welcome to a special edition of "cnn news central." i'm brianna keilar with boris sanchez. we are tracking donald trump's historic and chaotic testimony in his new york civil fraud trial. right now the former president testifying in his own defense in the face of a massive broad case. he's been under oath for more than three hours today, and he's spent much of that time railing against the judge. >> and that is remarkable, because the fate of trump's company is in that judge's hands. there's no jury in this case. and judge arthur engoron already found trump liable for fraud so this determines the penalties, what the fraud will cost trump. that could mean the judge will strip the trump organization of its certificate. let's take you live outside the courthouse with cnn's paula reid. what is the latest coming out of the courtroom? >> reporter: in past few moments the assistant attorney general questioning trump has focused on questions about his net worth. at the heart of this case is an accusation that trump lied about his net worth to get more favorable terms on loans for certain properties, as well as also allegedly lying to insurance companies to get more favorable terms. so these questions focused on his net worth are significant, and he has testified that he was worth about $2.5 billion. he's also suggested his net worth could be more than that. but the attorney general is accusing him of actually having a net worth that is much less than what he disclosed in these loan applications. he also talked about how much cash he had on hand. for one loan, he said he had $50 million, boasting that he had quite a bit of cash at that time. he suggested that his net worth was exactly what it needed to be. he's emphasized with some loans that they were paid back, there was no victim. he said on the stand a short time ago, the reason he is in court right now is because of, quote, politics. the past hour or so has been much more focused, much more productive for the attorney general's office than the earlier part of the day, which was quite chaotic, as the judge continued to interrupt trump, insisting that he give yes or no answers, admonishing him for what the judge described as speeches and essays, which then set off disagreements between trump's lawyers and the attorney general's office. after a short break, the judge took a different approach to today's testimony. he's no longer interrupting trump, letting him talk. sometimes his lawyers might feel at his own peril. things are moving along and they're going down the list of properties at the heart of this case. >> what are the considerations here for an appeal, and, paula, does that have anything to do with how trump is acting in court? >> reporter: well, it does appear that there is a strategy to help them on what appears to be an inevitable appeal. the trump lawyers have suggested they will appeal the outcome of this. the judge has already found trump and his codefendants liable for fraud. they're focused now mostly on the penalties, what he will incur for this alleged fraud. they've said they're going to appeal this. but what you saw today was likely the former president trying to really get the judge to interrupt him enough to then try to argue that he didn't get a chance to testify fully, he didn't get a chance to answer the questions accurately. it did appear, especially in the morning half of today's proceeding, that he was trying to bait the judge, and it did appear it was working for the first part of the morning, where the judge continued to interrupt him, even threatened to kick him out of court and say he would draw the most negative inference possible, which means he would conclude that the testimony went as poorly as it possibly could for trump. remember, there's no jury here today. it is just the judge overseeing this phase. we expect whatever happens here will ultimately be appealed, and the former president has been answering more questions this afternoon, but he has also taken shots at the attorney general who is sitting in court, as well as the judge overseeing his testimony. >> quite the day in court, paula. thank you for that report. i want to break this down with our expert panel. what do you think, gloria, about what you've seen play out so far? >> i think what we've seen play out today is really much more of a political strategy than a legal strategy. what trump is saying outside the courtroom, he's saying inside the courtroom. he's saying that he's a victim here, that this is a witch hunt, that the judge really effectively didn't know him and was trying to embarrass him, and said, look, there's no victims to this. so why is there a crime? the banks all got their money. what's the problem here? and so we've seen a lot of drama, if the lawyers were trying to tell trump to shut up, they failed. but they probably weren't at this point, because he's going to do what he's going to do. they're going to appeal. they're trying to egg on the judge, and they've succeeded at some point. so what we're seeing is i think what we expected to see. the only problem here, the interesting difference here, is that both of the sons were saying we didn't have anything to do with this stuff, we didn't know about this stuff. we just signed these papers, that's what accountants are for. and trump, who of course took this more personally because it's so definitional for him, it's who he is, said, yeah, i made suggestions, and i knew things. and everything i did was right. so there's a big difference between the way his sons were talking and the way donald trump is talking, because he says he ran a successful business and he's being persecuted. >> to gloria's point about this being a largely political exercise for the trump team, trump's team has told cnn they feel good about the way things have gone. they're fundraising off of some of the statements made by the judge in this case. >> also, very trump-ian things to say. they always feel good about everything, everything is always perfect and going well for trump and team trump. and even in this testimony, he is saying, i am the smartest person about real estate these forms were absolute perfect. if you think about the impeachment, it was a perfect phone call. that's trump's strategy, and his biggest, most ardent fans believe him. they believe it's a witch hunt. i think it would be more effective politically if this was televised, the fact that all we are getting at this point are not really flattering artist renditions of donald trump, it means that it's not as effective because it's not televised. but for what trump wants to do, i think it is effective. >> but certainly, like you said, the people who are very supportive of him are going to love this. the question is, what about those other folks that he will need to win over? not just those in his base. listen, it is early. i know there are all sorts of polls out at this point and it has democrats sort of winning the bid. >> laura, what stood out to you about trump's testimony, other than the bluster? >> the bluster seemed to be had is defense. he is looking at this politically when legally speaking, he has to realize the questions he's answering do not go to what is left to be decided. remember, there was already a summary judgment motion, the fancy way of saying i've already told you how i feel about this issue, and the judge has said you have fraudulent documents, all that's left is how expensive it's going to be, a quarter of a billion dollars, will you have a conservator over your empire and businesses. the trial that donald trump thinks he's in is whether he lied, the value of his assets. that's already been decided. why that's important to him is what you're talking about. for donald trump, his business acumen and his empire is his political currency and he's trying very hard to thread a needle that he believes is a wide open eye, when in reality it's much more narrow for this judge. >> laura, i wanted to ask you something that just came down through the wires. we have folks in the courtroom right now passing along slips of paper and funneling every bit of information that they can to our teams on the ground. apparently, he was asked by the attorney general, kevin wallace, whether he maintained accurate records going back to 2014, and donald trump on the stand said, i hope so. i didn't keep them myself. i hope so. >> number one, the whole, are you kidding me moment. the reality is, number one, he is an officer of a company. there are certain duties that you have to have as a part of a corporation, including you have to be responsible and know what you're handing over and representing. there's a duty involved for donald trump jr., for eric trump as well as an officer of the company. you can't have reckless disregard for what's out there. not if these are material facts. you want someone to rely on to give you loans. on the other hand, it sounds like he's moving a little closer to, it wasn't me, and i have delegated this role to somebody else, which earlier in the day he had quite a catch-22. on the one hand, i was saying i'm in control, i'm the head hon c honcho. that doesn't help you over whether you had control over fraudulent documents. to his sons, eric trump and don jr. have said in earlier testimony -- remember that moment on the courthouse steps when don jr. said wait for it, accounting, now he's a little more in that territory. i wonder what happened during the lunch. was it a lawyer saying to him, you cannot have your cake and eat it, too. >> well, apparently there is a lot going on, and if this were a televised situation there in the courtroom, a televised trial, we would have cauut away to go to . paula, what's been going on? tell us. >> reporter: i'm getting second-by-second updates from our colleagues inside the court, and after answering a series of very technical questions, trump is now playing what they describe as a series of classic attacks on the attorney general and the judge overseeing this case. now, the assistant attorney general pleaded with trump, saying, we're very close to the end of this questioning, but instead trump attacked the state of new york saying businesses are leaving because of cases like this. he also attacked a crime occurring in the city and called the case election interference. this has been a common refrain from the former president, insisting that he is a political martyr here, that this is part of some sort of effort to interfere in the election, even though, of course, this investigation and this case have been sort of in the pipeline since 2019. now, it's possible this testimony could be wrapping up. we hear from our colleagues in the courtroom that trump went on a lengthy monologue attacking the s the judge and the attorney general. the attorney doing the questioning pleaded with him saying, i promise, mr. trump, i'm trying to get you off the stand. trump shot back, great, i'm sure you are. trump then complained about the hostile judge and, once again, complained that there's not a jury overseeing this case. then the judge, who was very active early on today, but has been quieter after they took a break and after lunch, said that he feels like a broken record. he, again, asked the former president to focus on the questions, and trump complained that the attorney general's office kept asking him, quote, the same questions. he doesn't understand it, the subject matter of the case is what trump is alleging, about the assistant attorney general, because he keeps asking me the same questions. now, it appears that they've gotten trump back on track, trying to get to the heart of this case, which are questions about how he estimated his net worth when applying for loans. but that was a moment where, once again -- i mean, this hearing just went off the rails. we saw this earlier this morning. but here trump taking this opportunity on the witness stand to attack the judge overseeing the case and the attorney general, who has brought this case. this is highly unusual for any witness on the stand. of course it's an extraordinary hearing. but this is not how witnesses usually conduct themselves. >> no, it's extraordinary to say the least. paula, thank you so much for the update. it sounds like he's falling apart there in the courtroom, gloria. >> well, i think it's the same old, same old. as the judge was saying, it's a broken record. donald trump is not willing to concede that he did anything wrong, even though the judge has already said that the trump organization did do something wrong. and so he's combative with anyone, with the prosecution, with the judge, and there's no way you're going to get him to stop being combative. there just isn't any way. and what donald trump will do politically is to say, look at what they're doing to me. they can do this to you. this is the deep state run wild. and i'm a victim here. i didn't victimize anybody, the banks didn't lose any money. so are they complaining to you? no. i'm the victim here, and new york state is saying, no, you're not the victim, because you provided fraudulent information. so, look, this isn't going to change. and in a way, maybe his lawyers are just giving up. you're the attorney here. maybe his lawyers are saying, this is okay because we're goading the judge and trying to get under his skin. >> perhaps he believes it's a foregone conclusion of liability. but what his behavior does is create a self-fulfilling prophecy instead. there's still an opportunity in front of this judge who did not rule to say everything has been resolved. there are still at least six other counts of fraud, including aspects about liability. there's still a chance. he is not looking at those moments for a variety of reasons, i suspect. but what i hear, especially the idea of a victimless crime, so to speak. first of all, any time you see a case caption for a state-led prosecution or a federal one, it says, united states or new york versus, it's on behalf of society, not an individual litigant. the reason for that is because they want people who are similarly situated to be treated appropriately and similarly. in an instance like this, if you or i or any of us go out and try to use fraudulent documents to secure a loan or depreciate so we have less stacks liability, that means i'm getting more of a benefit of a pseudo bargain. so maybe his creditors are repaid but the average new yorker did not have the ability to have tax documents that were forgiven, lessened. his issue is about the discretion of the prosecutor. unfortunately, in our society, there's a lot of critique surrounding those who are elected as prosecutors. i was not elected, i was a prosecutor for the federal government. but if you are running for office, you're going to actually target in your campaign certain people. she did just that, giving a lot of ammunition for these claims. it does not mean, however, that because she campaigned about trump that it undermines the actual accuracy of the evidence. he has not proven otherwise. >> still, if we were in a normal era, you could say with any other plaintiff, this would have likely sunk a political candidate. instead, donald trump is leading the republican primary by head and shoulders. >> that's right. you would have thought that inciting an insurrection, inciting people to violence, to overthrow a free and fair election would have sunk a normal candidate. that didn't happen. people are emotionally attached to donald trump. he's running as a quasi-incumbent in a republican party, the leadership basically fell down before his feet and let him have his way with the republican party, because he has such a strong hold on the base. some of it is cultural, some of it is class, some of it has to do with race. in so many ways, this case fits into that. it sort of benefits donald trump that the attorney general there is a black woman, right, and that it comes from new york, which is the sort of urban landscape that goes against donald trump. this is what he tells his supporters. so it very much feeds into their sense of grievance politics, that somehow they are being targeted and their champion in donald trump is also being targeted. >> we've learned that donald trump has just been excused from the witness stand. you're seeing a live picture from outside the courtroom. we're going to wait for him to emerge, potentially make some comments. laura, obviously as we await trump's comments, he has a gag order against him in another case, he's been already punished for saying outlandish things in this case. do you anticipate that perhaps what he said on the stand today, what he may say now could be used against him? >> i would assume and encourage that any prosecutor is watching, would be leaning in to figure out whether or not what has been stated implicates their own case. that would be a prudent prosecutorial strategy. there are many other cases happening right now across the country. one of the reasons you want to have him on a short leash is not just because of the gag order, although that's a very important one. but his attorneys want him on a short leash because other attorneys in other cases do not want him opening a door wide open that he is going off on tangents that might talk about how he spends his money, how he spends in campaigns. alvin bragg has an active investigation criminally and also an active lawsuit involving what happened with the, quote, unquote, hush money payments. you don't want him going off the rails and talking about why he thinks it's a political witch hunt and then going into detail about who or what he advised during january 6th or before, because there's active litigation against that as well. who he may have entrusted documents to to show that there was a chain of command for anything that was sensitive information, because it implicates mar-a-lago. every different aspect of these different cases are going to be a part of this. so he has to be very cautious about it. and he doesn't want to risk cutting off his nose to spite his face. >> we are watching this room where donald trump is inside. they're taking care, as we understand it, of some housekeeping business right now. he, as of a few moments ago, still is sitting there at the defense table. so we're going to take a quick break as we wait to see what happens as he comes out. but he is off the stand, this is the end of some extraordinary ho hours-long testimony there in new york. we'll be right back with more. we're anticipating to hear any moment from several key figures in donald trump's civil fraud trial, including the former president himself and attorney general letitia james. >> former president donald trump just wrapped up his testimony, hours long, chaotic i think is the word we would describe this as. i want to bring in cnn's kaitlan collins outside of the courthouse. what are we expecting, kaitlan? >> we are expecting to hear from the attorney general herself, letitia james, who has been seated in the front row of that courtroom for the last several hours, listening to this testimony, at times laughing at some of the answers that trump had that were directed toward her, saying that she didn't know where one of the properties he was being questioned about was located here in new york. obviously she's the attorney general for new york. she is about to come down the steps and it's notable to hear what she is going to say. i can see her staffing line up at the microphones. they have indicated she will be coming over to speak to reporters once she's outside of the courthouse. she spoke briefly on her way in and predicted what the former president was going to say before he walked into the courtroom, including an attack on her. he called her a racist attorney general, something he has said repeatedly on social media. she noted that was likely to come. it will be interesting to see what she says once he comes out, because so much of the focus today has been on the back and forth, understandably, between the judge and trump's attorneys and trump himself when he was on the witness stand. there was no cross-examination from his own team. but, also, on the answers that i think that he has provided to the attorney general's office, as they are trying to make their case here, which has already been determined by the judge. the question is the penalties. they have actually gotten some answers and some acknowledgment from trump on his own involvement in detailing and putting together those financial documents that are at the heart of what the attorney general says is fraud here. overinflating or inflating his net worth and the value of properties. that's a significant step. we'll also likely hear from donald trump once he leaves the court. that would be notable because he did speak briefly this morning going into court. he did not speak at the breaks. that is the question, to see what she says. she will be speaking in a few moments once they wrap up in court, we're told. >> we saw him motion earlier that he had a zipped lip. what has been clear during his testimony is that he really did not. we understand -- we were saying that the court was dealing with some housekeeping stuff. it's about the gag order. what are the considerations when it comes to the gag order about how he testified today and some of the things that he said that certainly didn't have any material, i guess, value for his testimony? >> that's a really good point, brianna. because walking into this, trump had already been fined $15,000 by this judge. certainly that's not a ton of money for donald trump, but the fact he was fined for violating the gag order, which doesn't prevent him from attacking the judge, it prevents him from attacking the judge's staff. he had been going after the judge's clerk and then his attorneys last week were raising questions about the fact that they were communicating, they were passing notes, which is standard for a law clerk and a judge to do. again, as this was ending, chris kise was raising that, saying he didn't want to violate the gag order, but he did want to bring it up. the judge pushed back saying that he was 1,000% sure that the confidential communications between the judge and his clerk was not something that he needed to discuss with trump's team, saying that that is fine for him to do that. that's been a huge part of this entire trial as this has been going on. it wasn't something that trump himself brought up today, talking about that law clerk, even though she was seated in the courtroom. >> kaitlan, stand by. we want to go to paula reid live outside the courthouse as we await the president to leave the courtroom and potentially make live remarks. i understand you have details about what's happening regarding the gag order trump is facing. >> reporter: yeah, our colleagues are still in the courtroom as this wraps up, a strange day, this gets even stranger. at the end of this hearing, after trump testified, his lawyer signaled to the judge there are some motions they would like to file. they would like to file a motion for a mistrial and there are some issues they want to raise related to the gag order, which restricts trump from discussing members of the court's staff. but the judge encouraged them not to file any such motion, and then said that he was ordering them not to file that motion. that is highly unusual for a judge to preemptively tell a legal team that they can't file something. now, of course, the trump legal team shot back, saying, quote, you can't respectfully reject it before you've seen it, which is fair. it's just so unheard of to have a judge tell a team of lawyers, no, i'm ordering you, you can't do that. it is their right to file motions as they choose to do. now, it does appear, based on our reporting from our colleagues in the courtroom, that the judge has backed off of that, and now will allow them to file this motion. but it's just another example of how unusual today has been in court. the judge was very active, trying to keep control of the courtroom, backed off of that. again, at the end, now he's making jokes about how this was, quote, a love fest. but the idea that he would try to block lawyers representing today's witness from filing a motion, highly unusual. he backed off of that. but another strange moment and highly unusual, an historic day. >> paula, please stand by. laura, i want to get your read on that. judge engoron seems fed up with everything he's seen. what do you make of him ordering attorneys not to file any motions? >> it is the right of any litigant to file motions based on evidence and they have to preserve certain things during trial proceedings, otherwise they are lost forever on appeal. you cannot raise arguments for the first time on appeal, so they have to preserve all of those things. part of the way it's done is in writing to say here are the arguments, not only because it makes it a more thoughtful discussion, but allows the judge to respond to it as well. the clerk may have been criticized and is also the person that will help the judge get their arms around the wall, to figure out if there's fact checking, and then to render a decision. so for a closing, that could be quite erroneous in the long run. it does seem as though the judge is very irritated, to say the least, which is an interesting notion. because the judge should be very conditioned to not only grapple with antics, but this particular defendant, over several months, he's ruled on a number of things. he has to be cautious about showing his irritation in a way that might influence his judgment. i don't think that's happening as of this point in time. by the way, for people who have not been in courtrooms, judges, no offense, are notoriously irritated at all things at all times. so having a judge be bombastic and express that is not an oddity of the world. >> if trump's attorney is just asking for clarification of the gag order, isn't that legitimate? we would like some more detail on what we can and cannot say so we don't violate the gag order because we don't want to violate the gag order. >> it's also telling him that i intend to violate this gag order. >> also, at the same time saying, by the way, we're going to go for a mistrial. >> well, maybe we're watching this courtroom door because at any moment they'll say, can you give us the ruling. it's crazy times. i have to tell you, yes, to answer your question, yes, a litigant has every right to file motions. we have motion practice for a reason. it's part of due process. everything is not handled on yo your feet. a lot of it is written and they have a write to file the motion. however, they cannot engage in frivolous motion practice and engage in behavior that mucks up the court docket just to get an opportunity to then show that to a court of public opinion. >> who is going to rule on the mistrial? >> the judge. >> they can do all of that unless the judge shuts it down, which may be what we're seeing here. we're going to get in a quick break. we are awaiting to hear from some officials, also from the former president himself. we'll be right back with that. the former president is speaking now. >> i think it went very well. you see what a scam this is. this is a case that should have never been brought. it's a case that should be dismissed immediately. the fraud is on behalf of the court. the court was the fraudster in this case. they made references to assets that were very valuable and they said -- they had no idea what the numbers were, when they said $18 million for mar-a-lago, and it's 50 to 100 times that amount by any estimation. it's a terrible thing that's happened here. we're taking days and days and weeks and weeks, it goes on, and then you look at the outside world and what's happening. but, of course, they're getting their wish, because i don't have to be here, for the most part, but i sort of do have to be here because i want to be here. this is a scam and this is a case that should have never been brought and it's a case that now should be dismissed. every saw what happened today, every saw what happened with their star witness, who admitted that i never told him what he originally said i did, he admitted that he lied, and he has absolutely no credibility whatsoever. that's their only witness. that's their only witness, and i said what i had to say today and it was conclusive. everything we did was absolutely right. to think we're being sued and spending all this time and money and you have people being killed all over the world that this country could stop. with inflation and all of the other problems that this country has, i think it's a disgrace. and when you look at the numbers, the poll numbers that came out today from "the new york times" and cbs, i'm sure "the times" was not too happy, but people are sick and tired of what's happening. this is a sad -- i think it's a very sad day for america. but, anyway, this is a case that should have never been brought and it's a case that should be immediately dismissed. thank you. thank you very much. >> we were just listening to former president donald trump there exiting the courtroom after a historic day of chaotic testimony on the stand, at multiple times testing the judge, the former president arguing that this is a political witch hunt, as he has many times before, and then also stepping back and talking about politics, talking about inflation, poll numbers. at one point seeming to make reference to the middle east as well saying that, quote, people are dying all over this world and this country can stop it, end quote. instead, in his mind, they're focused on him. >> he was saying, too, that they're wasting money on this when it can be better spent, which is questionable, if we can bring the panel in. he spent a lot of money, even some in his own party have criticized him for spending. let's talk about the legal angle of this, laura coates. what did you think about what you just heard? >> i think he's hoping that the term "they" will be as ambiguous to suggest that it's one and the same, the department of justice, jack smith, fani willis, letitia james, distinct entities with good reason. as long as he puts it collectively under one umbrellas, it can bolster that it's a political witch hunt, but it's not exactly accurate. all of the comments he's making, one in particular, crime, he's raised it more than once, particularly in new york and washington, d.c. almost every place he has an active investigation or prosecution, to suggest that somehow this is a misuse of resources and a prosecutorial decision to focus only and target on him. in reality, there are a lot of criminal prosecutions happening in each of these jurisdictions. we may be focusing, of course, on donald trump and the historic nature of something like this. but there are many prosecutors who are still working on that. one, in fact, is letitia james, so i think i cannot give a lot of credence, this notion that any of this is an either/or for criminal or civil prosecutions. both can be true. they can focus on other matters and prosecute a violation of the law. >> we're going to hear from the attorney general in just moments. one of the things that stuck out to me about what trump was saying outside the courtroom is, again, referencing the valuation of his assets, saying that the attorney general's office had no idea what the numbers were. it seems to be a very sensitive spot for him, how much he owns and what it's worth. >> yeah, i mean, listen, size matters to donald trump. the size of his assets, the size of his business, the size of his -- you know, his name. he can't deal psychologically with the idea that he isn't as valuable as he believes in his own mind. couldn't deal, for instance, with the fact that he lost in 2020, couldn't deal with the fact in 2016 he lost the popular vote, even though he won on the map. this is theatre for donald trump. you have to think of him as an actor who is repeating all the same lines, which very often happen to be lies, but he's able to convince folks who support him of this idea that there's a witch hunt. and so now he's able to sort of participate in this and go to court. he doesn't have to be there, right? but for him, the theatre aspect of it makes sense, because it makes this idea real, that this is a witch hunt, that people are out to get him. you see letitia james, the one out to get him, and he has to sit in court and sort of battle the judge. he comes out and essentially says the same thing he's been saying for years, the same things he's been saying on truth social, she's a racist, this is a witch hunt. i think in that way it sort of works for him better politically than it would if he were, say, in iowa shaking hands with voters. >> it's so important to note that he's been there so much, because it really tells you how he views this. and this is his own brand, this is his own identity, this is who he believes he is and has always believed he is from the day his father handed him a business to now, which is that he is a successful businessman, that's how he ran for president, i can fix the country, i'm rich, i ran this great business. anything that threatens that is a personal threat to him, you know, it's personal. it's not business, it's personal. that's why this was such a difficult line for him to walk, because he was the guy in charge, he was the guy making decisions, yet on the other han, he had to distance himself sometimes, saying, you know, well accountants make these decisions. he didn't do it as much as his sons, but it was a very difficult line, because if you're this grand corporate ceo, very successful, how do you disengage from your business on these matters? how do you say, well, you know, some things were up to them, i made suggestions? well, that doesn't point to a company that's well run or a business that's well run. so it was difficult for him today and he might have done himself some damage. >> i also wonder, i find it a little odd -- >> if we can, let's listen in real quick as the a.g. speaks. >> we heard from donald trump in our case against him, other defendants, and the trump organization. he rambled, he hurled insults, but we expected that. at the end of the day, the documentary evidence demonstrated that, in fact, he falsely inflated his assets to basically enrich himself and his family. he continued to persistently engage in fraud. the numbers don't lie and mr. trump obviously can engage in all of these distractions, and that is exactly what he did, what he committed on the stand today, engaging in distractions and engaging in name calling. but i will not be bullied, i will not be harassed, this case will go on. we look forward to hearing the testimony of ivanka trump on wednesday, and then we plan on closing our case, and then there will be some motions on thursday, and then the defense will present their case in chief. justice will prevail, and it's important that all of you understand that we have already been victorious in our motion for summary judgment, and now we look forward to disgorgement and to the remaining counts in our action against donald trump and his repeated and consistent fraud against the citizens of the great state of new york. >> making an important point there, laura, that they have been successful in summary judgment. so despite the exspectacle we he seen today, it's not necessarily about what donald trump made it about today. >> an effective prosecution cannot rely on that perry mason moment or one witness or one document. that is obviously so many times what happens in fiction but not reality. you have to have a whole lot of evidence to prove your case because your burden of proof, although lower than the criminal context, is quite high in and of itself. there have been 23 witnesses before donald trump today, including a former cfo, allen weisselberg, his sons that are officers in the company and the summary judgment motion, a bevy of evidence on that front. the other part of this, i am a little surprised that donald trump's team did not cross-examine him. that's their opportunity to do so, the prosecution or others would not do this because their role is to, using cross, to rehabilitate somebody if there was a flaw in what they had to say to bring it to the forefront and say, you said this, how did you mean this. the entirety of a cross is really more of the lawyer speaking into existence what is that, wanting to get a head nod or yes or no response to give that person an opportunity to have a leg up once again. that's not happening here. he's got a rally on wednesday. the court is closed. there would have been an opportunity for him to keep going, go from the courthouse to the rally, delay his daughter ivanka's testimony in some respects. none of that seems to be happening now. i wonder about tdo they think that was enough or are they saying, enough. >> let's go back outside the courthouse because kara scannell was there for us live. interesting moments throughout the day from the start, right up until. >> reporter: boris, that's right. the former president being asked to be held to account about his financial statements. they're the ones the judge has already said is fraudulent. president trump acknowledged he was aware of some of the values, saying he knew there wu were some mistake, particularly the triplex apartment valued at 30,000 square feet versus 10,000 square feet. trump acknowledged that that was a mistake. he said these financial statements were prepared by the accountant, that he relied on t them. he said he was aware of these things, he did sign certifications to banks indicating that his net worth was more than $2.5 billion. that was a key piece for the attorney general, the focus on those financial statements in this case. you can hear there are sirens around me. i think the former president will be getting ready to leave the courthouse soon. after all is said and done, trump was on the stand for a little less than four hours today where he was providing this testimony. the attorney general's office saying next up they'll call ivanka trump on wednesday. trump's lawyers say they do intend to question her. they didn't question trump or any of the sons because they're all defendants in this case. they said they do expect to question ivanka trump. her testimony will go into thursday. that's when trump's team will make some of their motions, including a motion for a mistrial in this case. donald trump wrapping up this day of testimony. he both answered their questions but used it as an opportunity to make some of these political attacks that he has made outside of the courtroom. he's now bringing it inside, putting it on the record, calling this a witch hunt, attacking the judge in his rulings in the case while he was seated just a few feet from him. >> again to the point what he was saying, nia, about "they," lumping this case in with the other cases. do his supporters believe this is all just a conspiracy against him? >> yes, yes, absolutely. >> all the cases together, they're just sort of getting together and plotting this all against him? >> i think that's exactly right. that has been his argument to his supporters for years and years and years. he repeats it ad nauseam. i think at some point the judge was saying he has to sound like a broken record because he has to interrupt drum repeating ad nauseam these attacks on the judge in the system. there is a core belief among trump supporters and a decent amount of americans that believe that people like donald trump are the sort of new victims, they're the victims of racism and sexism, white men, right? that's why you hear donald trump sort of invoking this whole idea of racism. it sort of helps his argument that tish james is black. it helps that alvin bragg is black, that fani willis is black, that these black people in power are out to get this very powerful white man who is fighting, right, for the interest of this movement that he likes to talk about that is primarily made up of white americans. >> trump has the most loyal supporters we've ever seen in politics. they don't go anywhere. they're for him 100%. in "the new york times" poll we've all been talking about which showed trump beating joe biden in four key states, there was also a part of that call which asked people, if donald trump were convicted, would you change your mind about him? it was in single digits. it might have been 5 or 6% of people said, yeah, that might make me change my mind. now, we don't know whether that would be the case. we don't know whether it would be the case in this case because it wasn't a jury trial, for example, but we also don't know what would happen if he were convicted in georgia. so i do think that while his people are the most loyal, that there is a little bit of wiggle room there given what the outcome of these trials turn out to be. >> laura, stepping back and looking at the whole of donald trump's testimony, do you think prosecutors got what they wanted? >> i think they were able to establish the criteria to suggest these were material misrepresentations, meaning that they were knowingly false, that the people who had a duty to check them did not do so, and delegation is not going to do away with your responsibility as an officer of a corporation. i think they have made the case in terms of the amount of money that's at stake here. but, there are still more witnesses to hear from, and the defense has a right to put on their case. all of that is incumbent upon the judge to hear with an open mind. everyone at this table, i don't care how anyone in america votes, we all believe in due process. due process does require that everything be heard before the judge actually has a ruling on it. summary judgment motion, different story. why? because that's an instance where the judge says, even if everything you've told me is what you say to be true, it is so objectively wrong. either the apartment is one square foot or a million square feet. either you have rent-controlled apartments in your units or you do not. these are black and white facts. the wiggle room comes in the financial liability. >> it is an extraordinary day of testimony with donald trump on the stand in this fraud case in new york about the valuation of his assets as he was seeking loans. we will be continuing to follow this on cnn, laura, nia, gloria, thank you very much with all of you. "the lead with jake tapper" starts after this short break.