hello. i'm dana bash with wolf blitzer in washington. it is the top of the hour and we're tracking this historic and chaotic donald trump testimony in new york. the former president is taking the stand in his own defense, facing a civil fraud trial that could determine his future as a businessman and his political prospects. court is in recess for lunch. so far, trump has been on the stand for nearly three hours. >> and, dana, he's used much of that time to filibuster and rail against the judge, and that's very significant. trump keeps attacking and disobeying the judge, even though the fate of trump's family business is in that judge's hands. there is no jury in this civil trial. we have cnn's indkate kaitlan collins outside the courthouse. bring us up to speed the testimony that has gone on and what we anticipate. >> reporter: yeah, wolf, it has been tense, to say the least, inside that courtroom. there was a brief period where the judge was not as frustrated with trump as he has been throughout the morning. but for the most part there has been a lot of frustration coming from the judge's comments, saying that he wants trump to stop going on his asides about oil capitals of the world in scotland, and why he exaggerated his worth, and said just giving the attorney general's office yes or no answers. that has not happened, that is not donald trump's style. the question is how much of an impact that could have on what the outcome of this testimony is, because, wolf, as you noted, there is no jury. it is simpthe decisionmaker. he has already found trump liable for fraud and that clearly is at the heart of a lot of frustration. at one point trump lashed out at him. kara was inside the courtroom as this was happening. we've been reading your dispatches. what was it like to be in the room? >> reporter: the real moment of tension came just around noon. so in the morning the judge had been telling trump, answer these questions, don't give a speech, just answer the questions, no speeches. but things really got tense around noon and that is when the assistant attorney general was asking trump specifically about the financial statements and saying the attorney general's office has said these statements are misleading. do you disagree with that? trump became more animated, raised his voice, and he was saying that the attorney general is a political hack and then attacking the judge, not looking at him. trump is still facing the attorney questioning him, but saying he ruled against me, called me a fraud and doesn't know anything about me. that is when we saw trump get the most animated and emotional, and looked frankly angry that he was being called a fraud. that seemed to tip the balance of where he lost his cool. otherwise, he kept a very straight demeanor. he wasn't showing any kind of emotional reaction, but that set him off, saying that the judge called him a fraud and hitting right at his reputation and his 50 years of being a businessman in new york. >> how did the judge respond? what was he doing while trump was attacking him but not looking at him? >> reporter: so when trump is attacking him, he's just looking kind of straight ahead, not reacting at all. compared with the other moments where the judge was more irritated, raising his voice, saying he's fed up with this, answer the question. he said, if you don't answer the question, i'm going to excuse you from the witness stand and hold this against you, which is the whole point of trump testifying. trump's lawyers are saying, these are his brilliant answers, that he should be allowed to give these long answers because it's his way of showing that there was no intent to defraud, because that is a key element of the claims on trial right now. >> surely his attorneys can't think these are brilliant answers if they're infuriating the judge. there was a point between the attorneys where it got testy as well. >> reporter: what was interesting, it was the judge who raised this first. it wasn't the attorney general's office saying that trump's answers were too long. the judge out of the gate, it was about -- it was like when they got to a question about the financial statements. so in the early part of this, the judge laying down the law, saying i want you to answer the questions, i don't want speeches. still, this is usually something that the attorney general's office has brought up repeatedly. in this instance the judge was kind of setting the tone. that is when trump's lawyers were saying, he needs a chance to answer these questions because you have to understand his thinking and he's trying to give this answer. the judge was saying, no, he needs to answer these questions, i don't need a speech, i need an answer to the question. >> how was the lawyer for the attorney general's office -- i mean, he's the one doing all the questioning here. did they want it to keep going in the hopes that maybe his rambling could actually be helpful to them? >> reporter: that is what happened at the end. so he was letting trump speak and the judge was asking at one point, do you want some of this nonresponsive part stricken from the record, and the assistant attorney general said, i'm happy to keep it, i like some of what he said. so some of the things he's saying about his knowledge of these properties, his knowledge of the value, they think that's useful to their case. so even though he is saying things that are not answering the question that's posed to him, they think it's helpful to them. >> they're on break. trump hasn't spoken outside the court, which is kind of remarkable, since this morning. what's next? >> reporter: this afternoon is kind of a short session. the bulk of the trial is in the morning. the court breaks at 4:30. there's one other break. we're going to have about 2 hours and 15 minutes of questioning. while they have gone through a number of these properties, mar-a-lago, trump tower, which he said there was a mistake, it was overvalued, they've gone through a lot of properties. they focused on different years. they've been bouncing around. this allegation goes back as far as 2011, 2014. they still have two and a half hours of him on the stand. they will try to get in all the questions they want to ask him at the center of this. >> a lot going on. fascinating to hear from kara, inside the courtroom watching this play out. >> thanks to both of you very much. we'll continue to stay in close touch. all of this is happening a year out from the 2024 presidential election, and president trump didn't waste any time using today's testimony as a fundraising opportunity, earlier his campaign sent an email to supporters attacking the trial as, quote, election interference and talking up his latest poll numbers. cnn's kristen holmes is watching all of this unfold. >> that's right. kristen, this is probably one of the least surprising things that has happened today, that the trump campaign is using what is happening inside the courtroom to try to benefit him outside the courtroom, particularly on the campaign trail. going in, you were talking to all of your sources, i spoke to some people in trump world, his political strategy is almost superseding his legal strategy and trying to take advantage as much as possible of what is happening inside, to use the terms that we hear over and over, primarily witch hunt. >> reporter: dana, that's right. i do want to note, just while he's been on a lunch break, donald trump has posted on truth social a picture of the judge and a quote from this morning that he essentially says the judge says, i'm not here to hear what president trump has says, one of the quotes when they were having their sparring earlier today, essentially taking this out of context and using it to campaign off of. the fundraising is no surprise. this is a strategy that is not only working for them, but it's one they have to use. we have to remember he is still running a presidential campaign. he is not going to get to choose when he testifies or when he goes to trial. so they are taking this, these trials, these legal problems, and trying to make the most of them by turning them into a political campaign. donald trump is running on the messaging that this is election interference, that they want to stop him, democrats, all of his opponents, rivals, want to stop him from being president again, being elected in 2024. and what he has done here, what we've seen is he's taken that messaging from the public sphere and moved it into the courtroom. that's what you saw this morning, different times saying, you said i was a fraud, you didn't know anything about me, talking about election interference. they are taking this messaging to a whole nother level. we expected him to go out to the cameras and do this, but he is doing this behind the scenes in the courtroom as well. i've spoken to a campaign adviser who says that they actually really do think he's doing a good job, and they like the way that this is unfolding, the back and forth here in the courtroom, that they believe he is winning at messaging here. that is what this is all about to donald trump, how can he message this. now, of course, i do not want to separate the fact that we know this case in particular, that this trial in particular goes to the very core of who donald trump is. we talk about this a lot in terms of his personal brand, how he built his business. it also is part of his political brand. he spent years telling american voters that he was successful, he was this rich businessman, if he could do it for himself, he could do it for the american voter as well. he could run this country like the business he ran. and now he is being accused of fraudulently running that business and overinflating his wealth. that would go to the very core of his messaging politically, as well as personal branding. so there is a lot at stake here for donald trump, but as you can see, they are trying to make the most of this in terms of how to actually use it to their benefit for 2024 and the political campaign. >> kristen, elliot was making an important point earlier about the fact that, yes, this is a very specific, very narrow legal issue that he's embroiled in. it's only civil and he's already been found liable. it's a question of how much money he's going to spend. it is quite different -- how much money he's going to have to give. it's quite different from the criminal charges he's facing federally and also in georgia. but politically speaking, which is what we're talking about here, what the trump campaign is doing is lumping them altogether and saying, look, they're against me, they, the democrats. pick whoever you want to define as they. and i spoke to somebody who said that if you look at the poll numbers among republicans in the presidential primary and in caucus electorate, they certainly has a lot of very substantial sticky support, but there's still 15% to 20% of republicans who say they could vote for donald trump but might not. and that they believe that what we're seeing in new york today could help harden the support for donald trump in the short term during this republican primary process. it's amazing how connected, intentionally connected what you're seeing in the courtroom is from the perspective of the trump campaign to the actual political strategy. >> reporter: dana, i just want to add one thing, because i think what you're saying is spot on. i also think when you talk about those voters who aren't sure about donald trump, i hear from a lot of them. i'm not just talking about at trump rallies, but at various events i go to for the republican candidates. and i do hear one part of this messaging over and over again, there is a two-tiered justice system. even if they do not support donald trump, there is something about his messaging that is getting through to some republicans outside of his core base and that is what they're banking on. we have to point out this is completely unprecedented, even his own allies have concerns over what this means for a general election, how this would play out with voters, what it m would mean to have trial after trial, would that cause trump fatigue. they believe in the short term this is working, and i will tell you they looked at those polls from over the weekend and that's what they spent most of yesterday talking about. not that he was going to go to court today, that he was going to testify, about how good his poll numbers were over the weekend. that is what they are focused on. when they see those poll numbers, that's not going to help them shift their strategy. that's going to keep them doubling down on that. >> thank you so much for your excellent reporting, as always. stay with us as we follow all the breaking news on donald trump's civil fraud trial. we'll be right back. we're back with our special coverage as donald trump takes the stand in the civil fraud trial against him in new york. things have been quite sense in the courtroom as you've been reporting all day. the former president spent most of his time attacking the judge, the trial attorney and the attorney general of the state of new york. all of this prompted the judge to reprimand him repeatedly. let's bring in our panel. laura coates, you have been in courtrooms before. i don't know that you have -- you tell us, have you ever been in a situation where the witness who was supposed to be testifying on his own behalf to try to limit the damage as he is here, because he's already liable, does what he's doing on the stand? >> i've had my fair share of hostile witnesses, but normally the attorney would counsel them when there's a bench trial, when the fact finder is a judge himself. but in this instance he is well aware there is bait, trying to suggest if i can just upset you enough, maybe you'll be less professional, walk into my appellate arguments. here the judge is clear about that. take a step back as to why this is so strange. remember, when the judge is asking questions or the judge is asking the attorneys to make sure they're in line, he's already rouled about the consequential notion of saying you've already been found liable of fraud. what i want to hear from you is whether you should be fined a quarter of a billion dollars for that fraud, show some humanitarian, maybe you want to suggest you were not the one in control or otherwise. instead, you've got hubris, you've got an air of defiance, playing to a court of public opinion. and most importantly, you have the judge saying, okay, i'll take a step back and let the attorneys handle this, because he knows about the appellate process. have i seen some of it, yeah. but this crazy, no. >> it seems to me that trump and his lawyers, by trump going after the judge, hoping to rile him, if you will -- hold on one second. this is trump's attorney. >> i'm not here to hear what he has to say, then why exactly am i being paid as an attorney and why exactly are taxpayer dollars being used in this courtroom? the answer is very clear. because ms james wants to stand here like she did this morning and call my client a liar, call the company fraudulent, and make a name for herself. she said this morning that the numbers don't lie, and they won't lie in this case. i have a message for you. the numbers didn't lie when you ran for governor, and that's why you dropped out. and the numbers don't lie when president trump runs for office in 2024, and those numbers are loud and clear. this country is falling apart. and if we don't stop corruption in courtrooms where attorneys are gagged, where attorneys are not allowed to say what they need to say to protect their -- >> that's alina habba, one of the attorneys representing donald trump in this case. dana, it sounds more like a political statement she's making as opposed to a legal statement. >> it's so transparent. they're not trying to hide the fact that this is a political moment. this is a political campaign event that his advisers, along with his attorneys, his attorneys in the secondary, or even the third row of that, are putting on. and she just said it right there. it's about 2024. >> she's not talking about the case. >> right. >> it's all politics. it, also, is geared toward one person. she has an audience of one right there, donald trump. she came out, she knew that he would be watching. this is what he wants her to say, because that's what he cares about right now. i don't think we can underscore enough the fact that he has been found liable, and as laura just said, now we're talking about the money. absolutely the appellate case, the lawyers here know more about that, but he is on a political attack strategy here. he's fundraising off of it and that was part of the fundraising. >> it's interesting to me, because it seems, from reading some of the transcripts here, that trump hasn't answered a lot of specific questions about 40 wall street or any of these larger properties. instead, he turns and says, you guys want to take my properties away. one time he said, like they do in communist china. so what he does, he turns it to the victimization and you guys are -- they're making a martyr out of him. and he wants to be the martyr. that's what he's trying to do, and his attorneys are doing it on the courthouse steps. i'm not a lawyer here. >> you play one on tv. >> i do. not a great lawyer. but you guys can tell me what that means in terms of, he doesn't want to lose the $250 million. worst of all, he wants to be able to continue to do business in the state of new york. i think that is something he does care about. >> i think lost in all of this is that we as americans have a notion of trials of law and order, like the television show, where in 60 minutes, everything gets wrapped up, the trial is short, and anything can happen. >> it doesn't work that way? >> it doesn't work that way. it's important to note that rambling and giving long answers can work against you as a witness. that can be the kind of thing that, number one, bothers the judge. when you have one individual who controls your fate, you really don't want to get on his nerves. it's almost a human matter as much as it's a legal one. and so the mere fact of the president going off script, talking about all this nonsense, really could work against him at a trial. again, maybe the money doesn't matter, maybe it's not a big deal. but if you lose here, you could lose your company. >> you know trump, the money matters. >> but also the why, why the rambling answers. i know this is a judge trial, but they're a fact finder. if you were jurors and you had someone with a yes or no question posed to them and instead they tried to get to an answer that still does not answer it, you are going to assign less credibility to that person. you're going to assume what they're saying and why they're giving you the end run is because they're not being truthful. they know donald trump too well. as a judge, the ruling is about credibility. why that's so important is if this goes up on appeal for whatever reason, the one thing the appellate judges can't touch is what was the firsthand observations of a fact finder. if i did not find you credible, if there's no reason to think i'm bias, then the judge is saying, do you have an argument in the law? nothing. >> is that part of the reason that the attorney general, they're saying leave it on the record? >> yeah. >> laura, it's one thing for trump to be railing against the judge publicly under oath in the courtroom. it's another thing for a lawyer representing trump to be railing against the judge. >> she serves only one master, really. and the idea of you're supposed to have a duty of ethics and candor to the tribunal, that seems to be far in the rearview mirror like it's a dot at this point in time, for the reason she's talking to an audience of one. but, also, it does not help you on appeal. it does not help your clien