that the big board leader to tell us what is actually happening. pennsylvania governor josh shapiro is also going to join me later on the show. but we do want to start tonight with what was a truly surreal and wild and crazy scene and lower manhattan today. apart from the fact that the former president on trial, a big deal on itself, today began like many other court cases would. the defendant took the stand, raise, hand and swore an oath to tell nothing about the truth it was all standard in the beginning until the defendant opened his mouth. that is when things got a little crazy. suddenly the guy on the stand acted like he was at the campaign rally, not in a courtroom where he was the defendant. trump took shots at the case saying this is a very unfair trial and a disgrace. he took shots directly out the judge saying, the fraud is on the board, not me. he took shots even had attorney general letitia james calling her a political -- reminded trump this is not a political rally this is a courtroom. at another point, the judge told trump's lawyers i beseech you to control if you can. i love that word. of course there's no control of him, even when the word prestige as you. read what trump actually did answer questions, he made several big concessions that turns out. for instance trump conceded exaggerating the square footage of trump tower by three times could have been a mistake no kidding. he also failed to explain how incredibly value mar-a-lago more than 75 times it's -- that is a big over examination there. and despite downplaying the importance of the financial statements to lenders he admitted today he indeed played a role insecure favorable loans. a concession our friend of the show and shoot weisman calls key. very key. remember, the judge already found a blatantly defrauded banks and jurors, this trial and we are watching now, is about how much the trumps will have to pay damages it. is about money, and has got a businesses. things the former president whose entire identity is wrapped up in his brand very much cares about and probably should have taken the chance today to try and stop the bleeding over but instead trump logic that happens over and over. this chaos was not even an accident it was on purpose although what we saw today in the courtroom, we knew this was going to, do we knew this was what they were going to do as rolling stone reported yesterday, trump and his lawyers doubled on a strategy to quote, built on spite and unbridled untied newsome that included deliberately trying to provoke the judge which again is what we saw today that was their strategy according to that same report -- a so-called torment order to put him in custody from reportedly the judges rulings might be a good thing both legally and politically as part of the strategy as well see trump is betting his typical attack on aggression we have seen for u.s. will continue to help him politically he leaned into that today, even as a clearly black fight in court. if you can kick and scream all you want, you may see more of it. a decision is coming in this case. there are several more showers on the way. he can be in court all of next year. so much, here are the facts. his money is at stake. pretty soon his liberty will be as well. known mount of gaslighting or political gamesmanship like we saw today is going to change that. joining me now is -- former attorney for the southern district of new york. i've been thinking all day today, what were you thinking about this trial. so let me start, this was clearly a campaign rally watching it. but whether or not that works for him politically which is arguable, what is the impact on actually the legal side on the court yeah that is not how you conduct yourself as a defendant in any trial civil or criminal that is not the way you conduct yourself when you are dealing with a judge who is pretty much been by the book in a case like this which basically says to the world trump and his team are no longer trying to win the case as you put it out in the and show there has already been a substantial ruling on summary judgment but the former president is liable and there has been fraud and largely what this trial about is to determine what the penalty should be so if you win the case as a legal matter you don't do all the things he did and if you try to make a political point then you do the things you did but you can't attack the charge again and again and again, and behave the way you behaved and think you are going to get a favorable ruling from the judge. they have given up on, that that much is clear. >> they have given up and clearly that is not going to work well with the judge. he did have some omissions there, i mentioned some of them, but as you are watching, what was the starkest substantive admission or -- the former president made. >> you mentioned at least two of them. one is that he was involved in various statements and providing information about evaluations. the financial statements or made for the purpose of inducing lenders to land. so you have a basis for finding that he had what laura has called -- the intent to engage in fabrication and overstatement. also the purpose of those statements was. he said that multiple times during the course of his testimony which again to me is a function of both -- and their plan to persuade the court of public opinion and within the court of public opinion a subset of his supporters, not the court of law itself. >> everything and it a little bit earlier than we expected today, we expected for 30 or, something it ended earlier because his lawyers decided not to cross examine him. what did you make of that strategy? >> that is unusual. usually it is the case when you have the hostile party examining -- 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. >> for all of donald trump's talks about witchhunts, it is worth remembering this entire fraud investigation only started after trump's own former lawyers spoke out. -- all the way back in 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 that that document you just showed, me we have not independently verified, that that is a document you have, it certainly does give you like to think, about do you think knowing everything up you know about trump's company, and his cash on hand, it's liquidity. can he even -- the -- that's what she's asking for. >> yes, he is going to have to sell and remember, one of the things that they've already done is they've started the process of installing a receiver in order to handle the potential disposition. what's interesting is you may remember in delaware, they tried to open up trump corporation number two, and then they were looking to try to transfer so high pawtucket, in the -- he saw what he was going to do, donald thinks everybody else is stupid without acknowledging that they are not smart than anyone else that's, he thinks he's more, devious it's just not. so she foresaw that he would do something like, this and they ended up preventing them from doing any of the transfers or high politic a shin. >> michael cohen, i love that phrasing, i've got it too, he treats everybody like there. stupid thank you so much, you always keep things a little spicy, so thank you for joining us this evening. pennsylvania governor joins me now, i wonder what he thinks of anything that happened and lower manhattan today, a lot of other things after a very quick break. dick stay with us. it was the pull that democrats this is stella. sfx: [ding] she has big ideas for this year's tree. real big. so they went to michaels and found inspiration in the one holiday shop as expansive as stella's imagination. because sometimes the best way to find a little holiday magic is to make it yourself. together they turned that little holiday magic into a seven foot tall... [roar] untraditional tradition. turn ideas into i-did-its. sfx: [ding] ♪ curled up in the fetal position -- numerous from the new york times show donald trump leading joe biden and five out of six key swing states i have to say, i'm of two minds about this. on the one hand, it is one poll. 364 days, i promise you is an absolute lifetime in politics. ticklish at the freak-out inducing hard-line some hesitant to walmart from september, november, and even the summer of 2011, the year before he won reelection. i was there. i was working on that campaign. believe me, i remember it well. in the conventional wis