I suspect that they would have sacked her earlier but did not want to upset Mueller by damaging his witness. After all, the feds have given LaPorta immunity but not their firm. So if I was in that position I would wait until after the trial to fire her.
Everything Trump touches, even at fourth hand, dies.
Why not cut out the middleman and just blame everything on Rick Gates, who was the engineer of all Manafort’s misdeeds, according to Manafort.
ETTD
Just additional confirmation of the truth of that - doesn’t even require direct contact.
Sad for her, but not surprising really.
The firm had no choice but to fire an accountant who willingly broke the law. What Laporta should have done was to notify someone at her firm as to the Manafort situation and document the notification. There is no upside for an accountant who gets caught falsifying a tax document. The thing about sociopaths like Manafort and company is that they excel in convincing people to act against their own self interest.
"…but she filed them anyway, out of fear of legal retaliation from Manafort and his former business partner Rick Gates." HUH? What would be the foundation for Manafort and/or Gates’ legal claim? What am I missing?
Poison?
Geez, she obediently copied all that HR boilerplate for her profile and they still fired her.
In her testimony, Laporta told the court
she knew that Manafort’s tax returns contained false information, but
she filed them anyway, out of fear of legal retaliation from Manafort
and his former business partner Rick Gates.
What would that legal retaliation be? What would be the actionable complaint in that?
She got caught, that’s all.
If she has not already received her golden parachute, I expect she’ll sue the firm and (gasp!) show that what she did is common practice. No way her boss did not know about it.
Why couldn’t she have gone to her superiors?
I was listening to an author this morning on NPR, her latest book a dive into the “Me Too” movement and the work environment. She said in her research she came across multiple studies that reveal in roughly 80% of cases an employee’s report to HR about a negative situation on their job results in either detrimental consequences to the reporting employee, or at minimum no effective steps taken to deal with their complaint. So, trying to use your company’s internal procedures for seeking relief and correction to a bad situation is pretty much a fool’s errand in the vast majority of instances.
A corporate HR department is almost always the enemy of the workforce, and an ally of management.
“Lie down with dogs, wake up with fleas.”
Because they wouldn’t back her for losing the Manafort account ? She had a choice of getting fired for sure then or maybe getting fired later.
If they fired her when she got the immunity deal they would be admitting they knew what she would need immunity for.
By waiting for her to say it in court they can retain the fig leaf of “why, this is news to us, we’re shocked!”
Remarkably, the firm never performed any audit or verification of her filings. You always need another set of eyes looking at the details and questioning the substance of the work. Was she so good that some internal oversight would not have uncovered the misdeeds?
Almost always?? The HR department exists solely to protect the company against litigation. Don’t kid yourself that they are looking out for your best interests. Who is signing their paychecks, after all?
Duh…and now she should lose her CPA license as well.
Laporta is a CPA in a CPA firm doing work for high net worth clients. This is a high paying professional position with all the benefits you can imagine. Laporta is going to loose her CPA license and will be disbarred from practice before the IRS. These are huge ethical breaches in an industry that had to revamp ethical standards after the Enron fiasco.
Her main problem will be avoiding the people who come to her thinking that she is actively dirty.