he knows that judge kaplan has no problem speaking back to him or to his lawyers, not that judge kaplan is one sided or the other, but he is going to ensure that there is a fair trial, that these jurors are not intimidated, that they get a chance to hear the evidence. i don t think that there is any reason to doubt that trump is concerned about that. will he show up? he might make a cameo appearance, but given that, miss carroll s trial team has already said that they need some help in controlling mr. trump, so it won t be an upper, like in the a. g. s case. my sense is that if he shows up, it will be in and out, and he s not going to get away with what he did in the a. g.case. so, let s talk about accountability though when it comes to this. donald trump continues to defame e. jean carroll, continues to claim he does not know who she is, and he says stuff like, i have absolutely no idea who this woman is, but i am going to go to it, that being the trial, and i am going to explain to
allowed to speak briefly during part of the presentation by his lawyers. the judge asked trump directly if he would quote, promised to just comment on the facts of the law. but naturally, trump ignored him. immediately looking into a five minute rant that broke every one of the judges rules, claiming that he was a innocent man who has been politically prosecuted. the judge called for trump s attorney to control his client before cutting trump off for a scheduled lunch break. the state a.g. is seeking 300 and $70 million in fines and to bar trump from the new york real estate industry. the judge says he hopes to have a decision by january 31st. he is deciding the case because state law does not allow for the juries in this type of lawsuit. joining us now, former litigator and msnbc legal analyst lisa rubin. she was inside the courtroom yesterday. lisa, you are there, you saw and heard this exchange. we should go back a little bit,
one minute left. and trump said to the judge you have your own agenda, i understand that. the judge said mr. kice, control your client. he said i did nothing wrong, they should have to pay me what they did to me reputationaly and everything else. they did not put on one witness that they said they felt had committed fraud here. the attorney general s team said the buck stops with trump. he s the head of the organization. and they said that the judge could infer from trump s vast knowledge of all of the assets including the triplex apartment that the a.g. s team was overstated which trump has acknowledged was overstated for some of these financial statements. they said given his vast knowledge they can infer he had the intent to commit this fraud because he didn t change any of the valuations that they believe he knew were overvalued. now, what was interesting today is that the judge he s very
the final word was said today, the legal briefs all filed last week. the judge saying he expects to make his decision, which will come in a written opinion by the end of the month. he said it s not a process, it s a not a guarantee. look for it by january 31st. that won t be the end of this because trump s team has already said they re going to appeal. it s a matter what they re going to be appealing. this will continue for months potentially on end until the court has the final say in this. i think trump s team is going to appeal certainly what the verdict it is. i also think thegory teeg claim when the suggest gave summary judgment, the judge ruled before the trial he actually violated procedure there. because summary judgment means if i take all the facts, meaning if i assume the word as trump argues it he still loses. that s what trump did. he says the a.g. says a, trump says b, i find a way more credible.
could put them out of business. it s going to be a heavy hit for the trump org. in the closing argument the attorney general s team said trump, quote acted with intent to defraud his financial statements. how do you expect intent. the a.g. has to prove intent to defraud. the a.g s office acknowledged they did not have direct information. they asked the judge to infer from other evidence. you can say based on michael cohen s testimony, based on if trump ran this place, based on the extent of the overinflation, he had to have known, and that s the argument on intent. joey, do you think the former president did himself any favors with the judge or with the end result in this? i mean politically it s one thing to his supporters, but in the court did he do himself any favors by talking? anderson, i think they are mindful the trump team with regard to the two things they have to accomplish here. the one thing obviously is in court and what you have to communicate with the judge. clos