and they do, no matter what happens here, have to be looking down the barrel at the next federal criminal trial for paul manafort that is due to start in just a few weeks just a few miles away in washington, d.c. the idea they might try not mounting a defense would set them up in d.c. to have to mount a defense. although, they would be coming at it from a place of weakness. i don t envy these guys. it is a perfectly reasonable tactic, but there is no lawyer that will tell you that that tactic improves the statistical likelihood of a not guilty verdict. it reduces it rather dramatically. if you look at the cases where there is no defense presented. that makes it much less likely to get to the not guilty. but rachel, we will be covering this. many other things tonight. steve smith is here. we wants to talk about what happened to john brennan today.
with his instructions. ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the evidence in this case is what controls. it s the evidence that comes from that witness stand and it leads to only one conclusion, and that is that mr. manafort is guilty and guilty as charged. one of those sounds very perry mason and one of those doesn t. which? which one? the one that didn t say f bar, which actually might be an fdc banned acronym. the evidence that comes from that witness stand where paul manafort never sat and where no witnesses appeared for the defense. everything you are supposed to take from this case comes from that witness stand. the defense gave you nothing. you know, everybody keeps telling us all the legal experts keep telling us it is not that weird that the defense didn t mount a defense. but the defense didn t mount a defense.
jury verdict. in final arguments today, the prosecution told the jury the star witness in this case is the documents, the documents that prove that paul manafort committed tax fraud and bank fraud, the documents that show $60 million in income with zero taxes paid on that income, the documents that show paul manafort lying about his assets and applications for bank loans, the documents that show paul manafort maintaining foreign bank accounts which he did not reveal to the government as required by law, the documents that show paul manafort deliberately lying to his bookkeeper and his accountants. the defense tried to make the case all about rick gates, paul m manafort s former assistant. the prosecution said when paul manafort was hiring rick gates to work for him he deliberately chose someone who would break
the law along with paul manafort. the prosecution said about rick gates about paul manafort hiring rick gates, he didn t choose a boy scout. the prosecutors made no public comment today, but one of paul manafort s lawyers who did not call a single witness in defense of paul manafort said only this. mr. manafort was very happy with how things went today. his defense team got to address the jury, point out the shortcomings in the government s case and explain that the government has not met their burden of proof. thank you. our legal team joining us now. jill wine-banks and harry lipman. jill wine-banks, your assessment of where this case stands tonight? i would say the case went in very well for the prosecution. the evidence especially in the form of documents was very
women will start their jury deliberations in the case of the united states versus paul manafort. paul manafort s future will be on the line in that jury room and so will donald trump s. that s what they believe according to reporting tonight in the washington post in which rudy giuliani said the first verdict obtained by robert mueller could determine the future of the mueller investigation and the mueller investigators. giuliani told the washington post, quote, they re empowered if they win and defeated if they lose. imagine donald trump s joy if a jury rejects robert mueller s first prosecution in court. and imagine donald trump s rage if a jury hits paul manafort with the word guilty. and imagine donald trump s personal agony tomorrow starting at 9:30 a.m. as he awaits that