demeaning him and his company. just moments ago the former president walked out of court for lunch break. his scorched earth political playbook is very familiar and has been successful in the court of public opinion. but could trump's behavior spell the end of his business empire in new york? the staggering financial stakes. the bloodiest part of the war between israel and hamas may be happening right now. israeli engaged in what's described as close quarters urban warfare, trapping hamas fighters inside along with thousands of desperate civilians. so what's next? a lot to get to, but we start in new york city where just a short time ago donald trump's testimony went from combative to, in the ends of our nbc news producer inside the courtroom, completely out of control. the former president ranting on the witness stand, attacking the judge for finding him guilty of committing fraud saying, quote, the fraud is on the court, not me. it follows several hours of repeated clashes not just between the former president and prosecutors, but between trump and the judge who is trying to keep things on track. judge engoran has repeatedly warned trump not to go off on tangent. he grew so frustrated, he called on trump's attorney, warning this is not a political rally. later besieging him to control trump. trump arguing his assets were undervalued by accountants, in the case of mrrg it's more than 100 times more valuable than the 2018 estimate. the judge has already ruled trump and his family committed fraud. this is about what kind of penalties they might face including whether the trumps will be barred from ever running a company in new york again. sue craig, investigative reporter for "the new york times" along with msnbc's legal analyst lisa rubin who just left court. carol leonnig is an investigator for "the washington post" and co-author of "a very stable genius." lisa, you literally just ran out of court. this sounds almost unlike anything i've heard coming together in a courtroom or perhaps i should say falling apart. what happened in there? >> reporter: i think what happened in there is what i and others, probably including susanne have largely predicted what happened, which is what happens when trump's rants outside the courtroom suddenly mieg great inside the walls of the testimony that the attorney general is trying to elicit inside judge arthur engoron's courtroom. trump, when faced with a question he doesn't like, one that usually calls for a yes or no answer, repeatedly digresses to talk first about the insanely high value of his assets, and then over time it has progressively morphed into more angry rants about the judge himself, about the attorney general, about the disclaimers in his financial statements that he calls themselves worthless. chris, you're right to say, i'm really flabbergasted right now. i've never seen anything like this in all of my time of being lawyer. trump even proceeded to take a piece of paper, from his financial condition that talk about his personal responsibilities. he asked the judge if he could read from that. i will tell you and our viewers it's not standard. i've never seen a witness being allowed to read from a document. when the judge said no, you can't read that, he said, shocked, and moved on. the question is whether the attorney general is getting what they need as a result of that. >> i'm reading, if i can hear, sue, from this document. we're getting reports in realtime from our folks, our nbc producers who are watching this, trump is going off, no restraint. what did it feel like to be inside that room, something so different, as lisa pointed out, that she's ever seen or most of us have ever even heard of? >> reporter: right. he was really angry. that came through at every question. not only was he non-responsive. he would not answer questions and then he would go on a speech. at one point it felt like, when he wasn't yelling, it felt like a travel guide for his various property. he would go on about how great each one was and the views from the windows. at one point he started yelling at the judge saying you don't know me, you don't understand me and basically in essence how dare you do this. another point, trump's lawyers were in the courtroom standing up. the judge was so angry. he just ordered them to sit down. it feels -- even trump's lawyer at one point, he's referring to donald trump as the former president and then he said and the future president. and as a result, his point was he should get more latitude. that's the sort of rhetoric you're getting. there's one audience here for team trump and that's the larger political audience. they clearly know they've lost this case. it's already come down on summary judgment against them. they're going to be facing a fine, likely will have to pay one after it snakes its way through the appellate court. they were trying to be as loud as they could do make their point about how unfair they are. donald trump is playing a role i think many know well, and that's the victim here today. >> you're nodding, i'm watching you, lisa. is that it? you can see no i guess strategic reason for handling this the way they did, either donald trump himself or his lawyers legally. >> chris, i think if you're thinking about how to mount a constructive defense here, not a successful one, i would refer you back to last week when we saw eric and don jr., their defense was much more cog niezable one. we ran the company at a high mack row crow level and we were entitled to rely on the accountant and lawyers we surrounded ourselves with. that's not donald trump's defense at all. donald trump's defense seems to be irrespective of the year of the statement of financial condition we're talking about, the property in question was invariably worth more than listed in the statement of financial conditions, so there was no overvaluation. if there was, it wasn't material given the whole panoply of his assets. even if there was and material overvaluation, it was a mistake. and this judge who doesn't know him labeled him a fraud without correctly ascertaining what his intent was. every time he goes off on one of these long tangents, chris kise is on his feet saying, you've got to let him spout off because this goes to the heart of the case which is about intent. that's really what we're doing here. it's not just about the remedies and damages. the attorney general has six more claims in addition to the one on which they won summary judgment. each of those claims require proof of intent by the individual defendants and the trump entities themselves. they are trying to show that donald trump not only was involved in the valuation problems here but he intended for them to happen, he was directly involved in them, he approved and signed off on them. if he didn't, that wasn't just negligent on his part, that was outright recklessness. >> was there a moment, sue, that you saw where you thought this is the donald trump who built a reputation, was so proud of the reputation he believed he had, that just putting the name trump on a building made it double, triple, a hundred times more valuable than the same building that didn't have the name trump on it? the guy, frankly, who ran on it, who told the american people when he successfully ran for president, i can do for the country what i did for this business. i'm looking at one part of this readout where he says, people don't know how good a company i built because people like you -- referencing the judge -- are going around demeaning me, and i think it's hurting america. was that the donald trump who essentially has had his whole life, been able to talk his way or explain his way out of a lot of really tight places? >> it's interesting. you're right. he ran for president on the idea that it's his sort of know-how to start a company and build it up that america needs. i think the idea that donald trump examining rates and he has lied about his asset value and net worth is soaked into the bloodstream of this country. he has been doing it for so long, i think he has come to believe it. i think the reality behind that, in 2020, "the new york times," my colleagues and i got ahold of 20 years of his personal and corporate tax returns, and we saw in there most of his businesses consistently lose money year in and year out. there was another story where he got his tax returns in the 1980s and we were able to show he lost more money than any individual american taxpayer. i think he believes very much a lot of what he says. he says it over and over and i think it's become a truth to him, that these assets are worth billions of dollars. he's now on the stand today saying not only that, but he's going to bring experts in to show an asset like mar-a-lago, he mentioned that in particular, is worth more than a billion dollars. there's very much a disconnect. i'm not sure he believes all of it, but i think a lot of it has been a lie that he's told so often that he's come to believe some of it. >> carol, that brings me to you and the amazing book that you and phil rucker wrote called "a very stable genius" which comes off a tweet that donald trump himself sent out, and i was also noting that at one point he said, i hope the public is watching -- of course, they are not. this is not televised, but we are giving it to people in realtime. when you hear lisa and sue's explanation of what went on inside the courtroom, is that the donald trump that you wrote that book about? >> i think two things they highlight today are so important and do resonate for me in terms of interviews donald trump at mar-a-lago for one of our books actually. first off is, it's very personal for donald trump. he believes he's a billionaire or he wants to believe he's a billionaire or he wants other people to believe he's a billionaire. but i think that has been shown to be pretty much, pretty much false and false multiple times that he told it. then there's the other part of donald trump which is the victim on the stand trying to call out to his supporters, to his base that once again the law enforcement community, particularly in his view or progressive law enforcement community is trying to hurt him and demean him and that is all trying to keep him from becoming the president again. those two stages are where he is standing with both feet right now. number one, i'm the victim. number two, you're wrong and i'm a billionaire. the other thing that i'm reminded of, chris, is when we went to interview donald trump when he was in longer the president in march of 2021, not long after the riot at the capital and his sort of humiliating departure on air force one, when we interviewed him, he was absolutely the same person he is in this courtroom. insisted that he had won the election. calling out fraud that did not exist and calling out fraudulent events that his own department of justice, his own attorney general, his own white house counsel said were fanciful and made up. he went through a long litany of all the ways in which he had won in arizona, in georgia, in pennsylvania. it's kind of a narrative that he both tells himself, but more importantly, he wants to reenforce to the public that he seeks to win back again so he can be back in the west wing. >> i also want to bring in chuck rosenberg, former u.s. attorney and senior fbi official. chuck, look, he is the same person. the one thing about donald trump is he's been remarkably consistent over the years in believing that he is this person, this sort of aura of a trump golden image that he has created. having said that, so much, as is rightfully pointed out and as i read it was political here. legally what did you hear from inside that courtroom today? >> so he is the same person, chris, but he's in an environment that is not conducive to the type of person he is. it plays well as political theater, but in court it works very differently. one side asks you questions, and you answer them with evidence that's relevant and admissible. and then, in mr. trump's case, if you didn't make the points you wanted to make or you don't feel the right questions were asked, your lawyers get to ask you questions and you answer them with evidence that's relevant and admissible. in other words, there's a procedure, and this man is not very good at procedure. so what did i hear? i heard answers that were combative and evasive and not admissible. there's only one trier of fact in the courtroom. there's no jury. there's the judge. if someone is not answering questions a judge may infer, should infer, will infer is it's because the answers to the questions are not helpful to mr. trump. that's not going to go well for him. this is not an environment in which trump thrives. if he wants to introduce evidence that's beneficial to him, he will have an opportunity through his own lawyer. the problem, chris, as you know, is he can't seem to help himself. >> i'm curious how you think the judge is handling all this. it's, to say the least, to be a lawyer for donald trump, to be a judge in this case, knowing they're working on a time frame of one day. there are challenges there. at one point judge engoron said no, no, he doesn't want him to keep talking about -- he was talking about how he thought he got such a great deal on a particular building. he said you answered the question and hopefully truthfully. were you surprised to hear that? overall, what do you make of the way engoron has handled all this? >> i was a little surprised to hear that. i don't think that's an ideal thing for a judge to say. let's put that aside because it's one awkward comment in many week's worth of testimony and trial. i wouldn't make too much of it. perhaps it's a strategy of mr. trump to try and goad the judge into making a mistake. perhaps they're hoping that there's enough error introduced into the transcript that they can make some sort of argument on appeal because there will inevitably be an appeal. all that said, different judges handle their courtrooms in different ways. this particular judge who is an experienced jurist, seems to be letting mr. trump have his way at certain moments and reign him in at others. none of it is going to make a lot of difference, frankly, chris. again, what the judge is hearing -- and the judge is the trier of fact -- are evasive answers which do not inure to mr. trump's benefit. it seems to me the case is going well for the state, that the record is relatively free of error, that mr. trump has lost and will lose and is unlikely to prevail on appeal. >> carol, if we make an assumption, and this is probably a big assumption because maybe this is about setting up for appeal. if his lawyers go to donald trump in this lunch break and say, we really need you to dial it back. this is not helping. you heard the judge. he's not happy with you, not happy with us. is donald trump someone who will listen? >> i think it's a big stretch to understand or to speculate what his lawyers are counseling him now, especially if susanne and lisa are correct, that he's only playing to the audience, an angry victim shouting outside the windows of the courthouse, then it doesn't really matter to the lawyers, this performative element of what donald trump is saying in the courtroom if that's the case. as for your very smart question of does donald trump listen to his lawyers, our experience in reporting on him prior to his presidency, during his presidency and after his presidency is no, he often does not. indeed, in a very important federal case brought by special counsel jack smith involving classified records that donald trump took with him apparently to mar-a-lago or had staff take to mar-a-lago, he has not listened to lawyers who gave him some good advice to avoid getting into trouble. many of them counseled him to return those records. and had he done so, we are told by multiple sources, he would not be charged in that case today. >> chuck, what are you looking for this afternoon? more of the same? is there something specific you think the prosecutors have not gotten to yet that is important for them to look at? give us your sense of overall what they want to leave the judge with today. >> chris, one note of caution. the prosecutors -- the state doesn't need to prove its entire case today or through a particular document or even through a particular witness. they have adduced evidence over weeks now, and the judge has heard all of that evidence. so this is just one small part of that. i don't know that they're going to get mr. trump in a tv moment to admit he overvalued his assets. he will continue to argue and to evade. the judge will continue to infer from his arguments and evasion that those answers would not be helpful to mr. trump. the state is doing all it can. mr. trump is not going to change who and what he is. i imagine it will be more of the same. >> i want to ask you both, lisa and sue, and feel free to both weigh in briefly on this. what are you looking for this afternoon? where, first of all, are they even going to pick up? lisa? >> i think we're going to pick up with more statements of financial condition and asking trump about his personal involvement in valuing particular assets. to chuck's point, they're not really asking him did you overvalue x property or y. they're rather trying to show based on documents that the value of a particular asset was overinflated and asking trump about his recollection of his own involvement in that and trying to impugn his credibility by showing through other people's documentation. you know, chris, donald trump infamously does not use email or text and tries not to communicate in any written way. they're using communications from other people. in the last session, even one from his son don jr. to show he was indeed involved in some of the conversations that he disclaims any memory of. the other thing i'm looking for is a continuation of the theme that i call the rules do not apply. donald trump has repeatedly been confronted with legal documents that in some way, shape or form should constrain his behavior. when confronted with them, he doesn't argue around them or say they don't sap what they say. he basically throws up his hands and says i can change my mind. with respect to mar-a-lago there were a number of deeds and covenants on his use of the property that should limit his ability to ever develop or use mar-a-lago as a private residence. notwithstanding that, he insisted on the stand he could change his mind. why? because the document said he intended to forever extinguish those rights, not that he would. >> let me give you a quick thought of what you're looking for this afternoon, sue. >> i think an additional thing, i'll be keeping my eye on the judge, both the temperature of that exchange. also, it's good to remember that donald trump is under a gag order. he's been attacking the judge's law clerk. so far he has not veered into that territory, either have his lawyers who are also under that gag order, but whether or not we devolve into that this afternoon will be interesting. >> so far the temperature has been high. sue, craig and chuck rosenberg, thank you very much. carol and lisa, you'll be back with us later in the hour. israel's siege on gaza continues amid growing pressure for a humanitarian pause. we have a live report from nbc's raf sanchez who went inside gaza we've also got a brand new interview with the second in command of hezbollah. you'll see it first here on msnbc. d of hezbollah you'll see it first here on msnbc. ♪ when better money habits® content first started coming out, it expanded what i could do for special olympics athletes with developmental needs. thousands of bank of america employees like scott spend countless hours volunteering to teach people how to reach their financial goals. it felt good. it felt like i could take on the whole world. listen