that applied for that job. but has anyone seen wolf blitzer lately? >> thank you so much for joininjoining us. tonight abby philip and d cnn news n night starts riright now. >> donald trump's testimony may need a disclaimer. that's tonight, on news night. ♪ ♪ ♪ good evening, i'm abby philip, and today a trademark trump performance inside a new york state courtroom. it was trademark for all the reasons you would expect, loud, libelous, unrepentant, uncontrolled, dominated by conduct that frankly would never be permissible for any other defendant, civil or criminal. after four hours of testimony, the former president thought that everything was just perfect. >> i think it went very well, and -- case that should have never been brought. it's a case that should be dismissed immediately. the fraud was on behalf of the court. >> with his bombastic behavior on the stand, trump tried making a mockery of the legal system. but there is more that he's reportedly planning to undermine if he gets back into the white house. we will have more on that in a moment. but of course, trump's lawyers would have you believe that they, quote, never had a witness testify better, that trump answers were, quote, brilliant and great. it's their strategy to inject a dose of the campaign into this courtroom. now trump's testimony was riddled without boris, most of them of the petty variety. and at one, point the former president even directed a high society insult at the new york state attorney general, letitia james, saying, quote, she doesn't know what a 40 wall street is. james replied on twitter don't tell, i can see it from my office window. but between the antics, there were some omissions, some damning ones. multiple times today, the former president admitted under oath that he influence the inflated values of his properties. so let's just go through what -- let's go through some of them. what about the idea that trump didn't really know what was going on with his finances inside of his own corporation? well, the defendant said, quote, i would look at them, i would see them, and i would maybe occasionally have some suggestions. what about mar-a-lago and the legally binding document the trump side in which he stated that he intended to keep it as a club and not as a residential property that could ever be developed? well, the defendant said this, quote, intend doesn't mean we will do it. now, that answer is almost clintonia. it depends on what the definition of's is. but these two it's far easier to track trump's attention. what about his apartment? that's the one he claimed was 30,000 square feet but it really was only 11,000. the defendant said this, quote, the number was too high. they lowered it after that. he also said, quote, i thought the apartment was overvalued but i never really looked into it. well, i want to bring in a witness who testified recently in this fraud trial, that's former trump attorney michael cohen, and he is the host of mea culpa and political beat down, the podcasts. he's also author of the book revenge, how donald trump weaponize the u.s. department of justice against his critics. so michael, what do you think about all of these little omissions that trump made while he was in court today testifying about his finances? >> yeah, it's really fantastic that alina halle came running down the stairs for her few minutes of news time to tell everybody that, of, course donald was brilliant, that the best witness out there, and that they schooled me. why they brought me back into the conversation today, i'm not 100% sure. but they decided to say that she schooled me. what they should be doing is not schooling me, they should be schooling donald in terms of how to respond and how to act appropriately in a court of law. that's what they really should be schooling about. >> to that very point, you said just this morning, that you expected this to turn into a circus. and you are right in a certain sense. but a source also says that trump's legal team is actually happy about how today's testimony went. do you think that they should be? >> [laughter] first of all, that's a lie. yes -- well, let me start with the first part. yes, i came on the show at 8 am this morning and i kind of refuted my friend anthony scaramucci who thought that donald would behave better. knowing donald as well as i do, i count that point and said the second they started to talk about his finances, his net worth, and they put him into a corner, that's the only thing he knows how to do, lash out. and that's exactly what he did. i mean, most of the time i happen to be right, only because -- not because i'm clairvoyant. i'm certainly not nostradamus. i happen to know the guy well enough to know how he's going to act. as far as whether or not they think that they won this thing, they think that they're doing great, they know that they're not. except they have a client that doesn't care, as long as they keep responding the way he wants them to respond. so if he tells them i did great, i did great, all of a sudden they start to parrot, donald, you did great, you are brilliant today. this is all about basically patting him on the back and making him and stroking his ego. this is what it's all about. he knows that he lost this matter already. it's just a matter of how much. it's a matter of the discouragement that they'll be able to show. what he's looking to do is to figure out how to play this, since he lost already in the court of law, how to play this to a court of public opinion. and he thinks that he's doing well and he's going to try to ride the same street, look, with all due respect to media, think about it. 24/7 since he took the stand has been nothing but donald trump. we have a war going on right now in israel against hamas. we have another war we are working with, ukraine against russia. and what are we talking about, donald baby antics? >> look, as you know very well, sometimes people who work for trump, they have to play the hand they're dealt, and in this case they have a client who's angry. so if their best bet is to try to push for an appeal based on the idea that the judge is biased, do you think that judge engoron maybe fell a bit into a trap today by actually responding to trump's provocations on the witness stand? >> no, no, no way. judge engoron has been perfect as a judge in this matter. again, i sat there for two days, not four hours, like donald lost his concentration and started acknowledging all the things that they probably sat with him for hours on and said not, whatever you do, do not acknowledge that you did this, or do not acknowledge that you did that. instead, he came right out, said yeah, i was involved with it, to some extent and so on. which by the way, it's a lie. he was involved in all aspects, something that i again testified to. i think judge engoron is absolutely setting the record perfect to avoid any appealable issues, because there are no appealable issues. this is a case of documentary -- documentary evidence corroborated with testimony. >> -- what do you make of the fact that prosecutors left ivanka as the final witness this week? >> well, remember that ivanka is not part of the case. she was time barred based upon the statute of limitations. why they would put her last, i don't really know. she could've gone for, as eric could've gone last, donald junior could've gone last, donald himself could've gone last. it makes no difference. they already lost early on the motion for the liability part. he has been found guilty of fraud. that is done. now again it's all about the discouragement. ivana will come in and she will testify honestly and truthfully, i believe that. because she has a lot to lose. in fact, she has a lot more to lose than even her father in this case because as we've been saying, donald over inflated his assets quite substantially. >> all right, michael cohen, good to have you on this particular topic, thank you for being here. >> good to see you, abby. >> and few things animated the former president more than the discussion of mar-a-lago's worth. he complained on the stand about the judges citation that put the resorts value at $18 million. that was based on a florida tax appraisal record. trump insists it's worthwhile over one billion dollars. and joining me now to help us sort through this argument and someone who knows quite a lot about palm beach wheel estate values and that's jeff liechtenstein, owner of echo fine properties in palm beach gardens, florida. he's also the author of how making a sandwich can change your world. so jeff, trump, when he was asked if he believed that mar-a-lago was worth one billion dollars he said i think between a billion and 1.5 billion. now, a lot of people have said the 18 million dollar figure, that is far too low. but that is a huge range, to go from 18 million to 1.5 billion dollars. what's the reality check on that? >> well, as real estate agents, we can puffin, flip the value. so i can say, hey abby, your house is the best ever when maybe it is, maybe it isn't. and he has a point but he doesn't have a point. so rush limbaugh's place recently sold for $155 million. it was 2.3 acres. and then also, the surfside place was also just sold for 100 and $20 million. that was two acres. so that $60 million an acre. so if you look at mar-a-lago, that 17.5 acres. so 17.5 acres at $60 million, you're above a billion dollars. the problem is is it's the land in both rush limbaugh's case in the surfside case, they're buying the land. and that is the best use of the property. so have to bulldoze mar-a-lago. and you can't do that because it's national historic register. so you can't both -- bulldoze the statue of liberty or the hurst castle. and the developer would love to go in there and build condos and development, but it is what it is. >> and that's a really key. point it's one that comes up in this case. so the new york attorney general says that trump came up with this original valuation of $738 million by claiming falsely it was an unrestricted property, that it could be sold and developed for residential use. what are the limitations on what you can do with a property like mar-a-lago? >> well, from what i understand it, it is what it is. it can be used for the resorts that it is, and he could live there. so if you want me to sell it, i could get a buyer tomorrow who would buy it for one billion dollars, if they could develop it and totally develop it. but you can't. so you're stuck would this best use. so it's probably really in the range more of the 3:50 to 400 million dollar range. there's been plenty of properties that have sold above 100 million. but going over one billion dollars or 789 million, that's too much. >> well, we'll take your word for it, jeff lictenstein, thank you so much for joining us. >> thanks for having me, abby. >> and one story that has been overshadowed by this whole trial is the reported vengeance plot that trump and his allies are planning for a second term. now, two former trump officials join me live next on that. plus, democrats are frantic tonight over new polling showing president biden losing to trump in battleground states. we will debate biden's next move, ahead. >> donald trump has been throwing a courtroom into a circus this week, there's actually another story about trump that might have more far-reaching consequences the washington post is revealing how trump and his allies have already begun strategizing for how to use the white house and the justice department to exact revenge on his enemies if he's elected to a second turn now according to post trump's not just talking about weaponizing the doj on the campaign trail his allies are putting together a game plan and after using the insurrection act against racial justice protesters back when he was in office, the post says that trump is, once again, plotting to invoke that 152 year old law in his first days in office. now, here with me now to discuss this is james scholes, a former trump white house lawyer and miles taylor, former chief of staff to homeland security secretary kirstjen nielsen miles let start with you. this report says that trump might use the doj to go after former officials people like john kelly who you know well, bill barr along with other officials inside the doj and fbi how far do you think that would go and do you think that, you yourself a former trump official who notably came out as anonymous, it could be a target? >> abby, i don't think it is a might, i think it's a will. i think donald trump will do this in the second term. i don't just think it's a possibility, i think it's a near certainty. and it's something that he's been telegraphing very clearly from the campaign trail. now i spent the past two years interviewing fellow ex trump officials about what they think would happen in a second trump term and this was one of the biggest through lines of all of those interviews. people time and time again saying the justice system would be weaponized in a second term. it's something that donald trump talked a lot about his first term. he would talk to us about it in the oval office. his fantasies about going after political rivals using the mechanisms of government. and my colleague here on the hit tonight in the counsel's office frequently were the ones who had to shut down those donald trump dreams of prosecuting his enemies. but in a set term it will be no hold for it and this was trump's philosophy, which was that even if you did not have a case against someone you sue them because if you sue them you can tie them up and costly litigation. whether or not they get convicted so his notion is that you will appoint these special counsels and, even if they go after his enemies like john kelly, like myself, and there's no case to be made against those people, those people have to hire lawyers and they spend years with the threat of a justice department case hanging over their heads. it is what he is done in his private life all throughout his career and it is a tactic in the second term he plans to bring in government, but abbey it doesn't stop there. trump wants to do this with a lot of different levers of government power throughout the departments and agencies underneath the presidents control. that is what i think is deeply concerning for our democracy and for democratic stability. >> so, jim, according to the post there is this group of far-right wing washington based think tanks are working on these plans for the second term. one of the plant is, quote, that they would deploy the military domestically under the insurrection act. that this was a law that was last updated in 1871 and authorizes the president to deploy the military for domestic law enforcement. the idea is to use it to squash potential protests that could actually accompany him returning to office. do you think that this is something that they could actually execute? >> so, the good news in all of this is that the folks who are going to be in position should be actually win the election, and we're not close to that yet. we're not even into the primaries yet. but if you were to actually when the election there are checks and balances through the system. every one of the appointees has to be confirmed by the senate, could be removed and impeached and removed from office as well. and the folks that go into these jobs, especially the lawyers, the lawyers that are in those positions have a law license that they have to protect. if they're asked to do something that is outside the bounds of the law, then there's going to be a check on that as well. so that is the good news in all of, this is that we have career officials, we have folks in the military, we have people that are lawyers that will exercise good judgment to beat that back, just like we saw through the allegations where you have jeffrey clark in the january six issue and it was beaten back by white house counsel. pat cipollone and folks like that. you have to trust the people in government that are going to step up when bat ideas are brought forward. >> no question, people did step up to stop some of these bad ideas. but you just brought up jeffrey clark, it is a good example of how many people actually did go along with it and actually, one of the people behind, as trump's former budget director ross perot, he's leading one of these think tanks. he thinks that you don't need a statutory changed at all, you just need a change of mind set. you just need an attorney general and white house counsel's office that doesn't use itself as trying to protect the department from the president. jim, i mean this is, in some ways it is a legal question. is it just something that requires a change of mindset, somebody saying we're going to do this, or would they be breaking the law >> look, anytime that you are using -- look, all these new things need to be looked at through the lens of, one, is this the right thing to do? two, might it violate the law? there is going to be plenty of lawyers who are in the government at the apartment of homeland security in the military agencies, at the department of justice. and all of these places, who have been there a long time. and the folks that are leaving those departments, again, are going to have to be confirmed by the senate. i don't think that you have the risk that the same type of risk that you have, that folks are really worrying about here. yes, we have got to hope that people go to the ballot box and vote against these types of things, but at the same time if they don't, there is also a lot of other things going on in government that need to run. we have a conflict around the world, those things are going to be on the front page. they're going to have to deal with the economy. the idea that all they're going to do is be laser-like, that there's going to be a group of individuals who are going to be able to push the entire federal government in that direction is ludicrous in my view, but the risk is not worth it in the end of the day. that is something that needs to be challenged at the ballot box through these primaries and then the general election cycle so that we don't have that. >> miles, i want to give you a very quick last word here. is this potential of a second term a keystone cop a situation, or are you worried that this could be more organized, more driven? >> i think it will be vastly more organized. i appreciate james optimism and i would like to hope for the same. i would like to hope that the guardrails will be there. maybe the eye view is a little cynical, abby, but i don't think the guardrails will be there. in fact, people like russ who we have worked with, they know better than this. but they also know that the people are the guardrails and that is why there is a conservative plan to make sure those people who would second guess and legal order are gone. and they have spent a lot of time thinking through who those yes men and yes women are to bring in the administration and, mark my, words they will populate the full upper ranks of a trump two point oh administration and there won't be the people to stop these things from going into effect. i think it will be vastly more dire than the first term was in terms of ignoring and disregarding the rule of law. >> we cover this because donald trump is on the ballot, easily ding in the republican prior. it's critical to know what he might do if he's elected again. james schultz and miles taylor, thank you both. and, up next for us, new polls say that voters don't think age is just a number for joe biden. trouble in the making in daytona that is making some democrats squirm. but one senator has something to get off his chest about california's governor. giving tuesday. giving tuesday giving tuesday giving tuesday is a global effort that encourages people to do good. this year, when you choose shriners hospital