Defense Final News Today : Breaking News, Live Updates & Top Stories | Vimarsana

Good evening from new york, im chris hayes. After five weeks, the first criminal trial of a former u. S. President is nearly over. The defense rested, this morning, it called only two witnesses. Despite all his bravado and insistence to the contrary, yeah, donald trump was not one of them. We knew that, right . Instead, we heard briefly from a paralegal, attorney Todd Blanches from about phone records, for a man by the name of Robert Castella took the stand. Costello is a former federal prosecutor, a very close associate of Rudy Giuliani, the twice indicted former mayor of new york city. More ...

election for her alleged sexual encounter with donald trump. nbc news reports a dozen members of the public have lined up and are continuing to do so even in the rain to get a seat for the historic moment. closing arguments will be both the prosecution and the defense final chance to weave the evidence into the narrative of their case. in new york, the defense goes first. arguing that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that john -- donald trump committed a crime with the intent to influence the 2016 election then the prosecution will recap its case. tying t...

When i read it in the transcript i believed i was looking at evidence of a crime. evidence that was not in any way contradicted in cross-examination by the defense. and then since the defense put on no defense it hasn't been contradicted at all. and that was about the disclosure of foreign bank accounts. a treasury official testified who's an investigator of these kinds of matters, a prosecution asked did you conduct a search of whether paul manafort filed an f bar 4 the tax years 20112012, 2013 and 2014. these were reports there were no foreign bank accounts. the witness says there were none ...

What can possibly be in the final argument that a juror could cling to, something in the defense final argument, that could lead to a not guilty on that count? >> excuse me. the argument that the defense will have to make here, lawrence, is that mr. manafort lacked the intent to fail to report these foreign bank accounts, meaning he sure didn't, he sure had them, but the reason it's not a crime, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, is that there was an omission, it was a mistake. the government has to show that when he failed to report those accounts that he acted intentionally. and so i imagine ...