headquarters here at 30 rockefeller center. donald trump's eldest son goes under oath in the $250 million civil fraud trial against the former president and his family business. donald trump junior took the stand late today in a new york courtroom, and before he testified managed to do what he loves to do most, crack a joke. >> i should've worn makeup. >> today, prosecutors focused on his job running the trump family business with his younger brother eric, a role his father announced before entering the white house back in 2017. >> my two sons, who are right here, don and eric, are going to be running the company. they are going to be running it in a very professional manner. they are not going to discuss it with me. these papers are just some of the many documents that i've signed turning over complete and total control to my sons. >> donald trump jr. is not just a witness in the case, he is also a defendant, along with his brother and his dad. and we see's laura jarred has more on today's testimony. >> tonight, the former president's eldest son inside a manhattan courtroom. donald trump junior, the first of his siblings to testify in a $250 million civil law fraud lawsuit against the family's real estate business. new york's attorney general accusing the republican front runner, his sons, and his company of inflating assets to get better terms on loans and insurance. pointing to don junior's signature on documents certifying the accuracy of the company's financial statements, which include assets like mr. trump's apartment in manhattan, listed as 30,000 square feet when it is actually a third of that size. today, he was pressed by the state about his role as executive vice president of the trump organization. don jr. saying he relied on outside accountants who prepare the financial statements. he said blasted the suit from the democratic attorney general and the judge, also a democrat, as a partisan kangaroo court. >> it doesn't matter what general practices the business would be, it doesn't matter, they have a narrative, they have an end goal, and they will do whatever it takes to get there. >> the judge has already ruled in the state's favor on the central fraud claim, much of the trial is to determine what, if any, punishment should be handed down. meanwhile, the former president has said he's done nothing wrong, and again slamming the judge, posting, quote, leave my children alone. >> donald trump jr. is expected to return to the stand tomorrow. eric trump is also slated to testify on thursday. the former president is set to appear on monday. and right now, his daughter ivanka is set to testify next wednesday. meanwhile, a federal judge in florida is considering giving trump exactly what he wants, delaying his upcoming assified documents trial. it's supposed to begin on may 20th, but trump, no surprise, wants it postponed until after the 2024 election. with that, let's get smart with the help of our leadoff panel. carol leonig is here, pulitzer prize-winning investigative reporter with the washington post, david fahrenthold, a new york times investigative reporter who won a pulitzer for the truth behind trump's charitable donations. and former u.s. attorney joyce vance who spent 25 years as a federal prosecutor. okay, joyce. the judge here in new york has already ruled this is a fraud. the judge ruled in advance of trial that the corporate fraud was established. that is no longer needed to be considered. but there is still six separate charges that involve false statements that were made, when fraudulent statements were submitted to banks. so the judge is evaluating that. but remember, steph, he also has this overarching question of how much of their ill gotten gains the trumps will have to discourage of. new york city tierney generals asking for $250 million. and part of the testimony is evidence the judge can consider when arriving at a number. >> let's say the judge comes up with a number. when will donald trump actually have to write the check and pay it. i want to know, as he written e. jean carroll the check for $5 million? even though, whatever, $10, 000, whatever thousand dollars tied to his gag orders, is he actually writing these checks? is it actually happening? >> so, e. jean carroll first, that's an unusual situation because normally when someone loses in the trial or wants to take an appeal, they have to file an appeal bond. but for whatever reason, donald trump couldn't get one or didn't get one, and he actually wrote a check for that amount that is sitting in escrow, waiting for the outcome of the appeal. something that is similar that would happen, here if you wanted to appeal, this is of course understate procedures, not federal. it is a different bit. who it either have to get on the appeal bond or write a check for the entire amount. so in that sense, steph, there is some immediacy. but of course, in the e. jean carroll case, that money is not sitting in e. jean carroll's bank account yet. >> all right, david, you have covered the family business. better than anyone i know. what did you think was the key part of junior's testimony today? besides his cute joke about makeup, which he may have been wearing, we don't know. >> well, the only real substance they got to today was this question of what his input was into these financial statements that they had been found to be wrong and fraudulent. and what donald trump junior has said was, well, yeah, i signed them, but i didn't know it was in, them i trust that there would be taken care of. that is important to me because there is sort of two totally divergent strands of argument that the trumps are making. on the one hand, donald trump is saying, look, yes, i provided these numbers to the accountants and they passed them on to lenders and other people. but there was a clause saying that they were just my numbers and they should go check them or themselves. some donald trump jr.'s is saying the opposite. but it was the accountants, it was the other people he trusted to provide these numbers, and none of them came from him. i don't think you can argue that both ways, that is the accountants fault or the accountants do nothing for very long. that seems to be what they are trying. >>, okay i'm sorry, i'm gonna run a, time but i have to go back to joyce. joyce, isn't that the reason you sign a document. right? if you didn't have to sign it, then the accountants would just do their things and they would mail it in. but the point of signing on the dotted line, saying i agree that everything here is factually correct and i accept the liability, isn't that the point of signing one's name? >> absolutely, it is. they're trying to have it both ways here. this is not a judge that will let them get away with it. you know, steph, the theme that underlies this whole case is this notion we have a financial system that works because banks can have confidence that when businesses submit these sorts of documents they can be relied upon. the trumps try to turn that on their head and they say everybody does it, everybody knew they were bad numbers, so there's really no harm, no foul here. that's just not how any of this works. >> there is harm. there is foul. they were lying about the law of the business to get more favorable terms from banks, yeah, there's harm. carol, prosecutors in this case revealed evidence that our colleague andrew weissmann said can be hugely important both jack smith and fani willis. what's it mean to their cases? what is he talking about? >> sorry, i could read that fast enough, i think it had something to do with winning the election. try me again, steph. >> so andrew weissmann is saying that the prosecutor put forth that jack smith and fani willis are going to go crazy for, what could it be? >> i really have no idea other than -- >> basically he knew that he didn't win the election. >> right. but i mean, so much other evidence. i usually agree with andrew about so many things. but there's so much other information to let us know that donald trump knew he didn't win the election, not least of which great reporting by the washington post and the new york times, colleagues of mine, including david, talk more about how, you know, when he was speaking with some of his most important advisers after the election, he said could you believe i didn't win pennsylvania? could you believe i didn't win in georgia? i mean, he literally said that to kellyanne conway. so we had some instinct and knowledge and awareness when he was in private that this is not really the way it goes. of course, there's something else jack smith has which is that every single person donald trump relied on to give him advice about -- you know, as donald trump jr. said, that's what we pay him for, that's why we have cpas. well, donald trump paid a lot of people and hired a lot of people to advise him on his campaign. and indeed, every single one of them told him that he had lost. the only person i can think of that didn't tell him, or i should say, that we don't have proof that he told him that he lost was mark meadows. that's the only person i can think of. his campaign lawyers over and over again told him. as attorney general, who had broken precedent to investigate possible fraud in the election before the election was certified, something the department of justice never does, his attorney general told him i'm sorry, sir, this fraud that you're claiming didn't happen, and if there was any election mistake or fraud, it's too small to have changed it in your favor. >> david, donald trump's image and his business are tied together. his children are involved in this case. what's at stake for all of them? >> well, there's sort of two levels of what's at stake. on a practical level, if we've been talking about potentially large fines. justice -- said he actually wants to cancel the business certificates of these businesses trump owns in new york. that would not be an immediate process, but could lead to a process where he'd lose control of trump tower, of the many other office buildings in new york, the golf courses. so there's a practical concern there, they could lose the heart of their business in new york. it wouldn't be a fatal blow to the trump organization but certainly would change it a lot. the other level is the psychological level, which is this idea that all along we saw trump build this career on the apprentice, became an icon of business savvy, that he was lying about a lot of it, that he was making a lot of a top. certainly, there's been a lot of evidence that comes out already. but this would be a regal judgment all in one place when you see how much of trump's empire was basically just imaginary, imagine assets, imagine value that he threw out there and got people to believe for a long time, now we're able to see behind that. i think that's almost as damaging to him as whatever properties he might lose. >> carol, new topic. trump's classified documents case, judge aileen cannon, a trump appointed judge who many people believed it's quite friendly to the former president, she's now weighing a delay in the trial. i mean, if that isn't a grand slam home run for him, i don't know what it is. >> no, i think pretty much every lawyer who's been on your show, and i'm going to have to count a choice in this category, as basically personalist that this would happen. you, know every single person has been watching closely for what judge cannon would do, especially because she leaned so hard against the law, according to every appellate judge who look at this, every prosecutor who looked at it, she leaned against the law to basically stop a criminal investigation in progress involving classified records. just to remind when she did that, classified records are the property of the federal government. she has no role in deciding whether or not classified documents should or should not be reviewed by the government. that's their property. so when she did that, she cast a huge shadow over her reputation as a -- basically as a person that knows the law. does she know the law if she can go that far in donald trump's favor? and i think a lot of lawyers were hoping that she would be somewhat embarrassed by that moment and she would carefully think through whether or not her decisions leaned again and donald trump's favor. yet here in this instance, we don't know her motive, we don't know her intention, but she's leaning hard in his favor. and pushing against the national security division lawyer today, who basically said, you know, we can do this, judge, we have all the records, we've got all the stuff. the defense for trump says it's so voluminous we can't do it. by may 2024, we can do it. and she said i just don't really believe you. >> wow. all right, joyce, you topic, the new york times is reporting that if donald trump were to get the nomination and if he were to win, his allies want him to choose lawyers who will embrace a more radical agenda. and i want to remind our audience here is what some of his former administration lawyers told the january 6th committee about his efforts to overturn the election. watch this. >> i made it clear i did not agree with the idea of saying the election was stolen and putting out the stuff, which i told the president was bowl [bleep]. and you know, i didn't want to be a part of it. that's one of the reasons i went into deciding to leave and i did. >> it's fair to say that agreed with attorney general barr and attorney general barr's conclusion on december 1st, yes, i did, and i supported that conclusion. >> what they were proposing i thought was not. hugo travis in venezuela, gets enough data from someone who says -- was in, something in the philippines, just all over the radar. >> so if those lawyers, if those lawyers were not on board with trump, what kind of people could we see in a second trump white house? >> this is one of the most frightening stories that i've read. and as someone who teaches and works in the area of democracy, i think this is a foundational threat to the future of this country. because donald trump would impose a litmus test for lawyers. it would have nothing to do with confidence or good judgment or even taking an oath to the constitution. this would be the question that he asked of jim comey before he fired him as director of the fbi, what i need from you as loyalty. that is what he would seek from every lawyer in the executive branch. and what this means is that the justice department, the power of prosecution would become a prerogative of president donald trump. he would exercise prosecutions as a way to punish his enemies. he would and prosecutions to reward his friends. nothing is more oppositional to the future of the democratic country then to give over this power to donald trump. it's really interesting that stephen miller, not a lawyer, who worked for jeff sessions, and when he fell out of favor with trump, miller stayed with trump, that he's one of the reported masterminds behind this team. this has nothing to do with supporting good government or the constitution, and everything to do with installing an autocratic leader. >> it just takes me back to jim comey and his book, looking to hide and camouflage himself into the curtains because he did not want to have to answer -- his lawyer, his guy, remember, trump and his generals? carol leonnig, david fahrenthold, joyce vance, great, great to see you all. when we come back, speaker mike johnson's israel aid bill includes cuts to the irs that would add billions to the deficit and hook up super wealthy tax evaders. you know elizabeth warren has a lot to say about this. she's here next. and later, the first civilians leave gaza, crossing the border into egypt. ben rhodes is here on that, and what is next for israel's ground offensive. the 11th hour just getting underway on a busy wednesday night. ♪ ♪ ♪ ther programs i've tried in the past they were unsustainable, just too restrictive. with golo i can enjoy my food and the fear and guilt of eating is gone. c'mon, we're right there. c'mon baby. it's the only we need. go, go, go, go! ah! touchdown baby! -touchdown! are your neighbors watching the same game? yeah, my 5g home internet delays the game a bit. but you get used to it. try these. they're noise cancelling earmuffs. i stole them from an airport. it's always something with you, man. great! solid! -greek salad? exactly! don't delay the game with verizon or t-mobile 5g >> the house is expected to home internet. catch it on the xfinity 10g network. vote this week on the gop's new proposal to fund aid to israel by slashing the irs budget. well, there's a new report from the congressional budget office that said this bill would add 26 police to the deficit. so let's discuss. i am joined now by democratic senator elizabeth warren of massachusetts. senator i am so glad you are here and i want to start on this very subject. because this idea that some of your colleagues have to slash the irs ' budget to pay for funding to israel, according to the irs commissioner, the money they want to take is money that goes directly to studying, to going after tax evaders, the richest tax evaders in this country. and he says that we would be leaving money on the table if we just let them get off. >> exactly right. look, this is nothing more than a cynical plot by the republicans to try to exploit the hamas terrorist bombings. to see if they can hook onto that, their longtime desire to let the wealthiest tax cheats get away free. and we just can't let that happen. the best estimate from the irs is that for every dollar spent on going after those wealthy tax cheats, the american public gets about $6 back in money collected. i don't know many places where you can get that kind of 6 to 1 ratio, but my view is that we need to make the wealthy tax cheats pay their fair share. . and we need the republicans to come with us on a serious plan for the funding that needs to be done in the supplemental bill. >> use the war to hookup tax cheats. then i want to ask about the war in ukraine, because other colleagues of yours that want to pull money from support to ukraine are arguing that we shouldn't spend that money over here, we should be spending it over there and we should be spending it here. do they understand that if putin wins this war against ukraine, he won't be done. he will cost the u.s. significantly more when he goes to expand? >> that is exactly the right way to look at this. this is putin seeing how far he can go. and if he can over run ukraine, he has no intention of stopping their. this is a time when we need to stick with our allies, all across europe, the allies across the world where there to try to support ukraine. we need to be doing our part and that. the ukrainians are on the ground fighting their hearts out. i was just there in august. they make inch by inch by inch progress. they are pushing russia back. and that's exactly what we need to support them to do. that is in their interest. but it is also in our long term interests. >> are you hopeful that there will be a proposal that will get the aid to israel and ukraine that's needed? >> yes. and our plan right now is to keep those married to each other, so that both of them go forward together. and i want to be clear, it's not just democrats who do that, we actually have some republicans that are strong on that in the senate as well. we just need the house to sober up and the house leadership to get serious, stop playing games, let's get an emergency funding bill that is the emergency funding bill that our nation needs. >> i want to ask you about our complicated economy, because the truth is experts predicted that right now we would be in a pretty awful recession. but we're not. the economies actually picked up. unemployment is at 3.8. however, life is not easy here. inflation is still a proble