former u.s. secretary -- establishing by to break it all down. former trump attorney and the star witness in this case michael cohen is also here with his say. we are now 364, days away from the presidential election. brand-new polling sites everyone kind of freaking out, steve kornacki is at the big board later this show that tells us what's actually happening. pennsylvania governor is also going to join us later on. we have a packed show, but we do want to start today with what was a truly surreal and weld in lower manhattan today. apart from the fact that this was a former president on file, it's a big deal in itself, today began like many other court cases, what the defendant took the stand, he raised his hand and swore an oath to tell and nothing but the truth. it's all pretty standard in the beginning part. until the defendant opened his mouth. that's when things got a little crazy. suddenly, the guy on the stand acted like he was at a campaign rally, doubted a courtroom where he was the defendant. trump took shots at the case saying it this was a very unfair trial, and a disgrace. he took shots directly at the judge saying that the fraud was on the court, not me. he took shots even at attorney general letitia james calling her a political hack. at one point he reminded trump this is not a political rally, this is a courtroom. another point the judge -- i beseech you to control him if you can. i told that i love that word beseech, but there is no controlling, him even when that lovely word beseech is used. when trump actually did answer questions, he made several big concessions thrown to. for instance, trump conceded that exaggerating the square footage of trump tower by three times could have been a mistake. he also failed to explain how he could credibly value at mar-a-lago at more than 75 times more than its tax basis. that's an over examination. they're despite downplaying the importance of the financial statements he admitted today that he did indeed play a role in securing favorable loans, a concession called key. the judge found the trump lately defrauded banks insurers. this trial and we're watching it now is about how much the trumps will have to pay in the images. it's about money it's about their businesses. things that the former president whose entire identity is wrapped up in his brand very much cares about. he shot probably should've taken, but instead the asterisk of of course is. this chaos was not even an accident. it was on purpose. all of what we saw today in the courtroom, this is what they were, going to do this is what they're going to do. as rolling stone reported, yesterday trump and his lawyer settled on a strategy to quote, build on spite and on unbridled antagonism. that strategy included the rubble or the trying to provoke the, judge which again is what we saw today. that was their strategy. according to that same, report some attorneys and political advisers to trump told the former president that a so-called remand to put him in custody for repeatedly reaching the cut -- might be a good. thing post legally and politically. trump is betting his typical attack dog aggression we've seen for years will continue to help him politically, he leaned into that. today even as a clearly backfired in court. it can kick and scream all he wants, but a decision is coming in this case. there are several more trials on the way, he could be in court all of next year. was so much bluster, his money is it, steak and pretty soon his liberty will be to. no amount of gaslighting our political gamesmanship like we saw today is going to change any of that. joining me now is -- he's the former u.s. attorney for the southern district of new york. i have been taking all day, what were you thinking about this trial? this was clearly, it was like a campaign rally watching. at whether or not that works from politically, which is arguable, what is the impact on the legal side on the court? >> that's not how you conduct yourself as a defendant in a trial, civil or criminal. it's not the way you conduct yourself when you're dealing with a judge who is pretty much been by the book in a case like this. basically it says to the world, trump and his team are no longer trying to win the case. if you pointed out in the, intro it's already been substantial rulings on summary judgment. the former president is liable, there has been fraud, and largely what this trial is about is determining what the penalty should be. if you're trying to win the case as a legal matter, you don't do all the things he did. if you're trying to make a political point, then you do the things you did, but basically you cannot attack the judge again and again and again and behave the way you behaved, and think you're going to get a favorable ruling from the. judge they have given up on that, that much is clear. >> they've given up on, it's and clearly that's not going to work well to judge. he did have some admissions, it mentions some of, them but as you are watching what was the starkest substantive admission or concession that the former president made? >> well, you mentioned at least two of them. one is that he was involved in various statements and providing information about evaluations. on the other, the financial statements were made for the purpose of them inducing lenders to lend. you have a basis for finding that he had what lawyers call mens rea, the incense to engage in fabrication and an overstatement. also the purpose of the statements was. he said that multiple times during the course of a statement, which again is a function of both hubris, and their plan to persuade the court of public opinion, -- not the court of lot self. >> everything ended a little bit earlier than we expected today, and we were all expecting for -- it ended earlier because his lawyers decided not to cross examine him. what did you make of that strategy? >> that's unusual. usually it's the case that when you have the hostile party examining your witness, your client who's the defendant in the, case you then want to clean up some of the things that were said before, you ask a lot of questions, allow your client to modify the things you said, to improve the things you said. but maybe it's an active bravado because sometimes somebody will say i have no questions because you think our client did as well as you possibly could, and it's signaling to a jury if there's a jury, as we know, it's signaling to the judge that we stopped that are guided great. there are multiple times during the course of the trial today during the course of trump's testimony that the judge said can you control your client? ? can you do something about? this the lawyers speaking to an audience of one, their client, the defendant in the case said things like he could give great answers, their review -- but as the future chief executive of the country, they were just coddling him, and i think they thought that for public purposes, the spectacle that was donald trump's testimony stood on its own, and was fined enough. . >> it seems like these lawyers were participating in a political strategy, not a legal strategy. they agreed to this according to rolling stone and others which seems, were you surprised by that? >>, yes i guess it's mostly a political strategy, donald trump calls the shots. it probably dictates some of the things that they say. these are loyalist to him. the only sort of legal strategy that i can discern here, is to the extent that donald trump is being outrageous and provocative and attacking the judge. was there some strategy to go to the judge into doing something that might be reversible error, or get so angry that he might do something extreme, which might help him on appeal. -- people up and evading on cable television all day, and probably for years to. the week i'm not sure that's, true that's probably an incidental potential benefit of trump acting outrageously, he believes when he acts in his life that he's always had a political, rally whether it's on cable news stations, or in a court of, law or in actual political, rallies i don't think he can help him by himself, i don't know how -- political strategy. >> there's clearly a lot of judges, a lot of prosecutors who are watching today. one of the things that still hangs in the balance out, there is the question of his appeal over gag orders. he just attacked a judge, hear he attacked the u-turn -- how do you think that plays out, or does it on his gag order appeal in the federal case? >> well you, know it's very fascinating that people are talking about how much of a wide berth or not donald trump has been. getting we can talk about a gag order in this case, and in the second case in which a guy is a criminal case, they are very limited. you have here a gag order in the new york civil case that mostly applies to their charges will staff and other lawyers of the president of the united states, foreign parts of the united states, but he's allowing the defendant in the, case a party in the case to specifically attack the judge himself again and again and again, so i think the other judges and the four criminal cases, one of which who was -- are going to be looking very carefully at the way in which control, your court room and -- one of donald trump's lawyers said to the judge, you don't control, maybe you don't tell me what to do, you control the courtroom. for people who actually practice and, court that's a subtle distinction that is not understandable. >> that's true, watching this criminal trials are entirely different. what did today tell you, or what should it tell all of us about trump is likely going to approach his upcoming, criminal trials. can he do the same kind of crazy behavior he did today in criminal trials? >> i think it's a much different animal. in a civil case you can take the fifth and decide not to testify because it might incriminate you with some other criminal investigations, but if you do that, the judge can draw an adverse inference against. the judge said today when trump was not asked answering questions in a direct fashion, he said i'm going to make adverse inferences, in other words assume that the facts are bad for you based on the facts you're not answering questions. in a criminal case, it behooves someone who is actually guilty, and can't testify credibly, and he would be cross-examined by the prosecution in a case like that. not to testify. i think donald trump does not have the ability to testify in a criminal case because i think he'll be chewed up on cross-examination, and it will be more likely to found guilty if he does in that circumstance. >> before that, you go i do have to ask you about this, what i found to be a completely crazy story in the washington post. i've heard it three times and i can't stop thinking about. it's a basically outlines, and it was kind of overshadowed by everything today, it outlines the plan that trump's allies have to use the federal government to punish -- a second term, they're drafting plans, they're talking about invoking the insurrection, act reading, that what did you think, what concerns you the most about what you saw in that story? >> so it's bonkers, i'm not sure what words apply to the things that are said in that article, and the way that it's characterizing donald trump's plans. i seldom kherson twitter. i did a couple of hours, ago in response to the article. it's ironic that donald trump says things about his current legal predicament, including the case we're talking about. . it's a banana republic, but it's not. the things that are being talked about, if you're the article to be true, and the reporting to be accurate, and correct he wants to weaponize his next attorney general if he gets back into the presidency, all the people under him to specifically go after not only political enemies of, his people who he employed who had been disloyal to him without any evidence, without any basis at all, that's the banana republic. i think people should read the article, i read it twice, i can't stop thinking about. it he read it three. times people read it at least once, and understand the consequences for the rule of law and for democracy and for justice in america, and one standard of justice in america, if trump becomes the presidents again will be a thing of the past. >> anyone out there washing, you can -- seven, combined thank you so much for joining me this evening, i'm talking about all these legal, issues we're trying to. understand donald trump's former attorney michael cohen blew the lid off of the trump organization's fraudulent business dealings back in 2019. he was the states star witness in this trial, and he joins me next. next >> everything was done at the direction of mr. trump. >> i was stuck, unresolved depression symptoms were in my way. i needed more from my antidepressants, radar helped lead give me a lift, adding real are to an antidepressant is clinically proven to help in until our clinical, studies most through no substantial -- on. wait dementia patients have increased -- changes and behavior or suicidal thoughts, antidepressants can -- [interpreter] [interpreter high blood sugar, which can lead to coma or death, weight gain, and high cholesterol may occur. movement dysfunction and restlessness are common side effects. stomach and sleep issues, dizziness, increased appetite, and fatigue are also common. side effects may not appear for several weeks. i didn't have to change my treatment. i just gave it a lift. ask about vraylar and learn how abbvie could help you save. the chase ink business premier card is made for sam who makes, everyday products, designed smarter. genius! like 2.5% cash back on purchases of $5,000 or more, so sam can make smart ideas, a brilliant reality! chase for business. make more of what's yours. >> tech: when you get a chip in your windshield... trust safelite. chase for business. ♪ upbeat, catchy music ♪ >> tech vo: this couple counts on their suv... as they travel for their small business. so when they got a chip in their windshield... they brought it to safelite... for a same-day in-shop repair. we repaired the chip right away. and with their insurance, it was no cost to them. >> woman: really? >> tech vo: plus, to protect their glass, we installed new wipers too. that's service the way you need it. >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ we're building a better postal service. for more on-time deliveries. and easier, affordable ways to ship. so you can deliver even more holiday joy. the united states postal service. delivering for america. the chase ink business premier card is made for sam who makes, everyday products, designed smarter. genius! like 2.5% cash back on purchases of $5,000 or more, so sam can make smart ideas, a brilliant reality! for all of donald trump's talk chase for business. make more of what's yours. today about witch hunts, it's worth remembering that this entire fraud investigation only started after trump's own former lawyers spoke out. you -- all the way back to a september of last year. >> mr. trump's allies may say that these penalties are too harsh, or that this is part of a witch hunt. i will remind everyone that this investigation only started after michael cohen, the former lawyer testified before congress and shed light on mits misconduct. joining me now is trump's lawyer former lawyer michael cohen, he's now the principal at crisis, acts he's also -- an author of the book of the root, for i don't know where else to start, what did you make up his behavior in the courtroom, what is going on? >> it was no different to, and over at the trump organization. most people at the trump organization if you had any dealings with donald on a day-to-day basis, you had to do exactly what chris kise, alina hobby, and chris blabbered to did which is whatever it is to struck eagle donald's a, go in and out all day long. that's what the real job. is their job was not to lawyer and to ensure that whatever the best possible outcome that could be derived from his taking the stand would be achieved. no. their entire goal was to create theatrical. donald thinks that the theatrical is the way that he's going to win the election. it's the way that he sees with more theatrical that's going on. the higher he's climbing in the polls, i've seen him do the same thing when he made the allegations that barack obama was not born in the united states, but rather kenya. he wrote that all the way, front page, he thought it was the greatest gift in the planet, and he thinks that all of these cases are going to propel him back to the white house. >> let me ask, you there's been some debate about this, whether his lawyers just agreed to this political strategy, or whether there's some legal strategy here about trying to get an, appeal trying to provoke the judge to do something that would help him in an appeal. what do you think? all politics? was there legal strategy here? >> no, there is no legal strategy -- he told them what they were intending to do, and being the sycophantic followers that they, are they just acknowledged it. the second that donald walks out, and he did it when i was there, he did it again today, he did it on his posting. a victory based upon, what that he corroborated exactly what i had stated while i was on the stand? he not only corroborated what i had said, he actually placed himself into the center of the scenario, so acknowledging that he knew what he was doing, and that he is the one that signed off on. it's like alina how about comes down the, stairs and she starts attacking. meet michael cohen crumbled. i schooled him and he's a liar. this is what donald trump tells them to do. >> look, i was going to ask you about this because you've been around for so many of these, meetings and obviously as laetitia james this would not would have -- a lot of people are speculating out there, does donald trump know his fraudulent business practices are legal? he sort of acknowledged a lot of knowledge today, or do you think he actually believes that he some how brings this business in an acceptable way? what does he think? >> i think he knows exactly what he was doing, he does not think about consequences. when you think about the todd, was he thinking legal, not legal, yes he knows what is right or, wrong he just does not care. that is the big difference. what donald always does is he uses the same play. that's why when i was testifying before the house oversight committee, it was so eagle -- they were never be a police peaceful transfer of. power it's also easy for me to understand how they were going to attempt to attack me when i was on the stand. in all, fairness i certainly did not crumble, and in fact every thing that i had turned out not to be -- defended himself, i was interested in going to adore, today and i came across this document, and no one has seen this document before. he does the same thing over and over and over. for he's using this, give us a little rundown on what that document has to be? >> what it says is obama ramps is looking -- eric schneiderman to target political. enemies all you have to do is remove eric schneiderman from it, put it into laetitia james, or put it into jack, smith or put it into anyone. it's the same language over and over. he thinks that it was beneficial to him than, which we all know it was not. he ended up paying close to 20 some odd million dollars for the special university case. it did not work, there and it's not going to work here. the theatrical said he and his lawyers are doing every single day, it does not benefit him. instead of schooling me, they should have schooled him on the proper way to answer a question. one, you don't make a full out of, yourself and then you don't get hit with a six or 700 million dollar bill at the end of the day,. >> i should note tha