for third world countries, unfair. >> sandra: a year out from the next presidential race. president trump is trading the campaign trail for the witness box taking the stand in the $250 million civil fraud trial. we kick off a brand-new week. hi, john. >> john: if ever there were a day for cameras in the courtroom, this is it, unfortunately there are not. i'm john roberts in washington and this is "america reports" and what could be described as an intense morning in the manhattan courtroom. the former president and leading 2024 gop contender repeatedly sparred with the new york prosecutor questioning him as well as the judge who admonished trump for lengthy answers and told his lawyers to "control your client." >> sandra: that did happen. remains to be seen whether a ruling in this nonjury civil case or the four outstanding criminal cases will severely impact his bid for the white house. nate foy has the latest from there. nate, when are we expecting the former president to return to the stand? what's the schedule? >> so right now we are in lunch, sandra, the afternoon session will resume at 2:15, when former president donald trump will once again take the stand. so far john mentioned, it's been pretty tense between trump, the judge and also new york attorney general letitia james. just before breaking for lunch, trump defended the value of his properties and said because they provided a disclaimer to banks encouraging them to do their own research, even if there was a mistake he believes he should be criticized and criticized the justice for believing new york attorney general james, calling her a political hack. but speaking of the tense moments, the judge twice as john mentioned told the attorney to control the former president, and he said i'm not here to hear what he has today. and trump told the court this is a very, very unfair trial and i hope the public is watching. he maintains it's election interference. >> usually takes place in third world countries and banana republics. nobody has seen that to this extent. we are going to make america great again but take away from the thugs and the horrible people that must hate our country to do this. but we will -- we'll fight very hard for our country. >> sandra, john, attorney general james is at the trial in person. she's neither arguing nor case. she's attended the trial with days of high profile witnesses. she said despite the insults coming from trump, she believes in her case. >> i am certain that he will engage in name calling and taunts and race baiting and call this a witch hunt. but at the time of the day, the only thing that matters are the facts and the numbers and numbers, my friends, don't lie. >> this trial is unprecedented for multiple reasons. one of them is fox news cannot find any other examples in new york state history someone has been convicted of inflating real estate assets without a victim and trump maintains he paid back all loans in full and on time. the afternoon session will resume at 2:15. trump has been instructed two times by the judge to not speak to the media while he's actively on the stand but he will be free to speak to the media when his testimony concludes, expected later this afternoon. back to you. >> sandra: nate foy live outside the courthouse in manhattan for us. thank you, nate. andy mccarthy, former assistant u.s. attorney and fox news contributor. the court is adjourned for lunch, your thoughts and where this is going to go next. >> well, i really think it's a farce in the sense that the judge actually ruled against trump before the trial even started. so i kind of chuckle today at hearing that he had turned to trump's lawyer and said can you control your client because the reason the judge has lost control of his courtroom is that he basically told trump that he had lost before the so-called trial even started and that the ensuing trial, which will go on for two months, or at least at that point in time they said it would go on for two months, all it's about is how much he's going to let james run up the score in terms of how much trump is going to be required to pay. so, that communicated to trump that there was no point in fighting this as a legal case because that ship has sailed. he knows he's lost. so trump is doing exactly what you would expect somebody like trump who is running for republic office to do. he's trying to use this as an element of his campaign. there's no point in fighting it on legal grounds. he's fighting it on political grounds. >> john: i've got to say, andy, i would hazard a guess the judge has never had a witness like donald trump in his courtroom before. he admonished the defense counsel to "control the witness," control their client, because i mean, anybody who has ever had a conversation with trump knows he goes on and on and on and on and he says what he wants to say and then you get a word in and then on and on and on and says what he wants to say. that's just who he is. he does not like that in his courtroom. at one point he said we are not hear to listen to what he has to say, we are hear to listen to him to answer questions, and they said no, we are here to listen to what he has to say. it's like the judge is losing control of the courtroom, easy to do when donald trump sits down to say anything anywhere. but the same time, kind of violating basic court practices that the client has an opportunity, or the defendant has an opportunity to defend themselves in a court of law. and the judge should be able to sit down long enough to listen to what the defendant has to say. >> right. well, that's what should happen, john. but you know, look, i don't think the new york system anymore is a legal system. it's really a political system. james is an elected democrat who ran for office promising to use the power of the office against trump and a good judge who wanted to keep control of this proceeding would not have ruled on the ultimate issue on the eve of trial. because you would want -- withhold the ruling and then trump at least has an incentive behave himself, because how he comports himself might affect the outcome of the case. but if you tell the guy before the case even starts that he's lost, what incentive does he have to behave himself or treat it anything other than a farce. >> sandra: should he adapt to the courtroom, andy? >> i think -- i think at this point his view of it is -- this is politics, it's not law anymore because i've already lost the legal case. and his best argument politically and we are seeing this in the polls is that the elected democrats and we are dealing in this case with elected democrat prosecutor and elected democrat judge, that they are using the powers of the public's law enforcement apparatus as a political weapon against somebody who they fear in the 2024 election. that's the story that he wants to run on and they are giving him a ton of ammunition to run on it. and i think it's starting to get traction in the polls, it's obvious that it is. >> john: andy, why do you think letitia james is appearing in court almost every day? i don't expect that she is going to the average criminal proceeding that the new york city courts take on day in and day out. she's specifically going to this one, though, and what do you think the reason for that might be? and the question kind of answers itself, really. >> yeah, well, you know, john, in the federal system we have appointed prosecutors and they have to be consented to by the senate so they go through some rigorous process in order at least ostensibly to assure us they are not going to use the powers of the office abusively. that's not what you have in new, i don't. she's an elected democrat and she ran for office in a very blue state, promising to use her powers against trump and she like trump is showing up at key moments of this proceeding because that's when the high profile stuff happens and when you, you know, to the extent that you are using this as a political exercise, that's where you cash in on it. so, that's what she's doing. it's why she brought the case in the first place. people should understand, this is the case that the prosecutors decided not to bring. this investigation started as a federal investigation by prosecutors in the southern district of new york, in manhattan. they decided not to bring the case. it then went to the prosecutors in the district attorney's office and even though they are quite anxious to do a case against trump, they didn't think there was a case here because even though they are saying fraud, fraud, fraud, there is no victims. but james picked up the scraps the prosecutors didn't want and because it's a civil proceeding and a monstrous statute in new york, she can go after him without proving fraud or deceptive intent and put him out of business, without even to show there was a victim of the alleged fraud. >> sandra: the a.p. write-up from a few moments ago, saying the former president said "i think this is a political witch hunt" and she should be ashamed of herself, talking about letitia james, the fraud is here, apparently james, as john mentioned, has been in the courtroom every day, stared straight at the former president as he spoke and said those words. andy, if you could, stand by with us as our coverage continues here. >> john: kerri kupec urbahn, you've been inside the courtroom all morning, you can bring us some color at some points, looked more like a wwe event than a courtroom proceeding. >> you know, in the last hour the former president was pretty composed, restrained from him but toward the end getting angry and on what nate foy reported and andy mccarthy, he says the fraud is not his end but the court's end. and i was sitting watching him and thinking imagine a small town where the speed limit is 55 miles an hour and everyone goes 65 miles an hour and it's always been that way and no one has been pulled over or arrested. a new sheriff comes to town and says you know what, i don't like that john doe guy and i'm going to start enforcing the law specifically against him and not only that, i'm going to make sure that he doesn't speed now, i'm going to make sure he and his family can't ever drive again and i think that's probably what the former president was feeling and thinking as he was sitting there. as has been mentioned, the research team, includes lawyers, cannot find any example in new york state of someone conflicted of inflating real estate values without a victim. that's what we heard here. >> sandra: and he defended his children and the attacks on them. the president said i'm worth billions of dollars more than the financial statements. he told a state lawyer, you go around and try and demean me and hurt me, probably for political reasons. obviously emotions are running high at various points in this trial. >> it does raise the question how does one determine value when you are talking about a celebrity turned president. so, for instance, i was thinking and looked it up, thinking about judy garland's slippers in the "wizard of oz," and if they were not on her feet, they would be a couple hundred bucks, currently they are valued at $3.2 million. so it's tricky when you value mar-a-lago or the golf course in scotland, he said i did not put brand on the paper but brand is a thing and i also thought a point he made that was compelling was that on page one of the financial statement of conditions a disclaimer and that disclaimer says that yes, look, this is our position, what we think our property is valued, but you have to do your due diligence. make sure we are right and if it's not and if you don't, it's on you. and that was a point he kept coming back to. >> john: i love the rich metaphors, small town speeding and judy garland's slippers. >> i was thinking a lot in the courtroom, john. >> john: great pop culture references, people at home understand those. what they may not understand are real estate values. a piece of property are worth what anybody is willing to pay for them, and when it comes celebrity property, whether it's personal or real estate, the number can be anything. but the judge says mar-a-lago was worth $18 million, but i'm sorry, that's laughable in terms of west palm beach real estate. he bought it in 1986 for $7 million, post family wanted 22 million at the time, trump got the deal of the century. but to say it's only worth $18 million, i don't know if it's a billion, that's probably a stretch, but probably worth more than $100 million easily, i would think, kerri. >> yeah, and talking about a property with 100 plus rooms on the ocean and the pool, i don't think even has to be in palm beach to say 18 million, that seems low. and those are the two points the former president kept coming back to, he said if anything, i under value my properties and disclaimer. and he said the disclosure, the financial statement of condition, that in the business world they are considered worthless. he says it's a par for the course, that holds up in court normally and again, it's on the banks to decide whether they agree with the statement or not before they go forward with lending money and the like. >> sandra: kerri, can you tell us about the moment when the former president's lawyer was asked "can you control your client," this is not a political rally, this is a courtroom, said the judge, the president's lawyer responded, who has had as we already know, clashes with this judge, responded that the former president was entitled to latitude as a former president and current candidate taking time away from the campaign to be on the witness stand. what was that exchange like? >> it was testy, it was testy, and things calmed down a bit in the second hour. but you know, one of the points that trump's lawyers have been making is that if the state wants to ask certain questions, of course they can ask the questions, trump not a lawyer and some answers obviously require lengthy responses and context and the like. not to say the former president has not gone off on some tangents about china and russia as the like as we all have come to know him to do quite well over the last number of years, but other than those occasional tangents, the former president has pretty much stuck to answering the questions. occasionally, though, complaining about political persecution and i will say the judge has allowed him to directly attack both him, the judge and also the attorney general who is sitting in the front row as mentioned earlier. >> john: kerri, when we have gotten together on the set in d.c. a number of times, we talked about the biden case, hunter and joe biden, and the delaware way, a cozy relationship in delaware, legal business or otherwise. but andy mccarthy is talking about the new york way, particularly as pertains to this case. elected attorney general and you've got an elected judge and you've got again as you pointed out, a very unique prosecution. this has never happened before. is this a legal proceeding or is this a political proceeding? >> i think a lot of the facts point to the fact that there's a heavy dose of politics intertwined in all of this. the fact the attorney general campaigned on going after donald trump, not only is that unusual, i would say it's highly inappropriate. the job of the attorney general and judges and the justice system to maintain a semblance of neutrality, people depend on that. our system of justice depends on the even handed neutral application of the law without regard to partisan politics. and you know, one thing i often talk about is justice, the judge found the former president committed fraud, that's the letter of the law, on the books. spirit of the law asks what is fair and how one can discern what is fair is asking how has the law been applied in similar situations and here there isn't 1, and 2, does the punishment fit the crime, especially when the law has never been applied in that way. and that is a way to determine whether justice is actually being had when both the letter and the spirit are combined and i'm concerned john and sandra that in this particular case we are seeing a divorcing of those two, at the end of the day is not actually justice. >> sandra: all right. the president's team has stepped up to the microphone, let's dip in here and listen. >> the judge has predetermined that my client committed fraud before we even walked into this courtroom. i'm not here to hear what he has to say. then why exactly am i being paid as an attorney and why exactly are taxpayer dollars being used in this courtroom. the answer is very clear. because miss james wants to stand right here like she did this morning and call my client a liar. call the company fraudulent. and make a name for herself. she said this morning that the numbers don't lie and they won't lie in this case. well, miss james, i have a message for you. the numbers didn't lie when you ran for governor and that's why you dropped out. and the numbers don't lie when president trump runs for office in 2024 and those numbers are loud and clear. this country is falling apart and if we don't stop corruption in courtrooms where attorneys are gagged, where attorneys are not allowed to say what they need to say to protect their clients' interest, it doesn't matter what your politics are. everyone has a right in this country to get up and put a defense. i don't care who you are. you have a right to hire a lawyer who can put objections on the record. you have a right to hire a lawyer who can stand up and say something when they see something wrong. but i was told to sit down today. i was yelled at and i've had a judge who is unhinged slamming a table. i don't tolerate that in my life, i'm not going to tolerate it here. and you know what, you shouldn't either. because not every american citizen gets a camera and a microphone and what i'm seeing is such a demise of american judicial system and democracy. miss james came out this morning and said that she knew mr. trump, and always calls him mr. trump, it kills her he was the president, the 45th president of this country, one of the best presidents we have had, has built a great company. it's worth a ton more than that statement of financial condition and she doesn't know how to get out of it because her politics won't allow her. she calls him a bully. she says he's going to bring out racial slurs. he's going to say things today and taunt her. miss james, you taunted him. before you came into office, before you saw one record, one statement of financial condition, you taunted him. you said his administration was too male and too pale. those are her words. she said that she and michael cohen were going to be his biggest nightmare. well, i have some news for you, miss james. michael cohen folded, lied and crumbled. your star witness, along with all the d.a.s and corrupt a.g.s need to pay attention to what happens when you let us take the stand. when you let my client speak the truth and the judge can tell me to sit down and he can try and shorten my client's testimony but it is loud and clear they've got nothing, they've got nothing but their politics. she's got nothing but her soros backing, we discovered recently, and i am sick and tired of seeing it. pay attention, america. pay attention. because when you are in court one of these days and you don't have a lawyer that has a microphone and you don't have a lawyer that can go on tv and you've got judges gagging them, what are you going to do? we need to fix this country and stop what is happening in this courtroom. president trump is worth a lot more and before she rushed to judgment she should have thought about attacking somebody with over 50 years of real estate expertise who changed single handedly the skyline of new york city. she picked the wrong person. >> are you concerned that president trump's longer answers that he draws negative infer