test in a colorado courtroom this week. and taking action, senate democrats are set to participate in for winchell conservatives with close ties to supreme court justices. i'm ayman wilkie dean, let's get started. it was a family affair for the trumps in new york this week. to have the disgraced ex presidents sons took to the stand to testify and attorney general that you should james's 22 million dollar civil fraud lawsuit against the trump family and their company. first up was donald trump jr., coach of his father's business empire. the ex presidents eldest son faced repeated questions about his role in the trump organization especially as it related to financial statements that the attorney general says we're purposely inflated to benefit the company. now trump jr. did his best to try, i, guess a distance himself from the statement saying he relied on outside accountants and the trump organization's former chief financial officer allen weisselberg to prepare them. while he was pressed by a lawyer for the attorney generals office about his role in the preparation of an annual statement of financial condition, that outlined his father's wealth, trump jr. denied any in valence and actually quipped back saying the accountants run it, that's what we paid them for. and then was eric trump's term on the stand. the attorney general's a lawsuit -- second son responsible for all aspects of management and operation of the trump organization. despite that role, eric trump pushed back against questions about his involvement in his father's financial statements, repeatedly saying, quote, i pour concrete, i operate properties. i don't focus on appraisals. but it appears that eric was unable to hold his cool as well as his older brother. according to nbc news reporter who were inside that courtroom, every kid got testy and raised his voice as the attorney generals office pressed him on his involvement. just a short time after he testified that he had, quote, never worked on the trp organization statements of financial condition and that he, quote, didn't know anything about it until recently, andrew amerie from the attorney general's team was able to get eric to admit on the stand in front of everyone that he was aware, even as far back as 2013. msnbc legal analyst lisa reuben up the attorney generals office in approach the eric trump strategy. now, reuben explains, he wanted to establish that eric trump knew that his father had statements of financial condition, statements that were used in connection with financing and acquisitions. and perhaps most importantly that the trump organization -- sought and obtained information from eric trump personally for use and valuing assets in those statements. and by doing so, and highlighting extra presentations to the contrary at his deposition and on the stand, he was able to expose trump's clear credibility issues for everyone. without directly calling him a liar, the attorney generals office called trump's son to concede that his claim that he had zero knowledge of or involvement in the financial statements was as reuben writes, quote, at best, based on the very faulty memory, and at worst constituted deliberately falsehoods. the a pact of this testimony from both donald trump jr. and eric trump still to be determined. but the risk here is actually very high. their statements in court this week have the potential to not only steal their own fates, but the fate of their father as well. all of this simultaneously jeopardizing the future of their family empire here in new york. let's bring in my panel for this conversation, suzanne craig, an investigative reporter and mason bbc contributor, christina, greer political scientist and social professor of political science at for him university. and catherine christiansen, former assistant manhattan district attorney and an msnbc legal analyst. it's good to have all three of you with us. susan, i would like to start with you, this -- you were in the courtroom this week. lot of drama i would say, but give me from your vantage point the takeaways of where the trial went following the testimonies of don junior and eric trump. >> it was interesting because eric really was -- it was devastating in some ways to watch just how it went for him. it was the repetition of email, after email being shown saying he was involved in these appraisals. after he had said in his deposition last year in front of the attorney general he really didn't have any involvement. and you sort of have to step back and say, okay, if they're saying they had no involvement, what were they doing? they should know what these financial statements, are they should be very much in command of them. they're running this company. especially eric trump. he was the trump that was on the ground day today. for all of his father's presidency. so that is where -- not quite where we left it on friday because after the testimony wrapped up, there was more butting heads about the law clerks, the law clerk, the judge's law clerk. and trump has from the get-go made an issue of her. he's claiming she's biased, she's a democratic operative and she has no business being on this case. and the law clerk for people who don't know, she sits right next to the judge. she's doing her job, but they can for a lot as part of the trial. she sits there, they talk. and it's just driving team trump crazy. and they decided that this is going to be their issue and trump has been filed, but not once, not twice already. and there was already more back and forth about it and the judge just felt -- he widened the gag order to include any comments that they make as well about the law clerk that they could be sanctioned for. >> absolutely incredible that they're going after the law clerk. >> it just feels like a political issue. i don't know if this is gonna play well but the appeals court. they're just doing it for political audience. political audience >> the play for the jury outside the courtroom at this moment. -- from these financial documents that exaggerated their father's net worth. and they're doing it, classic trump fashion. blame everybody but yourself. blame the accountants, blame everyone who is involved. based on what we saw this week, how likely is that defense strategy of pointing the fingers to someone else likely to succeed? >> it's a losing strategy, first of all. accountants prepare financial statements and tax returns based on the information that their clients give them. if the clients give them false information, their tax returns in the financial statements will be false. so to say i don't know it's my countenance, is just not going to be -- it's not a defense that's going to work. not with this judge and not with the appeal in court. and the a.g.'s attorneys were very prepared for the answers of don and eric with document after document and document. surprising that they were not prepared, that anything they say is going to be a financial statement with their signature on it. there's gonna be an email that's gonna have someone talking about a discussion they had with eric gordon about it. their testimony was not helpful in any way for their case. not for them, not for the father, not for the trump organization. >> let me go back to susan's point here about how the trump world has been trying to describe this because we had a glimpse of that after leaving court on friday. you had eric trump echoing the rhetoric of his fired father, calling this case a political witch hunt. i want to play for you and our viewers a little bit more about that. take a listen. >> it docked when [inaudible] they only won to our names in this thing because it sensationalizes the case. we've done absolutely nothing wrong. we have a better company that they can ever imagine. >> again, the facts are that donald junior, erik, ivanka, they all held high-level positions within their fathers company. how do his cries, christina, of collateral damage matchup with the reality that we are seeing? they are helpless children here. they're grown adults who have held executive positions in a multi billion dollar company. >> yes, ayman, let's not forget they held major positions in the u.s. government as well when their father was president which makes me just shudder. but, you know, as susan said, the scale strategy, that's just try to distract from the reality at hand, the emails are there, they said they've received it. those, say the judge is biased now the clerk is biased and it's just a witch hunt on their family. but anyone who lived in new york knows the trump organization has always leaned in the line of the galatea in the four ways sort of skirted to the law and donald trump said so himself while he was campaigning. who pays taxes? only fool's pay taxes. so we know there was something there and eric trump, because he had such a bad day in court, is not going to say this is just a woman from a family. there's some real concerns and the a.g.'s office will not bring these types of charges against the former president and his entire family if they weren't sure that there was something that is tangible. we know that don junior and eric have always been seeking their father's approval. we know i'm sure there's depositions. they were doubling down on making sure that whatever their father said, they said as well. things get a little different when you're on the stand and you're being questioned under oath. in a deposition order, still. obliged to tell the truth. when you're on the stand, and someone is presenting real receipts in front of you and we see the narratives changing, then you go outside the courtroom to the court of public opinion and you're trying to make your case in that way and as kathryn said, that's not gonna cut it. >> one of the interesting things, susan, and i think not all of our viewers are in the weeds and details of this case but sometimes if you are just to listen to the defense of trump they would say there was no nefarious intent here, this was a victimless crime. the prosecution put on the stand an expert witness, i believe a banking expert, who basically said that as a result of these allegations, the trump world saved about 100 and $68 million which is a substantial amount of money that banks and lenders ultimately lost out on. so this is not a -- we are not talking about a victimless crime here or something that is crumbs. we are talking about a significant amount of money that was -- banks were defrauded of. >> that's, right and i think on monday when trump takes the, center gonna hear one of his arguments, it's going to be all the loans were performing. no harm, no foul. all the banks got paid back. but what this expert did is he showed just on four properties because the false statements went in with these inflated values, some of them were just ridiculous, the banks in san -- and it's been testimony, that deutsche bank rely on and some instances that there was short-range, he was 100 and $68 million they could've gotten a lot more money if the rates had actually been what this expert said that they should've been. so we are going to see at the end, there is no receiver in the company because he's already lost on summary judgment and found liable on to fraud eventually i think you're going to see a find that right now the attorney generals looking for 200 and $50 million. we will see assets ills likely to meet that. donald trump is gonna have to write a check at some point for a large amount. this is going to sneak through the appeals court, it's gonna take some time. but at the end of, it there's gonna be a lot to check in for this. >> let me ask you quickly about something that you brought up in the first answer which is a gag order. how likely is that going to be -- that he's gonna follow the judges gag orders? what's the consequence if he doesn't? >> it's interesting because i'm canadian and every time i -- i'm a bit of a rule follower, every time i have it happens i think, it's like going to happen. again because i would never do anything like that. every time we see that -- >> i would say some americans would agree with. you most americans would follow the orders of a judge especially when it's a gag order. i think most of -- us it's not a canadian. think most americans would agree with that as well. >> i never know anymore. >> it's a really trump thing. it's a uniquely trump thing to ignore gutters. >> sometimes it feels like anything goes. i can't believe it every day. but i think -- i was like it's never going to happen again and it does. and now this gag orders been applied to his lawyers as well. i think everybody is going to be watching on monday every time he opens his mouth, is he violating the gag order again? yeah. >> incredible, we're gonna to wait and see. suzanne craig, thank you so. much christine and, kevin stick around. i have a lot more to talk to you about after the break. we're gonna discuss the efforts of keeping donald trump off the 2024 ballot in battleground states. thank you. the chase ink business premier card is made for people like sam, who make- everyday products, designed smarter. like a smart coffee grinder, that orders fresh beans for you. oh, genius! for more breakthroughs like that- i need a breakthrough card. like ours! with 2.5% cash back on purchases of $5,000 or more. plus unlimited 2% cash back on all other purchases. and with greater spending potential, sam can keep making smart ideas- a brilliant reality! the ink business premier card from chase for business. make more of what's yours. take a moment to pause and ask, why did you get vaccinated against pneumococcal pneumonia? i help others. but i need to help protect myself. honestly? i couldn't afford to get sick. i want to be there for this one. i can't if i'm sick. pneumococcal pneumonia is a potentially serious bacterial lung disease. you may be at risk if you're 19 to 64 with certain chronic conditions. or if you're 65 or older. don't pause a moment longer. ask your doctor or pharmacist about getting vaccinated against pneumococcal pneumonia today. (carolers) ♪ iphone 15 pro for your husband! iphone 15 pro — ♪ ask your doctor or pharmacist (wife)getting vaccinated 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. you know that feeling of having to rewash dishes that didn't get clean? i don't. cascade platinum plus... with double the dawn grease fighting power and double the scrubbing power. for a no rewash clean... and a cabinet ready shine. upgrade to cascade platinum plus. dare to dish differently. he hits his mark —center stage—and is crushed by a baby grand piano. you're replacing me? customize and save with liberty bibberty. he doesn't even have a mustache. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ the power goes out and we still have wifi only pay for what you need. to do our homework. and that's a good thing? great in my book! who are you? no power? no problem. introducing storm-ready wifi. now you can stay reliably connected through power outages with unlimited cellular data and up to 4 hours of battery back-up to keep you online. only from xfinity. >> donald trump is facing a new home of the xfinity 10g network. threat to his presidential aspiration. this, week a colorado judge held a trial to determine whether trump is ineligible to hold office under the so-called insurrection clause. that is in the 14ndment of the u.s. constitution. now the case filed in the state district court in denver argues that because trump incited his supporters to attack the capitol on january the 6th, he cannot hold any political office again. trump lawyers wanted the case thrown out, arguing that he was protected by the first amendment. george sabi wallace rejected the bid. a case has just heard in minnesota to keep trump off the states ballot. trump and his allies are fuming over the unprecedented nature of this challenge to his candidacy. but as former fbi official frank figliuzzi told my colleague nicole wallace, that argument is actually the light height of hypocrisy. >> the same people, the extremism, on the violent riot, who tried to convince secretaries of state that they have the authority to overturn the election, pick alternate slates of electors are now -- understand this writes, in michigan at least, the secretary of state has no authority. it's a perversion of justice and the rule of law. >> let's bring back catherine christian and christina greer into the conversation. catherine, i will start with. with the argument that my colleague here, frank, was making on nicole's show. what do you make of that? does this colorado sued and others like it have merit? what do you make of trump's defense that his words are protected by the first amendment and that secretaries of state do you not have this power? >> the problem for the plaintiffs is the secretaries of state i believe in those states have said, well, we do not have this power. this has never been tested in any court. it's section three of the 14th amendment, basically in bars anyone who's engaged in insurrection or rebellion from holding an office. so -- the question -- the issue is, one, who's going to make the determination of what an insurrection or rebellion's. the plaintiffs as it sort of self executing in the secretary of states told them that. number two, is the president in office that it refers to? it doesn't specifically say in the section that is the president. but, you know, trump himself has argued that in his civil suits when he tried to get them removed for federal court in his criminal court that it is in office. but also he's not been convicted and is a criminal conviction for insurrection required. remember, the special counsel did not charge donald trump with insurrection or seditious conspiracy. the number of the january six people were tried for seditious conspiracy and convicted. oath keepers and proud boys leaders have been convicted for what happened on january 6th. so the judge has said we are going to move it on. she did not granted direct verdict, he would've dismissed the case. but there are legal arguments for both sides. many people for both sides say just let the people pull decide if they want him to be on the ballot. but what he did allegedly, on january 6th, is very troubling. and people -- were convicted of it and serving time now for seditious conspiracy and for acts committed on january six. they did what they did because he called them to him that day. >> you bring up a lot of the important legal questions about what qualifies a candidate for having committed seditious conspiracy if that person has not been charged with that crime. christina, the watchdog group citizens for responsibility and ethics in washington crew, and several firms, they actually filed the suit on behalf of six republican and unaffiliated voters, not democratic voters, we should note. does that sound like a partisan witch hunt to you like trump and his allies are saying? or do you think that was just more of political gamesmanship on behalf of this organization to bring this lawsuit forward, just to pull the rug from underneath trump on that one argument? them >> i think it's the latter, when ayman? sadly, we've seen a few. things, one donald trump and his supporters consistently moving the goalposts. when it suits them. to, we haven't seen the republican party writ large stan