributed to the newsletter. a :3 . larger apparatus that included European consultants. "Engage Ukraine? was the name of a government relations (GR) and press relations (PR) campaign in the U.S. b6 ogf?qu?l? at Washington, District Of Columbia, United States (In Person} Filc?l 09f04f2018 b6 This dccmucnt contains ncithcs' E'CCOl?nl?t?tCt?td?liOl?tS nor conclusions FBI. [1 is the pl?OpCl1}' of the FBI and is loaned to year agency: it and its contents are net to be distributed outside your agency. 1 PIS-302 tum: 5-8-10) 1 Of 1 FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Date 10f19f2017 DOCUMENT RESTRICTED TO CASE PARTICIPANTS This document contains information that is restricted to case participants. On October 18, 2017, Special Agentl land Supervisory b5 Intelligence Iwent to 1050 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20036, the registered address for the HUMAN RIGHTS ACCOUNTABILITY GLOBAL INITIATIVE FOUNDATION in an attempt to interview[ I I I REGUS PLC, 1050 Connecticut Avenue NW, suite 500, Washington, DC, advised comes into the office when he has a meeting. SAI land SIAI Ithen went tol llisted residence ha I [An illuminated light was b7: observed in the foyer but no one answered tho door. Al I Iwas in the driveway and is registered to] white female, date of birth Staff Operations Specialist Ireturned to the HRAGIF office later on October 18, Iexplained that REGUS PLC provides office spacefservices for approximately 300 companies including 200 in house and 100 virtual office that company policy prevented her from information but she agreed to give him information. She also indicat that comes in to the office approximately b6 tm-cstigntionon 10f18f2017 at Washington, District Of Columbia, United States (In Person} 1:16 I Date dra?ed 10f 1 3f2017" File it I bits by I I This docmnent contains neither reconmiendntions nor conclusions oflnc FBI. [1 is the property of the FBI and is loaned to your agency: it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency. FBK EQWI FD-St?tltlieyi?-R-l?) 1 Of 1 FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Date ofentt'y 12f04f2017 FEDERAL GRAND JURY MATERIAL - DISSEMINATE PURSUANT TO RULE This document contains information pertaining to a federal grand jury proceeding. The information may not be disseminated within or outside the FBI, except as provided for under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure wherein disclosure may be made to: an attorney for the government for use in performing that attorney's official duties; or any government personnel that an attorney for the government considers necessary to assist in performing that attorney's official duties. On December 2! 201?, at approximately 3:55 Special Agent (SA) [provided the attached subpoenas toI IatI I b3 I b6 Iinitially denied beingI Iat which time SAI I identified himself as an FBI Special Agent.I Iasked SA for identification and his FBI credentials. SA asked received voicemails from stated that he had not because his phone does not retain voicemail. SAI I providedI Iwith hard copies of the subpoenas forI I I Iand explained toI Ithat he was required to appear before the federal grand jury in onI I indicated heI Ischeduled forI I and could possibly be unable to make the] Igrand jury. either he or his attorney should contact Assistant Special Counsel L. Rush Atkinson if he had questions and to coordinate his appearance before the grand jury; he did not currently have an attorney. frette- b3 . . . h6 lntesiiguiion on 12/! at I I HIM-tad States I In Person) Hb? I I Dmemmkd 12f03f201? b?E m'I I This doeuntent eontnins neither recommendations nor conclusions oflne FBI. [1 is the piopeny of the FBI and is loaned to your agency: it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency. FBK EQWI . one nimgma:ssun 1 Of 1 - - 1; Date ofentt'y 05f15f2018 I Idate of birth (DOB) spoke with A ents b: via telephone. At approximately 11:15 FBI Special spoke withI I At approximately 12:45 FBI Special Agent Ispoke withl Iprovided the following information in conversations with both Agents: When AgentsI Iran into Sam b5 Clovis. Clovis recognizedI Itold Clovis thatI ch Clovis offered toI did not tell Clovis thatI I calledI Ihave not communicated be I I in a long time. wondered ifl kalledl IbecauseI Ihad been contacted by the Special Counsel?s Office.I I I Iworked on Trump's than did. I [was close with members of theI Ihad some bad dealings withI I Campaign in had more access to Trump Campaign officials lntesiiguiionon 05f03f2018 at Washington, District Of Columbia, United States {Phone} met; I Dntedraited 05f14f2018 b6 by This doetintent eontnins neither i'eeonmtendntions nor conclusions oi'lne FBI. [1 is the ptopeny of the FBI and is loaned to your agency: it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency. FBK 19W1 Himgmm:ssun '1 Of 6' FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Ditto 06f29f2 8 On 2/6/2018, SAI land Assistant Special Counsel Prosecutor Kyle Freeny interviewedl lat the Special Counsel?s Office. Also present for the interview were Iattornevs, I h? I lof [was advised that the interview was voluntary and that at any time he would be permitted to confer with his a proffer agreement. the following infromation: b6 b6 b6 13'3?: b6 b6 136 02f06f2018 Jnited States (In Person} HR: at b'i'E lntest'tgotion on File 4'15 DEIIC dl'EI?This docmueut contains neither reconmtendutious nor conclusions ofthc FBI. [1 is the property of the FBI and is loaned to your agency: it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency. FBK 3;.ng b6 (Rev. ContinuationoFFD-Bnlof wif?a??} Interview Of .011 02f06f2018 .1?21gc b7]! 136 b6 b?C b6 136 b6 - 137:: ContinuationoFFD-Bnlof (Uf?f'Fe'He') Interview Of .011 02f06f2018 .1?21gc 3 Of '5 b6 b6 137(2 b6 b6 13'3?: b6 b6 1:36 1:36 b6 (Rev. b7: Conlinuztlionc-FFD-B?lof (??9959 In'lerView Of .011 02f06f2018 b6 CmanMmu?FDanm?(UffFe?e? Interview Of I .On 02f06f2018 .hmc b7C b6 FD-rmza (Rev. 05-03-10} 137?: b7E CmanMmu?FDanm?(Uf??e?e} Interview Of .On 02f06f2018 .hmc (Rev. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 05f23f2018 On May 4, 2018J telephone number telephonically contacted in preparation for possible testimony at the trial of Paul Manafort in July 2018. Also present were Assistant United States FBI Forensic Accountant the following information; Ipursuant to a federal grand jury subpoena. lntest'tgution on 05/! 14j2018 at File ?5 United States 05fl7f2018 by This decrement neither reemmuendutiws conclusions efthe FBIleaned te- }'eur agency: it and its ee-ntents are net to be distributed outside your agency 137E ,m eeni nimgma:ssun 1 Of 3 - - 1; Dnteofentrj' (U) On 05fl?f2018 Special Agents (sml and Assistant Special Counsel Aaron Zelinksy interviewedl I b7: at 26 Federal Plaza, New York, NY. Also present at the interview were legal counsell ASC Zelinsky admonishedl Ithat the interview was voluntary; it is a crime to lie to the and ASC Zelinksy requested discretion in not revealing the interview to the media. After having been advised the identity of the interviewing Special the following information: {Uhl lmet ROGER STONE throughl lwho came to know STONE afterl I I 157*: (U) I 136 (Uni I b6 {Utl (Uil {Uil b6 (U) DONALD J. TRUMP and STONE would fall in and out of friendship. STONE claimed to have spoken to TRUMP throughout however, STONE b5 called TRUMP TRUMP did not answer. STONE tried to make noise in public and was trying to get back in good graces. STONE lntest'tgutionon 05f17f2018 at New York, New York, United States {In Person) meg thtedraitcd 05f21f2018 b6 by This doeument contains neither nor conclusions ofthe FBI. [1 is the pl?OpCl?l}' of the FBI and is loaned to your agencydistributed outside your agency. FBK 19W1 b6 (Rm: CommunionuFFD-??luf (U) Interview Of .011 .F?ngc 2 Of 3 went on the radio and would do rallies. STONE enacts on people's behalf. (U) I he {Uil b6 {ml 136 b7C b6 {Uil b6 b6 (Rm. Interview Of .On 05f17f2018 3 of 3 not remember any talk regarding statement about, "Russia, if you?re not remember if STONE talked about Russia, Ukraine, or lobbying. :33 {Uil I (U) hE {Uil (Unl I b6 (Unl I I {ml I (R -l of 12- CY. S-R-IU) Dateofentrji' lUleix?ZUlB (U) On 07f31f2018 Special Agentd Iandl I be Intelligence I and Assistant Special Counsel (ASE) Aaron Zelinsky interviewedl at the Special Counsel?s Office in Washington, DC.I I attorney, was also present. ASC Zelinksy admonishedl I that the interview was voluntary; could consult with his attorney at any time; questions are not meant to gather information regarding conversations between nd his attorney; and lying to the FBI is a crime which includes a material false statement and claiming to not remember something when in fact did. After being advised of the identit of the interviewing Special Agents and the nature of the the following information: for a proffer letter, at which point, Zelinksy andl I ha agreed to verbally describe the proffer agreement tol land to print and execute the letter at a break. The proffer agreement was later executed during the interview.] b6 b7: (U) b6 b6 investigation on File 07f31f2018 Washington, District Of Columbia, United States (In Person} b6 Date dra?ed BEIGE-K2018 b'i'C by This (1 to be distributed outside your agency. oetiment contains neither recommendations nor conclusions oftne FBI. [1 is the pi?OpCi?l}' of the FBI and is loaned to your agency: it and its eontents are not (Rm: (U) Interview Of .011 07f31f2018 Jung(U) 137:! I b6 FD-fmza (Rm. 137': (U) Interview Of .011 07f31f2018 Jung b6 (Rm: Communion 0F (if (U 1' Interview Of .011 07f 3 1 f2 0 13 Jung b6 FD-fmza (Rm. {15-11240} b7: (U) Interview Of .011 07f31f2018 Jung; 5 of 12 (U) be 1:7: (U) b6 b7: {Uh b6 13?: (U) b6 13?: (U) I b6 m: (U) 136 137:: b6 (Rm: (U) Interview Of .011 07f31f2018 Jung; Of 12 b6 137$ (U) I 136 137 b6 FD-fmza (Rm. ns-ns-in} (U) Interview Ofl .On 07f31f2018 .1?ngc 13?: b6 136 HR: b6 - - b6 (Rm: b7: b7E (U) Interview 0fl 07f31f2018 .1?ngc b7: b6 FD-fmza (Rm. ns-ns-in} b7: (U) Interview Of .011 07f31f2018 Jung; 9 of 12 (Unl b6 (Rm: Interview Ofl I _On 07f31f2018 .Wmc (U) b6 (Rm; b7C a (U) Interview Of .011 07f31f2018 Jungb7: b6 (Rm: (U) Interview Of .011 07f31f2018 Jungb7C (U) 136 137$ (Rev. -1 of 1- On July 10, 2018, . FBI Special Iattempted to locate and intervie Date of entry 08f13f2018 On July 16, 2018; On July 17, 2018; so] I SA On July 23, 2018, SA contact information for Associate Special Counsel, Ifurther providedl Iwith Aaron Zelinsky. onloi?zoto lni'osi'tgotion on United States (In Person} File to be distributed outside your agency. I?i This doennient contains neither nor conclusions ofthe FBI. [1 is the pl?OpCl1}' of the FBI and is loaned to your agency: it and its contents are not Date drafted 08f06f2018 b7: (Rev. iUt 01 02f06f2018 SA on the At 9:46 AM SA website. -1 of l- tests} 3 left a voicemail for] sent an email to as Iatl I b6 listed b7c (U) Shortly therafter at about 9:54 AM, SAI Ireceived a phone call fro? latl Iidentified himself as lstated that b6 ISAI ?dentified Assistant Special Counsel Aaron Zelinsky and stated that we would reach out to! Ftated that he was meeting with meet with the Special Counsel's Office until the week after. b7C and they would likely not be ab to also 'f there are any conflict issues related to his employment at can have another associate at the interview. on by 02f06f2018 at le?r' District of Columbia, Washington, United States {Phone} b3 Date drafted (HIDE-K2018 b6 This decrement contains neither nor conclusions FBI. [1 is the pnepetty of the FBI and is leaned te- mus' agency: it and its contents are net to be distributed eutstde your agency. FBK 19ml i'o-angtitcx-s-s-tn) 1 Of 1 FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Date of entry 08f15f2017 On AugusL 14, 2OLTJ I work addressl I work Le;ephone number was Lhe naLu:e o: the inLerv;ew Iron a previous inLerv;ew. iniornation: searched Lhel :enLe: a? [who Listedl to: the terml land on his renLa; interviewed lwas wiLh the idenLiLy of Lhe inLerviewi sov;ded the ing agenL and Sound a appiieation. The was opened in eing renLed by has never seen buL has known Lo access I Idid noL know name. I Lhel ?Io: the nanel an he had renLed lin Lhe pasL Ion his :enLaL agreemenL. were rented at Longer :eanl land his :enLai agreement expired in 08114X2017 Washington, District Of Columbia, United States {Phone} Hb? Dmemmkd 08f14f201T by This deeuntent neither sac-r conclusions efthe FBIloaned to year agency: it and its contents are net to be distributed outside your agency -1 of 2- E'D-Siil (Rev. S-R-IU) from FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Dnteofentry U5f3lf2018 On 5123f2018, Senior Assistant Special Counsel Jeanne Rhee, Assistant Special Counsel L. Rush Atkinson and FBI Special Agentl b6 spoke via telephone withl ch I I After speaking withl provided the following information: 306 1376 b6 137C b6 137C A3939 05f23f2018 at Washington, District Of Columbia, United States {Phone2018 it Date dmited If by This doeunient contains neither nor conclusions oflhe FBI. [1 is the pnopeny of the FBI and is loaned to your agency: it and its eontents are not to be distributed outside your agency. (Rm: h? ch (Uf?Fetl'm Telephone interview with 05f23f2018 2 of 2 onlimmlion (if a . Page 136 leC 13711 b6 b6 1371] Ialse told the Special Counsel's Office that on I 137C h?E - . .oso nimgmm:ssun 1 Of 1 FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Date Ofentt'gr 05f07f2018 On Thursday, April 19, 2018, ILand Rover Alexandria, 2?12 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA, telephone number at the Office of the Special Counsel in preparation for b6 . . . . 7 poss1ble testimony at the trial of Paul Manafort in July 2018. Also present were Senior Assistant Special Counsel Andrew Weissmann and FBI Forensic Accountant furnished the following information: has worked in the automobile business since approximately and is Land Rover of Alexandria. eviewed the h6 records for vehicles purchased b? land family b7c Istated the files/deals looked correct. Land Rover of Alexandria does acce wire transfer payments for vehicles purchased/leased; that in his in the b5 business he could not recall ever receiving an overseas wire transfer b?c payment. identified las the salesperson that dealt with the lin Whild lno longer works for Land Rover of b6 Alexandria, greed to follow?up and furnish contact information b7C for her. Note: later furnished the following telephone number for I . . . b6 only interaction with the Manaforts was when b7: The interview notes for the meeting witr have been attached for b6 the file. b7: tit-tomes fess- qu19f2018 at Washington, District Of Columbia, United States (In Person} b6 . . . OdeO 2018 110 A 1 I Date dm?cd If b?l This doeuntent eontnins neither recommendations nor conclusions oflne FBI. [1 is the ptepeny of the FBI and is loaned to your agency: it and its contents tll'c not to be distributed outside your agency. FBK 190.31 278)'469? E'D-Stil rum: 5-8-10) 1 Of 1 FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ofentnThursday, April 19, 2018,] b6 I Alexandria, VA, telephone numberl Iappeared at the Office of the Special Counsel in preparation for possible testimony at the trial of Paul Manafort in July 2018. Also present were Senior Assistant Special Counsel Andrew Weissmann and FBI Forensic Accountantl furnished the following information: 136 136 The interview notes for the meeting with have been Egc attached for the file. qu19f2018 at Washington, District Of Columbia, United States (In Person04f30f2018 I: Date diu?ed hr This doeument eontnins neither reeonnuendtuions nor conclusions oflne FBI. [1 is the property of the FBI and is loaned to your agency: it and its eontents are not to be distributed outside your agency. FBK 190,1 -1 of 4- ?ieti S-R-IU) FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Dwedtmn' Ibornl I social on security account numberl h6 lcellular telephone] I email [was interviewed at her residence by FBI Special Agents landl lThe interview started at approximately 1:10pm and ended at approximately 2:40pm. was familiar with the identity of the interviewing agents and the nature of the interview and provided the following information: h6 h? . . . 1:36 lmc??anml lUfOszUlB an Unlted States (In Person} File thte drafted 101,2 3f2018 This deeument neither sac-r conclusions efthe FBIleaned te- mur agency: it and its contents are net to be distributed outside your agency. I b6 13?: (Rm: (U) Interview of] Idated 103?05 Cominumion c-F gr ?(2018 .011 1 05/2 0 18 .F?ugc 2 of 4 b6 1:6 b6 b6 FD-fmza (Rm. ns-ns-in} (U) Interview of dated .On 10f05f2018 .mmc b6 (Rm: (U) Interview of dated 103?05 CominumionMED-302 gr ?(2018 .On .F?ugc ail 1336 HR: 1 Of 2 Date ofentt'y 08f28f2018 On 8 09/2018, at approximately 7:04pm,l Ibornr__1 I I social security account numberl lcellular telephone email [left a voicemail on the office phone of FBI Special Aqent SAI 08f14f2018 at United States {Phone} me intest'tgution on File thte draitcd 08 5f2018 by This decrement neither sac-r conclusions efthe FBI. [1 is the pnepetty ef the FBI and is leaned te- teus' agency: it and its contents are net to be distributed eutstde your agency. FBK lgC?U'l b6 (Rex: (U) Telephonic interview of: {8 CominumionMED-302 {14/1013} .On X2018 .F?ugc 2 of 2 b6 (Rev. On at approximately -1 of 2- Date of entry 08f28x?2018 social security account numberl Icellular telephone] email Special Agent (8A1 following information: contacted Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) lduring which she provided the I bornI?I lntestigutionon 08/!17f2018 at United States (In Person} FilCii-EI DEIIC dl'EI?Cd 08f25f?2018 mi This doemnent contains neither nor conclusions oflne FBI. [1 is the pl?OpCl?l}' of the FBI and is loaned to your agency: it and its eontents are not to be distributed outside your agency. b6 137:! 136 b7C b6 1:36 136 HR: I36 (Rm: CommunionuFFD-??luf (U) Interview .On .F?ngc 2 Of 2 b6 (Rev. -1 of l- 08f28f2018 I IbornI I social security account he numberI I I Icellular telephone email was interviewed telephonically by Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Special Agent Iin response to two voicemail messages left byI Ifor SAI Ion familiar with the identity of the interviewing agent and provided the following information: 136 . b6 08f20f2018 at unltEd States {Phone} b7C File Date drafted 08525/2018 by This (1 to be distributed outside your agency. ocmnent contains neither recommendations nor conclusions oftnc FBIloaned to your agency: it and its contents are not nimgmm:soun '1 Of 5' Dwedrmn' On 9f12f2018, IbornI I social security account numberl I I Icellular telephoneI Iemaill b6 . b7c was interviewed at her residence by SEI I and SAI I The interview started at approximately 5:15pm and concluded at approximately familiar with identities of the interviewing agents and the nature of the interview, provided the following information: h? b6 b?C b6 b6 lmc??anml 09f12f2018 in United States (In Person} :gc meg I Date dm?cd 10f?1f2018 This document contains neither rceonnuendutious nor conclusions ofthe FBI. [1 is the pnopeity of the FBI and is loaned to your agency: it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency. FBK 19W1 (Rm: (U) Interview of Conlinuztlion c-F FDdated 9f12 . On 09f12f2018 b7C b6 FD-fmza (Rm. ns-ns-in} (U) Interview of dated 91le ConlinuztlionuFFD-??luf {2018 .On 09f12f2018 .F?ngc 3 Of 5 136 137 b6 (Rm: (U) Interview ofl ldated 91le CominumionMED-302 gr ?(2018 .On 03/12/2018 .F?ugc ail 136 1370 1:6 b7C b6 FD-fmza (Rm. {15-11240} (U) Interview ofEdated 91le Cominumion c-F gr ?(2018 .On 093? 12 f2 0 18 .F?ugc 5 of 5 b6 137$ 136 nimgmm:soun '1 Of 3' Dnteofentry On 9f14f2018 at 12:35pm, lborn social securitv account numbed I b6 Icellular telephonel email b7: contacted SAI Ivia telephone during which she provided the following information: b6 On 9514/20l8, at 4:55pmfl lwas interviewed at her residence by SE b6 and SAI was familiar with identities of the interviewing agents! was advised of the nature of the interview and, provided the following information: 136 b6 . . b6 lmesiigiliion?? 09fl4f2018 at United States (Phone, In Person} meg Datedra?cd 10f22f2018 by This doeoment contains neither rceonnuendmions nor conclusions oflhe FBI. [1 is the pnopeny of the FBI and is loaned Io your agency: it and its contents are not to be distribulcd outside your agency b6 (Rm: (U) Interview ofEdated 9fl4 Cominumion c-F gr ?(2018 .On 093? 14 f2 0 18 .F?ugc h?C 136 b7E 190-302;: (Rm. [us?nun} (U) Interview ofl ldated 9fl4 ContinuationMED-302M 2013 DH 09f1?lf2018 3 of 3 . Page b6 b6 1 Of 2 Date ofeniry On lbornl I social security account numberl I h? I [cellular telephone email was interviewed at her residence by FBI Special Agents (SAs) I land was familiar with the identity of the interviewing agents and the nature of the interview and provided the following information: b6 1:16 b7C . . b6 ln'i'csiimiionon 09f19f2018 Elt United Stat?'85 (In Person} meg Date dra?cd 10f23f2018 by This doeuntent contains neither nor conclusions oflne FBI. [1 is the piepeny of the FBI and is loaned to your agency: it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency. FBK 19W1 16 b6 (Rm: (U) Interview ofEdated 91le Cominumion c-F gr ?(2018 .On 018 .F?ugc 2 of 2 b6 136 hi?: b7E r?n-srurncx-s-R-m) 1 Of 2 Dateofentry On 9f4f2018 at approximately 3:34pm] ibord isocial securitv account number cellular telephonel I emaill lwas interviewed after she telephonically contacted lThe call lasted from 3:34pm to 3:59pm. familiar with the identity of the interviewing agent and provided the following informationogre-aiming United States (Phone) ?35 [in-cs: igrluen on :11 filer? Date drafted 10f01f2018 by This document contains neither recommendations nor conclusions ofthe FBI. it is the property of the FBI and is loaned to your agency; it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency. FBI 1 2? 1 8 b6 (Rm: COHIEHIIEIHOH {if (U) InterViEW 04 ldatEd 9f4f2018 .011 ng?qKEOlB 2 Of 2 1 Of 1 FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Dwedrmn' UllefZUlg Idate of birthI Iwas interviewed by phone. Pr esent for the interview were FBI Special AgentI I Assistant Special Counsel Aaron Zelinsky, and FBI Supervisory Special AgentI I [Agent Note: Ihad been served with a grand jury subpoena by FBI Special AgentsI to know what was required of him as a result of receiving a grand jury subpoena. he had already met with four Special Agents from the FBI in Washington D.C. earlier in 2018. Isaid he was currently living inI I Iindicated his plan was toI I he wanted to help the investigation and asked if his appearance before the grand juryI I Isaid the only thing he had responsive to the subpoena wasI I advised he was not a target of the Special Counsel's investigation. his email address was Hess- moon-:1 i-h'r ?xerox-tr- -: lme??anmt 08f20f2018 United States I I Date drafted Olfl2f/2019 by I I This deeument contains neither reeonnuendotions nor conclusions ofthe FBIloaned to }'our agency: it and its eontents are not distributed outside your agency. 1 Of 1 FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Dwedewn' UllefZUlg Idate of birth] I was interviewed by phone. Pr esent for the interview were FBI Special Agent[ land Assistant Special Counsel Aaron Zelinsky. [Agent Note: Ihad been served with a grand jury subpoena by FBI Special Agents] I also could not promise he would be present for a pre-testimony meeting with the investigators. to FBI Special Agents at their first meeting in Washington D.C. i-h'r -: lme??anmt 08f21f2018 E1 United States (Ph0n8} Filc? I DEIIC dl'EI?Cd Olfl2f?2019 n-l I This decrement neither I'CCOl?nl?t?tCt?td?liOl?tS tie-r conclusions efthe FBIleaned te- mur agency: it and its ee-ntents are net to be distributed outside your agencyh?C (Rev. -1 of l- Date of entry ltelephonically and provided the following information: le30f2018 I previously identified, contacted FBI Special more lm'csti File gution on l2f02f2017 at Washington, District Of Columbia, United States {Phone} b6 Date dra?cd by l2f03f201? This docmueut contains neither reconnuendutious nor conclusions oflhe FBI. [1 is the property of the FBI and is loaned to your agency: it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency. 1 Of 2 FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ofentn- 05f23f2 8 On Friday, May 11, 20lB, I telephone b5 number: lemail address:[ rappeared at the Eastern District of New York Federal Courthouse in Central Islip, NY in preparation for possible testimony at the trial of Paul Manafort in July 2018. Also present were Senior Assistant Special Counsel Andrew Weissmann and FBI Forensic Accountant furnished the following information: 136 b6 b6 b6 b6 ln't'csiigttiionon 05f11f2018 at Central Islip, New York, United States (In Person) Hb?l I 05521/2013 b6 ch by This document contains neither sue-r conclusions ofthe FBI. [1 is the pl?OpCl1}' of the FBI and is leaned te- mus' agencydistributed outside your agency. 1 278)?4 2 3 b6 FD-rmza (Rev. 115?113-101 137': May 11, 2018 .On 05f11f2018 JMW 2 of 2 b6 A copy of the interview notes have been attached for the file. ,m ssoi 1 Of 2 - - ,3 Date 08f01f2017 Supervisory Special Agent (SSA) interviewed SSA b5 regarding events surrounding the dismissal of FBI Director James b7: Comey. provided the following information: on osrosrzoisJ As lAt 4:51 the White House Situation Room b7: contacted SIOCI to request Director Comey? 5 email address. SIOC personnel contacted the Director?s Office to obtain authorization to provide the requested information. Authorization was granted after approximately five minutes. Upon being asked whether the Director?s unclassified or classified email was needed, the White House representative advised ?it doesn?t matter, just give us his email address." Thereafter, provided the Director's unclassified, secret and top secret email addresses. At approximately 4:55 the FBI police telephonically contacted SIOC to advise White House Representative Keith Schiller was at an FBI Headquarters checkpoint requesting to deliver a letter. Schiller just showed up without an appointmentl be 1371?. . . . . b7E lAfter briefly speaking to Schiller, Iplaced him on hold and unsuccessfully tried to contact the Director's Chief of Staff, James E. Rybicki. At 5:31 SIOC contacted the White House, verified Schiller's identity and confirmed he was delivering an official letter for the Director. then discussed the matter with Assistant Section Chief b5 I Iwho, at 5:36 contacted the I to deliver the letter to the Director?s office. At approximately 5:38 SIOC and met Schiller at the b5 FBI Visitor?s with Schiller for a few minutes and b7: apologized for the delay. Schiller letter and advised he could open it if necessary; ldid not do so. At approximately 5:41 p. laccess to the Director?s Executive Suite Washington District Of Columbia, United States (In [m-cstiguuonou 0541652017 5.1 PersonO5f1? 2017? not ch b'rl This document contains neither recommendations nor conclusions of the FBI. it is the property of the FBI and is lonned to your agency; it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency. b6 (Rm: 137C CommunionMED-3n: of (U) SSA I .On 05f16f201? .F?ngc 2 Of 2 where he delivered the letter tol IASI Iexited the suite, I b5 commented have just handled history, advisingl Iof news reports of Comey?s firing. tom!? 3 . E'D-Stil (Rev. 1 Of 8 Neve- FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Date ofentn- 04 16x2 0 8 I I date of birth ITelephone Number b5 I IEmail:I Iwas interviewed by Special AgentsI I After being advised of the identities of the interviewing Agents and the nature of the interview, the following information: BACKGROUND b6 b6 parent organization is b6 which is based in Cyprus. IOCO stopped providing money to INVOP, 57C which made INVOP become insolvent. Psy-Group is the business name of INVOP. INVOP is currently going through liquidation and went out of business approximately one and a half months ago.[ IINVOP (hereafter referred to as Psy?Group}. The former employees of Psy?Group do not likeI Ibecause he allowed the company to fall behind on numerous debts totalingl Iis owed two paychecks from Fey-Group. b6 b7: Hose- lnt'esiigotion on 31IUni tad States I1 PE 11?s on 1' b3 Fileii I I Date draited 03525f2018 b6 m1 I . This doeuntent contains neither i'eeonmtendntions nor conclusions oflne FBI. [1 is the pl?OpCi?l}' of the FBI and is loaned to your agency: it and its eontents are not to be distributed outside your agency. b3 FD-Tmza (Rev. 05?03-10} b6 b7: ME I IInterview .On O3f23f2018 .Wmc 2 Of 8 b6 Psy?Group mainly produces OSINT. However, sometimes they buy reports from people. The company consists of many part-time employees who are students. There were only a few full-time employees. The first major project for Psy-Group was a United Arab Emirates online influence project. This project was against the Muslim Brotherhood in France. konnections, helped Psy?Group obtain this contract. Iis very wealthy a lot of wealthy be people. b6 described Psy-Group's activities as doing bad stuff to good people. 1 left Psy?Group indicated the Jcompany closed approximately one and half months ago. 2016 U.S. Presidential Election Proposals and Analysis aware Psy?Group drafted a proposal for the Donald TRUMP b5 . Campaign, but[ Iwas awarel Ihad knowledge of the proposals related to the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election and that he had connections he could leverage to try and fund the not directly aware of any with the proposals or efforts to seek funding for the proposals. Proposals in the company were made I 55 I Some of the larger scale or sensitive proposals were presented tol lwould have been presented the 2016 U.S. Presidential Campaign approve proposals of a b3 {Re-.2 {35-0340} 156 ME IInterview .On O3f23f2018 .Wmc 3 Of 8 sensitive or large nature.I Iwould have meetings where be these proposals would be discussed.I I b7: I Ia company named Intuview. b6 Intuview does sentiment analysis similar to a more popular company called b7: Crimson Hexagon. Sentiment analysis was important for the 2016 Presidential Election proposal because it would allow Psy-Group to understand the perspectives of the targets of influence for the campaign. Psy?Group never ended up working with Intuview because land because Psy-Group never did any work related to the 2016 0.8. Presidential election. viewed a profile sheet identified as PSY000034. b5 acknowledged the report was conducted in the format of Psy-Group reports, b7: Iindicated this profile sheet was likely done byI I there was no way the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election b6 proposals were executed by Psy-Group.l b7: shown a briefing identified as "Trump 2016 Presidential b6 Election - White." DEAR indicated he has never seen this briefing,I I b7: conducted analysis related to the election for marketing purposes. This type of information was within the line of business that Psy?Group operates in, so it was not unusual forI Ito pursue this analytical endeavor.I Ithinks it was b3 b6 .On 03f23f2018 .Wmc 4 Of 8 probably assigned Ito assist them in business b6 development efforts. never mentioned Psy-Group having any involvement in influence activities related to the 2016 U.S. Presidential election. Ihas been involved in a wide range of Pav? Group efforts, including Russia Related Activities of Psy-Group b4 b6 b4 b6 b4 b6 b3 (Rm: b6 b7: I I Cominuztlionc-FFD-??zof .On 03f23f2013 .I??ugc Pay-Group Activities in the U.S. b6 Pay?Group Infrastructure and Modus Operandi b4 b6 (Rev. .On O3f23f2018 .Wmc 6 Of 8 Legal Compliance In every case where Pay?Group has done work, Pay?Group had legal consultation. firmly believes Fey-Group has never broken the law, even if some of the actions of Psy-Group were unethical. Maintaining legal compliance was very important for all employees of Psy?Group. I People who work for Pay-Group b3 (Rm: ni-HH-m} b6 b7: b7E Conlinuztlionc-FFD-??l of Interview .011 Miscellaneous Discussions b6 b6 b3 FD-Tmza (Rev. 05-03-10} 136 WE Conlinuztlion of Interview .011 018 .1?21gc 8 Of 8 {Agent Note: All documents shown shown in an electronic b5 and hard copy 1A). UNCLASSIFIEDHW 1 Of 1 Ease- FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Date ofentt'y 04 03x2 0 8 I Idate of birth ITelephone Number b5 I IEmail: lwas telephonically interviewed b7: by Special Agentl I After being advised of the identity of the interviewing Agent and the nature of the interview, provided the following information: very little information about Psy?Group?s two Russia related b5 contracts they worked throughl I b4 1:16 1373 b4 121$ 137$ not recall any other information related to the Russians or b5 the work done by Rey?Group related to thenn not provide any ch additional information related to the scope of work, how Psy?Group was paid, direct communication between Psy-Group and the Russians, or any connections the Russians had with any United States persons. inyestigutimton 03f26f2018 at Washington, District Of Columbia, United States {Phone} File?r'l I O3f26f2018 b3 b6 by I I site 137E This document contains neither recommendations nor conclusions oflhe FBI. [1 is the pnepetty of the FBI and is loaned to your agency: it and its eontents are not to be distributed outside your agency. 1 Of 4 Dwedbmn' U5f23f2018 I Ipreviouslv identified, was interviewed at] b6 law firm inl Iby FBI Special AgentI SpeCial Counsel Prosecutor Greg Andres. Present during the interview werel I After being advised of the identities of the interviewing parties and the nature of the the following information: E::]was advised that the trial for Paul Manafort was scheduled to b6 begin on July 10, 2018 in Alexandria, Virginia. b? b6 b6 b6 lntestigutionon 05/!16f2018 at United Stat?'85 (In Person} b6 meg I Date drafted 05f18f2018 b7: by I This decrement contains neither conclusions efthe FBI. [1 is the pneperty of the FBI and is leaned te- mur agency. it and its ee-ntents are net to be distributed outside your agency. b6 1:71: CommunionuFFD-??luf (Ul'l lInterview .On 05K16f2018 .F?ngc 2 Of 4 (Rm: b6 1:16 1:170 1:16 1370 1:36 136 137C b6 b6 b6 Fo-fmza (Rm. 1371.1 I CommunionuFFD-??luf (U) ]Interview .On 05K16f2018 .F?ngc Construction holdback funds cannot be used to make mortgage or interest payments on the loans. They can only be used for construction on the property. hS b6 (Rm: {35433-111} I I CommunionuFFD-??luf (U) I lInterview .On 05K16f2018 .F?ngc 4 Of 4 b6 b6 h?C 13713 b6 (Rev. -1 of 3- FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Dnteofentry 04f20f2018 On or about 3f2912018l an employee be received information with potential b7: relevance to the Special Counsel's Office from an individual who at the time wished to remain anonymous. On SAI lthe name :3 I and telephone number I On 3/30 X2018, sol lconducted a telephone interview withl b6 b6 b6 b6 lm'esiigutionon 03f30f2018 at Washington, District Of Columbia, United States {Phone} meg I I Date drafted Odf?E-f2018 This doeumerat contains neither reeonnuendmious nor conclusions oflhe FBI. [1 is the pnopeny of the FBI and is loaned Io your agency: it and its eontenls are not to be distribulcd outside your agency. FBK 19W1 b6 (Rm: 1:171] Interview of: Communion 0F (3F PROTECT I .011 03f 30/2 0 18 .F?ngc b6 FD-fmza (Rm. {15-11240} Interview .On 03f30f2018 img 3 Of 3 b6 b6 137E 1 Of 1 FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Datcofentry 09f22f2017 I be I INew York, New York, was contacted telephonically by ASACI land provided the following information: b6 1:16 (NOTE: Following the telephone conversation, forwarded three h? emails to the writer containing These are attached to this communication). H636- 09j21f2017 at New York, New York, United States (Phone} b6 Date dra?cd 09522/2017 File by This deeumeut contains neither rceonnuendutious nor conclusions ofthe FBI. [1 is the pnoperty of the FBI and is loaned to your agency: it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency. (Rev. -1 of l- FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Dnteefentry 09f28f2017 York, was contacted telephonieally by ASHE New York, New provided the following information: land h? lntest'tgution on 09!] 2 6f2017 at H666 New York, New York, United States tPhone} Date drafted 09523/2017 File I by I This deeumeut neither reemmuendutiws conclusions efthe FBIleaned te- yeur agency: it and its ee-ntents are net to be distributed outside your agency. b6 b6 -1 of 2- ?iewi S-R-IU) FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 05f31f2018 Date of entry (U) On 05fl?f2018 Special Agents (sail and Assistant Special Counsel Aaron Zelinksy interviewedl . at 26 Federal Plaza, New York, NY. Also present at the interview Ilegal counsell I werel IASC Zelinsky admonishedl Ithat the interview was voluntary; it is a crime to lie to the and ABC Zelinsky requested discretion in not revealing the interview to the media. After having been advised the identity of the interviewing Special the following information: {Uil lwas introduced to STONE at a political lprofile of STONE and found STONE function. read thel fascinating. sent the profile tol I (U) Prior to DONALD J. TRUMP's June 2015 declaration of candidacy for President of the United his associates were aware STONE was involved in TRUMP's flirtations with the Presidency. Idid not expect TRUMP would be I STONE President,l was a paid campaign strategist. Neither TRUMP nor STONE disclosed the frequency of contact with each (U) other to] not recall any discussions with STONE regarding finding HILLARY CLINTON's missing emails prior to the public reporting of the hack at the DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE (DNC) and JULIAN ASSANGE claiming to have data in June of 2016. New York, New Yorkr United States {In Person) ln'i'esiiguiion on 51Date drafted Hmul hr I I to be disIr-ibulcd outside your agency. 05f22f2018 b6 b6 b6 b6 b6 136 1371!. b6 This doeumeru contains neither nor conclusions oflhe FBIloaned Io your agency: it and its eontenls are not I be (Rm: b7: CommunionofFD-??lof (U) Interview Ofl I .On .F?ngc 2 Of 2 recalled discussing this prior to the Republic National Convention, but nothing ever came not sure if they discussed PODESTA tweet with b5 STONE. (U) ISTONE discussed how CLINTON 136 was the real criminal. STONE did not talk about the hacked DNC and PODESTA emails. (U) STONE had no discussions Russian interference b5 in the election. Publicly, STONE said it was a hoax. not recollect STONE saying he was in communication with b5 GUCCIFER 2.0. 1375 NH to STONE a few months ago. They have not talked b6 frequently. People have contacted I Iasking to get in touch with b7: STONE. friend, asked for STONE's contact information. did not discuss the Russia investigation with STONE in their recent interactions. (U) STONE has made statements saying he never met CARTER PAGE b6 I the CHRIS HAYES show, PAGE said he met STONE at a book signing. STONE said he could not remember meeting PAGE. b6 IOTA ETD-302 (Rev. 5-8-10b'i'E g; DECLASSIFIED ET: FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ?'22'2020 Date of entry February l1, 201?, JOSEPH MIFSUD, date of birth (DOB) Director, London Academy of Diplomacy, mobile telephone number b5 lemail address was interviewed in the lobby of the Omni Shoreham Hotel, 2500 Calvert Street, NW, Washington, DC 20008. After being advised of the identity of the interviewing Agents and the nature of the interview, MIFSUD provided the following information: MIFSUD lives in London and is the Director of the London Academy of Diplomacy, however, he is also an adviser at the London Centre of International Law Practice (LCILP). After reviewing a photograph provided by the interviewing agents, MIFSUD immediately identified the individual as GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS. PAPADOPOULOS is also a member of LCILP, however, MIFSUD first met him in Rome when PAPADOPOULOS traveled with his boss, NAGI IDRIS, to the Link Campus University in Rome approximately 8 months ago. The meeting had approximately 8 participants and was an informational exchange focused on organizing policy seminars and building a relationship between the University and LCILP. Approximately two months later, MIFSUD met PAPADOPOULCS for the second time when the two had coffee in the UK during the period when PAPADOPOULOS was transitioning from LCILP to a position with the DONALD TRUMP campaign. In addition to MIFSUD and PAPADOPOULOS, OLGA POLENSKAYA, an MBA student from Link Campus University, was at the meeting. POLENSKAYA was in town to meet with IDRIS and MISFUD. There were no other persons, including foreign officials, present. MIFSUD did not believe POLENSKAYA was related to VLADIMIR PUTIN or any other Russian government officials. MIFSUD stated PAPADOPOULOS was interested in foreign policy ideas, recent speech, Israel, migration, Russia, and other geo political subjects. PAPADOPOULOS did not ask MIFSUD to join the TRUMP campaign during this conversation. MIFSUD described the meeting as happenstance. He was at LCILP and saw PAPADOPOULOS there, so they had lunch in the cafeteria, assify On: MW h3 lm-csugn?onon 02f10f2017 at Washington, District Of Columbia, United States (In Person} 136 Hm? 02f15f201T qu by This document contains neither recommendations nor conclusions of lime FBI. [1 is the poopeny of the FBI and is loaned to your agencyoulsidc you agency. b3 FD-fmza (Rm. ns-na-m} 13.73 Continuationc-FFD-B?lof (U?e?e??Interview of JOSEPH MIFSUD .011 O2lef20lT .1?21gc 2 of 2 followed by coffee at the hotel across from LCILP. During lunch andl were also present. b5 MIFSUD stated he had no advance knowledge Russia was in possession of emails from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and, therefore, did not make any offers or proffer any information to PREADOPOULOS. They spoke about cyber security and hacking as a larger issue. PAPADOPOULOS must have misunderstood their conversation. believed ERPRDOPOULOS and may have had a social engagement after the meeting. He also introduced PAPADOPOULOS to IVAN who works at the Russian International Affairs Council, via email. (u%+eese+ MIFSUD has not seen since the UK meeting. He emailed PARADOPOULOS in December about meeting while MIFSUD was in the US, but he did not meet with him. On or about the same time, MIFSUD received an email from PRPADOPOULOS stating he had left the TRUMP campaign. the meeting! MIFSUD emailed one of the interviewing agents with additional information. The email, as well as the photo displayed to are attached to this communication as a 1R. (Rev. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ofentt'gr 03f27f2018 On December 21, 2017, was interviewed under a proffer agreement at 395 E. Street SW, Washington DC. Present for the interview were FBI Special Agentl FBI Forensic and and Senior Assistant Special Counsels (SASC) Zainab Ahmad, Brandon Van Grack, and Andrew Weissman. Also present was attorney! Afterl Iwas advised of the identities of the interviewers, SASC Ahmad explained tol Ithat the interview was voluntary and if at any time he wanted to consult with his counsel he could do so. was advised that he needed to be honest in answering the questions and that making false statements could constitute a federal crime. then provided the following information: Background: met COREY LEWANDOWSKI while working forl They became friends and remained in touch. Approximately In the 2016 election cycle, and then moved to support the DONALD J. TRUMP campaign. Joining the TRUMP campaign: ]joined the TRUMP cam aign in part from efforts. LEWANDOWSKI had offered a positionl Eventually, LEWANDOWSKI askedl lnt'ein File mono? 12f21f2017 at Washington, District Of Columbia, United States (In Person} Date drafted 12522/2017 by This document contains neither reconmtendutions nor conclusions oflne FBI. [1 is the pl?OpCl?l}' of the FBI and is loaned to your agency: it and its contents are not to be di SIi'ibIIlCd outside your agency. -1 of 10- L-?A? b6 Ill-3023 uacr.ns-ns-1n} 1371* Interview Of .On 12f21f201I 2 Of 10 b6 When he joined, be I The campaign?s first event occurred the week after Memorial Day at TOM house. After that time, the campaign signed a fundraising agreement with the REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE (RNC), creating the joint fundraising committee (JEC) called TRUMP VICTORY. provided his description of two types of campaign money: hard money, which he defined as the $2,700 individual campaign contribution limit and soft money being contributions more than $2,?00 which could be given through other organizations outside the core campaign, e.g. political action committees (PACs). did not have a role with any Super PAC. Based on his own one could not raise money for the campaign and a Super PAC and so he understood it would have been illegal for him to have been involved with a Super PAC. defined such as TRUMP VICTORY as part of the stated he viewed TRUMP VICTORY and the official campaign as one. He was not sure of the relationship between the campaign and the TRUMP MAKE AMERICAN GREAT AGAIN COMMITTEE official title within the campaign was Finance Chairman. was unsure of his formal reporting chain, but understood him to be be discussing matters directly with TRUMP and a hybrid of the campaign manager, Jared KUSHNER, and others similarly positioned. not participate in or attend all of these discussions. Fundraising: The efforts for the campaign to build its donor list began with the BARRACK fundraiser, the donors brought by the RNC, and others who reached out to the campaign. I lhad no insight in to the ROMNEY finance b5 operations as he was part ofl l? but knew ROMNEY had a pre?existing network. This contrasted to the TRUMP campaign, which did not come with its own list. When the campaign created JFCs with the RNC, they began to rely on the RNC machinery that was already in place. In that relationship, MNUCHIN's I not aware of anyone on the campaign asking BARRACK to participate or assist in running a Super Paul MANAFORT attempting to (Rm: Cominuztlionc-FFD-S?lof (Ul' Interview Ofl .011 12f21/201T Jung; 3 Of 10 staff a Super or anyone raising concerns about the campaign's relationship with Super PRCs. did not observe anything which concerned him. In May of 2016, the fundraising operation was dormant or non? existent. The only activity was the campaign merchandise store. ITRUMP VICTORY which would allow individuals to give more money, as amounts more than the individual limits could be allocated to the other entities involved in the JEC. I the fundraiser which was held at house in California. Both REINCE PRIEBUS and EISENBERG attended. The BARRACK event was a success I but TRUMP did not want to fundraise in what understood to be the traditional sense. This led to the campaign hosting smaller events at campaign rallies which involved having a separate room where the campaign could organize a photo line and other things for donors. I lspent much of his time working with the RNC. Much of the fundraising mechanics went through the RNC and the campaign would rely on donors and the RNC for events. knew ofl land that he had a role on the RNC finance committee, but knew of him as a donor and viewed that his title was in recognition of his donor role. I had little to do with understanding how much to spend on rallies. Ithought Iwould know more of the expenditure side of things asl did not get involved or deal with expenses. I Iviewed his role as lwould work with MNUCHIN and in order to understand how much money would be coming have participated in understanding how many events were being held or planned. not remember receiving specific fundraising targets; his goal was to raise as much as possible. would occasionally receive checks at events, he would provide those either to RNC staff or RED CURVE. Beyond taking not sure what RED did with the campaign. Campaign Operations: I lboth traveled with the campaign and worked in Trump Tower. He worked onl He would b6 FD-mza (Rev. 05?03-10} HE Interview Of .On l2f2lf201? ng 4 Of 10 interact with others on the campaign staff for various issues, b5 I MANAFORT to have come in to the campaign for delegate b5 matters. LEWANDOWSKI was campaign manager at the start. not recall talking with LEWANDOSKI as to why MANAFORT was brought on to the campaign. b6 not recall any concerns with the campaign?s use of vendors. b5 (At this point there was a short break in the interview.) b6 have interactions with he described them as rare b5 and casual and further stated he may have sat in a meeting or two involving MANAFORT. interacted more with Rick GATES who was around the campaign andl Imore than them both as being very focused on the Republican National Convention in Cleveland ("the convention"). not remember why MANAFORT left and did not understand why he GATES stayed after that point. was that if two people were operating as a package and one goesJr it would seem odd that the other one stayed on. b6 r?o-anza (Rex: PTA ME Interview Ofl I .On l2f2lf201? Jug 5 Of 10 b6 Bundlers: with the RNC to coordinate bundler operations although be they were never able to get the bundler orogram running as much as they wanted. From the RNC, regional managers lwere primarily involved although he later stated he would Ifor details from the list. believed the RNC kept a list of the top recalled Ihe interacted with, but could not recall how they met. bundlers as typically being a person would could not be write their own huge check, but would call 100 others and coordinate their gifts. A bundler would be assigned some sort of ID, which could be included in whatever link or form was used to collect donations so the efforts of the bundler could be tracked. Typically bundlers would be tiered by campaigns based on how much they brought in. The JFCs were created and could collect more money because more entities beyond the campaign were involved. The first tranche of funds from an individual up to the individual campaign limit would be applied to the campaign, the rest to the other entities. When asked why the TRUMP campaign did not disclose their not recall the reason or being part of any discussion to disclose or not, but that that campaign did not have many bundlers. contributions were limited to U.S. Citizens although he be stated he was not aware of what was done to ensure that requirement was met. He did not remembering hearing of any excessive contributions or other campaign finance issues associated with the TRUMP campaign. When it came to the mechanics of the events, the RNC was heavily involved. others wanted to do traditional campaign would work with the RNC which would provide insight into fundraisin events, TRUMP wanted to do rallies. In order to plan the what could be done. The RNC would send invites to potential donors and track the responses. not recall instances of events being planned the other way, where the campaign took the lead regarding donors. Separate from events, would reach out to people he knew, individuals he knew had contributed from b6 FD-rmza (Rev. 05-03-10} 1371 ME Cominuztlionc-FFD-S?lof (UI Interview I .011 12f21/201T Jung; 6 Of 10 Idid not recall how the event was set up as in be driven by the campaign or the RNC and had the same response regarding b7: events he knew were coordinated with I Ibelieves he metI IthroughI I h? has a bundler whoI I 57C Idid not recall howI Icame to be involved with the TRUMP campaign efforts. Emails and Documents: I Iwas shown an email sent toI Ifrom BRAD regarding b5 . (marked Ex I in attached files). I Idid not recall receiving the email, talking with about it, there being a controversy or issue in general. or responding to the email. not interact closely with and later stated his interactions with were similar to his with MANAFORT. He was unsure but believed PARSCALE was involved with digital fundraising. to be based in both the Trump Tower and in Texas. although he was unsure as to when or the context of their meeting. recalled PRINCE wanted to plan an event. knew Erik PRINCE, stating that he met him during the campaign b5 shown an email relating to PRINCE and a fundraising event b5 marked Ex 2 in attached files). This was the but did not believe it actually PRINCE claiming the capability to fill a stadium for the event and that this was a claim did not believe. He further stated he would be skeptical of anyone making that claim. He did not recall what followed the email but just knew the event did not occur. PRINCE calling one or two times a week for fundraising purposes. PRINCE wanted to bundle, but does not remember that occurring PRINCE in Trump Tower, on the 15Lh floor where many people sat, at the end of the campaign. not know why he was dropped from the email chain and why GATES was added. (Note: At this point, SASC weissman left the interview.) shown a copy of data from the Federal Election Commission b5 website detailing TRUMP contributions to his campaign (marked Ex 3 in attached not part of internal discussions leading to contributions to the campaign from candidate TRUMP and was not sure who b6 (Rm: Cominuztlionc-FFD-S?lof (Ul' Interview Of .011 12f21/201T Jung; 7 Of 10 would have been involved. Regarding the four $2 million contributions, he was unsure if the period was designed. Regarding the single $10 million contributionl b6 b6 b6 loll: asked but was not sure of what controls the campaign had in b6 place for foreign, excessive, or other ineligible contributions. (Note: At this point, there was a short break in the interview}. shown an email related to an individual named b5 marked Ex 4 in attached files). (writer's note: original notes from the interview reference another bates stang: reference to ?1949. Writer believes a final was excluded from his notes, appears to be the same email as shown to by interviewers.) shown a copy of an email chain that discusses FELIX EATER b5 . . . 137C marked Ex 5 in attached not recall EATER nor remember b6 PIJ-EUZH 1371* b7C Interview Ofl I .On 12f21/201T me 3 Of 10 TMAGAC until viewing the email during this interview. did not be recall knowing anything about SATER. b7: I lwas shown a copy of an email chain that discusses b5 and attendance at the Republican convention {marked Ex 6 in ch attached files). het knewl land had a lot of money, but was not sure where he was from. Donors would get seats, participate in parties, or special events in recognition of their contributions. not recall if the lunch described in the email occurred, but stated he saw and oke with at the convention and believedEwas withl: ?was unsure if : attended any event or meeting with TRUMP or his family and did not recall if he had spoken since the conventionr unsure ofl Igoals for the requested meeting and stated he only made small talk with shown a letter dated January 10, 2017, from the FEC to be (marked EX b7: in attached files). did not recall seeing the letter prior to the interview. campaign contributions at events, he would simply send them to either the RNC or RED without screening for any compliance matters himself. The RNC would handle contributions in order to track bundlers and build their donor lists but that the contributions would eventually end up with RED CURVE. Most of the time, people from the RNC were at events and could take the contributions there. Otherwise would send the contributions via FedEx or not recall cash donations being common. with STEVE BANNON. He described these as being b5 similar in nature to his interactions with MANAFORT or only surface level conversations about how much money was raised or how an event went. lwas not aware of a BANNON company being paid during the campaign whilel Iknows the I Ibut was not sure if Make America Number 1 was theirs. I lrecalled meetingl Ion the campaign but could not recall the details. ldid not recall having heard of a company called GLITTERING STEEL. b6 Regarding forgiveness of loans to his campaigns, was not part of the conversation and could not place the details of how he learned about it. (Rm: IUterView 0f _On 12f21f201T ng 9 of 10 I Idid not recall details about any of the following vendors: I IMCLRUGHLIN ASSOCIRTES, and LUKENS. He did not recall anyone asking questions about vendors. recalled the being familiar, thinks he may have gone to the RNC but was unsure. had never heard of vendors receiving payment from sources other than the campaign for campaign expenses. not part of digital advertising decisions. Although he knows PARSCALE he does not recall discussing digital fundraising with him. Regarding fundraising, Ireiterated that was an unorthodox cam aicn and unlikel ?clarified he was not involved in the financial operation, but understood it had been building since the timel Ispent his time on the TRUMP campaign working with the RNC and focused on the hard dollars. Regarding bundlers,l was shown two emails sent lreferencing marked Ex 8 in attached files).l lcould not recall who the individual was but recalled the emails because of the lcould not recall if the campaign did anything and did not recall discussions about the specific email shown. lwas unsure of would be involved in the specific email but does not recall himself being a part of the discussion. Later on in the campaign, the fundraising efforts died down andl I Iwas unsure if there were other discussions on materials. was also unsure his name and contact out business cards with that information all over during the campaign. was unsure if he clicked on the links, and could not recall if he accessedl Iseparately from these emails b6 EJTJL Continuationc-FFD-B?lof Interview of .011 l2f2l/?20l? Jung; 10 of 10 knew TRUMP was going to win after observing the reaction at never saw him sleep. I had a job during the transition but did not recall the specific title. His real job during that time wasl I rallies the were like a concert event every time. TRUMP was hiqh? energy and I I Ifurther stated that b5 E'D-Siil (Rev. -1 of 3- FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 02f09f2018 Date of entry [was interviewed bv writer and Forensic Accountant b5 I we I After being advised of the identity of the interviewing Agent and the nature of the interview, provided the following information: b6 Iwas introduced to PSY Group. was introduced to PSY Group throughl h6 b6 h7C PSY Group was headquartered in Cyprus. b6 I The company in ch Cyprus was IOCO Limited (IOCO). was the owner of PSY Group. I was not aware of anyone above at PSY Group. b3 b6 02f08f2018 EH Washington, District Of Columbia, United States (In Person} b?c b7E File Date dra?ed 02503/2018 by This document contains neither nor conclusions eflne FBI. [1 is the pl?OpCl1}' of the FBI and is loaned to your agency: it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency. (Rev. Continuationc-FFD-B?lof IInterview .011 O2f08f2018 Jung; 2 of 3 I or someone from PSY Group visited the U.S. approximately once a month. initially had a contract with PSY Group which probably expired. I PSY Group paidl Public relations firms did not reallv have a code of conduct. Thus PSY Group ran influence campaigns. I Iwanted to run influence b3 (Rm: b6 h'm h7E Cominuztlion of man; of (Ul' Interview .011 02/ '33 f2 0 18 Jung nimgmm:ssun -1 of 11- FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Date 04 f23f2 8 I Ipreviously interviewed, was interviewed at 395 Street SW, Washington D.C., by writer and Forensic Accountant I Iwas represented I Also present during the b6 interview was Senior Assistant Special Counsel (SASC) Zainab Ahmad and h?c SASC Brandon Van Grack. The interview was conducted after a proffer agreement was signed After being advised of the identities of the interviewers and the nature of the interview, rovided the following information: 136 HR: 136 b6 b7: Asses ?neg-?mono? 03f08f2018 at Washington, District Of Columbia, United States (In Person} b3 1:6 File?f Datednt?ed O3f08f2018 137': by This docmnent contains neither reconmtendations nor conclusions oftne FBI. [1 is the pnoperty of the FBI and is loaned to your agency: it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency. FBK 19W1 b3 FD-Tmza (Rev. 05?03-10} 136 Cominuztlionc-FFD-??zof (U) Interview O3/r03/r2018 .011 03f03f2018 .1213; 2 Of ll PSY Group's work included gathering information and using it in on-line influence campaigns. Those two components were "sold b6 separately" to clients. I Iworking with PST Group, they offered both aspects together. 136 1370 136 EN: Regarding political campaigns post 2016, PSY Group conducted a review of the 2016 Presidential election. b6 b3 b6 (Rm: . Page Con?rmationoFFD-B?lof (U I?ter?u?iew Du O3f08/?2018 30f 11 b6 136 1371?. b6 1:36 b6 b3 FD-Tmza (Rex; 05?03-10} 136 137E . Page Communionc-FFD-B?lgf Interview .011 O3XUBK2018 4 of 11 I36 137:! b6 136 137': b6 b6 b7: b6 b3 (Rm: b6 Conlinuztlionc-FFD-B?lof Interview 03f08?f2018 .On 031(08?2018 .1?21gc 5 Of 11 did not know where the PSY Group servers were located. They had a standard office in Israel. b6 b6 13'3?: asked PST Group about campaignJr b6 b6 b7: I b6 Imet through PSY Group. There was nothing they were trying to Imay have requested white papers for PSY Group. Before the electioh, I b6 b3 (Rev. b6 Communionc-FFD-B?lof (U Interview 03f08?f2018 .On 031(08?2018 .1?21gc 6 Of 11 When asked if he was familiar withl 136 HR: 156 b6 the contract with PSY Group, he asked what IOCO was. They said it was a holding company in Cypress. They further explained that GCC states were not thrilled paying in Shekels so IOCO was established. b6 I After Fusion involvement in 2016, Ia meeting for PSY Group b5 7 throudhl (Rm: Conlinuztlion of man; of Interview O3f08f2018 . On 03f08f2018 b3 b6 Jung; 7" Of b6 hG b7C the TRUMP Administration in came up. IPSY Group never mentioned having any connections to It never b6 b6 b6 b6 b7C b3 (Rev. b6 Interview 03/03;2018 Du O3f08/?2018 We 3 of 11 man; b6 b7: b6 136 136 HR: 136 hi?: 136 hi?: b3 b6 (Rm: Interview O3f08f2018 .On O3f08f2018 the best of his knowledge, lowned PSY Group. It has a board b6 made up of founders. b6 Finances was only aware of PSY Group and IOCO. I he (Rev. b3 b6 ominuztlion c-F of (U) Interview O3f08f2018 .On O3f08f2018 ng 10 of ll b6 b6 Iinvited people PSY Group met with or people they wanted to meet. Many were connected to political influenceb7: (Rm: b3 b6 Conlinuztlionc-FFD-S?lof {Ul'l lInterview 03f08?f2018 .011 11 Of 11 AGENT NOTE: All documents shown to will be maintained in a 1A. nimimm:seun '1 Of 3' FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Date ofentn- 10f10f2018 date of birth ISooial Seouritv Numberl I email address Iphone numberl lwas interviewed at his home Ion September 28 2018. Present at the interview were ISpeCial Agentl and Special Agent I lAfter being advised of the identity of the interviewing agents and the purpose of the the following information: b6 1317!: 136 H666- b6 09f28f2018 at United States (In Person} b'ir'C Date drafted 09530/2018 File by This deeument contains neither recommendations nor conclusions eflne FBI. [1 is the pl?OpCl1}' of the FBI and is leaned te- agency: it and its ee-ntents are net to be distributed eutside your agency. b6 FD-Tmza (Rex; 05?03-10} UNCLASSI . Page In'lerView Of .011 09f28f2018 2 of 3 b6 136 hi?: b6 b6 b7: b6 1 b7C i? D-J?zil (REY. ContinuationoFFD-Bnlof Interview Of .011 09f28f2018 .1?21gc 3 Of 3 135 ETD-302 (Rev. 5-8-10) On May 14th 2018 3:00 PM, -l of 2- Date of entry 0Tf17f2018 at the office of Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee's legal counsel, Perkins Coie, T00 Thirteenth Street. Northwest, Suite 600, Washington, District of Columbia 20005, IDate of Birth (DOB) fro? [was interviewed by employees of the Special Counsel's b6 Office. In attendance were Perkins Coie Attorney! Coie Associate Special Agentl and Program IPerkins lFederal Bureau of Investigation Federal Bureau of Investigation Management land Special Counsel Attorney Jessica Romero. After being advised of the identity of the interviewing agents, and purpose of the the following: b6 b7C b6 lmcsiiguiion on File if 05f14f2018 Washington, District Of Columbia, United States (In Person} b6 by Date drafted 05f15f2018 b7: This decrement contains neither sic-r conclusions eflhe FBI. [1 is the pl?OpCl1}' cf the FBI and is loaned to year agency: it and its contents are net to be distributed etitside your agency. b6 (Rm: (U) Interview of .On Jung; 2 of 2 Communion b7: 13:6 1376. roommate-8-1m 1 Of 4 Dateofentn? 09f19f2017 I was interviewed at the Special Counsel?s Office Also present during the interview were he Forensic Accountant! SCO attorneys L. Rush Atkinson, b7: Andrew Weissman and Jeannie Rhee, as well as attorneys representingl I After being advised of the identities of the interviewing Agent, accountant and attorneys, as well as the nature of the interview, provided the following information: b6 h7C I Iwas first introduced to FRB client Michael Cohen I Irecalled he Cohen having a bobblehead pitbull with Cohen's head on it and telling him b7C that he was special counsel to Donald Trump. Cohen also owned taxi medallions and had a real estate consulting practice. Cohen said he advised corporations about potential New York City locations. At the time, Cohen had mortgages and various checking accounts at FRB. The FRB preferred banker for Paul Manafort b6 Washington, District Of Columbia, United States {In 09f0352017 Person} b6 b7C Hm? 09f11f201T by This document contains neither recommendations nor conclusions of the FBI. it is the property of the FBI and is loaned to your agency; it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency. 1 9 1 278)_47 84 (Rm: (U) 302 .On ogxosmon my; 2 of 4 Loan Approval Worksheet (LAW) starting I lwas provided with the Uniform Residential Loan Application does not believe Cohen included his taxi medallion debt as a liability on his financial That If Cohen was a personal guarantor on that taxi medallion debt and did not include statement because Cohen was not a personal guarantor on that debt. is also why the debt did not show up on Cohen's credit report. it on this financial statement, that would have been a material misstatement. ever found out that Cohen provided materially false information or failed to disclose material information to FRB, Cohen's loans would have been immediately called have been "removed from the institution." was provided with the LAW (Rm. [us?nun} h? b7C 302 .On 09f08f201? .Hmc 3 Of 4 b6 I Iwas provided with the LAWI I I I FRB will extend a home equity line of credit (HELOC) of up to Cohen told Egc that his other bank "wanted to be taken out" and he expected to use the proceeds from the HELOC to make additional real estate investments. b6 b6 b7C b6 b6 b6 (Rm: ch CommunionMED-3n: (if (U) 302 .On .F?ngc 4 Of 4 b6 b6 b6 1 Of 4 Duteofentrj' 09f01f2017 DOCUMENT RESTRICTED TO CASE PARTICIPANTS This document contains information that is restricted to case participants. I Itelephone number email address b6 I Iwas interviewed at her place of employment, Washington, D.C. by FBI Special AgentsI I I After being advised of the identities of the interviewing agents and the nature of the interview, provided the following information: advised by the interviewing agents that any materially false b5 statements made to federal agents could constitute a crime. b7: acknowledged her understanding and agreed to answer questions. b6 b6 b6 Washington, District Of Columbia, United States {In 03f0952017 PersonThis document contains neither recommendations nor conclusions of the FBI. it is the property of the FBI and is loaned to your agency; it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency. b6 (Rm: b.7113 CommunionoE?FD-??lof Interview .On 03f09f2017 2 of 4 b6 b6 b6 Mercury did not have a lot of foreign accounts. ECFMU could not recall when Mercury took on the European Center for a b6 Modern Ukraine (ECFMU) as a client. b7: b6 not recall what ECFMU hired Mercury to do, but she believed it had something to do with someone imprisoned in Ukraine. b6 b6 b6 (Rm; Interview .On 08f09f201? .Hmc 3 Of 4 I has not involved in any meetings or phone calls regarding b5 ECFMU. did not believe notes and/or minutes of meetings or phone calls would have been maintained as this was not customary for Mercury. Rick Gates was involved with ECFMU. did not know who Gates was prior to this client. did not know what Gates? role was with this :gc client. Gates may have come to Mercury?s offices. I [telling her Gates was coming. described Gates as a "big shot", butl ldid not recall why. believed Paul Manafort may have come to Mercury?s offices as well, but she could not recall for sureb?C b6 (Rm: b7C (U) Interview .On 03f09f2017 4 of 4 . Page b6 b6 b7: b6 b6 13:6 1376. b6 137E 1 Of 1 FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Ditto 06f04f2018 I Iwas contacted at be lprovided the following information: I Ihad been contacted by an associate of his, I I Ifor Bill Browder. b6 b7: According to b6 b6 A3686- 05f30f2018 at Washington, District Of Columbia, United States {Phone} 136 nor 05530/2013 ch hr b7E This contains ncitncr rcconnucndatious nor conclusions ofthc FBI. [1 is the pl?OpCl?l}' of the FBI and is loaned to your agency: it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency. 1 1 Of 1 Dnteofentry U5f06f2018 b3 b6 telephonieally contacted Special Agen and after being advised of the identity of the interviewing Agent, provided the following information: . . b3 was served by the FBI With a grand Jury subpoena b6 to appear in Washington DClntest'mttimton 04f16f2018 at United States b6 by This docmnent contains neither nor conclusions ofthc FBI. [1 is the pnopetty of the FBI and is loaned to your agency: it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency. 1 Of 1 Date ofentt'y DEX27K2018 Cassandra Ford was interviewed the FBI on The hard copies of the notes taken by during the interview will be be attached and maintained in the 1A Section of the file. ln'i'csiigitiionon 06f27f2018 at Washington, District Of Columbia, United States (In Person} 1:16 File i5 Date dra?ed 061'273?2018 hr This deetiment contains neither i'eemmnendatimts ne-r conclusions eflne FBI. [1 is the ptepeny of the FBI and is loaned to yeur agency: it and its ee-ntents are net to be distributed eutside your agency. moraines-seam 1 Of 4 FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Date 10f10f2018 On Friday, September 21 2018, Cassandra Ford, left a message on the voicemail of Assistant Special Counsel (ASC) Kyle Freeny stating that Ford had information she wished to pass along to the Special Counsel's Office (SOD). On Friday, September 21 2018, ASC Freeny contacted Ford?s attorney and gained consent for the SCO to speak with Ford without an attorney present. On Monday, September 24 2018, ASC Freeny and Special Agent Ford atl I after notifying Ford of the nature of the interview and consent of Ford's attorney, confirming that she did not wish her attorney to be present, Ford stated the following: Ford was concerned about Ford Washington, District Of Columbia, United States (Phone, [m-cstigauonon 09f24f2018 :11 Email} File ti I I DEIIC dl'?l?This document contains neither recommendations nor conclusions of the FBI. it is the property of the FBI and is loaned to your agency; it and its contents are not distributed outside your agency. 9W 1 2 95 (Rev. Continuationc-FFD-B?lof Interview of FORD .011 09f2?1f2018 .1?21gc 2 of 4 Ford belleved b6 b7: b6 b6 b6 Ford followed up! to ASS Freeny and SA 136 i375 (Rm: ContinuationoFFD-B?lor Interview of FORD .011 09f2?1f2018 .1?21gc 3 of 4 b6 b6 b6 (Rev. ContinuationoFFD-B?lor (HEW Interview of FORD .011 09f2?1f2018 .1?21gc 4 of 4 b6 if?: 136 -1 of 2- (Rev. frees? FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Date ofentt'y 11f03f201? I [was contacted at his residence on lDf3leOlT by ASAC I land provided the following information: 1:36 137': 13713 b6 b6 frette- 10f31f2017 at United States {In Person) b6 File thte drafted 1 1 ?023,201? lntest'tgution on by This decrement contains neither reeonnuendutious nor conclusions ofthe FBI. [1 is the pnopeity of the FBI and is loaned to your agency. it and its eontents are not to be distributed outside your agency. b6 (Rev. Interview oonn 10 CommunionMED-3n: 0F .On .F?ngc 2 Of 2 b6 leC 13711 Iprovided the writer with b5 I nimgmm:ieun '1 Of 3' FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Date ofenzn- 08f31f2017 b6 1371] Contact was contacted at their residence on 7f13/2017 by the undersigned and BIA Iprovided the following information: b6 b6 b7: 136 137C Hover lni'esiiguiionon at IUI?litEd States (In Person} File if Date drafted 4 137E by This decrement eenmins neither i'eemmuendmions sue-r conclusions eflhe FBI. [1 is the pnepeny of the FBI and is loaned to yeur agencydistribulcd outside your agency. 1 b6 FD-Tmza (Rev. 05?03-10} b7: ContinuationoFFD-Bnlof (Uh fable} Interview Of .011 OTX13K201T .1?21gc 2of3 b6 b6 136 leC 13711 b6 (Rm: ContinuationoFFD-Bnlof (Uffw Interview Ofl I .On OTX13K201T .1?21gc 1 Of 1 FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Date ofenzn- 09f06f2017 Contactl was contacted at their residence on 7f21/2017 b6 by ASACI and BIA provided b7: the following information: b6 137D 137D b6 b6 136 hi?: H686- lni'esiiguiionon O7E21X2017 at United States (In Person} b6 meg Date drafted 09f05ff201? 137E by This deeument eenmins neither recommendations sue-r conclusions eflhe FBI. [1 is the pnepeny of the FBI and is loaned to yeur agencydisu'ibulcd emside your agency. FBK 19Wi 278)'4804 1 Of 2 FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Date ofenzn- 09f05f2017 Contact was telephoned by HERE: and b5 137D provided the following information: b6 b6 b6 hi5 b6 137C {-9636- ln'i'esiigutionen O7E31X2017 at I States (Prion-E} meg I Date drafted OTI31K2017 by This deeument eenmins neither i'eemmuendmiens sue-r conclusions eflhe FBI. [1 is the pnepeny ef the FBI and is loaned to year agency: it and its ee-ntenls are net 10 be disu'ibuled emside your agency. FBK lgCV1 278)'4805 b6 FD-rmza (Rev. 05-03-10} 3375'- (Uff-Fe-H-e? Interview of: on CommunionMED-3n: an? 31?1? .011 07f31f201? .F?ngc 2 Of 2 136 leC 13711 1 Of 1 FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Date ofentt'y 09f06f2017 136 On 8f2/2017, the undersigned spoke to telephonieally. Iprovided the following information: b6 b6 b6 b6 H636- 08j02f2017 at States (Prion-E} meg Date drafted 08f22ff201? l?I by This deeumeut contains neither recommendations conclusions efthe FBI. [1 is the pl?OpCl1}' of the FBI and is leaned te- yeur agency: it and its ee-ntents are net to be distributed outside your agency. 1 9W3. 2?8)?480? (Rev. 1 Of 1 FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Date ofenu'y 09f06f2017 I was contacted by telephone on 8f2l/2Ul? by b5 hi": I land provided the following information: 1371) 1'36 b6 b6 b6 HIM.E Date dra?cd 091'063?201? ln'i'esiigaiionon 08j21f2017 at United States (Prion-E} by This doeomeut contains neither rceonnuendalions nor conclusions oflhe FBI. [1 is the pnepeny of the FBI and is loaned Io your agencydistribulcd outside your agency. 1 Of 1 FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Date ofentn- 09f12f2017 b6 I . and Ion 8f?f201?. preVided the fellOWing I lwas contacted at his residence by HSAC information at that time: b6 b6 frette- at United States (In Person} I b7E by This deeument neither nor conclusions efthe FBI. [1 is the pl?OpCi?l}' of the FBI and is leaned te- mus' agency: it and its ee-ntents are net to be distributed mustde your agency. '1 Of 3' from:- FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Date ofenzn- 09f12f2017 136 hi?: ltelephonioally contacted ASHE Ion 9/5 ?201? and provided the following information: I b6 136 1370 h?D b6 136 137C b6 if?: 1371] b6 H666- lni'esiiguiionon 09j05f2017 at lUnited States (Prion-E} :3 meg Date drafted 09X12K201T 1373 by This deeunient eenmins neither sue-r conclusions eflhe FBI. [1 is the pl?OpCl1}' of the FBI and is loaned to )?Glli' agencydistribulcd e-ulside your agency. b6 FD-rmza (Rev. 05-03-10} b7C Interview oonn 9 CommunionuFFD-??luf ?53,201? .011 .F?ngc 2 Of 3 b6 1371] 1:36 137C b6 1:36 b6 136 leC 13711 b6 . b7: 1* D-J?ll (Rm. (Uf?FeH-e-} Interview oonn 9 CommunionuFFD-??luf ?53,201? .011 .F?ngc 3 Of 3 b6 (Rev. -l of l- FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Dnteofentn? 07f03f2017 (U) On or about 06f30f201? Special Agent linterviewed I lat Regus New York (Regus), 590 Madison Avenue, 2lst Floor, New York, NY. After being advised of the identity of the Special Agent, provided the following information: (ml (U) Regus has about 200 mailbox onl customers. Regus maintains logs of client?s office usage, not at liberty to provide logs to SA LI queried the local office records and only found Istated that the older records were expunged and unavailable to her. directed SA to Regus Corporate office in Texas for logs and billing records. asked for a point of contact for legal process but was unable to make contact. (U) attempted to call one of Regus? directors, SA left a hand-written note with contact information an stated that the inquiry was in reference to Hose tm-cstigntionon 06130;?2017 at New York, New York, United States (In Person} Filett.E Date dm?ed by This deeument contains neither nor conclusions eflne FBI. [1 is the ptepeny of the FBI and is loaned to yeur agency: it and its ee-ntents are net to be distributed muside your agency aimgmm sou? '1 Of 9' morass: FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Date 09f2lf2017 DOCUMENT RESTRICTED TO CASE PARTICIPANTS This document contains information that is restricted to case participants. . b6 On August 22, 2017, Idate of birth b7: was interviewed at the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), Washington DC. She was accompanied by her attorneyl land co?counsel, present were Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Supervisory Special Agent Special Agentl I Senior Assistant to the Special Counsel Andrew Weissmann and Greg Andres, and Assistant Special Counsel Brian Richardson. Proffer Agreement: Prior to being asked any questions, SCO Weissmann read and explained the Proffer Agreement to[ land b5 meet with her attorney and for end the Froffer Agreement at any time. ch After acknowledging her understanding of the Proffer Agreement, two identical copies were executed. SCO Weissman also to the FBI was a violation of federal and stated she understood. provided the following information: h6 b7c b6 b7c Washington, District Of Columbia, United States {In 03f2252017 Person} Hm? 08f23f201T b6 b7: by This document contains neither recommendations nor conclusions of the FBI. it is the propeitjt' of the FBI and is loaned to your agency; it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency. F8311 2 7 8 4822 b6 190-3022: (Rev. [Is?na-m} bl?: IProffer 22! 201? .On 08f22f201? .Hmc 2 Of 9 There are approximatelyr__]senior professionals at b6 h?C PG does not bill hourly, but generally works by retainer. Most overseas clients are billed three months in advance. The pricing depends on the workload and the objective of the client. I IThe PG client manager is responsible for the day to day support and interactions. I Some clients are referred to PG by third parties, sometimes called findersf or via a request for proposal process (RFP). Some ?finders" are paid a fee for the referral. With regards to the Ukraine, Ibelievedl lreceived a call from Rick Gates (Gates) orl lregarding a potential client.l [at Mercury, a public strategy firm. b6 Prior to this call, Ibelieved Mercury had already been engaged with P70 Gates for work on this matter.[ Gates was hiring Mercury and Podesta to work for a client. It was not unusual for a client to hire lobbyists to persuade Democratic (Podesta) and Republican (Mercury) government representatives. b6 Gates was looking for people with international communication expertise within government relations (GR) and public relations (PR). Based upon information she received initially be Ishe understood that the work PG would ch be doing was for the Centre for a Modern Ukraine the Centre was in the process of being was b6 (Rm: IProffer 22! 201? .On 08f22f201? .Hmc 3 Of 9 that Gates was the person helping create the Centre. b6 b6 b7: When Gates approached PG in 2012, PG did not have outside compliance counsel.l I ha Gates and Manafort were political consultants who worked for a political party in the Ukraine. b6 asked what she thought Gates, Manafort and relationship was to the Centre. Ibelieved they were responsible for creating the Centre.l lknew Gates and Manafort worked together, but she believed there wasI Imeetings with Manafort b6 primary contact for this client was Gates. th was asked what she thought the relationship between the Government of Ukraine, who Gates, Manafort and DMPI represented, and the Centre was. said it was not unusual for a client to create an entity for work they wanted done. b6 FD-rmza (Rev. 05-03-10} b7C Proffer 22! 201? .On 08f22f201? .Hmc 4 Of 9 said . . . she did not understand what the relationship between Gates, Manafort, DMPI, the Government of Ukraine and the Centre was. At some point, understood that the Centre was being directed by and for the benefit of the Ukrainian government and that actual client was the Ukrainian government. I lwas told by Gates that the Centre was run by a woman namedl I Iandl Iother board membersIInitially, both Gates andl Iseemed to agree to file under FARR. b6 (Rm: 13?: 137E lProffer CommunionoFFD-??lof 22! 201? .On 08f22f201? .F?ngc 5 Of 9 I [noted thatl I Mercury filed an LDA prior to consulting with Ed] be I I After Mercury filed under LDA, Gates said he wanted the filings by both PG and Mercury to be consistent. b6 noted if it had been any other client originator besides b5 FARA would have been filed. it should have been filed under FARA since day one. The client was a foreign entity and therefore PARA was reguired. Inoted thatl was asked what the difference between filing under LDA and FARA ch was. stated PARA filings require more transparency into the specific lobbying activities done on behalf of the client. Sometimes, clients don?t want PARA filed because it reveals their activities PG was not afraid of filing FARA. noted PG did incomplete LDA filings each quarter because they could not complete the second page which required affiliated organizations h? and information about the client?s noted that each h7c quarter; the LDA was sent to Gates for the client?s signature. I (Rev. gr 22: 2017 (Ux?r?h-E-S-l-I Proffer I), 08f22f201shown an attestation letter opinion letter prepared by Skadden letter the Centre was not ?supervised, directed, subsidized in whole or in major part by a signed by controlled, or a foreign political party." financed, Dr and a draft which contained language that government of a foreign country knew the two factual issues were who was the Centre financed by and who was the principal beneficiary. The attestation letter was provided to Skadden and Skadden prepared an opinion letter saying Mercury could file under LDA as opposed to PARA based upon the information in the attestation letter. think she had ever seen the final copy. has seen the draft copy of the Skadden letter, at the Centre regarding the information in the attestation letter. but did not Skadden did not represent inever spoke withl IOI anyone For example, recalled a time when Gates was unhappy with PG b6 b6 b6 b6 (Rm: Communionc-FFD-??z gr 22: 2017 (wage-1 Proffer . On ng of 9 regarding I 1 with Gates. out tel had been paid, butl Itold lthdught something was going on She learned that DMPI was getting paid, but not paying PG. that Gates and Manafort Ihad not seen them in weeks FD-mza (Rev. IProffer CommunionuFFD-??luf 22! 201? .On 08f22f201? .F?ngc 8 Of 9 knew Gates worked with Manafort. Inoted that Manafort advised the President (of Ukraine). ldid not think Manafort dealt with the client managers, Not only was Gates the point of contact for contract negotiations and payment, Gates also provided direction to activities for the client. Gates wrote the ?statement of work? for PG. Gates was difficult to work with and he did not seem appreciative of work. She was not sure why the Centre was in Brussels except that I Isaid the Centre was not the real client, but the client was in fact the Government of Ukraineh?C b6 (HM-heal lProffer 22! 201? .On 08f22f201? .Hmc 9 Of 9 I not think people understood clearly be b7C enough who the real client was. b6 b6 hG b6 1 Of 2 FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Dntcofentry On Friday, May 11, 2018, were interviewed telephonically in preparation for possible testimony at the trial of Paul Manafort in July 20l8. Also present during the interview were Senior Assistant Special Counsel Andrew Weissmann and FBI Forensic Accountant furnished the following information: As previously stated to the Office of the Special Counsel during a July 201? interview, b5 As also previously stated, b6 136 136 1371?. 136 Hi?: memes foss- lnt'est'tgotionon 05/!11f2018 at lUnited Stat?'85 {Phone} :2 meg 05f24tf2018 by This contains neither nor conclusions ofthc FBI. [1 is the ptcperty of the FBI and is loaned to your agency: it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency. 9w1278)?4831 (Rm: (UK I b6 Cominuztlion 0F UPI _On 05511/2 013 Ji?gc 2 of 2 1373 b6 I36 137:! A copy of the interview notes have been attached for the file. t?x ,m ssoi nimgmm:ssun 1 Of 4 - - 1, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION lel?f2018 DOCUMENT RESTRICTED TO CASE PARTICIPANTS This document contains information that is restricted to case participants. date of birthl lsocial security account he numbe was interviewed by FBI Special Agentl I b7: Forensic Accountant land Special Counsel Prosecutor Greg Andres. Present during the interview was counsel forl I I?fter being advised of the identities of the interviewing agents and the nature of the the following information: advised that his interview was voluntary and if he chose to b5 answer questions he needed to be honest in his responses as lying to an FBI agent could constitute a crime. Background b6 met Richard Gates aroundl lhad heard of Gates prior to that time, but did not meet him until later. Inever met Paul Manafort, but thought that Manafortl with Cohen at some time. He could not recall exactly when, and does not known when b5 Manafort and Cohen first met. Gates worked with Manafort. He thought the ch Gates/Manafort relationship was simila? Gates was Manafort?s right?hand man and Gates handled the operations. If mainly communicated with [via telephone and email.? Gates and Cohen/Cohen family were business partners in Jupiter Venture Partners LLC, Jupiter Holdings Management LLC (collectively, Jupiter), and could not recall who owned Global Sites LLC :3 Asses 12f06f2017 at Washington, District Of Columbia, United States (In Person12f08f2DlT 1. HO I: Date drafted I b'i'E by This docmnent contains neither recommendations nor conclusions oflnc FBI. [1 is the ptopeny of the FBI and is loaned to your agency: it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency. FBIC 196,1 278)'4833 b6 FD-Tmza (Rev. 05?03-10} b7: Continuation MED-392 of .011 12/06f2 017? $ch 2 of 4 {Global Sites) He also be did not known when these entities were established. I b6 b6 b6 136 1371?. b6 b6 1 (Rex: nuns-m} Interview .On l2f06f201? .?mc 3 of 4 Cohen was interested in a company called ID Watchdog, which is an identity protection firm. Cohen and Gates formed a partnership called Jupiter Holdings Management LLC, which invested in Jupiter Venture Partners LLC. Jupiter venture Partners LLC also had some outside investors who invested through the brokerage firm Laidlaw and Company. Cohen could not recall the names of the outside investors. b5 not recall how or when Gates and Cohen decided to invest in ID Watchdog together, and whether it was Gates or Cohen who decided to invest in ID Watchdog via Jupiter. Prior to forming Jupiter with Gates, Cohen had invested in ID Watchdog on his own. Icould not remember b5 how Gates After Cohen passed away in 2014,l b6 b6 b6 b6 b6 FD-rmza (Rev. 05-03-10} 137: . Page Cominuztlion man; of (Ul' Interview .011 12f 06f? of 4 136 1371?. b6 b6 b6 b6 I: did not recognize the name : and could not think of be anything else that the interviewing agents Should know. b7: 1 Of 1 FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Ditto 08f 10x2 0 17' On Tuesday, August 8, 2017,] be contacted Senior Financial ch Investigator Office of the Special Counsel, and furnished the following information: b6 b7: (NOTE: A copy of that notification was furnished by on however, another copy is attached for the file. While the notification is signed by it is not dated.) b6 UNCLASS Has-s- tm-cstigntionon 08108;?2017 at Washington, District Of Columbia, United States {Phone} b6 Fileii Dotcdra?cd 08f09f2017? by This docmueut contains neither reconnuendutious nor conclusions ofthc FBI. [1 is the picpeity of the FBI and is loaned to your agency: it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency. 1 Of 1 FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ofentn- 09f12f2017 I [was 335 contacted at her offices at Iby ASAC : and SIAI provided the following information: I [was asked about her time working for b6 from:- on 08j08f2017 at United States (In Person09f06f2017" it Date dnu?cd by This decrement neither sac-r conclusions eflhe FBI. [1 is the ptepeny of the FBI and is loaned to year agency: it and its ee-ntents are net to be distributed etitside your agency. FBK 190.51 278)-4838 1 Of 1 FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Dore 08f24f2017 _On Au uat 16, 201T,l date of birth iwork addressl cellular h3 telephone number] [was interviewed telephonioally. was :gc already aware of the identities of the interviewing agents and the nature of the interview. provided the following information: b3 b6 . . 1:13 ln?tCSIig?IiD? on 08/1 1&{2017 at United States {Phone} 135 Fileii Date dra?cd 081'223?201? b7C b7E by This contains neither reconnumdutious nor conclusions ofthc FBI. [1 is the ptoperty of the FBI and is loaned to your agency: it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency. FBK 1 1 1 Of 1 FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Dnteofentn? On or around October 16, 2018, Forensic Accountantl telelphonically interviewed lprovided the following information: Regarding loans to Manafort, the only loanl Iwas aware of was from I was not aware of any gifts or loans to Manafort in 201?. Handwritten interview notes are maintained in a 1A envelope. Hove- lntest'tgutionmt 10f16f2018 at Washington, District Of Columbia, United States {Phone} Ir?ilett.E Date dm?ed 10f17f2018 by This doeumeut contains neither reeonnuendutious nor conclusions ofthe FBI. [1 is the pl?OpCl1}' of the FBI and is loaned to your agency. it and its eontents are not distributed outside your agency. FBK 1 roam (Rey. 5-8-10) 1 Of 1 FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Date ofcnu'y le15f2019 On izx?zi/zois, date of birth (ooa) Iwas contacted telephonically by FBI Special Agentl I l:lprovided the following information: b6 file #1 Date drafted 1 5 if 2 9 by This document contains neither recommendations nor conclusions ofthe FBI. it is the property of the FBI and is loaned to your agency; it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency. FBI 1 909' 1 84 3 (Rev. -l of l- Dntcofentn? 07f19f2018 date of birth lwas contacted b5 telephonically by FBI Special Agent I Also present for the b7: conversation was Special Agent! provided the following information: b6 b6 b6 1:16 1370 ln?i'CSIigiliionon 07f18f2018 at Washington, District Of Columbia, United States {PhoneOTfl9f2DlB Hle I: Date dm?cd I This deeuntent eentnins neither I'CCOl?nl?l?tCl'td?liOl?tS nc-r conclusions eflne FBI. [1 is the ptepeny of the FBI and is loaned to year agency: it and its contents tll'c net to be distributed etitside your agency. FBI 1 9W1 278)-4848 1 Of 1 07f16f2018 date of birth Iwas contacted b5 telephonically by FBI Special Agentl IAlso present for the conversation was Special Agentl provided the following information: b6 b7: b6 b6 b6 07f09f2018 at Washington, District Of Columbia, United States {Phone} File Li Date dra?ed 07" 1 lf2018 b6 by This document contains neither nor conclusions oflnc FBI. [1 is the pneperty of the FBI and is loaned to your agency. it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency. Patti 9w1278)?4849 roan). (Rev. 1 Of 1 Dntcofentry UlfleZUlg On January 16, 2019 at approximately 1:30 PM, Special b6 a phone call from Jeffery D. Gordon, from telephone number b7: I previously left a message for Gordon on his cell phone, and advised that the Special Counsel's Office wished to speak with him again. Gordon said he would be willing to participate in another interview but wanted to speak with his attorney prior to doing so. Gordon asked whether or not his status has changed as a subject in an investigation and SA that it remained the same as before. told Gordon b6 the Special Counsel's Office wished to speak with him more about the Ukrainian platform change. Gordon said he had seen recent news reports about Konstantin Kilimnik having taken credit for the platform change, which are not true. Gordon advised he would speak with his attorney and notify be doing so. b7: 01f16f2019 at Washington, District Of Columbia, United States {Phone} Fileii I I Dotedra?cd Olf18f2019 b6 b?l I This document contains neither nor conclusions ofthe FBI. [1 is the property of the FBI and is loaned to your agency. it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency. mam. (Rev. 5-8-10) 1 Of 1 Date ofentn- 02f05f2019 On February 5, 2019, FBI Special Ireceived a b5 telephone call from J.D. Gordon. Gordon advised] b7: would require him to travel and be out of the area for the remainder of this week. An interview with Gordon was scheduled for February 7, 2019 and he requested that it be postponed until February 14, 2019 at 1:00 PM, at the Washington Field Office. 02f05f2019 at Washington, District Of Columbia, United States {Phone02f05f2019 Hletr I I Datedmitcd b?l I This decrement neither sue-r conclusions efthe FBI. [1 is the pl?OpCl1}' ef the FBI and is leaned te- mus' agencydistributed eutstde your agency. -l of 2- (Rev. 5-8-10) Hi.- -: Date ofentt'gr 03f20f2019 Jeffrey D. Gordon, aka J.D. Gordon, date of birthI I was b6 interviewed over the telephone on March 18, 2019. Present with Gordon on b7: the call was his attorney, I telephone number I Itelephoned the Special Counsel's Office at approximately 2:00 PM and placed his phone on speakerphone so that he and Gordon could both participate in the interview. Present from the Special Counsel?s Office were Senior Assistant Special Counsel Jeannie Rhee, and Supervisory Intelligence Special Agent SASC Rhee also placed her phone on speakerphone. SASC Rhee advised Gordon that the same ground rules applied for this interview as they did in previous ones, and that intentional false statements to FBI Agents would be a violation of criminal law. Gordon said he understood and then inquired as to what his current status was in terms of being a target of the investigation. SASC Rhee relayed that Gordon?s status had not changed since his last interview and that he was not considered a target in the investigation. Gordon then stated that his memory was good but not perfect and that he would do his best to answer the questions in the best way his memory would allow. Gordon was asked whether or not anyone had asked him to leave early from the Republican National Convention in July 2016. Gordon responded no, and added that he had actually attended the full two weeks of the convention. On the Saturday prior, which he believed to be July 9th, 2016, Gordon rented a car in Washington, DC and drove straight to Cleveland for the convention. Gordon stayed at the Westin hotel for the first week and on the following Saturday [July 16, 2016], he transferred to a Super 8 motel located outside of Cleveland. Trump and his entourage came to the convention during the second week and therefore Gordon was unable to stay at the Westin for both weeks. Gordon was asked whether he had any recollection of someone asking him to leave the convention early. Gordon said no, and then inquired as to whether or not someone had said that in a separate interview. Gordon was not provided with an answer to his question. Gordon then recalled an lnt'osiigutionon 03f18f2019 at Washington, District Of Columbia, United States {Phone} File 4: [m dram This docmnent contains neither nor conclusions oflne FBI. [1 is the pmpeny of the FBI and is loaned to your agents)". it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency. I I 137E (Rm: (U) Telephone call with JD Gordon on SKIS Communion of of ?2019 .On 033? 18 f2 0 19 .F?ugc 2 of 2 incident where John Mashburn had asked him to track down and locate various individuals who were working with them during the convention. Gordon remembered Mashburn saying something the effect of, "if we can?t find them then we?ll just send them home." Gordon said he remembered that but did not recall any incident in which someone had told him to go home early. Gordon was asked whether or not anyone at the RNC had expressed disapproval with him as a result of his efforts on the Ukraine platform change. Gordon said the only thing he could recall was that Mashburn had voiced his opinion about removing certain words related to the two state solution for Israel. Gordon was then asked if he had any recollection of anyone asking him to leave early as a result of that particular topic. Gordon said he recalled an incident where Rick Dearborn had seen the Israeli two state solution surface on CNN and he was upset that Gordon had not flagged the issue for them. Dearborn raised his finger at Gordon and motioned for him to come over and speak with him. Dearborn asked Gordon why he didn?t flag the issue for them and Gordon responded that he didn?t feel it was an issue that Donald Trump wanted to intervene in, so he didn?t write it down. Gordon further explained that if he felt an issue wasn?t worth interfering in, then his opinion was to just leave it to the delegates and let them fight it out. ]observed the heated b6 conversation between Dearborn and Gordon so he walked over to them and Dearborn began yelling atl Iended up putting his arm on Dearborn?s shoulder and eventually Dearborn calmed down. Gordon subsequently provided Dearborn with talking points related to the two state solution for Israel. Gordon said there were approximately five or six people who were standing in close proximity of his conversation with Dearborn and he wouldn't be surprised if one of them remembered some tension during their interactions. Gordon added that the conversation was only pertained to the two state solution however and had nothing to do with the Ukraine platform amendment. 1 Of 1 FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Date ofentt'y 08f22f2017 On August 21, 2017, ssa] contacted J.D. oosoow on his b6 cellular phone number I GORDON advised that he was land would be back in town next week. GORDON agreed to be interviewed by the FBI on Tuesday, August 29, 201? and stated he would be happy to assist with the FBI's investigation. GORDON requested that the meeting time and place be relayed to him via text message to his cellular phone number. tm-cstigutionon at Washington, District Of Columbia, United States {Phone} File?r'l I Dotedra?ed 08f22ff2017? b6 by I This doenment eontnins neither nor conclusions oflne FBI. [1 is the pnopetty of the FBI and is loaned to your agency: it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency. 1 Of 2 Date ofcnti'y 09f06f2017 (U) On JEFFREY D. GORDON contacted ssal Ivia b5 telephone in response to a confirmation of his interview on 08f29 K201T. GORDON explained that he had spent lots of money on an attorney and did not want to bring his attorney to the interview if he did not need to. that was up to GORDON but the questions would probably be similar to those asked by the Senate and House committees. (U) GORDON explained that he didn?t do anything wrong and was happy to cooperate with the FBI. GORDON also explained the TRUMP team treats people terribly and they should not have lied about their Russian contacts. GORDON stated that of course they had talked to the Russians. All their Russian contacts were benign and the team should just have said that. GORDON was surprised to find out about TRUMP meeting with Russians. By lying about their contacts they were making things worse, even victimizing and MANAFORT. GORDON indicated both TRUMP and HOPE HICKS had lied about Russian contacts by the TRUMP team. (U) GORDON said he has been asked thousands of questions by the media, including questions about CARTER PAGE. (U) GORDON again explained how the TRUMP team treated him terribly by promising to pay him and then never paying him. RICK DEARBORN was paid per month by the campaign in addition to his Senate salary. b5 (U) GORDON went on to explain that former FBI Director COMET was part of the problem by selectively saying things about the investigation. COMET painted a picture indicating that more people were under investigation when PAGE was the only one monitored under PISA. COMET also leaked information to the New York Times. GORDON said COMET painted him as a monster even though COMET did not name GORDON. GORDON had been named by others which caused defamation of his name . (U) GORDON indicated that attorneys were expensive but at least they gave him piece of mind to come out in March. [Note: There was no further indication of what this meant.] tm-cstigntionon 08128;?2017 at Washington, District Of Columbia, United States (Phone) b6 File?f I I Date dra?ed 08f29f2017? bite I I by This docmnent contains neither recommendations nor conclusions oflne FBI. [1 is the poopeny of the FBI and is loaned to your agency: it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency. (Rm: (U) Telephone conversation with Gordon on CominumionoFFD-??lof 03f23f2017 .On 03/28/2017? 2 of 2 term!? 3 1 Of 2 ofentn- llf19f2018 On b6 Ihad ch a telephone call with Senior Assistant Special Counsel (SASC) Jeannie Rhee, Assistant Special Counsel (ASC) Aaron Zelinsky, and Special Agent provided the following information: 136 b6 137$ 136 HR: b6 At approximately 4:40 PM EST called the SCO to provide additional information #066- tnresti:utimton 11f15f2018 at Washington, District Of Columbia, United States {Phone} b6 Filctr' llfl6/2Dl? bits by This deeumeut neither conclusions efthe FBI. [1 is the pneperty ef the FBI and is leaned te- }'eur agency: it and its ee-ntents are net to be distributed outside your agency. I36 (Rev. Interview of 11f15 CommunionuFFD-??luf ?(2018 .On 11f15f2018 .F?ngc 2 Of 2 b6 SASC Rhee advised E'D-Siil (Rev. -l of l- FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ofentn- 12f17f2018 On 11/26f2018,l I telephone numberl Iemail addressl I had a telephone call with personnel from the Special Counsel?s Office (ECO). Present for the phone call were Senior Assistant Special Counsel (BASE) ha Jeannie RheeI SASC Andrew Goldstein, Assistant Special Counsel (ASC) Aaron Zelinsky, FBI Special Agentl I FBI ecial A ent FBI Supervisory Intelligence Analyst and FBI Intelligence Iprovided the following information: 136 13'3?: h? h6 Hose- 11f26f2018 at Washington, District Of Columbia, United States {Phone} b6 I . . l2fl2 2018 A Date dnui?ted If hr This deeuntent contains neither nor conclusions oflne FBI. [1 is the ptopeny of the FBI and is loaned to }'ous' agency: it and its ee-ntents are not to be distributed outside your agency. E'D-Stil (Rev. -l of 8- FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 04f09f2018 On Tuesday, February 20, interviewed lat Greenberg Traurig LLP, 2101 Street NW, Washington, DC 2003?. Present during the interview werel IAttorneys FBI Special Agent (say I sa . lForensic Accountantl I Senior Assistant Special Counsel (SASS) Zainab AHMAD, and SASC Brandon VAN GRACE. (UIEFQBEH (Agent Note: AHMAD thanked for meeting with the Special Counsel?s Office (SOD) and informed this was a voluntary interview. AHMAD indicated the Proffer Agreement relating to the conversation that would occur, but it gave no protection not he went over the Proffer Agreement with his attorneys and had no questions relating to indicated his willingess to answer questions and assist the FBI.) had an idea for a company, later named WikiStrat, At some point, WikiStrat customers wanted more research services and therefore, they split into more than one company. The new company became Psy-Group. I WikiStrat has a small, full time staff of about five to six people. In?ammton, District Of Columbia, United States Other [m-cstigauonon 02/,20512018 :11 File by Date drafted 02f21/2018 This document contains neither recommendations nor conclusions of the FBI. it is the property of the FBI and is loaned to your agency; it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency b3 b6 (Rm: Interview 20! 2018 .On 02f2?f2018 .Hmc 2 Of 8 is not sure how many he employees Psy-Group has. (Uf?FeHe? WikiStrat primarily does research and analysis related to hypothetical future analysis. For instance, ?what does in the news mean for us in the future." Their first major project was with NATO. Pay?Group primarily does one of two things. First, it conducts open source intelligence; Secondly, it does ?guerilla marketing." Strategic influence is another name that gives the concept of guerilla marketing a nice twist. From time to time, Psy?Group has done strategic influence campaigns. not familiar with Psy-Grou ever doing any political b5 influence in connection with an election. I has no recollection Psy- ch Group has ever worked for a political candidate._ lhas no recollection of marketing any service to any candidate. In preparation for meeting with the b5 (UH-9999) b6 b7C b3 b6 Fo-fmza (Rm. ns-na-in} 13:: Interview 20! 2018 .On 02f2?f2018 .Hmc 3 Of 8 Wikistrat has had full time staff doing sales,I I ha I Iis unsure if WikiStrat currently has someone conducting salesI I In 2016, Euspects there was someone who did sales, but he could not be sure.I I I lthe term ?policy papers" is broad and might b6 fall into a category of what Wikistrat has done. clarified, indicating their work falls into three different categories. 1. Recruiting projects, 2. Blog posts, and 3. Research into hypothetical events he had no recollection of any influence b6 campaign related to a political campaign, including the U.S. Presidential Election of 2016, with any organization or company he is affiliated with. (UK +9999) 136 (Uf b6 #5669) b4 b6 b3 b6 (Rm: UNCLASSI Interview of February 20! 2018 .On 02f20f2018 .F?ngc 4 Of 8 b4 136 137C I :2 (UH-pew b4 b6 I b3 1:6 190-302;: (Rm. [us?nun} UNCLASSI Interview of February 20! 2018 .On 02f20f2018 .F?ngc 5 Of 8 b6 #9666) 136 I we b6 b7: b3 b6 (Rm: {35433-111} b7: Interview of CommunionuFFD-??luf February 20! 2018 .On 02f2?f2018 .F?ngc 6 Of 8 I 136 (UH-E9994 b6 b6 (Urn-ova) I b6 I b6 I 305 b3 b6 FD-mza (Rm. ns-na-m} Interview of CommunionuFFD-??luf February 20! 2018 .On 02f2?f2018 .F?ngc Of 8 b6 not recall the following entities: Cordish, b5 Americans for Jerusalem,? I Clarion Fund, Global Futures, ch Zendaphie, Chester Creek Consulting, or NTC Stroisvjkomplect. (UIKFBBEH I Ihas limited knowledge of an individual namedl I b5 (U/ff??td is unaware of having any travel to Russia or the Ukraine. I 136 heard of Meginum, which he believes is a non? b5 profit that has done work with Fey?Group. b6 (LI/from I 136 (WW I 136 (UM-Beam I be b3 b6 (Rm: Interview of February 20! 2018 .On 02f20f2018 .F?ngc 1 Of 8 FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Date ofentt'y 04 f23f2 8 FEDERAL GRAND JURY INFORMATION This document contains information pertaining to a federal grand jury proceeding. The information may not be disseminated within or outside the FBI, except as provided for under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure wherein disclosure may be made to: an attorney for the government for use in performing that attorney's official duties; or any government personnel that an attorney for the government considers necessary to assist in performing that attorney's official duties. Iwas interviewed at 395 Street Washingtonresented of Ste toe and Johnson 12-71%. and two associates. Also present for the l?tEfVlew were writer,r SA I and Senior Assistant Special Counsel Zainab Ahmad. After being advised of the identities of the interviewers and the nature of the the following information: b3 b3 b6 b3 b6 b7: Asses- lnt'esiigutionon qu?szUlB at United States (In Person} b3 b6 File 4'15 DEIIC dl'EI?This doeument contains neither reeonmtendntions nor conclusions oflne FBI. [1 is the pnopetty of the FBI and is loaned to your agency: it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency. FBK 19W1 1:33 (Rev. 135 11176 . Page Con?rmationoFFD-B?lof '11? Grand Jury Prep Du 04f03f2018 2 of a b3 136 13711 1371?. b3 b6 b7: b3 1:16 1:573 1:3 136 h?A b7C b3 b6 bill b3 1:16 1:573 b3 b6 bill if?: b3 b6 (Rm: . Page Con?rmationoFFD-B?lof '11? Grand Jury Prep Du 04f03f2018 3 of a b3 b6 b3 136 1373 133 1:16 1373. b3 136 13TH b3 136 13TH 13'3?: b3 FD-Tmza (Rex; 05?03-10} 136 137E . Page Con?rmationoFFD-B?lof '11? Grand Jury Prep Du 04f03f2018 4 of a b3 13:6 1371!. :l b3 136 1373 b3 136 13711 1371?. b3 b6 b3 136 13711 157$: b3 b6 (Rm: Grand JuryF Prep .011 04f03f2018 Jung; 5 of 8 manAgent Note: A brief break was taken. b3 b6 b7: b3 FD-Tmza (Rex; 05?03-10} 136 137E . Page Con?rmationoFFD-B?lof '11? Grand Jury Prep Du 04f03f2018 6 of a b3 136 1373 b3 136 13711 157$: b3 1:36 1371!; b3 136 13711 157$: b3 b6 b7: b3 b6 1:173 b3 b6 (Rm: . Page Con?rmationoFFD-B?lof '11? Grand Jury Prep Du 04f03f2018 7* of a b3 1:36 1371!. b3 b6 bill if?: b3 1:36 1371!. b3 b6 b3 136 13TH b3 1:16 1:573 b3 FD-Tmza (Rex; 05?03-10} 136 137E . Page Con?rmationoFFD-B?lof '11? Grand Jury Prep Du 04f03f2018 of a b3 1:36 1371!. b3 b6 b75451. b7: b3 b6 Agent Note: Copies of all GJES shown will be maintained in a 1A. 1 Of 2 On September 6, 2017, Special Agents (SASJI I be . I Imet withl I I lat the FBI Washington Field Office (WFO), 601 4th Street NW, Washington, DC 20535, to disoussl with the aforementioned agents, provided the following informationWashington, District Of Columbia, United States {In 09f0652017 Person} b6 SA Hh? 10f12f201T by This document contains neither recommendations nor conclusions of the FBI. it is the property of the FBI and is loaned to your agency; it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency. 1 9 Ci." 1 8 b6 (Rm: (U) De?Brief of .On CommunionMED-3n: 0F .F?ngc 2 Of 2 b5 7- nimgmm:ssun 1 Of FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Date ofentn- 06f22f2018 was interviewed at the Office of ecial Counsel by SE b6 IIM IForensic Accountantl land Special Counsel Prosecutors Greg Andres and Zainab Ahmad. was represented by counsel. advised that the interview was voluntarf and if at any time he wanted to consult with his counsel he could do so. was h? advised that he needed to be truthful in answering the questions and that making false statements could constitute a federal acknowledged that he understood and provided the following information: b6 b6 b6 b?C b6 h?A fearso- lntest'tgutionen 01f09f2018 at Washington, District Of Columbia, United States (In Person} b6 nee Dmemmkd 01510/2013 b7: I I by This decrement contains neither sue-r conclusions ofthe FBI. [1 is the pl?OpCl1}' of the FBI and is leaned te- mus' agency. it and its ee-ntents are net to be distributed outside your agency. FBK 3;.ng b6 FD-Tmza (Rev. 05?03-10} b7: Interview Of .On 01f09f2018 2 of b6 1373 EN: b6 b6 I lhad met PAUL MHNAFORT He understood MANAFORT to be a longtime friend of from his days in Washington, DC. and MHNAFORT had no additional meetings prior to his involvement in the Trump campaign. had seen MANAFORT in May or June for a Trump b6 fundraiser.l I to: Following his time on the Trump campaign, MHNAFORT seemed deflated. b6 (Rm: CominuztlionoFFD-??l (UL Interview Of . On 01f09f2018 . Page 30f? UNCLASSI b6 b6 136 b6 b7C 1:16 (Rev. Conlinuztlionc-FFD-B?lof (II/rm Interview Of . On 01f09f2018 . Page 40f? b6 136 1371-1 b6 1372*. hi?: b6 136 1373 136 b6 137': 136 b6 (Rm: .On 01f09f2018 .mac 5 of Interview Of b6 Other Individuals b6 as a partner in some of business ventures but did not have a meeting or dinner withl b6 h7A b6 b6 b6 described State?Sponsored Enterprises as organizations run by a There was no monarch or other singular source of power such as China. dedicated program inside of Colony for State-Sponsored Enterprises. b6 b7C b6 b6 FBI-3022: (Rev. Of .On 01f09f2018 .hmc 6 Of had never met HRH SHEIK HAMAD BIN KHALIFA AL THANI. h? h?C had never met had one time mentioned that :3 . lhad recommended he buy stock in Coca Colaknowledge of RICK GATES met RICK GATES sometime around Summer or Fall 20l6 in the lead up to the election. A handful of people from the campaign worked out of h? Colony?s New York offices at 54th and 5th, and was introduced to him there. BARRACK grew fond of GATES and proposed that GATES join Colony. role at Colony was "soft" business development, specifically related to infrastructure projects. GATES was suited for this role because he was a lobbyist with existing relationships in and around the government. Aside from his rolodex and his capacity as a facilitator, not see much value in GATES. interacted with GATES. role included b5 directional thoughts for Colony and brainstorming new ideas for the ch company that leveraged access to the never saw consulting agreement. Some time in May of 2017, BARRACK had hosted a dinner during Milken Global and GATES filled the tables. b6 b6 (Rm: H939- (Uh fable-l: Interview Of .011 01f09f2018 .i?ngc of he b7A b7c nimgmm sou? '1 Of 5' Date ofentry U3f05f2018 I I date of social securitv account he . . . . numberl [was interviewed at his res1dence, I IAfter being advised of the identities of the interviewinc Agent? Iinvited them into his residence. Iwas advised the FBI I IAfter being advised of the nature of the interview, I Iprovided the following information: 136 hi?: b6 b6 136 hi?: intestiimtionon D2f06f2018 at United States {In Person) Ir?ilett.E Date dra?cd 021'123?2018 b7]; by This docmueut contains neither reconnuendutious nor conclusions ofthe FBI. [1 is the picpeny of the FBI and is loaned to your agency: it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency. FBK 19W1 b6 (Rm: (U) Interview Of .011 02f06f2018 2 of 5 . Page b6 (Rm. (U) Interview Of .011 02f06f2018 3 of 5 . Page b6 b6 b6 b6 b6 b6 (Rm: CommunionoFFD-??lof (U) Interview Of .011 02f06f2018 4 of 5 . Page b6 b6 b6 b6 b6 136 1371?. 136 1371?. The original documents provided being maintained for the file in a physical 1A envelope. Copies of those documents are enclosed as digital attachments to this b6 FD-fmza (Rm. {15-11240} (U) Interview Of .011 02f06f2018 5 of 5 . Page mnmi 1 Of 1 - Dwedcmn' 04f04f2018 On March 2018, Ibornl Iresiding atl I be cellular telephone was b7: contacted at his residence. Hfter being advised of the identity of the interviewing Agent and the nature of the interview provided the following information: 136 lmc??anmt D3f27f2018 United States {In Person} Wei; Date dra?cd 04f03ff2018 This decmnent contains neither E'CCOl?nl?t?tCl?td?liOl?tS nc-r conclusions FBI. [1 is the pl?OpCl1}' of the FBI and is leaned te- mus' agency: it and its contents are net to be distributed outside your agency. i?D-atuntcx-s-R-im 1 Of 1 FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ofentn- 02f 16x2 0 8 On 1f25f2018, :oontacted SHI lby email and requested that be SAI: oontaot him. On lf26f2018, SAI lspoke to bill: on the telephone. provided the following information: b6 b6 01f26f2018 at Washington, District Of Columbia, United States {PhoneOlf30f2018 i it Date dnui?ted hr This decrement eentnins neither E'CCOl?nl?l?tCl?td?liOlls sue-r conclusions eflhe FBI. [1 is the ptepeny of the FBI and is loaned to yeur agency: it and its ee-ntents tll'c net to be distributed etitside your agency. 1 Of 2 FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Date 12f14f2017 On SAI and Assistant Special Counsel Kyle Freeny he spoke tol Ion the telephone. provided the following ch information: 133 Per b6 13:6 1376. b6 b6 b6 b6 b6 153 per DOJIOIP lntestigutionon 12f05f201? Elt United States . . b6 File if Date dra?ed 12 i 4 If 2 131'?: by This decmnent contains neither ner conclusions oftnc FBI. [1 is the pnepeny of the FBI and is leaned te- mur agency: it and its contents are net to be distributed outside your agency. FBK 1 90.? 1 2 ?8)_48 94 b6 FD-rmza (Rev. 05-03-10} b7: Telephonic Interview of: CommunionMED-3mm: .On 12f05f2017" .F?ngc 2 Of 2 b6 b6 1 Of 1 FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Date ofentt'y 12f14f2017 On 12/6f2017, SA Ispoke the telephone. :2 I: provided the following information: Following phone call with SAI [and Assistant Special Counsel . C. Kyle Freeny the preVious day, b6 b6 explained to he had called because he did not want b6 . to do anything wrong. Hose- tm-cstigutionen 121?06f2017 at Washington, District Of Columbia, United States {Phone} . . b6 . . l2fl4K2DlT a Date dta?ed hr This doeuntent contains neither recommendations nor conclusions ofthe FBI. [1 is the ptoperty of the FBI and is loaned to your agency: it and its eontents are not to be distributed outside your agency. - tame? nimgmm:ssun 1 Of 1 - - 1; Assas- FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ofentn- 06f21f2017 On 6/16/2017 at or around 8:41 PM Itelephoned b5 SAI lfrom telephone numberl Ito express his b7: concerns about their previous meeting regarding PAUL informed he had not informed MANAFORT of his previous meetings with FBI but that MANAFORT had I SH that he was concerned that MANAFORT would be ask if he had been contacted by the FBI, not want to be deceptive. concerned that telling MANAFORT that he had spoken to the FBI would get him in trouble with the FBI. explained that he understood MANBFORT to be a powerful and well-connected personl I while the FBI would prefer b5 not inform MANAFORT of their interest in him, the FBI was not b7: legally compelling him not to inform MANAFORT. Ireguested that Hoes- at Los Angelesr Californiar United States {Phone} :2 meg Date dra?cd 06f19f2017' b7: by This deeument neither sac-r conclusions efthe FBI. [1 is the pmpeny cf the FBI and is leaned te- mur agency: it and its contents are net to be distributed outside your agency. E'D-StiltlieIZS-R-ltt) 1 Of 2 FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Date ofentn- 08f24f2017 b6 On 8fl7'x?2017, and SA spoke on the telephone reqardinq the subpoena for provu?ed the follow1ng information136 1371?. b6 United States {9111?3 Per b6 on 08/1 1?,f2017 at File ii Date dra?ed 08 f2 by This deetintent contains neither conclusions oftiae FBI. [1 is the pl?OpCi?l}' of the FBI and is loaned to )?Gtti' agency: it and its ee-ntents are net to be distributed e-titstde your agency. (Rev. Communion 0F 0F Telephone Call withPer DOJIOIP b6 D3 PE DQJKOIP b6 (Rev. On team} 3 . -l of 4- Date ofentt'y 08f10f2017 b6 Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Charlotte DivisionfRaleigh Resident Agencv, contacted telephone number: meeting. the same day. SA 05PM on 08f08f201? and via telephone to arrange a agreed to meet SA lat his residence at on arrived at residence at approximately 1: 133 Per DOJXOIP I being aware of the identity of the interviewing Agent and the :3 purpose for the interview, voluntarily provided the following information: h? b3 Per DOJIOIP b6 intestigotionon 08j08f2017 at United States (In Person} meg Date drafted 08f10f2017? 135' by This contains neither recommendations nor conclusions ofthe FBI. [1 is the pnopeity of the FBI and is loaned to your agencydistributed outside your agency. hE (Rm: Service and Interview of .On .Wmc 2 of 4 b6 b6 b6 b6 (Rev. Service and Interview of CominumionMED-3020f] I .On .F?ugc b6 (Rm: I Sub oena Service and Interview of I .On .Wmc 4 of 4 b6 b6 b7: that he has not been threatened by anyone in regards to be this matter and has not feared for his life or safety. stated he b7: would immediately notify he receives threats related to this matter. lwas present throughout the duration lDtEIVlew. The interView took place and lasted (Rev. -l of 5- FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Dore ofenzn- 02f02f2018 On January 17, 2018' Iwas interviewed at his place of emplovment, I by Supervisory Special Agent land Forensic Accountant After being advised of the identity of the interviewers and the nature of the the following information: Mose- imesiigzuionon 01f17f2018 at Washington, District Of Columbia, United States (In Person} File by Date drafted 0151772018 This doeomeut contains neither reeonnuendznious nor conclusions oflhe FBI. [1 is the pl?OpCl1}' of the FBI and is loaned Io your agencydistribulcd outside your agency. 1:16 136 30711 b6 b6 b7C 1:3 1:36 1:3 FD-Tmza (Rev. 05-03-10} 136 HR: Communionc-FFD-B?lof Interview Of: .011 .1?21gc 2 Of 5 1:6 137.?; 1:16 137%. b6 136 131A b6 b3 136 1370 h?E (Rm: UNCLASSI FPS-HS- ContinuationoFFD-Bnlof (Uf?f'Fe'H'e) Interview Of .011 Olfle201B .1?21gc 3 Of 5 b6 b6 1:16 1:173. b6 IOTA h3 b6 b7C b7E (Rev. CmanMmu?FDanm?(Uf??e?e? Interview Of .On Olfle201B .hmc b3 b6 h?E (Rm: Interview .On Olfle2018 b7C nim2mm:ssun -1 of 15- Esse- FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Date 03f29f2018 was interviewed at the Washington Field Office located at h? 301 4th Street NW, Washington, D.C, by writer and Forensic Accountant I IAlso present in the interview were Senior Assistant Special Counsel Zainab Ahmad and SASC Brandon Van Grack. Representind Iduring the interview was his attorney I IofI I The interview was conducted under a signed proffer agreement. After being advised of t?e identities of the interviewers and the nature of the interview, provided the following information: 136 Agent Note: b6 b6 b6 Hess- ln't'csiigttiionon 02f15f2018 at Washington, District Of Columbia, United States (In Person} File Date draitcd h?C This dccmucnt contains ncithcs' sac-r conclusions FBIloaned to year agency: it and its contents are act to be distributed your agency. b3 FD-Tmza (Rex; 05?03-10} 136 UNCLASSI CommunionGEE-Datum Interview of:02f15f2018 Du 02f15f2018 We 2 of 15 156 13731 b6 156 137?; b7C 1:16 1:173. 13W: b6 13'3?: b6 b3 b6 (Rm: b7C CommunionOff-mm? Interview of 02f15f2018 Du 02f15f2018 1:3 136 hm: b7E (Rev. Cominuztlionc-FFD-S?lof (Ul' Interview Of O2f15f2018 .011 02/15x?2018 Jung; 4 Of 15 136 131A b6 1:6 1:73; b?C 136 13TH 136 Fla 1:13 136 137': b7E (Rm: Interview of O2f15f2018 .011 O2f15f2018 .1?21gc?5 of 1., man; 136 13TH. 137': he 13TH h?C b6 136 13TH. b7C 136 1:19. b7C b3 FD-rmza (Rev. 05-03-10} 136 h?E UNCLASSI Cominuztlionc-FFD-S?lof (Ul' Interview Of O2f15f2018 .011 02/15x?2018 Jung; 6 Of 15 b6 1:16 1373!. 136 13TH. b7C b6 b6 b6 b3 b6 b7C 1373 (Rm: ng Interview Of 02f15f2018 .On 02f15f2018 of 15 b6 h?C b6 Agent Note: A break was taken in the interview for approximately ten (10} minutes. b6 b7A b7C b6 133 190-302;. (Rex; 05?03-10} 136 1370 1373 CommunionGEE-Datum Interview of:02f15f2018 Du 02f15f2018 1375?; HR: b6 b3 b6 (Rm: Interview of 02f15f2018 Du 02f15f2018 We 9 of 15 man; b6 b6 b6 I373 I370 136 1373 h?C b6 b7C b3 FD-Tmza (Rev. 05?03-10} b6 b?m Cominuztlionc-FFD-S?lof (Ul' Interview Ofl l02/f15?x2018 .011 02/15x?2018 Jung; 10 Of 15 136 I371 136 13TH 136 1313. hi?: b6 1373 EH: b6 136 b3 ED?b7: UNCLASSI Interview of 02f15f2018 Du 02f15f2018 We 11 of 15 man; b6 b7C 136 1313. hi?: b6 I36 137?; b6 b3 136 b7E (Rev. . Page ConliimztlionoFFD-B?lof Interview Of 02/!15rx2018 02f15f2018 12 Of 15- b6 b7}; b6 13'3?: 1:16 1:173. 13W: b6 1373 EH: b3 b6 b7!) (Rm: Cominuztlionc-FFD-S?lof (Ul' Interview Ofl .011 02/15x?2018 Jung; 13 Of 15 b6 b7}; b6 136 I371 Agent Note: A break was taken in the interview. b6 b6 b6 FD-rmza (Rev. 05-03-10} UNCLASSI Interview of 02f15f2018 Du 02f15f2018 We 14 of 15 man; b6 b6 13373 I370 136 I36 137?; b6 1375!. b3 b6 i na-nH-m} b7: Cominuztlionc-FFD-S?lof (Ul' Interview Ofl .011 02/15x?2018 Jung1:16 137%. Agent Note: All documents shown will be maintained in a 1A. 1 Of 2 FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION U5f02f2018 b6 1371] On 3fl212018, contacted the Special Counsel's Office with information she believed was relevant to the investigation. I b6 b6 b6 b6 05f02f2018 at Washington, District Of Columbia, United States {Phone} 136 137C Fillet-.5 DEIIC dl'EI?Cd 05f02f?2018 by This docmuent contains neither nor conclusions ofthc FBI. [1 is the piopeny of the FBI and is loaned to your agency: it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency. FBK 190.4 278)'4924 b6 (Rm: Interview of Communion 0F (3F PROTECT I .011 05f '32 f2 0 18 .F?ngc 2 Of 2 b6 tests} 3 . 1 Of 2 morass: ?rms FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 05f11f2018 On Wednesday, April 25, 2018,] I be Itelephone numberl [appeared at thel I ch [located atl I in preparation for possible testimony at the trial of Paul Manafort in July 2018. Also present were Senior Assistant Special Counsel Greg D. Andrea and FBI Forensic Accountant furnished the following information: 136 b6 b6 UNCLASS Lase- on 043:2qung at United States {In met; Date drafted 05f07tf2018 by This docmuent contains neither nor conclusions ofthc FBI. [1 is the pnopetty of the FBI and is loaned to your agency: it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency. 1 9011 b6 FBI-3022: (Rev. UNCLASSI (UH-me) April 25, Communion of of 2018 .On 04 ?(2qu 018 .F?ngc copyr of documents shown tol: have been attached for the file. The interview notes have also been attached. 1 Of 1 UNCLASSI frus- FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Date ofentt'y 07f10f2018 On July 6, 2018, was interviewed by Assistant United States Attornevl land FBI Forensic Accountant in preparation for possible testimony at the trial of Paul Manafort in July 2018. Present during the interview were counsel for landl Iof After being advised of the identities of the interviewers, provided the following information: b6 corresponded with Manafort at the beginning of the loan application process, and then with Gates later in the process. Overall, believes she corresponded with Richard Gates more than Paul Manafort. b3 per b3 b6 UNCLASS . . b3 per 07'f06f2018 at United States (In b6 Filett.E Date dra?ed by This deettntent contains neither nor conclusions oftne FBI. [1 is the pttopetty of the FBI and is loaned to tour agency: it and its eontents are not to be distributed outside your agency. 1 Of 1 fess- FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Dntcofentn? 08f2?1f2017 On August 16, 201?, the writer and Isttempteel to interview 1?5 lat her last know addressfl I b7: I There was no answer at her door, so the writer left his business card. UNCLASS FEE-S he . lntest'tgutionon 08j16f2017 at UI'Ilted States (In Person} File Li Date dra?ed 08 1 8f2017? by This docwment contains neither nor conclusions oftnc FBI. [1 is the pl?OpCl1}' of the FBI and is loaned to your agency: it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency. room (Rev. 1 Of 1 FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 09f01f2017 IDENTITY) was contacted atl I b5 I Ion Tf21f2017. b7: IDENTITY) and provided the following information: hi5 b6 b6 O7E21X2017 at United States (In Person} File if I Date dra?cd 07" f2 4 3,201? 157.3. by I I This docwmcut contains ncitncr rccmumcndutious nor conclusions oflhc FBI. [1 is the piopcny of the FBI and is loaned to your agency: it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency. 1 9W1 5 3 1 Of 8 f-Peoe- FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Date 10f19f2018 . . b6 On October 9, 2018, was interViewed under a proffer agreement. Participating in the interview were FBI Special Agent FBI Forensic Accountant and Senior Assistant Special Counsel Zainab Ahmad. Also present as attorney, . . . b6 After was adVlSEd of the identities of the interViewers, SASC Ahmad presented and explained the terms of the proffer letter had no questions or concerns and signed the letter. then provided the following information: Exhibit 1, b6 b6 The campaign had two phases for fundraising purposes, the primary and general. The primary phase formally ends when the candidate accepts his or her party?s nomination. b6 Typically candidates loan money, especially at the beginning of the Asses? 10f09f2018 at United States {In Person} b, This document contains neither recommendations nor conclusions eflne FBI. [1 is the pmpeny of the FBI and is loaned to your agency: it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency. FBIC IQWI 278)_4g54 (Rev. . Page Interview of .On 10f09f2018 2 of 8 campaign. The reason for this is the campaign can pay back loans with contributions. Candidate contributions: by contrast, cannot be paid back by other contributions to the campaign. Candidate loans can be converted into contributions, but contributions can never be converted into loans. The advantage of the candidate making contributions instead of loans is optics. Potential contributors could be dissuaded from making contributions to the candidate?s campaign because the candidate might use the money to pay back loans instead of using the money for the campaign. Exhibit b6 (Rm: Cominuztlionc-FFD-S?lof (Ul' Interview Of .011 10f09/2018 Jung; 3 Of 8 b6 13:6 1376. b6 h'b't 3 hm 13:6 1376. b6 b6 b6 b6 b6 b6 (Rev. . Page CmummMmu?FDanm?lU} Interview of .On 10f09f2018 4 of 8 b6 b6 Exhibit 6, was allowed to read Exhibit 6. b6 b6 b6 There is no way to ?advance? a contribution to a campaign. Candidate support of their campaign is either a contribution, loan, or ?in-kind" contribution. b6 b6 b6 (Rm: . Page Conliml?tlionofFD-B?zgf l{U} Interview of .On 10f09f2018 5 of 8 b6 137$ b6 b6 b6 Additional information regarding the 13?: b6 b6 b6 137$ b6 b6 b6 190-3022: (Rev. 05?03-10} Interview of .On 10f09f2018 .?2016 campaign: b6 Part of the conversion from a successful campaign to a reelection effort are new filings with the FEC to declare candidacy. The 2016 campaign can continue to raise funds to pay debts from the 2016 campaign. Invoices that come in from 2016 campaign work are counted as debts. Money raised for the 2020 campaign cannot be used to pay 2016 debts. However, leftover 2016 funds can be moved forward to the 2020 campaign. b6 b6 b6 Email addresses: b6 b6 (Rm: UNCLASSI . Page CmummMmuwFDanzm?(U} 0f .On 10f09/2018 of 8 b6 136 hi?: b6 b6 136 will review his text messages with his attorney and agreed to provide them to the Special Counsel?s Office. b6 b6 b6 b6 b6 (Rev. UNCLASSI . Page Cominu?tlionc-FFD-B?zgf l{U} Interview of .On 10f09f2018 of 8 b6 b6 137$ b6 b6 b6 b6 137$ b6 (Rev. -1 of 12- sm?? FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Date ofentt'y 04 03x2 0 8 On December 22, 2017 was interviewed under a proffer agreement at 395 E. Street SW, Washington, DC. Participating in the interview were FBI Special Agend FBI Forensic Accountants I land Senior Assistant Special Counsels (SASS) Zainab Ahmad and Andrew Weissman. Also present was attorney, advised of the identities of the interviewers, SASC b5 Ahmad explained the interview was voluntary and if at any time he wanted to consult with his counsel he could do so was advised that he needed to be honest in answering the questions and that making false statements could constitute a federal crime. then provided the following information: Background: b6 b6 b6 feasts? tmestigntionon 12f22f2017 at Washington, District Of Columbia, United States (In Person} . b6 . . l2f22f201? i it Date dutited by This doeunterat contains neither recommendations nor conclusions ofthe FBI. [1 is the pnopeny of the FBI and is loaned to your agency: it and its eontents are not to be distributed outside your agency. FBK 19W1 b6 b7: (Rev. UNCLASSI . Page Communionc-FFD-B?lgf Interview Of .011 12f22f2017" 2 of 12 b6 TRUMP Campaign: b6 b6 COREY was in place as campaign manager. b6 (Rm: man; Interview of . On l2f22f201 b6 . 0-3022: (Rev, [15-03-1n} ContinuationoFFD-Bnlof (U) Interview Of .011 12/;22/9017 .1?21gc 40f 12 b6 b6 b6 b6 1:6 2:76. (Rm: UNCLASSI IUterView 0f _On 12f22f201T . Page 50f 12 b6 136 1:71 asked for and took a short b7: break with his attorney. b6 When the interview resumed b6 b6 136 leC (Rev. UNCLASSI . Page Communionc-FFD-B?lgf Interview Of .011 12f22f2017" 6 of 12 136 ?373 1:36 b6 1:36 136 1371!. 136 1371!. b6 (Rm: . Page Communionc-FFD-B?lgf Interview Of .011 12f22f2017 b6 (Rev. ng Interview Of .On 12f22f201T 8 of 12 b6 b6 Documents Shown: b6 b6 b6 (Rm: . Page Communionc-FFD-B?lgf Interview Of .011 12f22f2017" 9 of 12 13:6 1376. b6 b6 b6 b7: I36 137:! b6 b6 FD-rmza (Rev. 05-03-10} 137': . Page Communionc-FFD-B?lgf Interview Of .011 12f22f2017I36 137:! b6 b6 b6 (Rm: . Page Communionc-FFD-B?lgf Interview Of .011 12f22f2017136 15715:. 136 1:71 b7: 136 ?373; b6 (Rev. UNCLASSI Cominuztlionc-FFD-S?lof (Ul' Interview Ofl .011 12f22/201T Jung; 12 Of 12 136 15715:. b6 b6 '1 Of 3' FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Date ofcmn- 04 30x2 0 8 b6 telephone number: I email address: Iwas interviewed at his office located at I After being advised of the identities of the interviewing Agents and the nature of the interview, the following information: I Iworks as be b6 Presidential election. previously communicated to the Washington Field Office (WPO) that he received a communication that had a summar of_ is not aware of any attempts to influence the 2016 US the ?Trump Dossier.? Ireceived this dossier from a friend in Forked for! land now works at Iforwarded an emaill received that came from the ?Hillary Clinton apparatus.? indicated that Salon Magazine bureau chief, Sidney Blumenthal and William Clinton?s former attorney, lined up a former CIA officer named Tyler DRUMHELLER to gather intelligence related to then Presidential Candidate Donald TRUMP. DRUMHELLER has since passed away. I lshowed the forwarded email he received to someone I email had the ?salacious pissing thing.? The email contained content, but did not have the entire not see the entire document until it appeared in Buzzfeed. he knows Russia very well and knew they were involved be in the 2016 Presidential ?dead certain they were b7: messing with us", but had no direct knowledge.? Washington, District Of Columbia, United States (In Person, 1'33 inrcsiigniionon D3f20f2018 at Nail} b6 mes Dnicdm?cd 04f13f2018 by This cmuziins ncithcs' sic-r conclusions of [he FBI. [1 is Ihc propcny (if Ihc FBI and is loaned to it and i1s are E301 to be distributed outside yom- agate}; FBK 3;.ng b3 FD-Tsnza (Rex; 05?03-10} 136 137E Interview of .On O3f20f2018 .?Iindicated his surprise to hear thatl b5 IPsy-Group talked about influencing elections using Avatars, or online personas. They would build an online profile that would engage targets, utilize BOTNETs and deliver messaging. Fey-Group is active in Africa and South America. Their campaigns would be to win the confidence of people. The first timel lmet with Pay-Group it was betweenl I b5 Ithought Psy- Group might be useful tol I (Agent Notezl Iopened his computer and conducted a search for Psy- b5 Group. He hadl Irelated to Psy-Group.) Israel and Russia have close connections. Prime . . . . . . . . . b6 Minister Netanyahu is always traveling to and winning his elections b7c because of the Israeli?Russian that ?something is going on? between these two countries. In conversations or indications with Psy-Group personnel, never be had any indication that Psy?Group took part in any efforts related to the b3 (Rm: b6 ME Continuationc-FFD-B?lof (Uff-Fe-H-e-P Interview ofl I .011 O3f20f2018 .1?21gc 3 of 3 2016 US Presidential election. In the course b6 analysis of the 2016 US Presidential election came up in the context of b7: ?You should see our analysis of the US election.? was interested in lso he was very interested in this. I Iindicated Psv?Groupl but that indicated they had ?very interesting analysis on the Trump election." (Adent Note: provided copies of 1 Of 1 FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Date ofentn- 08f02f2018 Date of was interviewed at the Special b5 Counsel?s Office, located at 395 Street, SW, Washington, D.C. Agents reported the interview in serial 141. At the request of the Assistant Special Counsel, Agents report the following additional information provided during that interview: b6 lntest'tgotionon 05f18f2018 at Washington, District Of Columbia, United States (In Person} b6 Filetf OTf31f2018 hr This doeumcnt contains neither recommendations nor conclusions ofthe FBI. [1 is the ptopetty of the FBI and is loaned to your agencydistributed outside your agency. FBK lgC?U'l tum: 1 Of 2 Date ofentt'gr 09f28f2018 On or about 11/06/2016,! Iwere b5 telephonically interviewed by the author with Special Counsel Prosecutors Jeannie S. Rhee and Lawrence R. Atkinson. I lprovided the following information aboutl I b6 b6 b6 136 137151 1371?. b6 {In-CSI'lgmionon 11f06f2017 Washington, District Of Columbia, United States {Phone} File?f Dntedra?ed 08f13f2018 by This doeument eontuins neither nor conclusions oflne FBI. [1 is the ptepeny of the FBI and is loaned to your agency: it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency. FBK 19W1 1 b5 (Rm: (U) Telephone Call withl I .On 11f06/201T .Wmc 2 of 2 b6 b6 A copy of the interview notes were saved to the 1H. 1 Of 1 Dnteofentn? 10f30f2018 (U) On 10fl?f2018 Special Agents (SA) I linterviewedl I during the b6 interview ofl I I After having been advised of the identity of the interviewing SAS, provided the following information: (Uil b6 mtg-Emmnon 10f17f2018 it! New York, New York United States {In Person) b6 meg thtedra?ed 10f30f2018 by This deeument neither nor conclusions efthe FBI. [1 is the pl?OpCl?l}' of the FBI and is leaned te- mus' agency: it and its ee-ntents are net to be distributed muside your agency. FBKI 1 Of 1 FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Ditto 04 30f2 8 On April 27, 20l8,l appeared at the New York Field Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation located at I INew York, New York. Also present were Forensic Accountant I Senior Assistant Special Counsel Greg Andres, and lattorney, In preparation for possible testimony at the trial of Paul Manafort in July 2018, provided the following information: Most clients pay their invoices by check or credit card. Only one or two clients send wire transfers to pay their invoices. Paul Manafort only made payments with wire transfers, usually from a foreign not recognize the names of the foreign entities Manafort used to pay his invoices I [of the wires matched the amount of Manafort's outstanding invoicesl I qu27f2018 at New York, New York, United States {In Person) File 4'15 DEIIC dl'EI?Cd 04 f30f2018 by This docmucut contains ncithcr nor conclusions ofthc FBIloaned to your agency: it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency. b6 136 1370 136 h6 b6 b6 tennis} 3 1 Of 1 09f04f2018 (U) On 08/3Uf2018 Special Agents (sail IandI I b: I Iinterviewed an unidentified female (UF), later identified asI I I IatI I The SAs did not identify themselves as FBI SAs. (U) The UF asked if the SAs were looking forI I SA replied he was looking forI I The UF confirmed hasl I and asked if the SAs wanted her to oallI IThe UF stated 23C was at workI' Ibut was not sure where his office was. SAI [asked for bhone number and stated he would call The UF provided the number 03f30f2018 1t United States {In Person} b5 Filetf thtedra?cd 08f31f2018 137:- by This contains neither nc-r conclusions FBI. [1 is the pl?OpCl1}' cf the FBI and is loaned to ycur agency: it and its contents are net to be distributed cutstde your agency. FBK 19ml you? '1 Of 6' Dnteofentry 09f01f2017 DOCUMENT RESTRICTED TO CASE PARTICIPANTS This document contains information that is restricted to case participants. FEDERAL GRAND JURY MATERIAL - DISSEMINATE PURSUANT TO RULE Do not disseminate except as authorized by federal rule of criminal procedure date of birth I I residenoel I I Itelephone numberl Iwas contacted b6 at his residence by FBI Special Agentsl landl I After being advised of the identities of the interviewing agents and the nature of the the following information: h? h? The ECFMU account was brought to Mercury Paul Manafort. Manafort a previous relationship, but [was not sure the exact origin of their relationship. Manafort and Rick Gates were working for b6 the Ukrainian government at the time they brought ECFMU to ch Mercury. Manafort and Gates were working for Ukrainian President Yanukovych and the Party of Regions lm'est'tgutionon at United States (In Person} Hb? Dmemmkd 08f07f201T b6 by This deeumeut contains neither conclusions efthe FBI. [1 is the property of the FBI and is leaned te- yeur ugeneydistributed outside your agency. lgC?U'l b6 (Rm: Interview .On .Hmc 2 Of 6 I I The ECFMU was hiring Mercury and another lobbying firm, Podesta Group, to lobby United States b6 government officials to support Ukraine?s pull toward western Europe and b7C membership in the European Union. I I It was clear from the beginning of Mercury's relationship with ECFMU that Manafort and Gates who represented the Yanukovych government, were connected to ECFMU. never clear as to the exact relationship be between Manafort and Gates and the ECFMU. did not think this b7c relationship was particularly strange as many non-governmental organizations have connections and affiliations to political parties and governments. I hould have been the people at Mercury to negotiate the contract with ECFMU and handle payment he issues. b7c Throughout the time ECFMU was Mercury's client, Manafort, Gates, andI IPodesta Group, met on a regular basis. Idid not b6 attend these meetings and could not say for sure the purpose of these meetings. In addition, there were weekly calls with Rick I Iand people working on the ECFMU account at Mercury and Podesta. I I metI Iwhen he came to the United States. I I b6 seemed very knowledgeable on policy issues and highly ch intelligent. I butI Idid not know where he was from. I Idid not recognize the name and did not know who the board members of ECFMU were. b6 b7: b6 FD-fmza (Rm. (15-11240; Cmnmemn?FDJ?ld?iU} Interview .On .Hmc 3 Of 6 b6 b7C understood why Mercury did not originally register this client under FARA. For some reason, Mercury filed under the Lobbying Disclosure Act instead. did not understand the decision to file under LDA at all. lthought it was clear cut that work for ECFMU necessitated a FARA filing. I h6 h7C lrecalled that Podesta Group also filed LDA rather than FARA. I Ibelieved Podesta Group and Mercury coordinated these filings, but he did not have specific knowledge of this. to file under FARA as well. recalled there was a meeting early on in the relationship with ECFMU Manafort, Gates andl to discuss the issue of whether to file under FARA or LDA. After this b6 meeting, it was decided Mercury could file under LDA. b7: Mercury retroactively filed under FARA b5 I Iwas not notified of Mercury?s intention to retroactively file and did not participate in the filing. I Irecalled the meetings listed in Mercury?s retroactive FARA filing were accurate to the best of his knowledge. reviewed Podesta Group's retroactive FARA filing and b5 recalled thinking Mercury?s filing was much more detailed.[ b6 b7C b6 (Rm: Interview .On .Hmc 4 Of 6 b6 and he was excited about ECFMU as a client b5 because he thought it meant future business for Mercury with Russian Oligarchs. Mercury acquired Clark Weinstock some time shortly before the ECFMU deal started. Prior to this acquisition, Clark Weinstock were struggling to break even because of a prior acquisition from Omnicom. I I b6 I I b7C There were many times during Ion the ECFMU account that I Iif Mercury was working for ECFMU, or the Ukrainian government. I Ibecause Gates regularly b6 communicated information to Mercury which seemed to be for the benefit of b7c the Ukrainian government versus ECFMU. I Iresponses were generally to downplay the requests from Gates as small and unimportant. asked about emails from Gates to various employees at be Mercury and Podesta asking for updates on their activities so he could b7c relay them to Manafort who was meeting with Yanukovych that day. I b6 the imprisonment of former Ukrainian President b6 Tymoshenko was of concern to Gates. Mercury was asked to provide b7: information on the proposed resolution by the United States to condemn the imprisonment of Tymoshenko. approved of this work by Mercury as he believed it was work for the Ukrainian government. lobbied United States government officials as it related to the Tymoshenko issue. b6 (Rm. {15-11240} ch IInterview .On .Hmc 5 Of 6 was asked about emails from Gates to Mercury and Podesta employees regarding a meeting about the Tymoshenko issue and the "resolution". not recall the meeting specifically, but generally recalled Gates wanted Mercury and Podesta to discourage members of United States Congress from signing or supporting a resolution. I I was not sure if other employees of Mercury or Podesta did lobby in this manner. Wiley Rein, a law firm, was working with former b5 Congressman Slattery in opposition of the Tymoshenko arrest and imprisonment. not recall communicating with Gates regarding this issue. asked about an email from Gates asking Mercury to implement b5 - . - a strategic plan which was approved by Kyiv. not recall this email, or a meeting about a strategic plan from Kyiv. asked about an email from Gates referring to new ECFMU board b6 members. I Idid not recall this email, or any change among ECFMU b7C board members. I was asked if he ever lobbied Congressman Rohrbacher on behalf of b6 ECFMU. was adamant that he never lobbied Rohrbacher. Rohrbacher was a notorious pro-Russianl I was asked if he ever met with anyone from Carnegie regarding the ECFMU. did not believe he ever met with anyone from Carnegie, but ltoldl lall politicians in Russia and Ukraine were corrupt. b6 b6 b3 per DOJIOIP b6 b6 (Rm: b7: CommunionoFFD-??l of (U) Interview .On .F?ngc 6 Of 6 advised that deliberately making false statements to federal b6 agents was a crime. Subsequent to this sent the interviewing agents a b5 series of emails. Those emails have been attached to this FD 302. In summary} the following information in the emails: Mercury employee not have worked on the ECFMU account. he b7C let her know the FBI may be contacting her. Idid not contact b6 lfor the specific purpose of talking about however their b7c conversation did turn to the topic of ECFMU. Perl Ibrofile which was attached to email, (Rev. -l of 3- FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Date of entry 11f06f2017 Signature Bank (SBJI present during the interview werd interviewing Agent and the nature of the interview, following information: has interviewed at I Also 1 After being advised of the identity of the Irepresenting both SB andl land FBI Forensic provided the lntest'tgution on 10f12f2017 File at United States {In Person) Date dra?cd by lDflEf2DlT This doeumerat contains neither nor conclusions ofthe FBI. [1 is the pnopeity of the FBI and is loaned to your agencydistributed outside your agency. b6 b6 b6 b6 b6 b6 FD-rmza (Rev. 05-03-10} 3375'- ContinuationoFFD-B?lor 302 (Signature Bank} .011 10f12f2017? .1?21gc 2 of 3 136 b6 136 hi?: b6 b6 (Rm: ContinuationoFFD-B?lor 302 (Signature Bank} .011 10f12f2017? .1?21gc 3 of 3 b6 (Rev. -l of 3- FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Date of entry On February 20, 2017, Special Agent (BAH Intelligence Analyst of Investigation (FBI), met with teem} 3 02f24f2017 and [both of the Federal Bureau b5 I After being advised of the identity of the interviewers ?provided the following information: b6 b6 b6 b6 HID 1371] b3 lntest'tgution on 021?20f2017 at {In Person} 136 1373!. File by Date drafted HR: EYE O2f21f2017? This deeument neither nor conclusions efthe FBI. [1 is the ptepetty of the FBI and is loaned to year agency: it and its ee-ntents are net to be distributed eutstde your agency. 133 190-302;: (Rm. [us?nun} 137E UNCLASSI ContinuationoFFD-Bnlof linterview .On 02K20/f201? .1?21gc 2 Of 3 b6 (Rm: ion man; interview .On O2f20f201 - use? nimgmm:ssun 1 Of 2 - - 1; FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Ditto 03f03f2017 On February 2017, Special Agents (SAs}l I ha Intelligence Analyst I all of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), met withl (PROTECT I I After being advised of the identity of the interviewers provided the following information: b6 b6 1:3 1:6 lntestigution on at {In Person} Filetr'l I Date drafted O3f?lr/2017 b7E by This docmueut contains neither reconmtendutious nor conclusions ofthc FBI. [1 is the pl?OpCi?l}' of the FBI and is loaned to your agency: it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency. FBK 3;.ng 10 b3 (Rm. ContinuationMED-3920f Him2mm:ssun -1 of 13- Dwedewn' 11f07f2017 I Ipreviously identified, was interviewed by FBI Special Agent I land Special Counsel Prosecutors Andrew Weissmann and Greg Andres. Present during the interview After being advised of the identities of the interviewing parties and the nature of the interview, the following information: advised that her participation in the interview was voluntary and if she chose to answer questions, she needed to be honest in her responses as lying to the FBI andfor DOJ could constitute a federal crime. lme??anmt 10f23f201? United States (In Person} t?tlett.E I I Date dra?ed 10f27f201? by I I This doeuntent contains neither nor conclusions ofthe FBI. [1 is the pl?OpCl?l}' of the FBI and is loaned to }'ous' agency: it and its eontents are not to be distributed outside your agency. b3 b6 b3 b6 b3 136 1370 b3 b6 we I (Rm: Cominumionc-FFD-??laf (WI IFollow Up .011 10;?231201136 137C b3 (Rm. 115?112-111} 136 I I Conlinualionc-FFD-??laf I Follew Up .01. 101231201 b3 b6 12-71: (Rm: Cominumionc-FFD-??laf (WI Follew Up .01. 101231201136 137C b3 FD-fmza (Rm. b6 we CommunionuFFD-??luf (Ul'l Up .On Jung I b3 b6 1:7: I (Rm: CommunionuFFD-??luf (Ul'l Up .On Jung; E- of 13 b3 b6 137C 137C b3 b6 b3 b6 I b3 FD-fmza (Rm. 115412-10} b6 b7: (WI Follew Up .01. 101231201? my; 1 of 13 b3 I36 137 b3 b6 we I (Rm: CommunionuFFD-??luf (UH UP .On Jung137C b3 b6 133 190-302;: (Rm. [us?nun} b6 CommunionuFFD-??luf (Ul'l Up .On JungI36 137:! b3 b6 137C b3 b6 b3 b6 b3 b6 I I Cominumionc-FFD-??laf (WI Follew Up .01. 101231201? my; 10 of 13 (Rm I b3 FD-fmza (Rm. 115412-10} b6 12-71: (WI IFollow Up .01. 101231201136 b3 b6 137C (Rm: Cominumionc-FFD-??laf (UH lFollew Up .01. 101231201136 137C 133 190-3112;: (Rm. 115413-10} b6 b7: I 137E Cominumionc-FFD-??laf (WI Follew Up .03 1012312013 my; 13 of 13 b3 b6 (Rev. -l of 9- Dateofentrj' Ulf30f2018 Ipreviously identified, was interviewed by FBI Special Agents be I Iandl land Special Counsel Prosecutor Greg b7: Andres. Present during the interview was attorney forI I I After being advised of the identities of the interviewing parties and the nature of the the following information: b6 FARR of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARAthe Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA) was gained from on the job experience. has never received any formal training on PARA or LDA. b6 b7C b6 PDG consulted with outside counsel, Perkins Cooey, regarding FARA issues when necessary. Additionally, PDG hiredI b6 b6 1:37:11 11f08f2017 at Washington, District Of Columbia, United States (In Person} File?l I 12f03f201? b6 by I 137's This deeument contains neither conclusions ofthe FBIleaned te- mus' agencydistributed outside your agency. FBK 19W1 b6 1* (Rm: Follow Up .On 11f08f201T .Hmc 2 Of 9 b6 Ukraine Imeeting with Rick Gates in which Gates suggested a work around h? to filing FARAJ hG b7C I be I IUkraine was a hot issue in Washington D.C. and b?c Iwas aware the representation would receive media coverage. I not believe she had subsequent conversations withI Iabout the fact that PDG did not file FARR for Ukraine. b6 b7: aware that various PDG employees who worked on Ukraine discussed the matter of FARR among themselves. Some of the employees who worked on Ukraine expressed their discomfort with the b6 representation. Specificallv, I b7C multiple conversations the Ukraine reca spec1 ic a1 5 ese h?c conversations. the representation was for the I b6 (Rm. mans-m} Follow Up .On 11f08f201T .Hmc 3 Of 9 government of Ukraine and that it required b6 I lmay have talked to about Ukraine, but she could not b6 recalldid not recall any conversations with about Ukraine. b7: I lhad conversations withl [about Ukraine. Iunderstood the client was the government of Ukraine and had an issue with PDG not registering under FARR for the b6 client. I b?c I Imay have had some conversations withI Iabout Ukraine. Imeeting with Gates and he b6 b6 he not know if worked on Ukraine. ch b6 b6 b7C I Idid not have any verbal conversations withl labout this matter. b6 b6 (Rm: (U) Up .On llf??f'EOlT 4 of 9 . Page 1:6 b6 NO Client wanted PBS to register under FARR for their representation because this meant more visibility into what they were doing. I I h? b6 b?C 1:16 I b6 I ma: Fo-mza (Rm. (15-11240; Communionarm-302 of (WI IFollow Up 11;?081201? . Page 5 of 9 previous relationship with either Paul Manafort or Rick Gates. did not thinkl Ihad a not an aversion to PARA. aware that generally, did, the higher their rankings. firms liked filing LDA because the more LDA filings they Some people who worked at PDG had an aversion to working on FARR clients because of their work on political campaignsb?C I b6 1* (Rm: 137E (U) Follow Up .On 11f08f2017' .F?ngc 6 Of 9 Meeting with Gates meeting was run by Gates and b5 During the meeting, it was clear that Gates was there on behalf of Paul Manafort. At the beginning of the meeting, Gates introduced himself as working for Manafort. Gates also said that Manafort represented the government of Ukraine. Gates spent most of the meeting talking about the Skadden Report and the issues with Yulia Tymoshenko. b6 Manafort also had a long time relationship with President Viktor Yanukovych. Gates did not specifically discuss why the government of Ukraine was looking to hire PDG, but he did say that Yanukovych was concerned with how Washington D.C. was viewing Ukraine. This was the reason the Skadden Report was commissioned to deal with the Tymoshenko issue. Gates talked a lot about the Tymoshenko issue, American views on Ukraine and the dissemination of the Skadden Report in this meeting. Gates never specifically said that the government of Ukraine was hiring PDG, but he implied that he and Manafort were hiring PDG on behalf of the government of Ukraine. At the end of the meeting, Gates made reference to the fact that PDG would not be registering under FARA for this client. Gates brought up the European Centre for a Modern Ukraine (EGFMU), which he described as an NGO established in Brussels. Gates said PDG would register for the EGFMU and thereby not need to file FARA. b5 I Gates said that the Ukrainian government could not be directly tied to hiring a lobbying group that was going to lobby on the Tymoshenko issue. The Ukrainian government wanted the lobbying efforts to appear independent from the government. b6 (Rm; Cmnmemn?FDJ?ld?iU} Follow Up .On 11f08f201T .Hmc Of 9 b6 I Gates and Manafort he would be giving direction to PDG on behalf of the client. not b7: get the impression that PDG would be taking direction from the EC FMU . Gates gave direction and not the ECFMU. hearing many complaints about the Ukraine client. b5 remembered hearing that a Party of Regions parliamentary member was ch put in charge of the ECFMU originally and then this was changed because someone on the hill questioned why was running the ECFMU. believed the member was changed for a recalled hearing people complain about the EGFMU's website and how to describe the ECFMU to US government officials they were lobbying. not recall any reference to how PDG would be paid, or whether b5 that payment would come directly from the ECFMU or elsewhere. reiterated that the purpose of the ECFMU was to provide separation from the Ukrainian government and make it appear that the lobbying efforts were independent. That said, she did not believe Gates talked about how PDG would be paid. Gates said the government of Ukraine wanted to change the view in Washington D.G. that Ukraine was Russia-leaning. The government of Ukraine wanted Washington D.C. to view them as European-leaning. Gates said the government of Ukraine was concerned that the Tymoshenko issue was causing people in Washington D.C. to view Tymoshenko as the pro?European choice and Yanukovych as the pro-Russian choice. this view had b5 traction among US government officials and think tanks. b7: The impropriety of using the NGO to avoid FARR did not come up during the meeting. I I b6 b7C Other b6 b6 Nil-302:1 (Rm: 05-0340} ch Follow Up .On 11f08f201T .Hmc 8 Of 9 lended up b6 publishing an article on Manafort's work for Yanukovych and how it related to P06 and wow. 1 b6 not talked to anyone else about this matter, except when the b6 FBI came to her house for an interview. b7: b6 knows of Konstantin Rilimnik, but she does not know him personally. Kilimnik is a frequently discussed person in Ukraine. It is commonly known that Kilimnik is connected to Russian Intelligence and was trained by Russian Military Intelligence (GRU). Rilimnik had admitted as much in previous interviews. that the Russian model for intelligence officers is to integrate them as businessmen. thought it was odd that the International Republican Institute (IRI) hired Rilimnik. Kilimnik began working for the IRI sometime in 2004 or 2005. thought it was odd that the US Embassy in Ukraine relied so heavily on Kilimnik for information on Russia and Ukraine. It wasl Kilimnik wrote an article on what was wrong with American b6 Democratic dissemination. believed Kilimnik did this while working b7: for Manafort and the IRI. heard from media sources that Kilimnik wrote a memo for Manafort on b6 how to pitch the Russians. did not have any other information on b7: this. Uranium One was a client of PDGI Spear Bank was a be client of PBS ldid not think PDG should have taken b7: on either client. b6 (Rm. (15-11240; (U) Follow Up .On .F?ngc 9 Of 9 b6 ldid not believe Uranium One involved any lobbying in the Idid not know how Uranium One came to PDG.I Spear Bank was a Russian controlled entity. not know why Spear Bank hired PDG. the hiring of PBS had something to do with b6 sanctions the US had put on Russian interests. I b7C not have communication with anyone who worked for MCW about he Ukraine. b7: '1 Of 6' Duteofentry lUfleZUl? DOCUMENT RESTRICTED TO CASE PARTICIPANTS This document contains information that is restricted to case participants. I I date of birth[ Isocial security account numberl Iwas interviewed by FBI Special Agent[ I and Special Counsel Prosecutors Hndrew Weissmann and Greg Hndres. Present during the interview I After being advised of the identities of the interviewing parties and the nature of the the following information: United States {In 10f05f2017 Person} Hm# I Dmemmkd 10f05f201T by I I This document contains neither recommendations nor conclusions of the FBI. it is the property of the FBI and is loaned to your agency; it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agencyb?C I b3 b6 I I (Rm: CommunionuFFD-??luf (UH I .On .F?ngc 133 b3 FD-fmza (Rm. b6 CommunionMED-3n: (if (U) I I .On .F?ngc 136 137C 1:13 b3 b6 b3 b6 I 1:73 (Rm: CommunionMED-3n: of I .On .F?ngc b3 FD-fmza (Rm. b6 we CommunionMED-3n: of (U) I I .On .F?ngc 136 137C 1 b3 b6 we I I (Rm: CommunionMED-3n: of (U) I .On .F?ngc 6 Of '5 b3 b6 b3 136 137C I36 137:! b3 b6 (Rev. -l of 2- FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Date of entry 08f29f2018 at the Office of the Special Counsel in The interviewers were FBI Special Agentl Washington, D.C. and Assistant Special Counsels Weissmann. Present representingl Iwasl (ABC) Jeannie S. Rhee and Andrew I After being advised of the identities of the interviewers and the nature of the provided the following information: Podesta grew quickly during the Obama Administration raise the profile of the firm. knew foreign clients would pay big fees and I Some foreign governments did not want their lobbyists to file under FARA because of the transparency. The financial reporting may be a problem domestically because the government would need to explain where the money for the often high fees came The foreign governments also wanted the lobbying efforts to look from. independent which disclosing the government as the client did not on 08f17f2018 at Washington, District Of Columbia, United States (In Person} File I by I Date drafted 08f24f2018 This deeument neither rte-r conclusions efthe FBI. [1 is the ptepetty of the FBI and is loaned to your agency: it and its ee-ntents are net to be distributed eutstde your agency (Rev. .On OBKITKEUIB Interview Jew allow. Each Podesta employee had to keep track of their own FARR activitiesAlmost all Podesta?s clients had more than one lobbying firm. The work was divided by area of expertise or political party. Podesta was associated withI There were a large number of people from Podesta and Mercury at the first client meeting in Podesta?s conference room. Rick Gates represented the client. The meeting lasted about two hours. The meeting focused on two or three issues including a white paper from Skadden Arps on the trial of Tymoshenko. Greg Craig. the former White House counsel, authored the paper. The discussion centered on how it would be rolled out. Another issue was Podesta arranging meetings in the U.S. for Ukrainian government officials. Gates did most of the talking during the meeting. Gates said he was there on behalf of Manafort. I I to Gates who reported to Manafort who reported to Yanukovych. Gates explained that a non?government organization the European Centre for a Modern Ukraine (ECFMU), was being setup '1 Of 3' Ease FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Date ofcuu'y 09f01f2017 born was contacted at Washington, D.C. was accompanied by his attorney, lPresent for the interview was the undersigned Special Agents, as well as and Attorney Andrew Weisman. After being apprised of the official identities of all present, and having reviewed and signed the letter dated I stated the following: Bavrock: I be Felix Sater introduced] I Sater himself, I b6 b6 b6 Washington, District Of Columbia, United States {In [m-cstiguuonon 07 f20f201? an Person} File if Date drafted 0? f2 5,3201?" b6 by This document contains neither recommendations nor conclusions of the FBI. it is the property of the FBI and is loaned to your agency; it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency. 1 5 65 b6 137C (Rev. ContinuationoFFD-B?lof Interview of .011 .1?21gc 2 of 3 b6 I36 137:! b6 b6 b6 13:6 1376. ContinuationofFD-B?lof Interview Of .011 OTf20f20lT .1?21gc 3 Of 3 Felix Sater: I lSater traveled to] [and worked as a ?senior advisor? for the Trump Organization. Eventually, Trump threw Sater out after press releases indicating his {Sater?s} criminal past.[ I that he has never done business with Paul Manafort, Carter Page, Michael or Richard Gates. The name Hgalarov sounded familiar but he couldn't specify nym2mm:ssnn -1 of 10- Duteofentn' 09f2lf2017 DOCUMENT RESTRICTED TO CASE PARTICIPANTS This document contains information that is restricted to case participants. I [date of birthl I social securitv account he I I b7C number address cellular telephone numberl [was interviewed at her residence by FBI Supervisory Special Agentl land Special After being advised of the identities of the interviewing agents and the nature of the the following information: Background h? b6 b6 h?C The Podesta Group b6 h?C Washington, District Of Columbia, United States {In 09f14f2017 Person} . . b6 .I . 09fl5f2DlT her Dmemmkd b?rl b7E This document contains neither recommendations nor conclusions of the FBI. it is the property of the FBI and is loaned to your agency; it and its contents are not 0 be dis n'bu ed ou side tour a I i? b6 (Rm: of (U) Interview .On ngl?lKEOlT .F?ngc 2 Of 10 I Iunderstanding was that any foreign government or political party influencing United b6 States (US) policy required a FARR registration. lwas not ch uncomfortable reoisterino under PARA. I I ]did not believe she had registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA) for any foreign client. not think the LDA exception should even exist. b6 136 HR: b6 136 hi?: b6 1:16 b6 190-302;: (Rm. [us?nun} (U) Interview .On ngl?lx?EOlT Jung; 3 of 10 Communion 0F 0F b6 13'3?: 136 b6 b6 b7!) E36 1257!: b6 b7!) Ukraine b6 (Rm: Interview .On 09f14f201? .me 4 Of 10 h? Beginning in or aroundl began hearing talk h? about the Ukraine becoming a client. I lbelieved there were some early emails exchanged on the topic. I b6 land b7c lall had reservations about the Yanukovych government, the issues related to the jailing of Yulia Tymoshenko, human rights issues and the departure from democracy that was occurring in Ukraine under Yanukovych's rule. I I hG b6 and some others were in the meeting on the PDG side. In addition, there were a few people from Mercury in the meeting, butl Iwas not sure who from Mercury attended. I The meeting was held by Rick Gates and worked for Paul 23C Manafort. Gates it clear in the meeting that they were there on behalf of Manafort and that they, along with Manafort, represented the Ukrainian government and Yanukovych. Gates said they had a long standing political consulting contract with the Ukrainian government. Gates to a Skadden Arps report h6 written by former White House Counsel, Greg Craig. Gates the Ukrainian government had hired Skadden Arps to write this report to b6 Fo-mza (Rm. [us?nun} b7c Interview .On 09f14f2017 ~pM? 5 of 10 explain how Tymoshenko was a drug addict who had directed murders. Further, Tymoshenko was the reason for the Orange Revolution's collapse and she deserved to be in prison. Gates a draft ha of the report would be out in the near future and they would provide a copy to PDG for review. Gates behalf of Manafort and the Ukrainian government, he wanted to hire PDG to lobby members of the US government and talk to various think tanks primarily on the issue of Tymoshenko. Gates and explained that the Obama Administration's relationship with the Ukrainian government was strained and helping US government officials to see the Tymoshenko arrest as legitimate was central to improving that relationship. Gates mentioned that delegations of Ukrainian officials would be coming to the US to meet with various members of the US government and PDG would be arranging for those meetings. At least half of the meeting was spent talking about the Tymoshenko issue and specifically, ways to discredit Tymoshenko. During the meeting, he b7C Gates and] lmade it clear that Manafort had direct access and contact with various members of the Ukrainian government, to include Yanukovych. Gates PDG to write up a plan on what they planned to he do. Toward the end of the meeting, Gates they would h?C be setting up a non-governmental organization (NGO) through which they would work with PDG. the NGO was called the European Centre for a Modern Ukraine (ECFMU). Gates and the ECFMU was going to be established in Belgium and they would create a website for it. Gates and the purpose of the ECFMU was so that PDG did not need to file FARR. Gates that the ECFMU would be the client, PDG would file under LDA and that this could not be connected to Yanukovych. some discussion about the ECFMU being made to look like h6 they were oriented toward the west. Gates something b7C about the EGFMU putting out the Skadden Report, facilitating briefings, setting up meetings on the Hill and visits to the US by Ukrainian officials. remembered that a Party of Regions official was named as the head of the ECFMU and then Gates realized that needed to be b6 (Rm: [Interview .On 09f14f201chan ed that so a woman was ut in char e. also believed Gates and . b7C said that the ECFMU would be the entity paying PDG. explained that Gates absolutely clear about the fact that they were hiring PBS to represent the government of h? Ukraine. They were also clear that the NGO was being established for this purpose and it was merely a "pass through?, or financial vehicle used to pay PDG so they could file LDA. I Isensed that the decision had already been made. he just nodded in response. b6 h?C b6 h6 not sure when PDG actually began work for Ukraine or who ended up leading the Ukraine team. h6 b7C read in newspapers that PDG obtained a letter from the ECFMU which stated the ECFMU was not connected to the government. not know for sure, but said it was likely thatl [asked for this letter h? even thoudhl Iknew this was not true. I b6 (Rm. Interview .On ngl?leUlT JungEmails her iPhone for emails related to this matter. recalled forwarding some emails to her personal email around this time because she was frequently out of the office and country. an b6 email from her datedI In the emailfl Ihad forwarded an b7: forwarded the email toI I I I Ithought this email was prior to the meeting with Gates and be but after she had been invited to the meeting. I Ifound another email datedI I be I andI this emailJ Iforwarded an article h?C regardingI Icommented in the body of the email,I I (Rm: Interview I lfound a third email dated this email,l . On 09f14f201? ng forwarded an article titled[ I In the body of the email, 8 of 10 I In was shown an email datedl I 1 Iregardingl Irecalled that Gates was the point of contact for this client. I hnderstanding was that Gates told the PDG team working on Ukraine. what he wanted PBS to do that to asked if PDG had used similar "pass throughs" to avoid registering under FARE for any other clients. that she did not think PDG had misused the LDA exception in this manner before 190-302;: (Rm. [us?nun} of (U) Interview .On ngl?l?KEOlT .F?ngc recalled a "Soviet laser guy" who worked for an entity called 9 of 10 Uraniuml. The client was Russian, but the work was not in the US. believed this occurred a few months prior to Ukraine and that PDG filed under LDA for this client. recalled British Petrol (BP) was a long standing client of PDG's. BP wanted PBS to lobby on the Hill about a deal that was unraveling that related to Alpha not have other details about this. PDG took on Spear Bank as a client. Spear Bank was well known to be Russian government. knew of Paul Manafort from, lbut she did not personally know Manafort. I I Manafort was the person who used the contacts of the firm and international clients to do business deals. Manafort was connected to Konstantin Kilimnik, a Russian intelligence officer with great English language skills. Kilimnik and Manafort worked for Yanukovych. Kilimnik had great Ukrainian contacts and was even known to have regular access to US government officials at the Embassy in Kiev. this from various reporters investigating the connection between Manafort, Yanukovych, Rilimnik and US lobbying. stated she would search for any other documents related to this matter and voluntarily provide those to the FBI b6 (Rm: b7C CommunionoFFD-??lof (U) Interview .On ngl?leUlT Jung; 10 of 10 The morning following this another email found on her iPhone. This email was a continuation of the] I b6 email in which she had forwarded I b?C In the continuation, andl lexohanged emails as follows: b6 The emails shown to and forwarded have been attached to this FDBOZ. tat?s?} 3 . 1 Of 2 ofentn- 08f08f2016 [date of birth be social securitv account number] [was interviewed by telephone at phone number[ resides atI I I [After being advised of the identity of the interviewing Agent and the nature of the interviewI provided the following information: I [was formerlv emploved atI b6 b6 137C I 136 KONSTANTIN KILIMNIK who is involved in the DONALD J. TRUMP campaign. KILIMNIK is associated to the campaign through one of advisers, PAUL JOHN MHNAFORT .I ln't'csiigttiionon 03f05f2016 at Washington, District Of Columbia, United States {Phone} meg thtedra?cd 08fD8f2016 b3 b6 This doeument contains neither I'CCOl?nl?t?tCl?td?liOl?tS nor conclusions ofthe FBI. [1 is the pnopetty of the FBI and is loaned to your agency: it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency. 133 Fo-fmza (Rm. b6 b7: Interview of I .On 08f05f2016 .Pmm 2 Of 2 hE b6 BLACK MRNAFORT END STONE, a political consulting company, is located at 211 North Union Street, Suite 300. One of their subsidiaries, DHVIS MANAFORT AND FREEDMAN, is located at 211 North Union Street, Suite 250. b6 b6 is willing to provide this, along with the supporting documentation, to the FBI at any time. -l of l- ?icy: S-R-IU) FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION le29f2018 Date of entry Rush Atkinson and Special (U) On Ul/leZDlB Assistant Special Counsel L. Agentl Icalledl b6 b?C (U) SAI Iexplained that the Special Counsel?s Office was interested in! knowledge of the Trump Tower Moscow deal. ASC Atkinson provided some specifics related to the line of questioning during the interview. b6 {Uil I asked if it was however, ASC Atkinson possible to conduct the interview virtually, declined. United States {Phone} Olf18f2018 01f18f2018 EH Washington, District Of Columbia, Date dra?cd File by This doeumeut contains neither recommendations nor conclusions oflhe FBI. [1 is the peopeny of the FBI and is loaned Io your agencydistribulcd outside your agency. ETD-302 (Rev. 5-8-10) -l of 2- of entry 07f30f2018 On May 10th 2018 4:00 PM, at the office of Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee's legal counsel, Northwest, Suite 600, Washington, Perkins Coie, District of Columbia 20005, Iwas interviewed by employees of the Special Counsel?s Office. Attorneyl Bureau of Investigation Special Agent Investigation Management and Program Analys? Counsel Attorney Jessica Romero, and Special Counsel Attorney Heather Perkins Coie Associatel T00 Thirteenth Street In attendance were Perkins Coie Federal I Federal Bureau of I Special Alpino. After being advised of the identity of the interviewing agents, and purpose of the interview, stated the following: 05/!10f2018 at Washington, District Of Columbia, United States (In Person} File I Date dra?cd This doeument contains neither recommendations nor conclusions oflne FBIloaned to your agency: it and its eontents are not to be distributed outside your agency. 05f10f2018 b6 b7: b6 b6 b6 (Rm: Communion 0F (if (U) Interview (Rev. S-R-IU) Hoes? FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Date ofentn- 09f28 f2 0 17' On September 26, Iwith a home address of land telephone numbers of? and was interviewed at her residence. Prior to the interviewing agent?s arrival the agent spoke on the phone to coordinate logistics for the interview. Upon arrival, after being advised of the identity of the interviewing Agent and the nature of the interview, provided the following information: I Ipreviouslyl provided the interviewing agent with an envelope containing I but at the time of the interview no longer worked for documents related tol lhad been provided the documents by] lexplained wished to remain anonymous in order to protect] rlhese documents included LNU lived local to the area. Ithe office for PAUL MANAFORT in Part of this process involved handling large quantities of Heste- lntesiigutionen 09f26f2017 at United Stat?'85 (In Person} Filett.E Date dra?ed 09f27f2017? by This deeuntent eentnins neither i'eemmnendations ne-r conclusions eflne FBI. [1 is the ptepeny of the FBI and is loaned to year agency: it and its ee-ntents are net to be distributed eutside your agency137C b6 (Rev. 05-03-10} b7C ContinuationofFD-B?lof Interview Ofl I .On 09f26f2017? .1?21gc 2 Of 2 cash. LNU thought this was indicative of tax evasion. LNU understood b6 1 Of 4 FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Date ofentnand SpeCial Counsel ch Prosecutor (SCP) Andrew Weissmann interviewedl has represented I Prior to the start of the interview, SCP Weissmann advised that the interview was voluntary. Additionally, was advised that lying to federal investigators was a criminal offense. After being advised of the above and the identities of the interviewing team, provided the following information: Background b6 at the time of the interview. b6 [At the time of the interview, b6 MANAFORT Loans In making a mortgage decision, the bank would take the average of tax filings for the previous 2 years and the borrower's Profit Loss statements and use the lower of the two values. The therefore, could only hurt a borrower when acquiring a loan. An exception, therefore would only be to ignore rather than use to increase lending Hose- 05f07f2018 at Washington, District Of Columbia, United States (In Person} Filc? Dntedraited 05f11f2018 b6 This deeument contains neither ne-r conclusions eflne FBI. [1 is the pl?OpCl1}' of the FBI and is loaned to year agency: it and its ee-ntents are net to be distributed nutside your agency. FBK lgC?U'l 103 b6 (Rev. 137': of .On .Hmc 2 Of 4 limits. If a customer wanted to use to qualify for a higher loan, he or she would need an audited The bank looked at total cumulative loan to determine a borrower's ability to borrow money from them. b6 b6 b6 In 2016; for a cash-out refinance, a borrower would need to show up in- person to sign closing paperwork. A power-of-attorney could sign only with an exception. b5 EX PM 2 Email be b6 If mortgage debt was on the tax returns it was required on the RED. At the time of closing, borrowers sign a final application. The bank relied on the information signed?off by the borrower to be accurate. Underwriters did not revalidate information after a loan closed. b6 (Rm: Interview of ?2018 5fEmail EX PM 4 Email b6 FD-rmza (Rev. 05-03-10} 1375 Interview of .On .Hmc Email b6 b6 EX TR 6 Email b6 rsmni 1 Of 1 - FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Date ofentt'y 12f13f2018 On July 3, 20l8, was interviewed by Special Counsel?s Office Prosecutor Uzo Asonye and Forensic Accountant ?n advance of trial. Handwritten interview notes are maintained in a 1A envelope. ln'i'csiigiliionon 07f03f2018 at Washington, District Of Columbia, United States (In Person} - - - b6 meg Dutedra?ed 12fi2f2018 1337:: by This deeument eentnins neither ne-r conclusions eflne FBI. [1 is the piepeny of the FBI and is leaned te- yeur agency: it and its ee-ntents are net to be distributed outside your agency. FBK 190,1 5 107 1 Of 1 Dwedrmn' 08f17f2017 On August 16, 201?, SSAI lreceived a telephone call be from] Iof the Law office ofl I I loffice phone number] I cellular phone number[ email addressl I the following information: represents! Iwho indicated that he wants to be cooperative with the investigation, but because not re?contacted the FBI. indicated that he would contact Special Counsel attorney Aaron Zelinksy for further information about the investigation before scheduling a meeting with his client who was willing to cooperate. lm'esiiguiionon 08j16f2017 at Washington, District Of Columbia, United States {Phone} Filc? Datedm?ed 08f16f2017' :2 m' This doeumeut contains neither reeonnuendznious nor conclusions oflhe FBI. [1 is the pnopeny of the FBI and is loaned Io your agency: it and its eontenls are not to be distribulcd outside your agency. 1 gal 278} 5108 - tame? nimimm:inun 1 Of 2 - - :3 FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Dnteofentrj' I [was contacted at provided the following information: b6 b6 (PROTECT b6 (PROTECT (PROTECT IDENTITY). b6 b6 b7: b3 b6 Hb? Dmemmkd 11f02f201T m' 11f01f2017 EH United States {In Person) This deeuntent neither conclusions efthe FBI. [1 is the pnepetty ef the FBI and is leaned te- mur agencydistributed outside your agency. 1 5 1 1 2 b3 b6 (Rm: (Him Interview of Communion 0F (3F (PROTECT IDENTITY) .011 1 1,301}? 017 .F?ngc 2 Of 2 1 Of 1 FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Date ofentt'y llfl?lf2017 This information is the property of the FBI and may be distributed to state, tribal, or local government law enforcement officials with a need-to-know. Further distribution without FBI authorization is prohibited. Precautions should be taken to ensure this information is stored andfor destroyed in a manner that precludes unauthorized access. DOCUMENT RESTRICTED TO CASE PARTICIPANTS This document contains information that is restricted to case participants. {Uf?sese+ I was contacted on his home telephone in be I I He provided the following ch information: 1:3 {Uf?f??ef- McFarland's confirmation as U.S. Ambassador to Singapore is still pending and they did not know the reason for the delay. Once she is confirmed, McFarland is supposed to receive multiple State Department briefings before reporting. thought much of that would be b5 unnecessary given McFarland?s previous position as Deputy National ch Security Adviser, so they would be able to move fairly quickly. whereas-r I be tmcd?dbnmi 11f13f2017 EH Washington, District Of Columbia, United States {Phone} b6 Hb? Dmemmkd lifi3f201T by This doeuntent contains neither recommendations nor conclusions oflhe FBI. [1 is the pmpeny of the FBI and is loaned to your agency: it and its eontents are not to be distributed outside your agency. FBK 278)- 5 1 14 1 Of 1 FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Date ofentt'y 10f20f2017 was contacted telephonically at and be provided the following information: b6 Russian President Vladimir Putin has ?bit off more b5 than he can chew? in his government?s efforts to interfere in the U.S. election. The Russian administration sought to throw a wrench into the U. S. political process for what it perceived was a slight by the Obama administration in which Russia was not taken seriously. b6 fret-Je- lm'estigution on 10/! at (Prion-E} b6 File Dnte dra?ed 10'! by This doeuntent contains neither nor conclusions oflhe FBI. [1 is the piepeny of the FBI and is loaned to your agency: it and its eontents are not to be distributed outside your agency. FBK 19ml 278)? 5 1 15 (Rev. -l of 3- FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ofentt'y Olf04f2019 On or around August 8, 20l8, SAI land SAI I interviewed NICHOLAS PANUZIO, DOE 10f28f1935 at St. Michaels, Maryland. Also present was] I attorney, IAfter being advised of the identities of the interviewing agents, PANUZIO provided the following information: b6 b7C PANUZIO had a background in lobbying and consulting. He had been the mayor of Bridgeport, CT, and knew PAUL father. PANUZIO was recruited land MANAFORT and hired as the managing partner of Elack, Manafort Stone (EMS) on April 1, 1981. PANUZIO was responsible for running the business. At the time he was hired, PANUZIO did not know anything about FARA. His first exposure to the law was when he was contacted by the FARA unit regarding work performed for the Dominican Republic by EMS lobbyist, From then on, PANUZIO filed FARA for EMS's foreign b5 lobbying work. b7: filling out FARA forms. When preparing FARA filings, lwould go to the relevant partner to gather information she needed for the filing. her paperwork, b6 she would bring it to PANUZIO for a signature. EMS did not use outside b7: lawyers for FARA. PANUZIO did not feel it necessary to consult an attorney when signing off on the FARA filings. PANUZIO provided a telephone number of I b6 PANUZIO provided telephone numbersl I ETC was an attorney and a friend of MANAFORT's. b6 I MANAFORT had a lot of foreign clients. 03f08f2018 at St. Michaels, Maryland, United States {In Person} b6 .. . . .. 08f08f2018 I: Date dnu?cd by This deeumeut eentnins neither rceennuendutiws sac-r conclusions eflhe FBI. [1 is the ptepeny of the FBI and is loaned to your agency: it and its tll'c net to be distributed outside your agency. FD-Tmza (Rev. 05?03-10} (UfaLFe'H-e-ll Interview of NICHOLAS PANUZIO CommunionoFFD-??lof on .On OBKUBKEUIB 2 of 3 MANAFORT left the firm in 1992. PANUZIO did not discuss business with MANAFORT after he left. PANUZIO left EMS in approximately 1992 and started a business with another individual Following that business venture, PANUZIO started a lobbying business in Connecticutl h6 last saw MANAFORT at dinner with andl in May 20l6 after! last phone contact with MANAFORT was approximately 2 months ago. PANUZIO and MANAFORT did not discuss anything related to criminal charges. PANUZIO did not recall the letter. PANUZIO recognized the name did some work with he MANAFORT but did not do a lot of foreign work. Since the time of the letter, PANUZIO assumed that EMS amended their registration statement forms. PANUZIO would not have needed an external legal opinion because he had two lawyers already working for the firm, MANAFORT E: PANUZIO may have alerted MANAFORT receiving the letter but was unsure. He also may have given the letter tol EX2 This document came after the firm had added new partners. PANUZIO may have brought the letter to the because it was financial in nature. b6 PANUZIO did not recall meeting Agents pointed out to Panuzio that page 15 of Attachment I to the letter states that the FARA unit met with PANUZIO PANUZIO did not recall meeting with the FARA unit. He did not recall STONE b6 performing the work described on page 14 of Attachment I of the letter. 57? b7E (Rm: Interview Of NICHOLAS PENUZIO 8f8f2018 .On 08f08f2018 .Hmc 3 Of 3 In overseeing the submission of the firm's FARR filings and in responding to this inquiry from the FARR unit, PANUZIO would only have known information that MANAFORT or STONE had told him. EXB PANUZIO would normally have circulated this document to MANAFORT. h6 nimgma:ssun '1 Of 6' Dwedtmn' Richard Ricky} Ruben Pinedo Jr. and Jeremy Lessem (Lawyer from Lessem Newstat LLP) were interviewed atl b6 1 After being advised of the identity b7: of the interviewing Agentl Prosecutor Lawrence R. Atkinson, and Prosecutor Ryan K. Dickey and the nature of the interview, PINEDO provided the following information: BIOGRAPHICAL: 1:36 AUCTION RESISTANCE: PINEDO developed an entrepreneurial self employment with company named Auction Essistance (AE). AE was described as a service orientated company to provide virtual bank solutions for e-commerce companies] 136 If?: I I PINEDO described two main types of services: Virtual Bank Account (VBA) lme??anmt 12f21f201? United States (In Person} Fileii Date dm?ed 121'213?201? b6 m' h?E This decrement contains neither conclusions ofthe FBI. [1 is the property of the FBI and is leaned te- mur agency: it and its ee-ntents are net to be distributed outside your agency. FBH 1 1 2G (Rm: h?E COHIIHIIEIHOH UP {if (UI RiChard (AKA RiCkZ-f} RUben Jr . . on 12,!VIRTUAL BANK ACCOUNT I IPINEDO provided the service of offering VBA The VBA service allowed clients to verify a bank account with an e? commerce entityl I After PINEDO's client received the VBA information, the client would utilize the VBAI I I I PINEDO opened several bank accounts in name. I I PINEDO provided personal banking information (account number and routing number) to clients to facilitate the VBA service. I Since 2015, PINEDO sought a hE supplier for bank accounts to continue PINEDO's VBA service and identified two top suppliers.I I PINEDO purchased bank account information from these two suppliersI IPINEDO continued operations with these suppliers: PINEDO's clients completed an online form on auctionessistance.com; PINEDO ordered bank accounts from the suppliers; the suppliers provided banking information; finallv PINEDO forwarded this banking information to clients. I I PINEDO's service was neccessary for PINEDO's clients in order to achieve a "Verified PINEDO acknowledged the distribution of fake bank accounts and verification of accounts was wrong. PINEDO instructed PINEDO's clients that the bank information was "Fake Info" through PINEDO's website. b6 b7E Ira-302;: (Rm. (15-11240; Richard (AKA Ricky} Ruben Pinedo Jr. .On l2f21f201T 3 of 6 ng b6 REQUESTED DOCUMENTATION: PINEDO identified further documentation that would be made available to the author. I b6 RUSSIA: PINEDO did not have knowledge any of his clients were from Russia. However, after the FBI visit, PINEDO searched open source information for the email address land noted that :3 I andl I I [were customers of RE. These email addresses were identified withl per open source research. NEW CUSTOMER ORDER b6 (Rm: Richard (AKA Ricky} Ruben Pinedo Jr. .On l2f21f201T RE: VBA DETAILS b6 RE: VBA DETAILS b6 b7E 190-302;: (Rm. [us?nun} (U) Richard (AKA Ricky} Ruben Pinedo Jr. .011 l2f21f2017" 5 of E- . Page b6 RE: VBA DETAILS I36 137:: b6 13?: RE: Vbal I b6 (Rm: Richard (AKA Ricky} Ruben Pinedo Jr. .On l2f21f201T 6 of 6 ng b6 b7C AUCTIONESSISTANCE.COM: PINEDO created the website auctionessistance.com. PINEDO utilized the twitter handle @Auction_E to advertise AE services. EACEBOOK: PINEDO utilized a Facebook account with name auctionessistant to advertise AE services. h? PINEDO maintained a second company identified as with b?C a domain, Twitter account, and Facebook account. '1 Of 5' Dnteefentrj' 12f11f2017 Richard "Ricky" Pinedo tPinedo}, bornl Driver?s License number: I was interviewed at his residencel I After being advised of the identities of the interviewing Agents and the nature of the interview, Pinedo provided the following information: Pinedo was reminded to be honest and truthful and that lying to the FBI was illegal to which he responded in the affirmative. He was also told that his interview was entirely voluntary. Pinedo was shown a copy of a Wikipedia pertaining to Chris Kyle, b6 b7C These documents have been placed electronically into a 1A. Pinedo utilizes the email account for personal and hG business purposes. He is the only person who has access to this email account. He uses a two factor authentication for security purposes. Pinedo stated that he is self-employed. He owns and operates ch Auction Essistance. 12f05f201? at U?itEd States (In . b6 . . l2f05/201T tie it Date dented h?C b7E by This deeument contains neither i'CCOl?nl?l?tCl'td?liOI?tS nc-r conclusions eflne FBI. [1 is the ptepeny cf the FBI and is loaned to )?Glli' agency: it and its contents are net to be distributed etitside your agency. (Rm: (U) Richard Pinedo .011 12505/2017 2 of 5 . Page b6 b6 b6 b7: IPinedo stated that he receives Fo-mza (Rm. (15-11240; 13-33 CommunionoE?FD-??lof (U) Richard Pinedo .011 12505/2017 3 of 5 . Page permission from customers to use their personnel information and said it would be a legal issue if he used false information with banking institutions. something to effect of, ?You are aware that providing be false information to a banking institution is fraud and it is a crime, correct?? to which Pinedo responded, 1"Yes? and added that you cannot use fake names, and it was against their policy too. hG Pinedo responded in the negative whether he had ever used anyone?s personal information to set-up online accounts, including bank accounts. Pinedo responded in the negative as to whether he had ever directed anyone to use false documents to set?up any accounts he Pinedo responded in the negative as to whether he or anyone connected with his company had set-up any false bank accounts for the purpose of setting up accountsl Pinedo said that he does not know Pinedo stated that he b5 would have no reason to have her banking information. Pinedo said he does not recall an email exchange with Chris Kyle (Kyle) in 2016. Pinedo was shown a picture of Kyle from Wikipedia and was told that Kyle was deceased which prompted Pinedo to state that he recognized the picture and recalled researching Kyle on the internet.l he IPinedo knew thatl [was from a foreign country because he used Internet Protocol (IF) tracing software to see from (Rm: FIFE (U) Richard Pinedo .011 12505/2017 4 of 5 . Page emailinq and sendinq IM messaqes. b6 Pinede stated that he does not deal with customers from Russia. b6 b?C 136 1:16 1370 h6 190-302;: (Rm. [us?nun} (U) Richard Pinedo .On 12f05f2017' .F?ngc 5 Of 5 b6 h?C Pinedo agreed to cooperate with the FBI and admitted that he lied about the bank account that he provided Pinedo read and signed an b5 1086, Consent to Assume Online Identity Authorization Form. Pinedo also read and signed an FD-gdl, Consent to Search Computer(s). Pinedo was asked to take his time in reading the forms and asked if he had any questions regarding them. Pinedo stated that he did not have any questions. Pinedo was not promised any specific benefit in return for his information or any cooperation that he provided in the interview. The FBI has not provided him any benefit in return for his statements and cooperation. nimgmm you? '1 Of 3' FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Date ofentt'gr 12 K2017 On June 8, 20l7, Isocial security numberl I be date of birthI Ihome addressI I b7: I Ivirginia, was interviewed at her residence. Also present during the interview wasl IDepartment of Justice Senior Financial Investigator. After being advised of the identity of the interviewing agent and the nature of the the following information: Upon being advised of the nature of the b5 could sit in on the interview, which he did. b7: I Ifirst met Paul Manafort tManafort} duringI I be I b7: Black, Manafort, Stone, and Atwater I Iworked acquaintance of Manafort. I b6 1217:! In approximatelyl b6 Manafort, Stone, and Freedman (DMSF). One of the primary projects DMSF worked on at the time was Senator Dole?s presidential campaign. Not long after, Stone left the firm[ I Iat DMSF, lntesiiguiionon o?jgafg?ljt I IVirginia, United States (In Person} Fileii I I Date dm?ed 061'093?201? b3 b6 m-I I b7c This document contains neither reeonmwendutious nor conclusions oflhe FBI. [1 is the pl?OpCi?l}' of the FBI and is loaned to your agency: it and its eontents are not to be distributed outside your agency. 190-3022: (Rev. b6 ME ContinuationoFFD-B?l of Interview ofl .011 06f08f2017' Jung; 2 of 3 which ultimately became Davis Manafort (DH). b6 I Ito name a few. 136 not have any knowledge of any bank accounts held in b6 Cypress. Manafort or Gates would have overseas accounts since they traveled for work internationally quite a bit. Manafort traveled quite a bit when he worked on the campaign in Ukraine. During the campaign in Ukraine, Manafort hired a few people to work with him in Ukraine. b6 In approximately 2012, Manafort andl Iwent their separate ways, and the office was closed. I I be if?: b6 had never heard of] I b6 b3 (Rm: b6 Continuationc-FFD-B?lof Interview of .011 06f08f2017? Jung: 3 of 3 b6 not had contact with Manafort b6 b6 At the conclusion of the interview, if the investigation into b6 Manafort was a "witchhunt". The writer gather evidence, and are only interested in seeking the truth and are impartial. -1 of l- (Rev. Date of entry 3 (U) On 02f05f2018 Special Agent! interviewed PETE LANDRUM via telephone for the ur oses of establishing an in-person interview. SA left a voicemail identifying himself and requesting that LANDRUM return his call referencing setting up a time for an interview. (U) on 02/05r?2018 at about 3:30 PM LANDRUM returned so :gc voicemail. LANDRUM asked if the interview was related to his time working at the Senate for Senator Sessions. SA told him it was, and specifically relating to the September 8th meeting. LANDRUM said that was the meeting with the Russian Ambassador, and agreed to the interview. LANDRUM would contact the Senate to see if he had any requirements with them related to the interview. LANDRUM said he would call SA back after hearing from the Senate. 02f05f2018 at District of Columbia, Washington, United States {Phone} 133 meg Dotedra?ed 02f05f2018 EEC b7E by This docmueut contains neither reconnuendutious nor conclusions ofthc FBI. [1 is the pl?OpCl?l}' of the FBI and is loaned to your agency: it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency. 1 Of 1 Date ofentt'y le29f2 8 (U) On Special Agent Icalled I 1:16 (U) b6 (U) 136 {Uil Iagreed to continue the conversation in the following week. 01f13f2018 at Washington, District Of Columbia, United States {Phone} b6 File Date dra?bits by I This doetimortt contains neither nor conclusions ofthe FBI. [1 is the pnopeny of the FBI and is loaned to your agency: it and its eontents are not to be distributed outside your agency. FBK 1 1 35 (Rev. -1 of 9- Dntcofentn? 02f05f2018 lwas interviewed by b5 FBI Special Agen? land Special Counsel Prosecutor Greg Andres atl I IPresent during the interview were counsel forl After being advised of the identities of the interviewing parties and the nature of the interview, provided the following information: Background b6 b7 b6 b7 6 b? Loan-To-Value (LTV) Loan?to?value (LTV) represents the amount of the loan requested versus the value of the collateral, or property. The maximum allowed for a loan is dependent on a few factors, to include the type of loan. For example, an investment property transaction has a maximum LTV of 65: while an initial purchase of a primary residence can have an LTV up to 90:. Fixed rate loans allow for higher LTVs than adjustable rate (ARM) or .. - be lntesttgutton on 11/! 17 201 Ht a es erson File if Date dra?This deeuntent neither sac-r conclusions efthe FBI. [1 is the pl?OpCl1}' of the FBI and is leaned te- mur agency: it and its ee-ntents are net to be distributed outside your agency. b6 (Rm: Interview' .On llfle201T .Hmc 2 Of 9 interest only loans. The loan amount also affects the LTV allowed. The higher the loan amount requested, the lower the allowed. For example, the initial purchase of a primary residence requiring a loan amount over $3 million has a maximum LTV of The higher the risk, the lower the LTV. Investment properties are more risky than primar residences, as such, investment properties have lower maximum this was because the borrower is dependent be on renters to pay their mortgage. In addition, borrowers are more likely ch to default on an investment property loan than on a mortgage against their primary residence. LTV thresholds are subject to exceptions if there are mitigating factors. Exceptions within 5: of the LTV thresholds are not uncommon. Debt?To?Income (DTI) Debt?to?income consists of two different ratios. The first is the amount of the borrower?s mortgagefhousing cost on the subject loan versus the borrower's income. The second is all of the borrower's debt versus the borrower's income. b6 b6 DTI is material to the underwriting decision as it determines whether the borrower can afford the mortgage payments. For a $3 million loan, the maximum DTI allowed is 30*. If the loan is less than $3 million, DTI can increase to a maximum of 45*. Real Estate Owned Borrowers are required to provide a schedule of real estate owned. The purpose of this is to see any additional debt the borrower is responsible for, such as mortgages, property taxes and insurance on other properties. This debt factors into the borrower?s DTI and is therefore material to the loan. b6 (Rm. 05-08-10} 131??: Interview' .On llfle201T .Hmc 3 Of 9 Usually, a borrower?s other mortgages appear on the borrower?s credit report, but sometimes they do not. If a property is owned free and clear, it is still relevant to the underwriting decision as there are costs associated with the property, such as insurance, taxes and homeowners association dues. The bank requests homeowners insurance certificates for all properties owned by the borrower. These certificates show mortgagee information as well as what the borrower pays in insurance on the property. Credit Report runs credit reports on their borrowers. the credit report to see the borrower's payment history, how extended the borrower is, if there are any derogatory items such as late payments, and to look at any other debt obligations the borrower may have. Additionally, recent inquiries on a borrower's credit report may be an indication they are acquiring new debt. As a condition of the loan, requires borrowers to verify they have not acquired any new be debt as a result of recent inquiries on their credit report. Again, this affects DTI and is therefore material to the loan. b6 In addition, it takes approximately 30 days for new debt to show up on credit reports or MERS. Use of Proceeds Any cash-out refinance transaction which involves more than $500,000 cash out to the borrower requires a letter of explanation as to the use of proceeds. In general, cash out in excess of $500,000 is not permitted by the bank without an exception. The reason the bank asks for a use of proceeds explanation is ensure the borrower is not using the funds to obtain new debt. For example, if the borrower was using the cash out to put a down payment on another property, that would need to be included in the debt obligations. Occupancy The use of the property is material to the bank because it determines risk. As described above, primary residences are less risky than b6 (Rm: 1117!: IntervieW' .On llfle201T .Hmc 4 Of 9 investment properties. As such, loans on investment properties have higher interest rates, have lower LTVs and require higher DTIs. b6 b6 Borrower Information The bank relies on the accuracy and completeness of information provided by the borrower. When the borrower signs various documents related to the loan, to include the 1003 Loan Application and various disclosure, they are attesting to the truthfulness and completeness of the information provided. b6 The underwriter reviews the documentation and then sets conditions needed for the loan to close. b6 IConditions must be cleared for the loan to close. The information and/or documentation requested in those conditions are material to the loans closing. b6 b6 b6 (Rm. Interview .On 11f17f2017 5 of 9 ng Paul Manafort b6 b6 b7: b6 Document 1 lwaa shown an email thread dated b6 b6 b6 b6 b7: (Rm: Communion of of (U) llnterview . Document 2 was shown Manafort. b6 b7: for b6 b6 Document 15 was shown b6 b6 b6 Document 3 b6 (Rm. {15-11240} 137:: (U) Interview .On 1131772017" Ja?gc 70f9 Communion of of b6 was shown and email b6 b7C Document 4 was shown an email b7: b6 Only properties owned by the borrower and for which the borrower is responsible are included in the borrower's debt. If the property is owned by a business and the borrower is not personally responsible for the costs associated with that property, then it is not included in the borrower's debt. Document 5 I Iwas shown an email b6 b6 Document 6 I [was asked about an email be b6 b6 (Rm: Communion 0F (if (U 1' I nte ij?EW .011 1 17" f2 0 .F?ngc 8 Of 9 b6 b6 Document 8 I Iwas shown an email be b6 b6 b6 Other b6 b6 190-302;: (Rm. [us?nun} b6 b7: 9 of 9 b7E Communion 0F (if (U) Interview .011 01? .F?ngc b6 b6 b6 b6 b6 b6 I36 137:! 13:6 1376. I I nimgmm:ssun -1 of 11- Ulf30f2018 I I date of birthI social security account b6 numberl Iwas interviewed by FBI Special Agentl I b7: and Special Counsel Prosecutor Greg Andres. Present during the interview wereI IAfter being advised of the identities of the interviewing parties and the nature of the provided the following information: Background b6 I Iworked atI I b6 I Iprior to being hired by Banc of California (BOG) in I Ileft BOG in and currently works forI I I Throughout this time, role has beenl I Ititle at soc wasI I BOC Loan Process At BOC, loans are originated by Relationship Managers. Relationship Managers forward potential loans to the Portfolio Group Manager, who assigns it to a Portfolio Manager for pre-screening. Usually, the Relationship Manager forwards some basic financial information such as a Personal Financial Statement (PPS) and tax returns along with a summary of the loan scenario. The Portfolio Manager then requests additional documentation and information needed to underwrite the loan. This process typically involves multiple follow up requests which are relayed to the borrower through the Relationship Manager. At times, the Portfolio Manager communicates directly with the borrower. Once all of the documentation and information is received, the Portfolio Manager summarizes everything for the Portfolio Group Manager, Credit Administrator and President of Private Banking for review and tm-cstigutionon 12f07f2017 at Washington, District Of Columbia, United States (In Person} File if I I DEIIC drafted This docmnent contains neither nor conclusions ofthe FBIloaned to your agency: it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency. F??lgcv12?8}5145 b6 IInterview .On 12f07f201T 2 of ll approval. If the loan amount exceeds $5 million, it has to go to the Chief Credit Officer for final review and approval. The Portfolio Manager meets with the Portfolio Group Manager and the Credit Administrator to review information acquired during underwriting. If the Portfolio Group Manager and the Credit Adminstrator approve the loan to move forward, the Portfolio Manager writes up all of the facts and terms into a Credit Approval Memorandum (CAM). The Portfolio Manager does not approve or deny loans. During the time thatI Iworked at I b6 At BOC, b6 I I Unsecured loans are loans which are not secured by any specific collateral and thereby require personal guarantors. DSC Debt Service Coverage is the ratio between a borrower?s global cash flow, or income, and the borrower's global debt. BBC is a relevant factor in the underwriting process because it is the way the bank determines if a borrower can afford to make payments on the loan. BOC looked at the borrower?s cash flow extended over a 5 year period. At BCC, a DSC of 1.25X - 1.5K the loan amount, or better was standard. This threshold can vary depending on aggravating or mitigating circumstances. example of an exception being granted for b6 a borrower who had a large amount of liquid assets or a very high net worth. In such a circumstance, the DSC required could be less than 1.25 X. are the only people who can authorize a variance from the 1.25X DSC threshold. he had seen loans approved where the borrower only had a DSC of 1.0x, but that borrower had a lot of liquidity. In an unsecured loan, the borrower?s income was generally a primary source of repayment and therefore very important to the bank?s decision of whether to lend. Income is determined by looking at the borrower?s tax returns, distributions from business entities and profit loss statements for b6 Fo-mza (Rm. (15.11240; 1313 lInterview .On 12507/2017 ~pM? 3 of ll years in which tax returns had not yet been filed. If the borrower is self employed and their income is derived primarily from their business, their business' financials may also be reviewed. Debt is determined by looking at mortgages, unsecured loans, credit card debt, car payments and other debt obligations the borrower has. he would know about the borrower's debt by looking at the Personal Financial b7: Statement (FPS) and the borrower's credit report. The borrower was required to disclose any and all debt on their PFS. BOG relied on the borrower to accurately and completely disclose debts and income to the bank. In the case of the loan for Paul Manafort and the proceeds b6 were going to be used to pay for soft costs and improvements on properties they were developing. Manafort and REO BOG required borrowers to submit a schedule of real estate owned (RED) when applying for a loan. The purpose of the RED was so the bank could see what eguity the borrower had in real estate assets and whether or not those assets could be used a secondary source of repayment on the loan. In addition, the bank looked at the RED to determine what other debt obligations the borrower had as it related to other properties. The borrower's debt obligations on RED was a relevant factor in determining the borrower?s DSC and therefore their ability to repay the loan. BOC relied on the borrower to provide an accurate and complete account of their RED. Credit Report looked at the borrower's credit report to see what debt he obligations the borrower had, how leveraged they were, what their credit b7: and payment history looked like and what types of debt they had. considered it a red flag when a borrower had a lot of unsecured debt because this was an indication of the borrower being too leveraged. Use of Proceeds Borrowers are required to provide BOG an explanation as to how the proceeds of the loan will be used. BOC required this to understand the risk associated with the borrower. For example, if a borrower was going b6 (Rm: b7: CominuztlionoE?FD-??lof IUII IInterview .011 12507/2017 .F?ngc 4 Of ll to use the proceeds to pay off other debt, that would be risky because they were just trading one debt for another and not generating income or adding to their net worth. This was an indication of a leveraged borrower in perpetual debt. EOC wanted to see the proceeds going toward something that was going to be profitable. not aware of any prohibited uses for loan proceeds. That b6 said, BOG may deny a loan because of the way the borrower intended to use the proceeds. the example of B00 potentially denying a loan if they knew the borrower was using the proceeds to pay off other debt. BOC relied on the borrower to accurately disclose their intended use of proceeds. Manafort EOC they were going to use the loan proceeds to b6 pay for soft costs related to the development of real estate. This explanation was relevant to the bank because the real estate development business was a source of future cash flow and net worth for Manafort and Had BOC known Manafort using the loan proceeds for living expenses or to pay off other debts, that may have had a bearing on whether the loan was approved. was unable to say for sure if, or how it would have changed the loan. known that Manafort their use of b6 proceeds explanation, that would go to the truthfulness and honesty of the ch borrower. have brought such a misrepresentation up to his boss,I Iimmediately. had never known a borrower misrepresented such a thing before and couldn?t say for sure how it would have affected the loan. that errors were different than intentionally false b6 misrepresentations. the example of when borrowers overestimated the value of properties they owned. This was not that important to BOG, because BOG performed their own analysis of the properties values and did not rely on the borrower?s estimated values. b5 the came to BOC through al I namedI Iwho referred the loan toI I I The use generate business was not abnormal forI I but it was atypical for BOC in general. come to BOC fromI Iand hadI Ifrom his previous employment. Manafort and loan scenario was for b6 line of credit for the purpose of investing in soft costs related to real b7: I b6 Fo-mza (Rm. [us?nun} b7: I I IInterview .On 12507/2017 ~pM? 5 Of 11 estate development projects[ was assigned as the b6 Portfolio Manager for this loan. not recall how the loan dropped from the initiall I b6 tol lbut he believed not comfortable with a b7: line of credit to new customers. vaguely recalled a conversation he wanted to take the new relationship slow. also noted that Manafort and cash flow would not have supported Nanafort to discuss the purpose and terms of b6 the loan. was at the meeting in person and Manafort attended over b7: the phone. did most of the talking during the meeting. described what he and Manafort were doing with the properties why they wanted the line of credit. I Iprovided information on I not recall Manafort saying much, if anything during this b6 ?eeting. Manafort was there to be financial backer to b7: personally guarantee the loan. Manafort had an ownership interest in the properties being developed. Manafort was a political consultant from looking at his tax b6 returns, PFS and from open source searches, like Google, he had done on b7: Manafort. not know much about DMP International, other than it was Manafort?s consulting business per Manafort supplied. After the first meeting described above, had a subsequent meeting be with Manafort This meeting occurred sometime in late 2016 or early 201? and the purpose was to discuss why the properties had not been developed, the upcoming maturity of the loan and the avenue for repayment. The meeting took place at offices in Century City, California. I Iwere there on behalf of BOC. The meeting was requested by the bank because the line of credit had been fully drawn upon, no principal payments had been made and and b6 Manafort had been non?responsive to requests for updated information on the development of the properties and their financials. Manafort and required to provide quarterly updated financials to ensure they were abiding by the financial covenants of the loan, to include maintaining If a borrower does not abide by the financial covenants, it is technically a default of the loan. Generally, this results in the bank getting a waiver of the default and trying to restructure the loan with some kind of collateral as security. I b6 1* (Rm: IUII IInterview .On .F?ngc '5 Of 11 At the meeting, Iasked for an update on Manafort and b6 plan. Again,I Idid most of the talking during this b7: meeting. they were still developing the properties, they were just moving more slowly than originally planned. Manafort backed up what saying during the meeting. NeitherI Inor Manafort disclosedI I I Ifound out about I I b6 when he spoke withI Iwas trying to get information from Manafort when Manafort directed him toI I Manafort forI Iand could answerI I questions. I I be 137C Iwas not sure when he spoke with] Ibut he believed it was sometime in early 2017 after his meeting withI Iand Manafort. was not 100" sure his conversation with was after his meeting and Manafort. Had BOG learnedI I b5 I Ithey likely would have "downgraded" the loan and not b7: agreed to extend it past the maturity date. The bank would have exercised the personal guarantees and required Manafort personally repay the loan. it would have been a problem "for sure?. PFS shown the PFS submitted to BOG for Manafort. b6 he relied on this document while underwriting the loan. The purpose of 57C the document was for the borrower to provide BOC with information on their income, assets, liabilities and net worth. The reason the borrower was required to sign the document was to attest to the accuracy of the information contained therein and to authorize BOG to pull their credit report. In the section "Liabilities", Manafort was required to disclose all of his debt obligations. In the section "Schedule of Expenses", Manafort was required to break down his expenses such as carrying costs for properties. b6 this some of this information can also be obtained from looking at a borrower?s credit report or tax returns. However, if the property is held in the name of an LLC, it might not be on the borrower?s tax returns and Fo-mza (Rm. {15-11240} ch lInterview .On 12f07f201T 7 of ll BOC would not likely have looked at tax returns for every entity owned by Manafort. If Manafort was personally responsible for the debt, he was expected to list it on the PFS. In the section "Contingent Liabilities", Manafort was required to list any other loans for which he was a guarantor. In the section "Partnerships, LLCs Businesses Owned", Manafort was required to list any entities of which he was at least a 20: owner. In the section 1"Other Debts", Manafort was required to disclose any other debts that weren?t already listed elsewhere on the PPS. Often listed here are car payments, credit card debt or margin debt. The reason BOC required the information listed above was so they could accurately know the borrower's DSC, net worth and liquidity. DMP 20l5 that Manafort?s business? 2015 was requested b6 because the tax returns for that year had not yet been filed. b7: needed to look at the to determine the profitability of and to understand Manafort?s distribution income for 2015. the showing over $4.4 million in income for 2015 b6 was incorrect and the real income was closer to $400,000, he would have b7: immediately told that Manafort did not have sufficient cash flow to sustain the "the loan wouldn't have worked" because the ?debt service coverage wouldn?t have made sense". stated Manafort would not have been able to afford the loan given that his income was from 0MP. that Manafort, or others on Manafort's behalf, b6 falsified the he would have notified Manafort submitted b7: a materially false income statement and he would have recommended the loan for denial. This would have been a "big problem" he was relying on Manafort?s honesty. never found out a borrower submitted a materially false b6 document for a loan. this fraud. never filed a suspicious activity report (BAR) beforeJr but he believed a SAR would likely have been filed in this matter. not sure what BOC's process was for elevating fraud matters. Request for Other Loans b6 1* (Rm: IInterview .On .Pmm 8 Of 11 shown an email from him toI Idated March b6 23, 2016 in which he requested a "list of current loans against for Manafort. asking for liquidity statements for Manafort b6 and possiblyI Ialso asked for a b7: list of any loans against their liquidity. I Iknew about a margin loan that Manafort had against his brokerage account already. expected Manafort to respond with any other loans against his liquidity as these factored into Manafort's DSC. known that Manafort did not disclose all loans against his b5 liquidity, he would have recommended BOC not pursue the loan because Manafort was being dishonest. Bridgehampton I Iwas shown an email from b6 Idated May 3, 2016. I Istated thatI I was hisI I this issue occurred while he wasI I b6 recalled the issue related to Manafort not wantingI I Ito be a guarantor on the loan. However,I In order for Manafort to use all of the DMP International income and the full amount in his liquid accounts, BOG needed[ Idid not know why Manafort did not agree to this. As a result of this issue, the amount of the loan was reduced from b6 With regards to about Manafort misrepresenting his b6 ownership of the property in b7C Manafort had listed the property on his RED in his PFS, but he should not have listed it because he did not own it. not sure in the email when he wrote, ?Explanation as to the misrepresentation was unsatisfactory to me." Manafort?s Liquidity I Iwas shown an email from I be I Idated May 4, 2016. I Iwas b7: directed to the portions ofI Iemail which read, ?The liquidity is b6 (Rm. {15-11240} ch I ?gr?ymu?f IInterview .On 12f07f201T me 9 of ll somewhat volatile as it is net, margined liquidity at over 50* margin and subject to the equities market performance" and "Excluding the BER would materially weaken Paul Manafort's guaranty to the point that I would not feel comfortable recommending RLOC for approval at this b6 time." b7: stated thatI Idid not think Manafort's financials b5 supported I Iassumed to b7: volatile liquidity related to the fact that Manafort's liquid assets were mostly in a brokerage account which was subject to the stock market's volatility and which was margined by a line a of credit. CAM shown the Credit Approval Memorandum (CAM) for the Manafort b6 lo an. stated he created the original CAM for the loan when it was at When the loan amount was reduced to I Iso thel Ihad to revise the CAM. I Istated this was the revised version prepared by Ihad seen and reviewed this document before and the bulk of its content was pulled previous CAM. The CAM would be sent thenI for b6 approval. b7: The "Financial Covenants" section contained various metrics Manafort and required to maintain for the life of the loan. b6 The ?Source of Repayment? section listed the primary, secondary and tertiary sources of repayment given what was represented from Manafort and Specifically, Manafort the funds would be used b6 to further their real estate development projectsI I b7: I That was deemed the primary source of repayment. The secondary source of repayment was Manafort?s personal income from his business, DMP International. The 2015 was relied upon to determine Manafort's ability to repay this loan. The tertiary source of repayment was Manafort's liquid assets. The "Guarantor Analysis" section for Manafort referred to "verified income from Manafort?s consulting company". The information relied upon for this was the DMP International tax returns and b5 DMP International?s 2015 income as which was a miscalculation. the income in half had already divided it in half on the previous CAM. b6 1* (Rm: ch (U) Interview .On .F?ngc 10 Of 11 stated that DMP International's 2014 income was down from the h5 previous year, but the average cash flow from 2013?2015 was taken. stated that income can be volatile from year to year so the fact that DMP International's income was low in 2014 was not that important. Handwritten PFS shown a copy of Manafort?s signed PFS which also had b6 handwriting on it. the handwriting was his. b7: directed to the ?Assets? section where he wrote, ?Incl. In RE b6 schedule 1"as completed" values of several SFRs not currently owned." b7: stated Manafort's REO containedl I b6 Manafort andl Duringl due b7: diligence process, he realized by Manafort or should not be included in the PFS. I did not speak with Manafort about this. I did bring the issue up to I lwere removed from Manafort's PFS. Iexplained that he learnedl 1 b6 lduring searches on the internet. b7: directed to the question, "Are you a co?borrower or guarantor b6 on a loan?" next to which he wrote, "Guarantees MC Brooklyn Loans - $5.3 stated he learned about Manafort?s personal guaranty on loans be given to MC Brooklyn Holdings. Manafort should have disclosed this on his b7: PFS. not know if this was an oversight by Manafort or intentionally omitted. did not recall how he learned about the loans or Manafort's guaranty. speculated it was while he was conducting property searches on the internet, but he was not sure. know why Manafort did not disclose these loans on his b6 RED. did not recall being concerned about this lack of disclosure at the time he was underwriting the loan. it could have been an oversight by Manafort. asked why Manafort listed other mortgage loans on his RED, b6 but not these. did not know. agreed that these loans b7: should have been listed. b6 Fo-mza (Rm. [us?nun} ch lInterview .On 12507/2017 .Wmc ll of 11 was asked why a borrower would not disclose additional mortgage b6 stated borrowers would overstate their assets and understate liabilities so as to look more attractive to the bank. also thought the borrower may be trying to hide a problem with the loan. Looking at the CAM, the was not factored into b6 Manafort?s DSC. not know why. it should have b7: been included and it would have negatively affected Manafort?s DSC. he was told the loan was being paid by someone else, but he could not recall for sure. Current Status BOG, he was trying to work with Manafort and b6 pay down a portion of the loan's principal. trying to reduces b7: the bank?s exposure to loss. The loan matured in May 2017[ I I Idid not know where the loan stood now. (Roth -1 of 4- Dnteofentn? Ipreviously identified, was interviewed by FBI Special Agentl land Special Counsel Prosecutor Greg Andres. Present during the interview were counsel for[ After being advised of the identities of the interviewing parties and the nature of the provided the following information: has never testified before. has never been arrested. Paul Manafort approximately two times in person and believed he would recognize Manafort if he saw him. Banc of California Document Maintenance Banc of California (BOC) maintained loan files on a shared drive folder. Generally, email communication was not saved in the loan file, but attachments transmitted to the bank via email would be saved in the loan file. The loan documents usually came from the Relationship Manager. Iwas the Relationship Manager for I I Ifl ldid not forward documents or information he received, Iwould likely not have any way of knowing it. Personal Financial Statement/Loan Application Personal Financial Statement and Loan Applications are sometimes revised by borrowers to complete andfor correct information, but not always. Sometimes, the complete and/or correct information is handwritten on the original PFS learned. at BOC. Fe was able to run property profiles through Steward Title. recalled running many of the properties listed on Manafort and through Stewart Title so he lntest'tgutionmt 06f06f2018 at Washington, District Of Columbia, United States (In Person} Filctf I I Date drafted 06f06f2018 by I I This doeument contains neither nor conclusions ofthe FBIloaned to your agencydistributed outside your agency. b6 b6 b6 b7: 13:6 1:176. 136 b6 b6 Hit 136 (Rm: Interview .On 06f06f2018 .Hmc 2 Of 4 could understand whofwhat entity owned the properties and whether the properties were encumbered. Through this process, learned some of the properties listed on Manafort's EFS were not actually owned by hint could not recall if this was how he learned about the mortgage against Union St., Brooklyn, New York. it was likely that he learned about that mortgage through his title searches, but he had no independent recollection of that. If Manafort owned a property that was not listed on the would not know to run it and therefore would not know if it had a mortgage. Manafort's Schedule of Real Estate (RED) was not completed correctly. In addition to listing properties he did not yet own, Manafort also listed "market value" as the future completed value of potential renovation projects. Manafort did not understand the purpose of the RED, which was for currently owned properties and their current values. DMP 2015 for the DMP 2015 When reviewing this document, at member distributions, but the main item he looked for was net income of the company. the net income of UMP to understand Manafort's income since Manafort the only owners of the company. If the distribution amount to Manafort had been higher than the net income of questioned how the company was able to distribute more than they made. It was possible distributions were taken from cash reserves, but that was not a sustainable source of income and it would have guestion Manafort?s income. DMP's 2015 tax returns had not yet been filed not compare the to the tax returns. the representations of income on the at face value. The indicated it was prepared on an "income tax basis?. This meant the numbers on the would correlate with the tax returns. It also meant the income listed on the was already earned and received by December 31, 2015. Credit Approval Memo (CAM) The section for "Mission Rating? was for marketing purposes. A mission rating of 6 was on the low side (Rm. [us?nun} ch Cmnmemn?FDJ?lM?iLn .On 06f06f2018 .Hmc 3 Of 4 Thel Iloan was attributed a risk rating A risk he rating of 5 was standard for unsecured loans which have a strong guarantor. A risk rating higher than 5 would have required additional approvals. Manafort?s guaranty was "essential" to decision to extend the loan to lwas a speculative business and b6 required a strong financial guarantor. I Iunderwrote this loan exclusively using Manafort's financial wherewithal asl I In the Manafort cash flow analysis section of the CAM, in the 2015 column, a figure used for Manafort?s income. b6 stated that number should have beenl [based upon the 2015 provided by Manafort. not sure why was used as he this CAM was revised by The cash flow analysis previously prepared Ilikely used b5 lwas the total income to and since Manafort only owned half of the company, she divided it in half. Had thel lfigure actually been or half of b6 I lit would have resulted in a major discrepancy and the debt service coverage (DSC) would have been less than zero. I but he would not b6 have recommended this loan for approval if the 2015 USS was less than b7: zero. Despite the fact that tax returns showed 2012 and 2013 as strong years for have given the most weight to more recent years. In addition, Manafort?s liquidity was around This amount would not have been enough to mitigate the lack of cash flow from income as Manafort's expenses were high. PFS with Handwriting not aware of Manafort resubmitting a revised PFS. The b6 handwriting on this copy of the original PFS was b7: Loan Documents The Building Loan Agreement and Guaranty documents are mostly boiler plate language except the Financial Covenants sections which are drawn from the CAM. Other (Rm: I I I CommunionoFFD-??luf IInterview .On .F?ngc 4 Of 4 After the Iloan closed, updated financial information from times in accordance with the financial covenants requirement. It was very difficult to get any information, but have received minimal response to his requests. I Iis an internal credit reviewer at EOC. why income and expenses were divided in half for Manafort not a siqnor on the loan. sure why expenses were also cut in half. I Iwas aware of al Ihad atI I I Ilearned of this after Iloan had been extended. I IknewI Iamount was substantial, but he did not know how much. I Inever spoke with this. The fact thatI Ihad a relevant to the loan. believed] Iprovided some explanation as to the reason for he could not recall what that explanation was. I Iwas not aware of a personal relationship and I Iwas not aware participation in any scheme with BOC aware of issues CEO had with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). BOC's CEO had made a misstatement in a press release. but he did not recall any other details. thought BOC was sued by a former employee for wrongful termination 1 Of 2 FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Date ofentn- 08f09f2018 I I date of was interviewed at the Office of the Special Counsel in Washington, D.C. The interviewers were FBI Special Agent I Iand Assistant Special Counsel (ASC) Andrew Weissmann. After being advised of the identities of the interviewers and the nature of the the following information: I In BMSK merged with Gold Liebengood to form BKSH Associates? that Manafort and asked to leave after the merger. I the Kashmiri American Council The KAC were members of the Kashmiri diaspora in the U.S. that sought self?determination for the people in Kashmir. BMSK intensely lobbied Congress, the media and the Administration on behalf of the KAC. When BMSK split, the KAC went with Manafort to his new firm. In 2012, the KAC's director, Syed Fai was convicted of violating PARA. did not know that the Pakistani government funded the KAC. does not know if Manafort knew about the funding but Manafort had a lot of interaction with officials in the Pakistani government. Manafort met them at the embassy in the U.S. and over in Pakistan. I I A person may not want to file under PARA because it is a cumbersome process; (2) you must Esse- lntesiiguiionon 07f20f2018 at Washington, District Of Columbia, United States (In Person} File by Date draited 071,2 6f2018 This docmnent contains neither nor conclusions oflne FBI. [1 is the ptepeny of the FBI and is loaned to your agency: it and its contents are not b6 b6 b6 1:375 136 b7C h6 b6 to be distributed outside your agency. (Rev. Communion of of 2 0 2 8 Interview of disclose your finances and contacts; and (3) . On 07f2?f2018 by a client undercuts your credibility and authenticity. I Manafort did not report his activities to [did not know about financialsidentifying that you are paid b6 1 Of 1 Dnteofentry 12f05f2017 On December 5, 201?, pursuant to an attorney proffer, I serving as outside counsel to 1116 Hit: INC. provided information via telephone to Assistant Special Counsel (ASC) Andrew Goldstein of the Special Counsel?s Office. provided the following information: On November 29, 2017, MICHAEL COHEN I had a meeting at offices in Washington, I b6 I Isummarized the contents of the meeting and ABC Goldstein took notes, b?C which are being included in the attached 1A envelope. lm'esiigitii??o? 12f05f2017 at Washington, District Of Columbia, United States {Phone} b6 Fileii Dotedra?ed 121'053?201? . This doeuntent contains neither nor conclusions oflhe FBI. [1 is the pnopeny of the FBI and is loaned to your agency: it and its eontents are not to be distributed outside your agency. E'D-Stil (Rev. 1 Of 2 Dwedbmn' IUKISFZUIB (U) On 10f05f2018 Special Agent atl himself and asked if was available for an interview in the afternoon of 10/05f2018. stated he was not available and requested an email to him identifying the purpose of the interview. if it was acceptable to send an email from the fbi.gov address as proof of SAI Iidentity and then to discuss the purpose of the interview over the phone. Istated he did not want to discuss it over the phone and wanted it in writing. (U) On 10/05f2018 sa' Iemailedl Iperl request. emailed and] IThe email to] returned undeliverable. (U) On 10f05f2018 lresponded from the SAI lwith the attached email. (U) On 10f05f2018 SA called who provided the following information: I (U) On 10f05f2018 provided the following information: lme??anml 10f05f2018 in United States Filc? DEIIC dl'EI?Cd 10f05f?2018 This document contains neither nor conclusions oflne FBI. [1 is the pl?OpCl?l}' of the FBI and is loaned to your agency: it and its contents are not distributed outside your agency. 1231(ng1 278)_5177 1316 HR: (Rm: (U) Tele hone Interview of: CommunionoFFD-??lofl I .On .F?ugc 2 of 2 (ml b6 1:73 b6 b6 b7]! (CHI On 10/O5f2018 emailed the attached response 136 I (U) to questions. (U) On and 10/09f2018l lemailed SA : the attached emailsl t?x ,m neni souFEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Dnteofentry 08f08f2017 FEDERAL GRAND JURY MATERIAL - DISSEMINATE PURSUANT TO RULE Do not disseminate except as authorized by federal rule of criminal procedure On Monday, July 31, 2017, Ibusiness b3 partnersfowners of [were interviewed at their place of business located atl I I telephone numberl Present for the interview were Senior Financial Investigator (SFIJI Office of the Special Counsel; and Special Agentl lFederal Deposit Insurance Corporation - Office of the Inspector General. After being advised of the identities of the interviewing SFI and Agent and the nature of the interview! the following information was furnished: b3 b6 According toFederal Grand Jury subpoena for] b3 b6 A copy of the subpoena and Proof of Service have been attached for the file. Note: Approximately one hour after leaving b3 . . . . b6 telephoned SA Ito advise he was in the office and available to talk. interview will memorialized in a separate UNCLASS r1123- at United States (In Person} b3 b6 Hb? Dmemmkd 08f03f201T b7: by This document contains neither rte-r conclusions efthe FBI. [1 is the pteperty of the FBI and is leaned te- yeur agency: it and its ee-ntents are net to be distributed outside your agency. FBK 19ml 278)? 5 183 b3 b6 (Rm: UNCLASSI WE (Mass?1+ Communion .F?ngc 2 2 - tress nimgmm:ssun 1 Of 2 FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Date ofentn- 09f2lf2017 FEDERAL GRAND JURY MATERIAL - DISSEMINATE PURSUANT TO RULE Do not disseminate except as authorized by federal rule of criminal procedure On September 19, 2017, I work address, I I work telephone numberl Iwas b3 interviewed at his place of employmen? I. Also present be during the interview was Senior Financial Investigatorl I After being advised of the identity of the interviewing a ent and the nature of the interview and the nature of the interview, the following information: I When the writer identified himselfll knew the questions would relate tol h3 h6 Iwas served a Federal Grand Jury subpoena b7C fees. lntest'tgutionen 09f19f2017 at United States (In Person} Hm?l Dmemmkd 09f19f2DlT b3 b6 m'l This document contains neither conclusions efthe FBI. [1 is the pnepetty of the FBI and is leaned te- seur agency. it and its ee-ntents are net to be distributed outside your agency. FBK 19ml 278)? 5 192 (Rev. b3 b6 137C ContinuationoFFD-Bnlof Interview Of .011 093(19/2017? .1?21gc served subpoena are attached to this document as 1A evidence. 1 Of 1 Dwedbmn' 07f22f2017 FEDERAL GRAND JURY MATERIAL - DISSEMINATE PURSUANT TO RULE Do not disseminate except as authorized by federal rule of criminal procedure was interviewed via :2 telephone on July 21, 201?. Hfter being advised of the identity of the b7: interviewing Agent and the nature of the interview, provided the following information: After provided a response to a Grand Jury Subpoena regarding b3 b6 b3 b6 b3 lme??anml United States {Phone} b6 Hb?l Dmemmkd mi This decrement contains neither conclusions efthe FBI. [1 is the pneperty of the FBI and is loaned to your agency: it and its contents are net to be distributed outside your agency. nimgmm:ssuu '1 Of 5' Hi.- -: Dwedrmn' 02f04f2019 . On October 11, 2018, FBI Special Agentsl land lattempted to locate and interview] I date of birth be social security account numbed lat his b7: residence,l I At approximately 10:00 AM, the Agents knocked on the door and were met by . LI Irelayed that wasl I 'Wd the Agents into the home. ltelephonec? land allowed SA to speak with him. SAI kelayed the Agents intent to speak with him and stated' I SA confirmed the interview pertained to h5 them and agreed to return to the residence for the interview. The Agents departed the residence for a short time and returned at approximately 10:30 AM, at which time was interviewed in his home office. After being advised of the icentities of the interviewing Agents and the nature of the interview, provided the following information: 106 if?: b6 Credico knew Roger Stone hought Stone and Credico had known each other for a long time and that had linked them up initially thought Credico also did the promotions introductions for Stone on Stone?s shows. b6 lme??anml 10f11f2018 in United States {In Person} h? meg Date dra?cd 10f17f2018 by This doeumeut contains neither reeonnuendutious nor conclusions oflhe FBI. [1 is the ptopeny of the FBI and is loaned to your agency: it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency. FBK 19ml 278)? 5 195 (Rm: h? h'n: (U) Interv1ew of on lOfll Cominumion of 20 1 .011 ,f 1 f2 0 18 .F?ugc 2 of 5 hecalled that James Comey had been recently fired from his position as the FBI Director and b6 there was speculation in the news about the possibility of standing up a Special Counsel for the Russia investigation. b6 b6 b6 b6 b6 Communications between he In early 2018 Credico publicly shifted his comments on television and began denying that he was Stone?s back channel to WikiLeaks. Credico would sometimes answer questions from news reporters truthfully, and sometimes he did not.l b6 I36 190-302;: (Rm. [us?nun} (U) Interview 01 on lOfll Cominumion c-F 20 1 .011 ,f 1 f2 0 18 .F?ugc 3 of 5 136 1370 Stone had contacts at ArtVOicel 136 137?] b6 b6 b7!) b6 (Rm: 1:35 b'?E (U) Interview of on lOfll Con?rmation c-F {2018 .011 .Pngc 4 Of 5 b6 13:6 1376. 13:6 1376. b6 b6 b'?C 1:16 b7C b6 136 HR: b6 (Rm. [us?nun} b6 h?C (U) Interview of on lOfll ConlimmlionMED-302M {2018* .On lUfll/2018 .F?ugc 5 of 5 Voluntary production of documents: Loreed to provide the interviewino aoents with of 1:16 b6 13'3?: b6 b'?C Administrative: The original aqent notes, along with a copy of the 136 I lwill be maintained in the 1A section of the case file. h?C nimgmm:ssun '1 Of 3' Ulf3lf2019 [date of birth] Isocial security account numberl I was interviewed at the ecial Counsel's Office, 395 Street Southwest, Washington, DC 20024. was accompanied by his attorney,? 1 Present from the Special Counsel?s Office were Special Agentl I Special Agentl and b6 Assistant Special Counsel attorneys Aaron Zelinski and Jeannie Rhee. was provided with a proffer agreement for this interview. and his attorney both signed the advised that the interview was entirely voluntary and that he could take a break or speak with his attorney at any time. After being advised of the nature of the interview and the identity of the interviewing Agents, provided the following information: 136 Isaid he knew Credico had attempted to arrange an interview with Julian Assange hG h6 10f18f2018 at Washington, District Of Columbia, United States (In Person} . b6 . . Olf30f2019 it I Date dnu?cd by I This deeunient eenttiins neither i'CCOl?nl?l?tCl'td?liOI?tS nc-r conclusions eflne FBI. [1 is the ptepeny cf the FBI and is loaned to )?Glli' agency: it and its contents are net to be distributed outside your agency. FBK 190.31 27.8} 5200 (Rm: b6 h7E (U) Interview of on 10f18 Con?rmation of of {2018 ..Pngc 2 Of 3 b6 is still friends with but thinks he?s been misled. h?C 1:16 b6 b7: stated that he had not read a copy of Stone?s testimony to the House Intelligence Committee nor was he aware of what Stone said in it. b6 b6 1:16 Fo-mza (Rm. [us?nun} b6 (U) Interview of on 1(3le ConlimmlionMED-302M {2018* .On lUle/2018 .F?ugc 3 of 3 surmised that likely told that the FBI had contacted him after his interview contacted botd after he the Agents first tried to contact him showed the Agents a copy of b7C his xt message exchanges with botd andl End allowed SA to take photographs of them. The photographs are enclosed for the file as digital 1H attachments to this FD-302, along with the original notes and a copy of the signed proffer agreement. The orignal notes and proffer agreement will be mainted as a physical 1A item. E'D-Sttl (Rev. 5-8-10) 1 Of 1 Dnteofentn? ldate of birthl social security account numberl lwas interviewed at the United States District Courthouse, District of Columbia, 333 Constitution Avenue Northwest, Washington, DC 20001. Present from the Special Counsel?s Office were FBI b6 Special Agentl End Assistant Special Counsel attorney Aaron Zelinsky. lattorney,l was also present. After being advised of the identity of the interviewing Agent and the nature of the interview, provided the following information: 1316 b7C 1:16 10f19f2018 at Washington, District Of Columbia, United States (In Person} lm'estigtition Olf31/2019 ti Date dnu?ed EDT: by This document contains neither i'eeonmtendtitions nor conclusions oftne FBI. [1 is the poopeny of the FBI and is loaned to your agency: it and its contents tll'c not to be distributed outside your agency. 5203 E'D-Stil rum: 5-8-10) 1 Of 2 fees- FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Date ofentt'Tuesday, April 24, 2018, telephone b5 at the FBI West Palm Beach Resident Agency located at 505 S. Flagler Drive, Suite 500, West Palm Beach, FL 33401, in preparation for possible testimony at the trial of Paul Manafort in July 2018. Also present were Senior Assistant Special Counsel Greg D. Andres and FBI Forensic Accountant furnished the following information; 136 136 1371?. 136 1371?. 136 FR: UNCLASS tmestigutionon qu24f2018 at West Palm Beach, Florida, United States {In Person} - - 1:15 tr' -, 05f0lf2018 1e ttedu?ed by This deeumeut eeutuius neither recommendations conclusions efthe FBI. [1 is the pl?OpCi?l}' of the FBI and is loaned to your agency: it and its ee-ntents are net to be distributed outside your agency. FBK 19031 5209 b6 (Rex; 05?03-10} April 24? 2018 .On 04f24f2018 ng 2 of 2 b6 b6 When questioned if he knew an individual named Rick stated he heard of the name and might have spoken to him once when Gates asked forl b6 not know of, and never met an individual by the name of Konstantin Kilimnik. b6 b6 - tsetse: 1 Of 2 1; FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Dnteofentn? I Iwas contacted by lat I lprovided the following information: 136 is scheduled to come to his home inl hl/2U ?201? and will remain for two weeks. He stated that business is ?generally good,? and has been active in and throughout was the company ofl had previously engaged in lstated that he personally had no ties to the business and had not contributed to it he financiallyJ I b?C 1:16 b6 b6 1371'! lm'estigotion on 11f08f201iixos/zoit it Date dnu?ed h?E by This document contains neither nor conclusions oflne FBI. [1 is the pnopeny of the FBI and is loaned to your agency: it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency. (Rm: b6 12-71: Uff Interview of CommunionMED-?nial Ion .On .F?ngc 2 Of 2 Despite, b6 claimed to know very little about the business Silk Road. He heard that Silk Road was partners of 1 Of 1 Date ofentn- 04 04 f2 0 8 FEDERAL GRAND JURY INFORMATION This document contains information pertaining to a federal grand jury proceeding. The information may not be disseminated within or outside the FBI, except as provided for under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure wherein disclosure may be made to: an attorney for the government for use in performing that attorney's official duties; or any government personnel that an attorney for the government considers necessary to assist in performing that attorney's official duties. During an interview withl Iatl I Ion March 2018, Special Agent (SAJI b3 I land SAI lservedl lwith a Federal Grand Jury b6 subpoena! A copy of the subpoena is enclosed for the file as a digital 1A attachment to this FD-302. . . b3 lntesiigutionon 03/!27f2018 at United States (In Person} 11:6 ?kg Dmemmkd 04f03f2018 by This document contains neither nor conclusions oflne FBI. [1 is the pl?OpCl1}' of the FBI and is loaned to your agency: it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency. (Rev. 5-8- 1U) FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Dnteofentry 04f04f2018 I I interviewed telephonically by Assistant Special Counsel Aaron Zelinsky and Special Agent[ I After being advised of the identity of the interviewing Agent and the nature of the the following information: contacted the Special Counsel's Office prior to the captioned phone conversation and spoke with SA and advised he could be reached[ lThe captioned interview took place at approximately 1:15 PM EST. ASC Zelinsk advised ASC Zelinksk further advised the subpoena given to him by Agents on the evening of March 2018. ABC Zelinksy advised 1 Zelinsky, sol ASC Zelinksy advisedl lhe would be sending a revised subpoena for Iconfirmed the aforementioned as a at which he could be reached. Hose? lnt'est'tgutionon 03/!28f2018 Elt United States I DEIIC dl'EI?Cd 03f29f2018 by I This doeunieut contains neither nor conclusions ofthe FBI. [1 is the pnopeity of the FBI and is loaned to your agency: it and its eontents are not to be distributed outside your agencyI36 1371:33 1:6 131T. 5214 1 Of 2 FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Date ofentn- 03f18f2013 date of birthl Ihome address I Iwas interviewed at the law offices ofl In attendance was] Iattorney,l Assistant United States Attorney Iandl the office. After being advised of the identities of the interviewing Agent, the AUSA and the nature of the provided the following information: Ias requested by subpoena served by the officel I D3f13f2013 at United States (In Person} lntest'tgution en File by Date drafted 03513f2013 This deeument neither nor conclusions efthe FBIloaned to year agency: it and its ee-ntents are net teem} 3 h3 b6 b3 I36 137137E to be distributed eutstde your agency. b3 b6 190-302;: (Rm. mans-m} .On 03K13x2013 WC 2 of 2 CmumMMmu?FDJHEM?InterV1ew was not aware ofl b3 was not aware of] I b6 [was not aware] nimgmm:ssun -1 of 11- Dnteofentn? 10f3lf2018 Paul J. Manafort, date of was interviewed at the Special :3 . . Counsel's Office, located at 395 Street SE, Washington, D. C. Participating in the interview were Special Agent I I SA I Senior Assistant Special Counsel Jeannie S. Rhee, SASC Andrew Weissman,and Assistant Special Counsel Aaron Zelinsky. Manafort was accompanied by his attorneys, Richard Westling, Thomas Zehnle, and After being advised of the identity of the interviewing agents and the nature of the interview, Manafort provided the following information: Roger Stone was informally involved in the Donald J. Trump presidential campaign in April or May of 2016. Stone had been involved in the campaign in the beginning, while Manafort was not, so Manafort used Stone for institutional memory and knowledge of the campaign. Stone used Manafort for informal access back into the campaign. Stone recommended that Manafort bring on Michael Caputo, which Manafort did. Caputo initially came on to help with the April primary in New York, and then Manafort brought him on full time after that. Caputo had worked with Stone in the past and Manafort had met him years prior. Stone also recommended be 137': Manafort said Stone gave him information about Corey Lewandowski and Hope Hicks, two members of the campaign that Manafort did not know well. Stone hated Lewandowski, who undercut Manafort in the campaign. Stone thought he was helping Manafort by undercutting Lewandowski in the press, but it did not actually help Manafort much. Manafort explained that "the Count of Monte Cristo" was a nickname given to him during the Dole campaign period. that nickname up for Manafort because of the way Manafort wore his overcoat over his b6 b?C shoulders like a cape. Stone was an effective advocate from outside of the campaign. He was effective with both the mainstream and the alt?right media. Stone could also do things from outside the campaign that the campaign may not want to 09f27f2018 at Washington, District Of Columbia, United States (In Person} . b6 Ir"! D: ., 09f30f2018 1e tte d1 :?ed by This doeument eontnins neither nor conclusions oflne FBI. [1 is the pl?OpCl?l}' of the FBI and is loaned to your agency: it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency. 1 9011']. (Rm: (U) Interview of Paul J. Manafort CominmtlionMED-302M (09-2118? 09x2W2018 Jam 2 of 11 be directly associated with. For example, when Stone attacked Lewandowski, he thought he was being helpful from the outside. Manafort did not ask or need Stone to do it, as he did not think it was helpful. Stone tried to in the campaign at one point because :3 he thought it would help with Manafort wanted nothing to do with it and killed it, but Trump later brought it up himself. Manafort thought Trump raised it because Stone brought it up to him. Stone had a PAC that was not well funded and he wanted Manafort to designate it as the favored PAC for the campaign, but Manafort did not want to. Lewandowski also had a PAC and wanted the same thing, and Manafort did not want to deal with internal politics related to their PACs. He thought it was a good idea to have a designated PEG, he just did not want it to be either Stone?s or Lewandowski's. Stone asked Manafort for the RNC's internal lists and access to the list of users who had ?liked" Trump on Facebook and Twitter, and Manafort told him he could not do it. Manafort explained that while Stone had some ability to build his own lists and raise money, Stone would have had to build off of old lists. Stone would need the lists of people that were currently supportive of the candidate. Manafort was not sure how Stone made his money. Manafort knew Stone wrote books and gave speeches and did some consulting. Manafort knew Stone was working on a book about the Trump campaign and consulted with different candidates and on various referenda. Manafort did not know Stone?s client base. Manafort was not familiar with the company Citroen. Manafort and Stone communicated by telephone, email, and text message. Usually the emails and text messages were just to set up phone calls. They did not use apps to talk on the phone. Manafort did not know Stone's phone number off the top of his head, and said he just used whatever number was in his phone. Stone called Manafort from the same number every time, because it came up with his name on Manafort?s phone when Stone called. Stone and Manafort did not talk on a regular schedule. Sometimes Manafort had Rick Gates call Stone if Manafort was busy. Stone and Gates did not get along; Stone thought Gates was a liar. If Gates and Stone talked, Gates would report back to Manafort about the call. Gates and Stone would only talk if Stone needed something or needed something passed on to Manafort. Manafort reviewed an article from The Guardian dated June l2, 2016, entitled "WikiLeaks to publish more Hillary Clinton emails Julian Assange." Manafort recalled he had a conversation with Stone before that article came out where Stone said WikiLeaks had Clinton?s emails. At that Fo-mza (Rm. [us?nun} (U) Interview of Paul J. Manafort ContinuationDEED-302M (09-2118? Jam 3 of 11 time, Clinton's emails were a big thing in the news and Trump liked to say that she had been hacked and that she had put the country at risk with her private server. It was part of Trump?s speeches. In late May or early June, Stone said he had spoken to someone and had good information that WikiLeaks had access to the emails on Clinton?s server. It was a very self?serving comment from Stone. Manafort did not listen with enough specificity to be able to recall whether Stone said WikiLeaks had the emails in their possession or if he said WikiLeaks had access to the emails. Manafort thought Stone brought it up in context to something Trump was saying at the time. Manafort did not convey Stone?s information about the emails to Trump. He did not want to deal with a "fire drill" and be sent to go after the emails. Stone always had theories and ideas, some were true and some were not, and Manafort had no basis to know if this one was true. Manafort knew Trump would want him to do something and he did not want to. Manafort asked Stone not to convey it to Trump, and Stone agreed. Manafort thought Stone would keep his word, but he was not convinced he would. Manafort did not have any indication of whether or not Stone told Trump regardless of Manafort?s request. Manafort did not have a contemporaneous memory that Stone had told Trump about the emails, because he did not recall a conversation with Trump about it back then, which he would have expected if Trump knew. On June 12, 2016, when Julian Assange had a big press event about Clinton, Trump was excited. It allowed Trump to move his discussion about Clinton up in his campaign speeches. Whereas before that day, Trump could only speculate about whether the emails were hacked, the fact that WikiLeaks had the emails allowed Trump to say that if WikiLeaks had them, it was possible a foreign adversary had them too. Manafort said there was no real fire drill after June 12, 2016 because the information was already out there. The fire drill would have been if Stone had been the only one saying it and Trump wanted more. Manafort recalled Trump said he looked forward to seeing what Assange had. Stone was probably talking to others about the emails at the time, but Manafort was not aware at that time who. It was Manafort?s understanding that Stone was the guy that had some connection or ability to contact WikiLeaks because Stone had been proven right. Manafort and Stone talked after the June 12, 2016 article, and Manafort said he was looking forward to seeing what came out and asked Stone if he knew what Assange had. (Rm: (U) Interview of Paul J. Manafort ContinuationMED-302M (09-2118? 09x2W2018 Jam 4 of 11 Gates knew about the fact that Stone had mentioned the emails prior to the June 12, 2016 story. Gates and Manafort talked about it before and after the story. Stone may have it. Manafort thought he he spoke to Trump and said Stone had it right, and that Trump was happy and looked forward to what WikiLeaks had. Trump asked Manafort if Stone knew what was in the emails and Manafort told him no. Manafort and Trump talked first about how to use the information that WikiLeaks had the emails in the first instance and then talked about what the content of those emails might be second. Manafort told Trump he would let Trump know what he learned from Stone about the emails. Manafort believed Stone told him he was working to find out what the emails included. Manafort thought Stone was using the Clinton emails to stay relevant to the campaign. At that point, Manafort could not rely on Assange. Manafort told Stone to keep him posted. Manafort did not ask Gates to ask Stone to get in touch with Assange. Manafort did not get really interested until something was released, which happened between the two conventions. Manafort was not sure if he talked WikiLeaks. He he thought if Miller was on the campaign at that time, he would have had him track it. Manafort used Caputo to keep track of Stone, but by around June 15, 2016, Caputo left the campaign. Manafort discussed a breakfast he had with Stone during the RNC, which was visible briefly in the "Get Me Roger Stone" documentary. They discussed convention speeches at that breakfast. Stone also complained about Ted Cruz. They discussed the DNC, because Manafort planned to go and give some speeches during it. WikiLeaks would have come up in that breakfast in reference to what they would be doing and how the campaign could use it. Manafort did not recall whether Stone said he knew when the WikiLeaks information was going to come out. They discussed Clinton's server, WikiLeaks, and the DNC hack. They focused more on the DNC hack because it had current political value at that time. Manafort summarized the breakfast as a discussion about the the DNC hack, when WikiLeaks planned to release the material, Manafort trying to understand the attack lines that would be used during the DNC and in the month of August, and the thematic strategy for the campaign. Stone "went dark" on WikiLeaks in late June. Manafort initially thought Stone's advance knowledge was more of a guess. It was not until the information about Debbie Wasserman?Schultz came out that Manafort realized (Rm. (15-11240; (U) Interview of Paul J. Manafort (09.21.18) 09x2W2018 .F?ngc 5 Of 11 the real value of the information. Stone did not tell Manafort the Wasserman-Schultz information was coming out in advance, but he was pleased when it did. That was the first time Manafort thought Stone?s connection to WikiLeaks was real. Stone led Manafort to believe that the DNC information leaked would be helpful to the campaign. Stone said the information was coming and it would be helpful to the Republicans. Stone was the only one Manafort heard from regarding WikiLeaks. After the Wasserman?Schultz information came out, Manafort told Stone he was impressed and that it was useful. Manafort recalled he told Stone he would be using the information the upcoming weekend in Philadelphia. Stone said there was more coming, and it would be good, but he did not specify when Manafort asked him for more information. At that point, Manafort thought Stone had a connection, but he did not think Stone had a direct connection to WikiLeaks. After the July 22, 2016 dump of information by WikiLeaks, Manafort thought he talked to Trump first. It was a busy day and they had to deal with a press conference that day. At the end of the day, Manafort talked to Trump and Reince Priebus about the information and how Trump would use it. Manafort did not think they talked about Stone. Manafort recalled that at some point that weekend, he raised with Trump that Stone had predicted the WikiLeaks dump and Trump responded that Stone should stay on top of it. Manafort thought the conversation with Trump about Stone was probably on Saturday, July 23, 2016, because he recalled saying he planned to use the information in a press conference on Sunday, July 24, 2016. Manafort thought that by Sunday, he and Priebus had scripted out what to say about the WikiLeaks dump. Manafort did not tell Stone specifically that Trump had asked that he stay on top of it. He would have just told him to stay on top of it. Manafort did not want to get into a cycle with Stone where Stone used him as an errand boy to get to Trump. Manafort did not have any indication Trump heard from Stone directly, but he thought he would have. Trump would not have told Manafort if he was talking to Stone. Trump compartmentalized; it was just the way he was. Manafort told Stone it was good stuff and to keep him posted, and Stone offered no indication he knew any more specifics. Manafort and Stone did not discuss Stone's August 8, 2016 speech in which he said more was coming from WikiLeaks. Manafort recalled from the press (Rm: (U) Interview of Paul J. Manafort CominmtlionMED-302M (09-2118? 09x2W201s my, 6 of 11 coverage that Stone was confident more was coming in the fall. Stone never told Manafort he was dealing with Assange directly. Manafort assumed Stone had a contact of some sort. Stone's August 8, 2016 comment was not out of character for Stone. b6 b7: Manafort did not recall any specific conversations in August 20l6 with Stone about WikiLeaks. At that time, people on the campaign expressed interest in what Assange had, but they were more curious than they were setting up an operation to proactively find out. That was the same week Manafort was dealing withl land trying to convert a primary operation into a general election operation. Manafort was not certain when the next Monday morning meeting was, but it was either July 31 or August T, but thought it was probably August T, 2016. Manafort was sure WikiLeaks was raised and the discussion was about how useful the information was and when they could expect the next dump. Manafort thought it was probably a topic of many conversations. Trump was fixated on it. At that time, opposition research was not being done by the campaign, but by the linked up with the RNC to work on that, so b5 h7C and Manafort may have also discussed WikiLeaks. Manafort and Trump talked about how to use the information already out there. More in depth conversations about WikiLeaks would have probably come in September, closer to the election. In August, Manafort had a set of specifics points on specific topics, but WikiLeaks wasn?t the most important thing then, because they didn?t know anything else specific. No one, such as Priebus or Kushner, had a specific interest in the WikiLeaks issue. Miller was interested because it was in his wheelhouse to pay attention to those issues. The Monday family meetings had a two?fold agenda. One, they discussed relevant "gossip" for the campaign. As an example, they discussed the fact that Lewandowski accused Manafort of leaking, but Michael Cohen eventually obtained the administrative rights to the emails on the server and determined that Lewandowski had been leaking. Donald Trump, Jr., who had made sure Lewandowski left the campaign, liked hearing it. The meeting also covered scheduling. Manafort would lay out Trump?s travel schedule and they discussed how to integrate the family into events. Manafort said that when WikiLeaks was in the news, it would have been covered in the gossip section of the meeting. He remembered a discussion in which people said the Wasserman?Schultz stuff was helpful because it allowed Trump to say Clinton rigged the election against Bernie Sanders. (Rm. [us?nun} (U) Interview of Paul J. Manafort ContinuationMED-302M (09-2118? 09x2W201s 7 of 11 Manafort was sure he mentioned in a Monday meeting that Stone predicted the WikiLeaks dump. The reaction was something along the lines of "that sounds like Roger" and wondering about what else was coming. Stone had been putting it out there, but Manafort did not know if the family knew Stone had predicted it in advance. Family meetings were attended by Manafort, Gates, Trump, Jr., Eric Trump, Hope Hicks, and sometimes Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump. Somewhere in that same week, things started to fall apart for Manafort personally and he had to put together a campaign plan. Manafort thought the campaign would have started to more aggressively look for more information from WikiLeaks in late August, and by that time, he was gone. They had what they needed for a couple of weeks in the first instance and wouldn?t have needed to get more until September. Manafort told Gates to stay in touch with Stone on the WikiLeaks stuff; that was Manafort's way of following up on it. Based on what Stone learned, they would decide what to do next. The difference between Manafort's reaction in June and his reaction after the July 22, 2016 release was that it became real when it happened. Manafort had a more proactive interest and told Stone to report back to him what he heard. Manafort tasked Gates to stay in touch with Stone even though they did not get along because it was the best way for Manafort to stay in touch with Stone. Manafort's memory was clear that Stone said he had a contact before July 22, 20l6. In August or September, Stone said he was talking to Assange directly, but Manafort did not believe him. Stone did not tell Manafort any characteristics of his intermediary, but Manafort thought the contact was male. Stone did not say where the person was, whether the person was a supporter of Trump, or whether the person was witting or unwitting. Stone did not say how he communicated with his contact. Manafort did not specifically recall when he heard about or saw Stone's tweet on August 21, 2016 that said "Trust me, it will soon the Podesta?s time in the barrel. #crookedHillary." Manafort?s memory of that day is that he was focused on his own issues, not Stone?s Twitter feed. Manafort was sure he had at least two conversations with Stone prior to the October T, 2016 leak of John Podesta's emails. (Rm: (U) Interview of Paul J. Manafort CommunionMED-3020f (09-2118? 09x2W2018 a of 11 In the one conversation between Stone and Manafort, Stone told Manafort "you got fucked." Stone?s comment related to the fact that Manafort had been fired. The conversation was either the day Manafort left the campaign or the day after. In the other conversation, Stone told Manafort that there would be a WikiLeaks drop of emails with Podesta, and that Podesta would be "in the barrel? and Manafort would be vindicated. Manafort had a clear memory of the moment because of the language Stone used. Stone also said Manafort would be pleased with what came out. It was Manafort's understanding that. WikiLeaks had Podesta's emails and they were going to show that ha Manafort would be vindicated because he had to leave the campaign for being too pro?Russian, and this would show that Podesta also had links to Russia and would have to leave. Manafort?s best recollection was the "barrel? conversation was before he got on the boat the week of August 28, 2016. Manafort and Stone had other conversations about WikiLeaks in September and October 2016, but they were not that substantive. They reaffirmed the previous conversations about Podesta and WikiLeaks and Stone would tell Manafort that "it was going to come out soon." Manafort said they touched on the issue two or three times in September and he knew they talked about it at least one time in October before Podesta?s emails were released. The early October conversation was similar to others and Manafort got the impression the emails would come out soon. On October 7, 2016, Manafort was in Florida. Manafort did not know in advance that the tape of Trump and Billy Bush was going to come out. Manafort thought he learned of the tape on the news. Manafort and Gates spoke that day, but he thought it was after the tape came out. Gates asked Manafort?s opinion on how damaging the tapes were, and Manafort asked him what people on the campaign thought. Gates told Manafort that some people thought Trump had to quit, but Manafort thought that was ridiculous. He considered calling Kushner or Priebus but ultimately decided not to. Kushner was the person Manafort would contact on issues related to Trump himself, and Priebus was the person Manafort would deal with on issues in general. Manafort was very nervous about Priebus; Priebus could be "very Washington" about this sort of thing. Manafort did not recall speaking to Gates about the Podesta emails. The conversation was focused on the Billy Bush tape. He thought if the Podesta emails were out, they would have talked about them. He did not recall talking to Gates about how to spin the Podesta emails. He recalled Fo-mza (Rm. [us?nun} (U) Interview of Paul J. Manafort ContinuationMED-302M (09-2118? 09x2W201s Jam 9 of 11 a conversation with Gates about the Podesta emails, but he did not think it was the same day. Manafort did not recall a conversation about how to use the Podesta emails. That discussion would have gone through Steve Bannon, and Manafort did not talk to him about it. Manafort did not have tactical discussions with Stone about the Podesta emails. Manafort made a conscious decision to sit back and not inject himself into the campaign. He did not engage with the campaign again until the last couple of weeks of the campaign. Manafort was not happy with the campaign at that point. Stone followed up with Manafort after the Podesta emails came out. The conversation tied the Podesta emails to the Billy Bush tape; Manafort said the Podesta emails were very helpful. Stone was glorying in the moment, and thought he was screwing Clinton and that Podesta would have to quit her campaign. Stone said the Podesta emails buried the Billy Bush tape and would end up being more damaging for Clinton than the Billy Bush tape was to Trump. Stone did not indicate he or anyone he knew had a role in the timing of the release of the Podesta emails. Stone said he had been predicting the emails would come out and took credit for them. Stone thought the emails inoculated the Trump campaign and changed the narrative. Stone did not indicate a consciousness on the part of WikiLeaks regarding the significance of the timing, but continued to say he told Manafort it was coming and that he {Stone} was right. They talked about the value of the emails as it related to changing the narrative. Stone led Manafort to believe more was coming from WikiLeaks after the Podesta leaks. Manafort talked to Gates after the emails came out and recommended that Gates talk to Priebus and Kushner. Manafort wondered at the time who was trying to block whom. He thought the Clinton campaign may have leaked the Billy Bush tape because they knew the Podesta emails were coming. On the other hand, Manafort did not credit the Trump campaign with being that clever and leaking the Podesta emails because they knew the Billy Bush tape was coming. That said, Stone was not part of the campaign and he was capable of it. Stone had told Manafort about WikiLeaks previously and had the ability and motivation and contact to pull it off. Manafort agreed that he appreciated the significance of the timing of the two events, but he did not remember thinking about it at the time. Manafort did not recall whether Stone indicated he knew the Billy Bush (Rm: (U) Interview of Paul J. Manafort CominuztlionMED-302M .On 09f27/2013 3:ch 10 Of ll tape was coming out in advance. Manafort did not ask Stone about his connection to WikiLeaks or ask where the information came from; Manafort did not need to know who Stone spoke to. Stone?s statement of denial on October ll, 2016 that he had advance knowledge of the leak of the Podesta emails was "inconsistent with what he told" Manafort. Manafort believed Stone knew in advance Podesta's emails were coming out. Manafort and Stone did not have a conversation in which Stone said Manafort should not tell anyone what he knew about the timing of the Podesta emails. They did not talk about Stone running away from what Stone had told Manafort. In approximately the last six months, Manafort and Stone have had conversations in which Stone told Manafort he was being targeted by the Special Counsel?s Office and that the investigation was costing him a lot of money. Stone said the Special Counsel's Office was accusing him of effectively controlling the timing of the leaked Podesta emails. Manafort thought it was some time in May or June 2018 that Stone told him the Special Counsel?s Office thought he had a role in the Podesta emails. Stone did not expressly remind or tell Manafort what he (Stone) knew about the emails. They did not discuss the fact that Stone did actually have advance knowledge of the Podesta emails. Stone said to Manafort that he was not the decision maker or the controller of the information. Stone said he may have had advance knowledge, but he was not the decision maker. Stone was making clear to Manafort that he did not control the emails or make decisions about them. Stone said he received information about the Podesta emails but was a conduit, not someone in a position to get them released. Manafort was confused as to the various people and hacks. Manafort asked Stone to go through the narrative of Sssange, Guccifer, the DNO hack, and Seth Rich so that Manafort could understand it. Stone knew Manafort knew that Stone?s public statements were false, but Stone "confused" Manafort. Stone did not advise Manafort to punch back or discredit the Special Counsel?s Office. Stone did not raise any desire to respond to the Special Counsel?s Office investigation by planting media stories. Manafort was not aware of any attempts on Stone's part to contact Manafort after Manafort was incarcerated. Fo-mza (Rm. [us?nun} (U) Interview of Paul J. Manafort .On 09f27/2013 .Wmc ll Of ll Stone did not tell Manafort whether he passed the Podesta email information to anyone else on the campaign or associated with the campaign. Manafort speculated Stone may have passed the information to Sannon, since Stone and Bannon had a relationship. Stone and Bannon knew each other before the campaign. Manafort believed they were in touch throughout the campaign. Manafort had the impression Stone passed information and ideas to Bannon, some of it Bannon used. Stone would get frustrated with Bannon if he did not think all of his information was being passed on to Trump or used in the campaign. One of Stone's "harebrained" ideas involved usingl Iin the b5 cam ai n. Stone alleged did not indicate to Manafort that he tried to get Bannon to do anything with Manafort credited Stone for the "war on women" part of the campaign, in which women who alleged Bill Clinton sexually assaulted them showed up to a debate. Stone had previously raised the issue with Manafort on the campaign trail, and Manafort said no. Manafort thought Stone gave messaging ideas to Bannon, but did not think Stone was a source of information for Sannon. Manafort thought Stone used Sannon as a way to get into the campaign, similar to the way Stone used Manafort to get into the campaign. Administrative: The documents shown to Manafort and the original interview notes are being maintained in a 1-H envelope in the case file. 1 Of 1 Date ofentn? llfl?fZUl? I [date of birth was interviewed at I After being advised of the identity of the EEC interviewing Agents and the nature of the interview, provided the following information: 1:16 b7C b6 b7: b6 SAI Igave a cellular number she can reach the FBI at until b6 I we lntest'tgutionen 10f20f201? at United Stat?'85 (In Person} b6 Filett.E thtedra?ed 10f23f201? 137?: n- I This decrement neither sue-r conclusions efthe FBI. [1 is the pl?OpCl1}' of the FBI and is leaned to year agency: it and its ee-ntents are net to be distributed outside your agency. rosin (Rev. ran-1(1) 1 Of 1 lUflleUl? Date of cntn? FEDERAL GRAND JURY MATERIAL - DISSEMINATE PURSUANT TO RULE Do not disseminate except as authorized by federal rule of criminal procedure On October 6, 2017 Icontacted Assistant Special Counsel (ABC) AARON S.J. ZELINSKY via telephone to discuss a subpoena, to testify which she received from Special Agent! before the grand Jury. Also present on the call was Forensic Accountant [nsc ZELINSKY advised ZELINSKY explained Iprovided her phone numberl land email address,] Ifor future contactl lcould also be reached by calling] I United States {Phone} 10E06f201? lm'cstigntion on File if I I Date dra?ed by This document contains neither ner conclusions eflne FBI. [1 is the pl?OpCl1}' of the FBI and is leaned te- mus' agents)". it and its contents are net to be distributed outside your agency. 10f06f2DlT b3 b6 b3 b6 b'?h?E roan), (REY. 5-8-10) 1 Of 2 FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Date ofcuu'y 08f29f2017 I lwas interviewed at b6 I I After being advised of the identitv of the h?o interviewing Agent and the nature of the interview, provided the following information: b6 b?C b6 h6 b6 Washington, District Of Columbia, United States {In 03f03f2017 Person} - b6 D, ., osxosxzoi? 1? m- This document contains neither reconunendntions nor conclusions of the FBI. it is the property of the FBI and is loaned to your agency; it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency. 9011 2 7 8 5253 (RevConlinuztlion of of (Uprovided a business card with the following identifiers: 1:16 (Rev. -1 of 2- We? frees- FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Date ofcnuy On June 7, 20l7, Unit Chief Information Liaison b6 Specialistl I both of the FBI Records Management Division Iwere interviewed in the FBI Headquarters Special File Room, JEH Rooml I Also present was MAPA The FBI Special File Room is holding all non?electronic documents recovered from former FBI Director James Comey's office. RMD received multiple boxes from SSAI Ifor Assistant Director b5 (no) Richard Haley starting May 10, 201? (10 boxes}; May 12, 201? :39 BMD AD Michelle Jupina providedl I IRMD began cataloging the material and transferring itl I FBI personnel went to Comey?s house to retrieve electronic information and b6 equipment and other things, such as an FBI seal, but nothing from the Comey household was provided to the Special File Room. Based upon information BMD received Comev 23 boxes containing personal items retrieved from his office. BMD Section Chief (SC) David Hardy and Assistant Section Chief (ASC) are involved in Freedom of Information requests be related to the Comey documents and they are working with Office of General ch Counsel (OGC) attorney b6 Washington, District Of Columbia, United States {In 06ID752017 Person} Hm? OEXOTI201T b3 b6 by 337:: This document contains neither recommendations nor conclusions of the FBI. it is the property of the FBI and is lonned to your agency; it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency. b3 b6 (Rm: of RMD UC .On .Hmc 2 Of 2 Administrative b6 b6 (Rev. -l of l- Date ofentn- 06f01f2017 On May 2, work addressl Iwas interviewed at his place of employment, Also taking part in the interview was Financial Investigator IThe writer went to this location asl piste this address as one of its administrative offices. After being advised of the identit of the interviewing agent and the nature of the interview, provided the following information: used by several clients, one of which wasl Iis headquartered atl i ljob atl lwas to take phone calls for businesses, and collect mailJ Flso provides web services to not familiar with Paul Manafort or any of his businesses. tm-cstigutienon 05102;?2017 at New York, New York, United States (In Person} File +4 by This deeumertt eentuins neither rceenmtendutious rte-r conclusions efthe FBI. [1 is the pneperty of the FBI and is leaned te- }'eur agency: it and its contents are net to be distributed outside your agency. Date dm?cd 05531/2017 1:36 1:16 b3 136 1370 h?E renewing-525? 1 Of 4 04f01f2019 date of birth (DOB was b6 interviewed in the International Terminal of the San Francisco b7: International Airport San Bruno, CA. Special Agent was also present and assisted with the interview. After being advised of the identity of the interviewing Agents and the nature of the interview, provided the following information: The Agents explained to that the interview was voluntary and she was free to leave at anytime during the interview and did not have to be answer any questions. The Agents also explained to that although ch the interview was happening inside the Customs and Border Patrol area of the SFO, she was not being detained by the CBP and was free to leave at any point and refuse the interview with the FBI. indicated that she understood and expressed her willingness to speak to the Agents. just landed b7C 02f25f2019 EH San Bruno, California, United States (In Person} b6 Hb? Dmemmkd 02f27f2019 by This decmueut contains neither sac-r conclusions efthe FBIloaned to yeur agency. it and its contents are net to be distributed outside your agency. FBK 278)- 5258 (Rm: b6 b?E Interview of .On 02f25f2019 img h?A The interview was conducted in English and lasted approximately two hours. 190-302;: (Rm. [us?nun} b6 b7C (U) Interview Of .011 02525/2019 3 of 4 . Page b6 b6 1:16 1373. hi?: b6 136 1373. b6 1375!. 196 1237?; b6 (Rm: I be 1370 I ?10de CommunionuFFD-??luf (U) Interview Of .011 02f25f2019 .F?ngc 1 Of 2 FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Date ofentn- 04 30x2 0 8 . b6 On April 24, 2018, appeared at IAlso present were FBI Forensic Accountant . Senior Assistant Soecial Counsel Greo Andrea, and attorney I provided the following information: b6 b7: b6 b6 b6 lni'einguIionon 043:2qung EH United States {In Person} Hb? Dmemmkd 04f30f2018 b7E by This deetiment contains neither i'eemmneudatimis ne-r conclusions eflne FBI. [1 is the pl?OpCl1}' of the FBI and is leaned te- mur agency: it and its ee-ntents are net to be distributed muside your agency. FBK 19W1 b6 FD-Tmza (Rev. Cominuztlionc-FFD-??zof (Ul' April 2?1: 2013 .011 04f2?1f2018 me 2 of 2 136 hi?: 1 Of 2 UNCLASSI f-hE?- FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Date ofentn- 08f24f2017 FEDERAL GRAND JURY MATERIAL - DISSEMINATE PURSUANT TO RULE Do not disseminate except as authorized by federal rule of criminal procedure On August 15, 2017, Iwork addressH b3 b6 Iwork telephone numbe b7: work email addressl Iwas interviewed at his place of employmentJ IAfter being advised of the identities of the interviewing agents and the nature of the interview; the following informationb7: memes b3 b6 Hb? Dmemmkd UBXleleT b7: lntest'tgutionen 08j15f2017 at United Stat?'85 (In Person} by This deemnent contains neither conclusions efthe FBI. [1 is the pnepetty of the FBI and is loaned to year agency: it and its ee-ntents are net to be distributed eutstde your agency. FBK 1 b3 FD-rmza (Rev. 05-03-10} 111$ 137$ ME ContinuationofFD-B?lof (U) Interview Of .011 08f15f2017? .1?21gc 2 Of 2 b3 b6 At the conclusion of the served with a Federal b3 Grand Jury subpoena for records. A copy of this subpoena is maintained as b5 1A evidence attached to this file. 137E nimgmm you? '1 Of 3' Date ofentn- 09f25f2014 1:15 we I Itel.l Ifaxl date of birthl was interviewed at the offices of the FBI After being advised of the idertity of the interviewing Agents and the b6 b6 nature of the interview, provided the following information: b6 b6 lntest'tgutionon 04f11f2Ulf-l at United States {In Person) b6 File 4'15 DEIIC dl'EI?This deeumeut contains neither rceonmtendutious nor conclusions ofthe FBI. [1 is the pl?OpCl1}' of the FBI and is loaned to your agencydistributed outside your agency. 1 9W3. 2?8)?5266 b6 190-302;: (Rm. [us?nun} . Page ContinuationMED-3mg? Interview of Du 04K11x2014 2 of 3 b6 1371?. 136 137C 1336 13TH. b6 1:173 136 ?373; b6 1:173 136 13711 1371?. b6 (Rm: ionc-FFD-B?zof Interview of Du 04K11x2014 3 of 3 onlimm . Pam: 1336 13TH. b6 b6 136 1373 (Rev. 5-8-10) 1 Of 1 Dnteofentry lzfo?UZUl? I PRESS CLUB (NFC), b6 telephone number Iemail address] Iwork b7: address 529 14th Street NW, Washington, DC 20045, was interviewed telephonically by Special Agent After being advised of the identity of the interviewing Agent and the nature of the interview, the following information: the foreign policy speech event, scheduled for April b6 2016 at the NFC, being cancelled shortly before the event took place. 57C Center for the National Interest (CNI) organized the event and signed a contract with the signed contract between NPC and CNI, invoices for the event, and copies of payments made related to the that he would provide writer with copies of the documents in his possession after receiving a subpoena. lmcsiiguiion?? llf29f2017 at Washington, District Of Columbia, United States {Phone} File I [m dram This doeumeru contains neither recommendations nor conclusions oflhe FBI. [1 is the pnopeny of the FBI and is loaned Io your agencydistribulcd outside your agency. 1 9W1 278)? 5 2 69 ,m asei nimgmm:ssun 1 Of 1 - - :3 Date 07f06f2017 FEDERAL GRAND JURY MATERIAL - DISSEMINATE PURSUANT TO RULE Do not disseminate except as authorized by federal rule of criminal procedure b3 b6 On May 11, [was interviewed at her place of em lo ment, blso present during the interview was Department of Justice Senior Financial Investigator (Contractor). After being advised of the identity of the interviewing agent and the nature of the interview, provided the following information[was served with a Federal Grand Jury Subpoena related to I ha I and she agreed to locate and furnish all related b5 documents IA copy of this subpoena is attached to this b7: case file as 1A evidence. O5j11f2017 at United States (In Person} b3 Hb? Dmemmkd 05fi5f201T b6 by This doeument contains neither reeonmtendntions nor conclusions oflne FBI. [1 is the pnopetty of the FBI and is loaned to your agency: it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency. FBI 1 9W 1 2 78)- 5 2? 5 nimgmm you? '1 Of 5' Date ofentry U5f23f2018 . . . . . b6 preViouslv identified, was interviewed at ch Ilocated atl by FBI Special Agentl land Special Counsel Prosecutor Greg Andres. Present during the interview was[ After being advised of the identities of the interviewing parties and the nature of the interview, provided the following information: was told that the trial against Paul Manafort was scheduled to begin July 10, 2018 in AlexandriaJr Virginia. Paul Manafort lm'esiigotionon D5f16f2018 at Unlted States (In meg Date dra?cd 05f18f2018 by This doeumcut contains neither recommendations nor conclusions oflhe FBI. [1 is the pnopeny of the FBI and is loaned Io your agencydistribulcd outside your agency. b6 (Rm: Communion 0F (if (U) Interview .On 05;? 16f2 18 .F?ngc 2 Of 5 b6 b6 b6 would recognize Manafort if she were to see him. b6 b6 13:6 1376. b6 b6 13:6 1376. DOC 2A b6 190-302;: (Rm. [us?nun} Communion 0F (if (U) Interview . b6 (Rm: Interview .On 05K16f2018 .Hmc DOCS 7A 24A b6 was shown a series of made the b7: following statements about each item190-302;: (Rm. [us?nun} Communion 0F (if (U) Interview '1 Of 3' Dwedrmn' UlfU3f2019 FEDERAL GRAND JURY INFORMATION This document contains information pertaining to a federal grand jury proceeding. The information may not be disseminated within or outside the FBI, except as provided for under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure wherein disclosure may be made to: an attorney for the government for use in performing that attorney's official duties; or any government personnel that an attorney for the government considers necessary to assist in performing that attorney's official duties. date of birth social security account :2 number[ [was interviewed at the Special Counsel's Office, 395 ch Street SW, Washington, DC 20546[ [resides at I [and his cell phone number is[ I [email address id [was accompanied by his attorney,[ [email address is and his phone number is[ [Present from the Special Counsel's Office were Special Agedt] [Special Agent Senior Assistant Senior Special Counsel Andrew Goldstein and Assistant Senior Special Counsel Jeannie Rhee. was advised that intentionally providing false statements to the interviewing Agents would be a violation of federal law. After being advised of the nature of the interview and the identity of the interviewing Agent, provided the following information: b3 b6 b3 b6 11f02f2018 United States (In Person} ?mg Dmemmkd Olf02f2019 :2 m' This docmueut contains neither nor conclusions ofthc FBI. [1 is the pneperty of the FBI and is loaned to your agency: it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency. 1 9W1 5 2 97 b3 (Rm: b6 (U) Interview of on CominumionMED-302M {2018* .On llfU2/2018 .F?ugc 2 of 3 b3 b6 b3 136 13711 157$: b3 b6 b3 I36 137:! b3 b6 b3 136 b3 (Rm. b6 (U) Interview of on CominumionMED-302M {2018* .On llfU2/2018 .F?ugc 3 of 3 b3 b6 137C nimgmm sou? '1 Of 5' FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Date ofenu'y 04 10f2 9 date of birth social security lwas interviewed at the Special Counsel's Office located at 395 Street SW, Washington, DC 20024. Accompanyingl lduring this interview was his attorney, b6 Present from the Special Counsel's Office were Senior Assistant b7C Special Counsel Jeannie Rhee, Assistant Special Counsel Lawrence Atkinson, FBI Special Agentl FBI Supervisorv Intelligence Analyst I land FBI Intelligence Analyst After being advised of the nature of the interview and the identities of the the following information: b6 136 b6 lm'esiigaiionon 01f24f2018 at Washington, District Of Columbia, United States (In Person} Filei.E Date dra?ed 04f09f2019 137?: HIE by This doeumeut contains neither reeonamendmious nor conclusions oflhe FBI. [1 is the pnepeny of the FBI and is loaned Io your agency. it and its eontenls are not to be distribulcd outside your agency. b6 PIJ-EUZH 13713 WC 2 of 5 Conlinuztlionc-FFD-B?lof Interview Of .011 May 2016, b6 During either the first or second week of June 2016, h? b6 (Rm: . Page Cominu?tlionc-FFD-B?zgf l{U} Interview of .On 01f2?1f2018 136 1370 b6 FD-Tmza (Rev. 05?03-10} ContinuationoFFD-Bnlof (U) Interview Of .011 013(24/2018 .1?21gc 4 Of 5 136 13TH 136 b6 b7: h6 (Rex: 1133:: Interview of .On Cominuztlion man Lutnsoi nimgmm:ssun 1 Of 2 - - t; FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Date 08f24f2017 FEDERAL GRAND JURY MATERIAL - DISSEMINATE PURSUANT TO RULE Do not disseminate except as authorized by federal rule of criminal procedure b3 b6 On August 16, I work address Iwork telephone number [was interviewed at her place of employment, I After being advised of the identities of the interviewing agents and the nature of the the following informationUNCLASS Fass- b3 b6 Hm?l I Dmemmkd 08f18f2DlT by I This doeument contains neither recommendations nor conclusions oflne FBI. [1 is the pnopeny of the FBI and is loaned to your agency: it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency. FBK 19W1 lntestigutionon 08j16f2017 at United Stat??ES (In Person} b3 (Rev. 05-03-10} 135 ContinuationofFD-Bnlof (U) Interview Of I .On 08f16f2017? .1?21gc The information provided by as well as the subpoena served are included in this case file as 1A evidence. b6 DEC EY NSICG ow ov?ao?sozo h7c ~sethE 1 Of 2 5\15 FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Date ofentt'y 02f17f2017 date of birth cellular tele hone number b6 was interviewed at his residence located b7c . After being advised of the identity of the interviewing Agent and the nature of the interview, provided the following information: b6 b7C b6 h?C PAPADOPOULOS but he previousl worked for the Donald Trump and Ben Carson presidential not sure be what job title or employment duties were in either b7c campaigns. He did not know if PAPADOPOULOS was paid at either campaign. did not know role in either campaign or who he b6 reported to, but PAPADOPOULOS did travel to New York and Washington, DC a b7: lot. did not know if he spoke with Trump, but he did see a picture of PAPADOPOULOS seated at the same table as Trumpwas shown 3 pictures and he positively identified the pictures as PAPADOPOULOS. {Writers note, the pictures used in teh interview are hand labeled 1,2 and Derived Fro al Security Informat? assify On: 20421231 WNW lm?est'tgntionon 02f17?2017 Elt UDitEd States (In Person} b3 b6 meg Date draited O2X1TK201T b7: n- I This document eontnins neither recommendations nor conclusions oftne FBI. [1 is the ptopeny of the FBI and is loaned to your agency: it and its eontents are not to be distributed outside your agency. 1 9W1 278:1?531 1 190-302;: (Rm. [us?nun} b3 foecmom- b5 . Page Cominuztlionc-FFD-??zof (Ul' Interview Of .011 U2f17fr2017 2 Of 2 3 and are maintained in the 1A section of this report.) ?ew/Mam 1 Of 4 DECLASSIFIED BY: FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION EN UI-EU-EDED ofentn- 03f09f2018 I was interviewedl Participating in the interview were Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Special Agent land SA I IAfter being advised of the identity of the interviewing Agents and the nature of the the following information: {U?l lwas advised that agents had some follow-up questions regardingl his October 30, 2017 interview with the FBI. Specifically,l was directed to information he provided during thel interview where he indicated there was a meeting at the METROPOLITAN CLUB in Washington, DC that was attended by [Jeff] SESSIONS, [Sergey] KISLYAK, [General Charles] BOYD, [Dmitri] SIMES, and possibly [Jared] reminded that he had previously indicated his belief that this meeting had occurred sometime after the April 2016 MAYFLOWER HOTEL meeting where Donald TRUMP gave a foreign policy speech and the 2017 Presidential election. not recall the exact date when this meeting at the METROPOLITAN CLUB could have occurredl Isaid he had no reason to believe that the METROPOLITAN CLUB meeting had not occurred but also no reason to believe that it had. I Ibelieved he heard about the METROPOLITAN CLUB meeting I General Charles BOYD, Chairman of the CNI Board of Directors. Isaid something about working on an event or a dinner at the METORPOLITAN CLUB for General not recall at the time ssify On: tm?estigntionon 02f26f2013 at United States {In Person, Phone) File If I DEIIC dl'?l?Cd 0?2 f2 6";2018 This document contnins neither recommendations nor conclusions ofthe FBI. [1 is the ptopeny of the FBI and is loaned to your agency: it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency. b6 h? b6 b6 b?C b7E b6 FD-rmza (Rev. 05-03-10} b7C Re?interview Of .On 02f26f2018 .Wmc 2 Of 4 of this interview however, why he previously had indicated that SESSIONS, KISLYAK, BOYD, SIMES, and possibly KUSHNER had been in attendance at that meeting.I b6 (U) While at CNI, I required.I I IDuring the b6 . . interview,I I (U) During his employment with CNI, As a result, I b6 financial asoects associated with the METROPOLITHN CLUB meetingJ I ch did not recall any email correspondence regarding a meeting at the METROPOLITAN CLUBI (U) b6 h?C EEsRsIV/uoseew b6 (Rm: mes-BH- CmumMMmu?FDJ?zm?(U} Re?interview Of .On 02f26f2018 .Wmc 3 Of 4 advised that if SIMES were present for the meeting at the METROLPOLITEN CLUB than b6 During this interview,[ (U) Specifically, b6 (U) The assistants for each member of the CNI Board of Directors also b6 Essasjy?nesee?- b6 FD-Tmza (Rev. 05?03-10} I b7: "SEe-Rrs?f/ Hes-eme- CmumMMmu?FDJ?lm?(U} Re?interview Of .On 02/26f2018 .Wmc b7C (U) had not heard of the Room or a room on the second floor of the MAYFLOWER not aware of any other he meetings that were attended by SESSIONS, KISLYAK, BOYD, SIMES and possibly KUSHNER. (U )1 b6 b?C receptive to future contact should any additional information be required. The interview started at approximately 6:30pm and ended at approximately 8:l5pm. WW -l of 6- (Rev. 5-8-10]: DH W/fm Dore ofemn- 09f29f2016 I date of birth was interviewed at her residential addressJ I telephone numberd Hnewest} and] After being advised of the identity of the interviewing Agent and the nature of the interview, provided the following information: MANAFORT was DONHLD presidential campaign manager who tas suspected ties to Russial Derived Fr 20120629 assify On: 20411231 Neuron-H- 09f14f2016 at Washington, District Of Columbia, United States (In Person} File 16 DEIIC dl'?l?Cd 09'! 1 6";2016 by This document contains neither recommendations nor conclusions oflne FBI. [1 is the pmpeny of the FBI and is loaned to your agency: it and its contents are not b6 1370 I36 b6 b6 b3 b6 lo be disu-ibulcd oulsidc your agency. FBI 1 9W1 278} 5 3 1 b6 FD-302E 105418-10 lim b7E 3.3352517 Hosea}; CominuztlionMFG-302 of (Ux'rme'l' Interview of .011 09K14f201?5 .1?21gc 2 of 6 b6 b7C b6 She also stated that she had read an article about 20,000 e?Mails taken, at which time she she had concerns, and suspected that the hackers would release the e?Mails around the time of the Democratic National Convention. b6 b6 b7C b6 b?C SETH RICH was murdered on the morning of 0Tf10f2016 in Washington, DC. h? b7C WNW (Rm: 136 me magi/[mm ContinuationMED-3n; of Interview Of .011 09K14X2016 .1?21gc Soft? b6 b6 b6 1:36 1:6 1:70 b6 136 b6 Wag/Mom (REY. nS-nR-l?} h? Interview of _On 09f14f2016 said that when the New York Times article was published on March 28, 2016, which revealed that MANAFORT had officially joined the presidential campaign of Donald Trump, . b6 15 attached to the 1% section of this document, and partially listed below: b6 b6 (Rm: b6 ME Cominuztlionc-FFD-??zof (Uzi/F693} Interview of .011 09K14f201?5 .1?21gc DNC Staffer Seth 135 me Conrad Rich was murdered b6 b6 b6 h?C b6 WNW 190-302;: (Rm. [us?nun} b6 wag/Meagan ME Cominuztlionc-FFD-??zof (Uzi/m} Interview of .011 09K14f201?5 .1?21gc b?C FBI 19w12?8 6324 1 Of 2 MW EESLAESIETIEE BY: 1'13 It's I: FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 0? ?3'05'202? Date ofenzn- 04f03f2017 FJ 1 date of birth was interviewed on be ht thel I Washington, DC., by I and After being advised of the identity of the interviewing Agents and the nature of the interview, voluntarily provided the following informationIii/W b5 n: l.4{b) Derived 2009061 assify On: 20421 MW b3 Washington, District Of Columbia, United States (In Person} b6 b7: Hm? Dmemmkd 03f29f201T by This document contains neither recommendations nor conclusions oflhe FBI. [1 is the piopeny of the FBI and is loaned to your agency: it and its eontems are not Io be disn-ibnled onlsidc you agency. (Rm: MW run'zrn Interview Ofl I b3 E36 137:: 1579 onlimml ic 1:6 bf?: b6 in b6 b6 to be distributed outside you agency. '1 Of 2' ftibTE Wm 13E: ar- NSICG Dmemrmn 05f05f2017 Do not disseminate outside the FBI without the permission of the originator or program manager. _Jdate of birth (DOB) was interviewed 1371) After being advised of the identity of the intervieWing Agents and the nature of the interview, voluntarily provided the following information: till '1 b5 tUt Leanne b6 cgff?fgl b6 tUt We?) b6 on: l.4{b) Derived 2009061 Wag/?ame? I I DC, Washington, United States (In Person} b3 File Date drafted 0 ?1 f2 2 b6 m. This document enntnins neither ne-r conclusions oftne FBI. [1 is the pmpeny nf the FBI and is learned te- }'ntn' agency: it and its enntents are net b7E (Rm: QUE Interview Of Mm . On . Page b3 b6 b7C 20f2 1:16 WW b7C 1 Of 2 BY: NSICC CW Date ofentt'y 06f 05x2 0 l7 Do not disseminate outside the FBI without the permission of the originator or program manager. fut eate of birth (130le ?35 . . was interviewed by SSH and latl I After being advised of the identity of the interviewing Agents and the nature of the provided the following information1371) W- ?56 on: l.4{b) Derived 200906 assify On: MW DC, Washington, United States (In Person} b3 b6 I Dmemmkd 05f22f201T b7: by This deenment centnins neither ne-r conclusions ofthe FBI. [1 is the pmpeny ef the FBI and is loaned to )?Glli' agency: it and its ee-ntents are net to be distributed outside you agency. b3 b6 MW (Rm: iUl I Conlinuztlionc-FFD-B?lof Interview Of .011 :ngc 2 of 2 b6 137:: 1579 gm 1:6 137 1 Of 2 DEC ELY. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 01" 07-30-2020 Date ofentn- 05f06f2018 I I bornl loellular telephone numberl ?home addressl I Iwas interviewed at her home. After being advised of the identityr of the interviewing Agents land SR: and the nature of the interview, Iprovided the following information: (WW) I 04f27f2018 at United States (In Person} investigation on File by Date drafted 04f30/2018 This document contnins neither nor conclusions oftiie FBI. [1 is the pmpeny of the FBI and is loaned to your agency: it and its contents are not 136 b6 b7: b6 136 hi?: to be distributed outside your agency. 1 90312 78)? 5 34 b6 FD-Tmza (Rev. 05?03-10} b7: WW Con?rmationc-FFD-B?lof (Wm{WE-eras) b6 b7: {Mi-Bea?) b6 137C I 1:16 we M/He?em -l of 2- .osn? 3 (Rev. DECLASSIEIED ow o7?22?2o2o b7: FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Date 05x2 0 E- ;th I date of birth (DOES) was interviewed at the FBI Chicago Field Office, 2111 West Roosevelt Road, Chicago, Illinois 60608. After being advised of the identity of the interviewing Agents and the nature of the interview,I Iprovided the interviewing Agents with information related to her work inI I I Imatters. That information will be documented in a separate Ithen provided the following information pertinent to this investigation: Icomes from a predominately Republican b5 II was Republican, and most of her family and friends lean toward the ch Republican side of that although her friends are mostly Republican, they don?t necessarily agree with DONALD J. TRUMP (TRUMP) . Mfrs-HI b6 4 I Ihas b7: stressed toI that they should remain politically neutral in their work, specifically during this time of year in the months leading up to the election. asked if she had any contacts in political circles of b5 the upcoming election. To that she has friends in both the Republican and Democratic sides of the election. When asked who those friends were,I Iadvised that she had met a few of them while attendingr__l then asked if she knew of anyone who could provide b5 I. additional information about two recent news topics, such as the hack of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the alleged associations between TRUMP and that she knew of one individual, WALID PHARES (PHARES), who could potentially provide the FBI with further tm?estigntionon 10f04f2016 at Chicago, Illinois, United States (In Person} meg Datednu?ed 10f04f2016 b3 b6 by This document contains neither nor conclusions oftne FBI. [1 is the pnopeny of the FBI and is loaned to your agency: it and its contents are not to be distributed outside you agency. FBK 190.31 278)_5342 b3 FD-fmza (Rm. (15-11240; b6 $353117 fries-eeri- CominuztlionofFD-??zof Interv1ew Of .011 10f04f201?5 .1?21gc 2 of 2 insight about those two areas. When asked if she knew b5 that she had never met him; but that she knew him to regularly speak on FOX NEWS as a talking head for the DNC attacks. EU) Icould not recall any additional contacts in Washington DC, I Iwho could report on either of those two b6 then asked forl Ibusiness card and stated that she would contact him if she recalled any additional contacts in the future. MW (Rev. -l of l- FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 0? 97-33-2020 Date ofenu'y 12f13f2017 DOCUMENT RESTRICTED TO CASE PARTICIPANTS This document contains information that is restricted to case participants. Sandra Luff was contacted by telephone atI I her he worked for the Special Counsel and wanted to interview her regarding her knowledge of events surrounding Presidential Candidate Donald Trump's April 27, 2016 Mayflower Hotel speech in her capacity as an aide to then-Senator Jeff Sessions. She provided the following information: Luff was willing to cooperate with the Special Counsel's investigation. She thought it would be useful for the Special Counsel to know that in August or September 201? she provided a full statement about the topicJr and additional information, to the Senate Intelligence Committee. She did not have anything new or different to add to the information she provided to them. She dealt with committee staff security Last Name Unknown. She did not have a copy of her testimony. Luff is represented, but she did not identify her attorney. Administrative Luff he would try to obtain her testimony from the Senate and asked that Luff have her attorney contact him. l.4{b) Derived Securit ion SCG assify On: W/?iefem lnwesiigmimIoII 12f12f2017 at Washington, District Of Columbia, United States {Phone} File 19f by Date drafted 12f12/2017 This document contains neither i'eemIInIendmimIs nor conclusions ofliie FBI. [1 is the pmpeny of the FBI and is loaned to your agency: it and its contents are not 10 be disu-ibnled omside 3min agency. DECLASSIFIED BY: NSICS b6 b6 b3 b6 -1 of 4- .. BY: MEI-CG FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 0" E'D-Siil (Rev. Date ofentn- 08f 19x2 0 E- - . . b6 __Jdate of birth SOCial security b7: account number was interviewed at office. After being advised of the identity of the interviewing agent and the nature of the interview, provided the following information: b6 b6 assify On: 2041 . - b3 investigationon 08f17?2016 Elt [Juli??Ed States (In Person}! b6 File?f Dtite drafted OBX1TK2016 by This document contains neither i'econInIendtItimIs nor conclusions oftne FBI. [1 is the pmpeny of the FBI and is loaned to your agency: it and its contents are not to be distributed outside FBK 278)-5360 b3 Fo-fmza (Rm. {15-11240} b6 Quasi/Momm? of on"! f' n? OBfl?/2016 b7: KILIMNIK had ties in open source public records databases to PAUL MANAFORT and businesses MANAFORT owned and/or operatedJ MBNAFORT is the campaign manager for Republican Presidential nominee DONALD TRUMP. b6 m/W b3 (Rm: 136 WW of ?2le f' n? 'l?hun. 3 Of 4 onlimml irc 1373 137*: b6 b7]! b6 136 15715:. b6 b3 FD-fmza (Rm. b6 137's WW WE Wterview ofl I rmwwu n? 08f17/2016 umAdministrative: Due to case restrictions in this matter, this FD-302 was written by SE and forwarded to SR be 1371?. for serialization in the case file. MW b3 ?was: be armuikm:soun 1 Of 1 5 ;?ch Fva BY: NSICG FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION UN 97'22'202'1' Dzitc ofcmn- 08f16f2017 (U) On sal utilized Ito 105* oal? After being advised of the identity of the interviewing Agent and the nature of the interview, provided the following information: (U) I be (U) is willing to meet with SA I When told that SA b5 wanted to disoussl (U) I be 1371?. Derived SIC dated 20120629 ssify On: 2042123 b3 Washin ton District Of Columbia, United States {Phone, b6 [m-cs?gationon 08f15f2017? a1 Otherl I 137?: . b7E Filc? I Data: dm?cd 08f15?2017 by nu Quint-UL.) This comziins ncithcs' nor conclusions of [he FBI. [1 is propcny of FBI and is loaned to your agency. it and ils to be distributed outside your agency.