inside the room, along with the transcript of his testimony, donald trump on the stand sounds a lot like donald trump everywhere else. the judge will rule against me because he will always rule against me, quote. he called me a fraud, and he didn't know anything about me. quote. people don't know how good a company i've built because people like you are going around demeaning me, and i think it's hurting america. quote. you and every other democrat coming after me from 15 different sides, all haters. quote. this is a very unfair trial, very unfair. i hope the public is watching. quote. roughly half an hour into donald trump taking the stand, judge engoron repeatedly admonished the president, asking him to stop rambling and answer the questions. he's gone to trump's lawyers and told them to get a handle on their client. they declined. alina habba said she wouldn't dare violate a client's free speech. when donald trump did answer questions, our legal analysts in the courts say he did not help himself. he under cut his team owes own argument that other people are the ones responsible for signing off on valuations, instead admitting that he himself has sometimes gotten involved. let's dig into that. beyond the theatrics, this case could put the trump organization out of business in the place that made it. new york. joining us now, nbc news correspondent vaughn hillyard who's outside of the courthouse. and nbc news contributor and former u.s. attorney and senior fbi official, our legal friend who knows everything about everything, chuck rosenberg. good to have you. i know you don't think that, i believe that you do have a handle on those things. let's talk about this case. donald trump saying that he sometimes got involved in the valuations. is that -- how significant is that? >> it's significant, katy, in a couple of ways. it helps the state establish certain element of what they must prove. this part of the case requires that the government prove that the defendants, mr. trump, his kids, the organization acted intentionally, and so to the extent that mr. trump acknowledges his role in setting certain valuations, and his role in certain aspects of the business, i think it helps. there's an odd way in which mr. trump's rants also helped the government establish the proof it needs in this phase of the trial. when you refuse to answer a question, when you are evasive. when you obfuscate, when you do all of these things, the effect, in this case, the judge alone, there's no jury, when you do all of these things, the trier of fact, i think, properly could infer, katy, if you don't want to answer a question is because the answer doesn't help you at all. the judge has said as much, mr. trump's refusal to answer some questions directly and his long evasive rants, permit the judge to infer that the answers wouldn't be helpful. and so this is a tough place to be if you're mr. trump's lawyer, and you're actually trying to help him because he is certainly not helping himself. >> all right. so, vaughn, he's back in the courtroom now. there was a brief break. he spoke to reporters outside of the court after not speaking to them at first, during the first break. what's he saying on the stand now? >> reporter: donald trump is actually answering questions a little bit more methodically than what we saw take place here this morning, katy. one of the questions that was presented directly to the former president in the last 20 minutes was whether he was aware that the statements of financial condition were being used for the purposes of securing loans, and financial covenants, essentially assertions that, in fact, that trump had not only the cash flow, but the assets in order to protect any loans that were secured by him and the trump organization. and by acknowledging that, he's therefore acknowledging that those financial statements were, in fact, important documents, including these documents that he had himself signed. you've done many interviews through your career, i've had any hands at trying to get some questions to donald trump, you know, at campaign events, and it's often times hard to nail him down. and that is what is so distinct about this moment that we are watching unfold here in lower manhattan, katy, is because donald trump is under oath right now. this isn't a television interview. it's not a, you've got 10 minutes asking questions. instead, there are several hours. very nuanced questions that are being posed to him about multiple properties, and the extent to which he was aware or had his own hand in assessing the value of said properties, in order to secure such loans and other tax benefits. and so, for donald trump, he's going to be facing these questions for about two more hours here, and for the former president, this is his opportunity, as we saw here from this morning, to essentially make his public case to the extent that he can, at least on a public transcript, as to why he is actually valued more than even his current properties show, but also his own brand show, and for donald trump, there is so much political about this because there's a reality that the judge, that he is sitting just feet away from, is going to be the one to determine the extent to which he hows financial penalties, and also the extent to which the trump organization is able to operate here in the state of new york in the future. >> he's just called the case aid disgraced. he says he shouldn't be here all day answering these questions. he's also making the argument, and he's repeatedly made this argument and so have others on his behalf, chuck, that there's no harm done here. nobody lost any money. the banks got paid back. they weren't complaining. so if there's no harm, they argue, there should be no case. there's no fraud if there's no harm. >> wrong, as a matter of law. it may be, katy, that you and i go in and rob a bank or at least we try. but we don't get away with any money. it's still a bank robbery. here, the fact that the banks didn't lose money, that the loans were repaid is good for the banks. i'm thrilled for them. but by making financial misstatements to the banks, mr. trump obtained loans on more favorable terms. and so even if they didn't lose, he benefitted. it's the misstatement that's the offense, in some cases, in a criminal court, it was the misstatement that would be a crime. here it's a civil case, and so it's of a different nature. that defense is just wrong, as a matter of law. >> we keep hearing the word intent used. it's the most stubborn word we use regarding donald trump and his behavior and the court cases against him. it's always all been about, did he have the intent to maybe conspire with russia initially. did he have the intent to, you know, mislead volodymyr zelenskyy in that phone call. did he have the intent to overturn the election, did he have the intent to retain those classified documents, even though he knew it was wrong. did he have the intent to defraud banks here. intent, intent, intent, intent, and no one has been able so far to nail down his intent. why is that? >> that's right. by the way, i'm not sure that what we will see in the control cases will suffer that deficit because in criminal cases, katy, as you know, the prosecutors have to prove intent. so why have we not really seen much of his intent? well, he doesn't commit a lot of stuff to writing. he doesn't use e-mail or text, which is often a rich source of intent material for prosecutors. also intent is hard to prove. katy, did you intend to hit me with your car or was it an accident? if it was just an accident, you didn't commit a crime. so when we're looking to prove crimes, we're looking to establish intent, and all of the criminal cases that are forthcoming will turn, as you know, on intent. did the things that mr. trump did, that he's accused of doing, did they include his intentional acts or were they accidents and if they were done intentionally, they're crimes. >> what about what happens after all of this is over to the trump organization? judge engoron isn't just tasked with deciding how much money the organization, donald trump, owes, but tasked with deciding whether or not they can continue operating. explain that to me. >> sure. this is a civil case. no one is going to jail as a result of it, but for the trump organization and its officers, the penalties can be severe. to your point, katy, the trump organization and its various offshoots and subsidiaries could lose the opportunity and right to do business in the state of new york. that's not going to happen immediately. even if the judge so rules, it's not going to happen immediately because inevitably what comes next, an appeal, and that could take a while. it may even give the trump organization time to unwind its business in new york, and move it elsewhere. still there would be a stigma attached to losing the right to do business in new york, and the judge will consider that as part of the penalties that he will assess in addition to the monetary fines which i think are almost inevitable. >> i wonder if that's part of the reason, and i'm using wonder loosely, because i think we have an idea. why he's shown up and been so agitated and taking the stand and name calling and posting on social media during his breaks, the heart of the case doesn't get to whether he was a good president or not or whether he tried to overturn an election, stuff that maybe you could argue seem secondary to him, the idea that he's not a good businessman, that he's a fake businessman, that he's not real, and so much of that gets to the heart of who donald trump has sold himself as, who he believes himself to be, this legend that he's built up over the years, sold to voters successfully in 2016, that he's great at the job of business, and that he's great at the job of hiring. great at the job of making money. and he can do all of that for the united states of america. his voters bought into that. they believed him. they saw the apprentice, some of them, and said, i love what he did there. he seems like he really knows what he's doing. in your sense of his travels around the country. does a conviction or a ruling that says that he's a bad businessman, the business is guilty of committing fraud and that he has to pay money, and he can no longer do business in the state of new york, does that undercut his image among people who might consider voting for him again? >> reporter: i'm pes missick, -- pessimistic. trump towers will still exist before this period of time over the next year, at least up until november of 2024, and frankly, katy, to your question, out on the campaign trail, folks talk to me about the great businessman, and we need donald trump back in there because of his deal making. so i think it is so cemented, at least into his loyal base of support, it's tough. i think, though, to your point about why is he showing up in person, not only today on the actual witness stand but to hear others testify, i think it comes down to loyalty, coming down and hearing the likes of michael cohen, somebody who he has every interest in demolishing the reputation of because michael cohen was his right hand for so long. you see allen weisselberg, there's a lot of attention paid to the chief financial officer of the trump organization who served time at reicher's jail just last year for six months, who walked away with a $2 million severance back just in april here. there is jeffrey mchugh, another one of the defendants here, keeping loyalists close to him, and not flipping on him. that translates to the politics, come moore when we hear the election interference case. loyalists to donald trump, folks who have turned and also those who remain close to donald trump, being able to stare and look at these individuals in the eye is not only a real estate tycoon overlooking his current and future business operation but on the political front, a president of the united states, a potential future president of the united states, overlooking those who he could seek to do business with, not only through the trump organization but extensions of it were he to get back into washington, d.c. and the white house. >> politically that's an open question. personally for him nod to be able to do business in the state of new york. the trump organization not to be able to do business here. so many buildings branded trump properties. it would be a financial blow, even though the business does exist outside of new york, and what are finding on top of the summary judgment of fraud could severely eat into his pocketbook as well. let's bring in to talk about politics a little bit more. nbc news senior political editor, mark murray. we talked about the personal and the politics with vaughn. there's a new polling out today that suggests that president biden is, former president trump, excuse me, is in much better shape than he was even a few months ago, especially going up against president biden. one of the cross tabs is about the economy. again, a lot of voters saying that this busine who they look up to thinks he's going to be better for the economy than joe biden has been. walk us through what you have seen in this polling, and how it tracks with what we have been reporting and experiencing from voter conversations and the fact that we're talking about this polling, and there's a cross tab on democracy when donald trump is on trial, in multiple different states and facing multiple different charges, very serious charges of, for one, trying to overturn an election, two holding on to classified information on a national security charge, and then there's this case of fraud that we're talking about today. >> it's important to note that we're a year away from the november 2024 general election, but "the new york times" and sienna college ended up coming out with polls yesterday, showing donald trump with leads in five out of six key presidential battleground states. when you actually take a dive into the numbers and actually into the issues, it shows former president donald trump leading, having substantial leads over joe biden on the economy, on immigration, on national security issues. but with president biden leading on abortion, and as you mentioned, on democracy, although not a whole lot, and, you know, it comes amid the court situations, and all the legal challenges that you have been covering and talking about, katy. and i do think, though, it's important for everyone to kind of say, you know, hey, this is something that -- these are polls that are happening now, the totality of all the polls, whether national polls or state polls, suggest that the 2024 presidential race if it's between president biden and former president donald trump is going to be close, but i also ended up just having a lot of patience that we're going to see so many different twists and turns over the next 365 days that we should put those kind of poll numbers into context because we still have a year to go. >> there was also one question on this, at least "the new york times" polling, that asked about whether donald trump gets convicted in onofhese cases, what that wouldo to their decision to support him. and there are people w say th they would switch their vote to joe biden. this is among non-biden supporters. 6% say they would not vote for someone convicted of a crime, convicted felon or someone else. switching their vote to joe biden. that's significant, right, mark? >> it is significant. it is also, i think, more evidence on that we need to kind of take a deep breath, that there's going to be so many different news events, twists and turns, and we have to actually see how all of donald trump's legal dramas end up playing out. to me it's important. i'm the politics guy, and i'm looking ahead to the iowa caucuses, and new hampshire primary, all taking place in january, and then we have nevada and south carolina in february. the day right before super tuesday begins one of the federal criminal trials that donald trump is facing. that one in washington, d.c., the jack smith election interference case. we are going to be locked into all of these legal courtroom dramas, the one that you're showing right now, but also in more -- many more to come. we're going to have to see what the political world looks like, not just after iowa and new hampshire, but after the court cases in march and april, and once we end up getting to the political convention. this right now, things are going to change. i don't know in what way, but what i think promises to be a close race could be impacted by so many different things. >> we have a long time to go, many primaries before we were asked. mark murray, thank you very much. we got a note from court, donald trump is now off the stand. the new york ag's office has finished questioning him. there's no cross-examination from the defense. so he is done. donald trump is done testifying in this case. at least for now. ivanka trump will appear on wednesday. all right. so chuck, what do you make of no cross-examination from the defense? >> normally the reason there's no cross-examination in a normal case with normal people is because the other side doesn't think there was any damage done during the direct. if you don't cross it's because typically you don't believe you need to. there's nothing to prove or disprove. there's nothing to clean up. here it could be and logically so that mr. trump's lawyers wanted him off the stand because he's not helping himself by being on the stand. and that he would perform really the same way on cross-examination as he would on direct. it's hard to know precisely why they made that decision, but it strikes me as the right one because he has a very difficult time with rules and procedures. he has a very difficult time confining himself to the questions that are asked. and so maybe from their perspective, katy, and i think it's a reasonable guess, they wanted him off the stand as quickly as possible. >> vaughn, what usually happens when he's done? this is the first time he's testified but in the past, what have we seen? do you expect him to take a seat pack at the defense table or come out and address reporters? >> reporter: we should expect him to come through the doors every moment. essentially every time he has been at the court, he has taken multiple opportunities to address the cameras, and he himself said that he hoped his words inside of that courtroom here today, which were not on camera, that he hoped the american public would hear it. he posted it multiple times to his social media account during the lunch break, including a quote from judge engoron in which he made the statement during the proceedings that he did not want to hear what donald trump had to say. of course the context of that was he wanted to hear donald trump's answers, not just a political speech here. we could expect him, donald trump, to come out here and address these microphones at any minute. i think it's also worth noting in some of the final questions that our team inside were relaying to us. one of the questions that came from the new york attorney general's office was whether donald trump intended to make any changes to the trump organization as a result of this civil lawsuit by the new york ag's office, and donald trump's response was, i don't think so. this is going to come down to ivanka trump on wednesday testifying. she is not a defendant herself here. but at that point, the defense will then be able to call for their witnesses to take the stand here in the months ahead. again, this trial could last all the way through december 22nd. this afternoon was notable and pivotal point here, as donald trump, while we don't expect him to take the stand in criminal proceedings in 2024, this was donald trump under oath and on the record for multiple hours. >> we got a couple of notes. judge engoron, i restrict you not to bring up confidential communications. one of donald trump's lawyers responds saying if he files a motion for reconsideration, he has to mention the subject. what's he taking about there? >> not entirely sure. i was hoping you were going to ask vaughn that question. it's hard because some of the notes are shorthand, and maybe not intended for us to interpret immediately on air. >> reporter: chuck knows he's the first on call for everybody at nbc news. if chuck doesn't have the answer, we have to stick around a little longer. >> we have to wait to see if the document gets updated. attorney general is also going to be talking about this. look, we have a little bit more. if we have materials at issue, are you saying you deny -- i don't see, hold on, i restrict you not to bring up my confidential communications. i'm prohibiting you from making it. you can appeal, you have no right or reason to complain about my confidential communications. if he files the motion, blah blah blah, if we have materials at issue, are you saying you will deny a motion. we're going to wait. because i want to know exactly what confidential communications they're talking about. let me ask you about the judge, chuck, because donald trump is making a lot of hay about the judge, and alina habba, the lawyers, donald trump are making hay about the comment that vaughn mentioned a moment ago, he's not here to listen to donald trump. how has judge engoron held himself in this case, and has he opened himself up at any moment to a successful appeal by donald trump's team? >> i think i can answer both of those questions in the same way, katy. i don't think that the judge has misstepped in a way that will give mr. trump or his lawyers a successful appeal. here's why. we tend to focus on one witness, on one afternoon or maybe one or two questions. this has been a long trial, weeks of testimony, depositions, motions, papers filed by both sides. if you look at the entirety of the record, which is what an appellate court would do, two things stand out, one, the judge has been professional. if anything, i think restrained because many judges would not be as restrained with someone like mr. trump on the stand. second, the judge has made, generally speaking now, a good record. his writings have been clear. his rulings have been clear, and so if the strategy of the trump team is simply to force the judge to make an error, to goad him into an error, i don't think they have succeeds, and an appellate court is going to look at the entire record, not one witness, not one afternoon. not one set of questions. not one stray remark. that's not how it works on appeal. judges have a lot of discretion to control their courtroom and run a trial as they see fit. an appellate court understands that imperative, and i don't see anything so far that has happened to me that they have made a successful record for appeal here. >> apparently this question that i was asking a moment ago about communications the judge was having with his law clerk. all right. we're going to get back to this in just a moment. we're going to keep an eye on the doors to see if donald trump comes out and addresses reporters again. he's done testifying in the fraud case, at least for now. chuck rosenberg, vaughn hillyard, don't go too far. we're going to take a short break. we have the former prime minister of israel, neftali bennett, not a fan of benjamin netanyahu, but he's saying that what's happening right now, what israel is doing in gaza is the right move. we're going to ask him why he believes that. don't go anywhere. believes that. don't go anywhere. forward with- positive breast cancer is overwhelming. but i never just found my way; i made it. and did all i could to prevent recurrence. verzenio reduces the risk of recurrence of hr-positive, her2-negative, node-positive, early breast cancer with a high chance of returning, as determined by your doctor when added to hormone therapy. hormone therapy works outside the cell... while verzenio works inside to help stop the growth of cancer cells. diarrhea is common, may be severe, or cause dehydration or infection. at the first sign, call your doctor, start an antidiarrheal, and drink fluids. before taking verzenio, tell your doctor about any fever, chills, or other signs of infection. verzenio may cause low white blood cell counts, which may cause serious infection that can lead to death. life-threatening lung inflammation can occur. tell your doctor about any new or worsening trouble breathing, cough, or chest pain. serious liver problems can happen. symptoms include fatigue, appetite loss, stomach pain, and bleeding or bruising. blood clots that can lead to death have occurred. tell your doctor if you have pain or swelling in your arms or legs, shortness of breath, chest pain, and rapid breathing or heart rate, or if you are nursing, pregnant, or plan to be. i'm making my own way forward. ask your doctor about everyday verzenio. ♪ my name is josh sanabria and i am the owner at isla veterinary boutique hospital. i was 5...6 years of age and i knew i was going to be a vet. once alexandra called me to let me know that bank of america had approved my loan... it was important to me. we not only just provide the financing piece, we do everything that we can to surround them with the right people. all you need is a perfect, amazing team that will guide you through the right steps to be successful. and that's what bank of america was for me. (carolers) ♪ iphone 15 pro for your husband! iphone 15 pro — ♪ through the right steps (wife)be successful. carolers! to tell me you want a new iphone? a better plan is verizon. (husband) no way they'd take this wreck. (carolers) ♪ yes, they will, and you'll get iphone 15 pro, ♪ ♪ aaannnnnddddd apple tv 4k, and apple one - ♪ ♪ all three on them! ♪ (wife) do that. (carolers) ♪ we tried to tell him but he paid us a lot... ♪ (husband) it was a lot... ♪ mhmmm ♪ (vo) this holiday turn any iphone, in any condition, into a new iphone 15 pro with titanium, apple tv 4k, and six months of apple one. all three on us. it's holiday everyday with verizon. nice footwork. man, you're lucky, watching live sports never used to be this easy. now you can stream all your games like it's nothing. yes! [ cheers ] yeah! woho! running up and down that field looks tough. it's a pitch. get way more into what you're into when you stream on the xfinity 10g network. we are watching the courthouse here in new york, those doors, donald trump has finished testifying. lawyers are arguing with judge engoron right now about whether they can file for a mistrial, and how they can do it. when donald trump exits the doors and addresses reporters, we will go to that. in the meantime, i want to get to the other important story we have been covering, the war in israel. joining us now is the israeli prime minister from 2021 to 2022, and former chief of staff to benjamin netanyahu, neftali bennett. it's good to have you here. you're in town meeting with lawmakers. that is an important trip to make. let me ask you about what we're seeing in gaza right now, you had argued about cutting off gaza city from the rest of gaza, cutting off the north and south. since you've made that argument, we've seen it. what's happening from what you can tell right now? >> our goal is to release the 240 hostages from gaza, israeli hostages, i'm talking about babies, very old women. incredibly horrific cases. and to eliminate hamas. so what we're doing is essentially applying a siege on the terror tunnels. they have 500 kilometers worth of tunnels, underground tunnels. they built a whole terror city for 15 years, instead of building schools and a future, they decided to take all of that money and building terror against israelis. and instead of entering those tunnels, we're squeezing them, denying them energy for the ventilation of the tunnels, so we smoke out the terrorists. this is going to take some time. and we have to follow through. >> what happens to the hostages? >> we're doing our best. it's a very complicated situation to have so many hostages in the hands of these horrible terrorists. we think that any humanitarian issues should first require them to release these hostages. i have to show you one picture. this is fier bibas, he's 9 months old, kidnapped, under hamas custody right now. this is what we're talking about. and to come and ask israel for all kinds of humanitarian gestures before we've even had the red cross meet and see that he's alive and okay and taken care of, and other kids like him doesn't make sense. >> it's so hard to look at that picture, and it's so hard to think of what must be happening and the fear, especially among the children in those tunnels right now, the hostages and just what happened on that day is awful. but i'm sure that there are palestinians that can show images of their own kids that they're worried about that have died in this. and much of the world is calling for a cease fire. a lot of allies are saying at the very least, a pause, if not voting for a cease fire in the u.n., why do you think that so much of the world is asking israel to stop for a moment. >> that's a wonderful question. and i don't have the answer. i think somehow israel, the jewish state is held to a different standard. imagine if america instead of mexico had a state of al qaeda, with 240 american hostages, including babies there, and this al qaeda state entered florida and raped women and murdered parents in front of their children, and vice versa and burnt them. would anyone ask america to cease fire against this al qaeda state. it's on our border. we thought, israel thought that we can live with this state. if they just have good enough lives, they'll get off our case. we have no territorial claim to gaza. we gave them 100% of gaza, we pulled out the soldiers, but they created a nightmare. israel cannot tolerate anymore of this hamas on our border. and the best way to do way with all the suffering is to denazify gaza by eliminating hamas. >> there needs to be a form of government that's not hamas in gaza but that's functional, and that gazans need to have their own nation. they need to have ports. they need to have everything that a nation enjoys on their land. you don't agree with that, do you? >> we tried precisely that. i want to be clear to the viewers. in 2005, until 2005, israel occupied gaza. in 2005, we pulled out of gaza, back to the 1967 borders. we handed the entire territory over to the palestinian authority. mahmoud abbas. there was no blockade, nothing. they had the chance to form the palestinian state that everyone's talking about. no one stopped them. they have beautiful beaches and beautiful weather, and they dedicated those 17 years to shooting rockets at us, and to killing us, so why would he -- would you try it again? >> hamas took over and hasn't held an election, and although you gave the territory back to gazans, and yes, they voted for hamas, and then hamas became radicalized, they weren't a state. it wasn't like you handed over statehood. >> we actually did. it was theirs to decide. >> but it wasn't connected with the west bank. >> but that's beside the point. we're talking about gaza. the west bank is the west bank, and gaza is gaza. they got everything they wanted. would you try that again? would you experiment again after what they did? i can tell you that israelis left and right, there's consensus, no one wants to try experiments, dangerous experiments again. >> mr. prime minister, hold on one second. i'm sorry, we have to interrupt to go to former president trump outside the court. >> fraudster in this case, they made references to assets that were very valuable, and they had no idea. they had no idea what the numbers were. when they said $18 million for mar-a-lago, and it's 50 to 100 times that amount by any estimation. it's a terrible thing that's happened here, we're taking days and days and weeks and weeks, and you look at the outside world and what's happened. of course they're getting their wish because i don't have to be here for the most part, but i certainly do have to be here because i want to be here. it's a scam, and this is a case that should have never been brought, and it's a case that now should be dismissed. everybody saw what happened today. everybody saw what happened with their star witness who admitted that i never told him what they originally said i did. he admitted he lied, and he has absolutely no credibility whatsoever. >> okay. donald trump, again, sounding a lot like he normally does, calling this thing unfair and calling the judge all sorts of names. let's go to nbc news correspondent vaughn hillyard who's still with us, and msnbc legal analyst, and former u.s. attorney barbara mcquade, and former manhattan assistant district attorney catherine christian, so vaughn, this is a lot of what we have heard before from former president trump. >> reporter: yes, it's a lot of what we heard him say inside the courtroom and on the record. there was a question whether the donald trump we see on the campaign stage and social media was going to be the same donald trump inside of the courtroom, and we can now say after hours of him being on the stand that the answer to that was, absolutely, yes. multiple times donald trump's own lawyers were told by the judge to, quote, control their client and to get him to actually answer in a concise fashion. instead, donald trump gave long winded, quasi tangential responses to the new york attorney general's questions. in the last few minutes is when the prosecution essentially ended their questioning here a bit early of donald trump and the final witness that they are going to call forward is ivanka trump here this wednesday. at that point, the prosecution will all but rest their case. it will then be the defense team's turn, and on monday is when the defense team for donald trump will call their first witness. chris kise the attorney for donald trump, one of the attorneys said inside the courtroom, they intend to have their side of witness testimony and questioning complete by december 15th. we're still looking at about a month more of this case. but this is significant, after hours on the stand here today that donald trump took on directly judge engoron, suggesting right here upon leaving the courtroom that a mistrial should be called and also one of his attorneys suggesting that they may try to file a motion for that mistrial on the basis that the communications between the principle law clerk and judge were not right. of course, i'll let our legal team get into the specifics of that. the judge at one point urging trump's team to not put forward such a motion. >> hold on on that, i'll ask you one more about what the defense team plans to do. who do they plan on calling to the stand? >> potentially don jr. and eric. they essentially can call anybody forward here at this point, including those who have already testified, for each of the witnesses, there was an opportunity to -- for the defense team to go and ask questions of the prosecution's witnesses, like in the case of donald trump here, the defense team did not cross examine him. now this is the opportunity for the defense team to go and call the witnesses they see fit back to the stands. that could very well mean trump's own children could very well take the stand again with the defense's opportunity to defend not only donald trump but also don jr. and eric as well as allen weisselberg and the trump organization comptroller as well. >> catherine, let's talk about the mistrial, the argument that the defense team is going to make. explain how the communications between the judge and the law clerk are relevant here? >> they are. the obsession with this judge's law clerk by these attorneys is just bizarre to make because anyone who practices in new york state courts, particularly on the civil side is just customary where the law clerk is sitting next to the judge, and they're having conversations, which, you know, you never listen to as an attorney, that's just how it works. so it's very bizarre that they're just focused in on that. so what judge says to his court attorney or his court clerks or staff has absolutely nothing to do with this case. >> why are they focused so much on the law clerk? i know there was that photo that they claimed made her biassed, it was her and chuck schumer. this was when she was running for something that she needed to be elected to. by the way, this is the attorney general, i believe this is her walking out. she's going to be addressing the camera when she does get outside. is it just something to seize on politically? i mean, is that what we can take from this? right now, they're grasping for anything. the judge said he didn't want to hear anything from donald trump. they're looking for anything they can use to blast out, as a political communication or is there something legal there that they could potentially use for a mistrial or an appeal. is there anything that you can glean, i'll give this one to barbara. >> katy, i think what they're trying to do is get under the judge's skin, in hopes he has a temper tantrum, and they can use that. legally there's no irregularities going on here. i think the whole thing with the law clerk is an effort to both bait the judge but also to court the views in public opinion, so suggest the court clerk is biassed, based on the photo of her with her state senator, chuck schumer, and somehow that means she's got it in for donald trump, and when she passes notes to the judge, she's telling him to rule against him. as we heard, judges rely on their clerks all the time for research, analysis, courtroom management, to say your 2:00 sentencing conference is here. you know, all kinds of things that they rely on. this is not a valid basis for any sort of a mistrial. i think they will scream about it just because that's good for pr, but it has no bearing on the trial itself. >> catherine, you on that as well? >> i was going to say, i think their client has probably put them up to it, because it was their client who posted this law clerk's photo up, and a photo of chuck schumer, and anyone who lives in new york knows that anyone can get a photo with chuck schumer. >> that is actually very true. >> it's ridiculous. i think this is donald trump, you know, telling his lawyers, do this, do this, and they're just following along. >> chuck schumer does like posing for photos, and you do see him often at public events all around the city. okay. let me ask you about what the defense needs to present in order to minimize whatever fine the judge decides to levy, if he decides to levy one at all or protect the trump organization here in new york. what does the defense need to show, barbara? >> well, i think one of the things this trial has been all about is to make a determination as to whether there was any intent to defraud. and, you know, based on what the judge said coming into this trial about how outraged he was at the overvaluations, i'm not sure we're seeing anything that might tend to dissuade him. to put it into the context, the numbers they have escalated are not close calls. imagine if you owned a house valued at $100,000, you know, maybe it's worth maybe it's 90. maybe it's 110. but here they were exaggerating the claims by a factor of 23. so you know your $100,000 house isn't worth $2.3 million, and that's the kind of representation that we have here. and so i think that the judge is going to have to draw an inference, and i think the defense is going to have to do something to explain the disparities. we haven't seen that. >> attorney general letitia james, let's listen. >> a defendant in the trump organization. he rambled. he hurled insults. but we expected that. at the end of the day, the documentary evidence demonstrated that, in fact, he falsely inflated his assets to basically enrich himself and his family. he continued to persistently engage in fraud. the numbers don't lie. and mr. trump obviously can engage in all of these distractions, and that is exactly what he did, what he committed on the stand today, engaging in distractions, and engaging in name calling. but i will not be bullied. i will not be harassed. this case will go on. we look forward to hearing the testimony of ivanka trump on wednesday, and then we plan on closing our case, and then there will be some motions on thursday. and then the defense will present their case in chief. justice will prevail. and it's important that all of you understand that we have already been victorious in our motion for summary judgment, and now we look forward to discouragement and remaining counts in our action against donald trump and his repeated and consistent fraud against the citizens of the great state of new york. >> reporter: do you think his answers helped his case today? >> all right. no questions taken by the attorney general letitia james there. one of the arguments, catherine, that the trump team makes is that she's politically targeted them. i wonder, if donald trump didn't become president, and he didn't get the outside attention that he did during his first campaign, and then during his presidency, and for all the statements he made exaggerating or promoting himself, would this case have been filed? >> no, it's a legitimate question, and i'm a native new yorker, and donald trump has been here for years and there's always been, you know, rumors about his business practices. and, you know, the manhattan d.a., the united states attorney for the southern district, the ag, never went after him for these business practices. so i can't say they did it because he became president. it is, you know, shame shame shame for prosecutors never looking at him before, but perhaps they couldn't find proof before. and this case is a civil case, it's preponderance of the evidence. for a criminal case, it's proof beyond a reasonable doubt. >> maybe it was michael cohen going out and pointing -- >> i was going to say, they didn't have someone who flipped against him. an insider. as they do now, or allen weisselberg who was prosecuted and convicted and had to testify in the manhattan d.a.'s office case. i don't think it's accurate to say they're only doing it because he's president. i think now they have the evidence. >> maybe they could have gotten it before. that's also an open question. catherine, hold on, let's bring in lisa rubin who was in the courtroom for donald trump's testimony today. lisa, tell us what you saw. what was it like? >> reporter: katy, every day, i exit that courtroom, and i say that was the most bonkers thing i saw in court. and today, i'm saying to you, friend, that was the most bonkers thing i have ever seen in court. we saw the two trumps converge. trump has been one person in the courtroom as an observer, and he leaves the courtroom, and the door shuts behind him, the cameras are there, he goes on attack, and we see the same trump as we see on truth social. this is where the two trumps converge, the trump that wanted to persuade the judge that he had done nothing wrong, yet the same trump who was entirely combative with that judge, with attorney general letitia james, and even members of her staff telling them that the case was a disgrace, that they were the reason that people did not even want to live on the island of manhattan anymore, much live on manhattan, because rather than pay attention to crime in the city, she had had turned all of her attention to going after him. in between those rants, on the other hand, if you have been paying attention to the case, which i have been, the attorney general's office got a series of admissions from trump that were actually very damning for their case. they got admissions from him as to his involvement in valuations. they got admissions that he knew that certain documents were required under his loan agreements, and then they got admissions from him that he certified to the accuracy of the financial statements he gave those lenders in awe accordance with those loan agreements. during the course of the day, while trump tried to blame the speedometer, he didn't get away with it. >> can we focus on that for a second? we're talking so so much about the thee yat risks and donald trump arguing and saying the things we're used to him saying a hundred times before. donald trump, in a summary judgment, the organization was found to have been fraudulent in their documentation of the valuations of his properties in order to get more favorable loan terms. the fraud is already there. done. this is now about how much money he owes because of it, and also whether or not he can keep doing business, the trump organization can keep doing business in the state of new york. is there anything the defense can pose in their round of witnesses that will change the judge's mind about the summary judgment or what he does next? >> reporter: that's a really interesting question. lelt me go back to the first thing you said. this is not only about remedies, but it is also about intent, which will be a part of what the judge considers when he's deciding to award remedies. so one of the things that the defense wants to do is take away the insinuation that any of the folks involved here actually intended the persistent fraud the judge found they engaged in . one of the things they are going to try to do, how persuasive it's going to be, i don't know. trump foreshadowed this by promising on the stand they will bring witnesses to do this is have folks at deutsche bank say we made all our money pack. no harm, no foul. the attorney general's rebut to that is the financial markets themselves were tampered with. any reasonable bank would have charged donald trump and his organization a much higher rate of interest. so in fact, the financial markets and institutions that were involved here were actually out hundreds of millions of dollars opposed to the no harm, no foul, this is a victimless crime that donald trump and folks on his side would like the court believe how erg went down. >> were you surprise the defense a team didn't cross examine donald trump? >> reporter: so this is a technicality. they don't actually have to cross examine him to be able to examine him. they are entitled to bring him back as their witness in their case in chief, which allowed him a lot more latitude to ask direct questions that are not necessarily yes or no or posed as counterfactuals, but give him the latitude to expand on some of the narrative he wanted to do today. he was frequently cut off from doing that today over the objections of either the attorney general's office or the judge's own impatience. when they bring him back, on the other hand, he will be a lot freer to say exactly what it is he wants to say, go off about the high net worth he always had, and how basically, again, nobodies was hurt here. >> i think the judge is trying very hard to be fair. what increasingly are abnormal situations. donald trump sat in the witness stand, and unlike any witness i have ever seen before, viscerally attacked the judge himself. the judge's ability to say mostly calm in the face of that attack, i thought, was quite remarkable. if anything, i think he let trump go on too long, but as i said earlier, that was on occasion to the attorney general's benefit. it you let trump go on long enough, he sticks his foot in his mouth. the a.g.'s office was strategically trying to calibrate how much was enough to allow trump to dig his own proverbial grave. >> interesting. do you expect to see the defense call donald trump to the stand? >> i think he will insist on it. but guess what, then the attorney general has an opportunity to cross examine him. if eric and don jr. are called as witnesses, the attorney general cross examine them. they will get a second bite at the apple for the adult children and for donald trump. ivanka will probably not be called back, but if don jr., don sr., and eric are called, the attorney general will cross examine them. >> so ivanka on wednesday, we're going to wait for that, donald trump potentially called back to the stand for the defense. the defense has said they are going to go into december with their witnesses. it is november 6. so we still have a month or so of the trial left, if they call of the witnesses they say they will and whether we'll see a deutsche bank representative saying they didn't suffer anything financially from these valations. we're going to have to wait and see what the defense does. the attorney general says she expects to rest her case in the coming days. lisa, barbara, katherine christian, thank you so much. i appreciate it. and that's going to do it for me today. more after a quick break. more after a quick break i got the power of 3. i lowered my a1c, cv risk, and lost some weight. in studies, the majority of people reached an a1c under 7 and maintained it. i'm under 7. ozempic® lowers the risk of major cardiovascular events such as stroke, heart attack, or death in adults also with known heart disease. i'm lowering my risk. adults lost up to 14 pounds. i lost some weight. ozempic® isn't for people with type 1 diabetes. don't share needles or pens, or reuse needles. don't take ozempic® if you or your family ever had medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if allergic to it. stop ozempic® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, or an allergic reaction. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. gallbladder problems may occur. tell your provider about vision problems or changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase low blood sugar risk. side effects like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. living with type 2 diabetes? ask about the power of 3 with ozempic®. (ella) fashion moves fast. (jen) so we partner with verizon to take our operations to the next level. (marquis) with a custom private 5g network. (ella) we get more control of production, efficiencies, and greater agility. (jen) that's enterprise intelligence. (vo) it's your vision, it's your verizon. if your moderate to severe crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis symptoms are stopping you in your tracks... choose stelara® from the start... and move toward relief after the first dose... with injections every two months. stelara® may increase your risk of infections, some serious, and cancer. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you have an infection, flu-like symptoms, sores, new skin growths, have had cancer, or if you need a vaccine. pres, a rare, potentially fatal brain condition, may be possible. some serious allergic reactions and lung inflammation can occur. feel unstoppable. ask your doctor how lasting remission can start with stelara®. janssen can help you explore cost support options. we are grocery outlet and we are your bargain bliss market. what's bargain bliss? you know that feeling you get when you find the name brands you love but for way, way less? that's bargain bliss. it's grocery outlet's 20% off wine sale going on now through november 7th. we have hundreds of wines sure to pair with any gathering. so act now because this deal won't last long. stop in and save today.