it, ranting against a judge, a scene described as completely out of control, and it didn't stop inside the courtroom because just minutes ago, he posted about the judge on truth social. what's going on there? well, the judge already admonishing the former president multiple times for rambling, not answering questions, and using the court as a political rally. will he take action before the day is over? plus, with trump facing multiple other trials, what could today's spectacle mean for those other cases, we'll tell you who was in the courtroom today taking notes. but we begin outside that courthouse with nbc's vaughn hillyard. it was a volatile morning. trump isn't waiting to get back on the stand. he's posting on social media. tell us the general mood around the courthouse. >> reporter: donald trump, the days he has been at the courthouse hearing the testimony of others, usually at lunch break he walks out and speaks to the camera for several minutes commenting on the case at large as well as the direct testimony of the witnesses he heard from that particular day. this lunch break it was a little bit different, chris, after he testified for two and a half hours himself. take a look as he left the courtroom. >> reporter: mr. trump, how is it going in there? >> reporter: of course, for donald trump, he is somebody who is far from silent inside. he was admonished multiple times by judge engoron, here in lower manhattan for giving long winded, quasi tangential answers and not answering direct questions from the new york prosecutor asking him the questions here. in the last few minutes during the lunch break, donald trump posting on his truth social account a picture of the judge in this case with a quote here that says in part, quote, no, i'm not here to hear what president trump has to say. now, this is for donald trump, but direct attack on when he calls an unfair trial and a biassed judge overseeing this case. i think it's important context to note that after the judge said this direct quote referenced by donald trump, he said that what he wants to hear today is donald trump answering the questions addressed to him. i think that's important content. i asked salina haba during the break whether she under her client, donald trump, to deliver more concise answers, knowing the judge is going to deliver the financial penalties against trump and his female business and she told me, no, she did not sign on to be his lawyer to simply go and limit his free speech capabilities, and his ability to defend himself as he sees fit on this witness stand today. chris. >> vaughn hillyard, stay with us. i want to bring in former federal prosecuto and msnbc legal analyst, and former prosecutor. posting on truth social about the judge after all the tension this morning, yelling, admonitions, might not be a recommending strategy, but legally, does it cross any line that the judge has set in your mind? >> the judge made it clear even in the courtroom today that he's going to let trump criticize him personally. and i think that's a wise move for the judge to make. i think as you just alluded to, chris, this is not a legal strategy. when you have a bench trial there's no jury here. when the judge is deciding your fate, you gain nothing legally by throwing tomatoes at the judge, so to speak. what he's doing here is trying to distract all of us from the evidence in this case, distract us from the evidence that leld led the judge to conclude there's fraud here. he's trying to whip up anger against the judge and claim the process is flawed or biassed. that's a political strategy or a spin strategy, not a legal strategy. i think that's important for our viewers to keep in mind. >> charles, i want to recap some of the many admonishments from the judge. answer the question, irrelevant. control your client. this is not a political rally. and asking the prosecutor if he wanted the witness to ramble on. again, i think we've been very consistent with all of our great legal minds across the board here who have said this is not a legal strategy. it doesn't help him, but it does it hurt him, charles? >> well, chris, i think the question becomes in what venue you have the court of public opinion and the political lens through which this could be examined, and you have the actual legal lens. let's be clear and understand, i agree with everything renato said. and trump is under no obligation to make this easy for anyone, be that the prosecutor or the judge, and he's going to do his part to make it more difficult going forward. he has no legal options in terms of liability because that was decided on summary judgment. at this point, it's push until something happens. maybe you can get the judge to do something emotional that allows you to do something on appeal. maybe you can continue to try to control the narrative outside the court with your comments that allows you to build on political capital. in terms of whether it hurts him, it matters which lens you're witnessing this through, donald trump the candidate running for the white house or donald trump the businessman, trying to say what he has left in terms of his business dealings in the state of new york. >> we're ten minutes away from when this is scheduled to get going again. we have heard multiple times the judge say trump is not being brief in his answers. is it possible just to use this as a strategy to kind of run out the clock? because this is firmly just a one-day questioning of the former president, right? >> i don't really think that's what he's doing here. i wish that i could try to give you some fancy strategy that this is part of. i don't think it helps him at all, for him to be rambling on and on. and if he was my witness, and my client, and i was actually trying to pursue a legal strategy, i would try to have some real strict control on him and have him walk a tight rope because he's really taking a very significant risk just by taking the stand here. remember, he took the fifth hundreds of times in his deposition in this case, so i think the original strategy here from a legal perspective was just damage control, mitigating their losses here. he, through his own ego, while the judge is annoyed, if i was on the ag's team, the side of the attorney general i would actually be happy with the witness here just rambling on and on and essentially burying himself with the testimony that is often not careful or inaccurate or obviously false. >> a lot of people, charles, would have predicted this from donald trump. maybe prosecutors did as well. what were they trying, and are they going to continue to try this afternoon to get from donald trump that advances their case? because one of the things that a lot of folks said is, look, this is a case that will rely heavily on documentation that many of the most important things that have allowed the judge to even make his ruling thus far are what's on paper, right, or what's in evidence. so what role does donald trump play in this trial. what's important for prosecutors today? >> well, chris, in an ideal world, what you want to do as a prosecutor in a case like this, you want to show donald trump as many documents that have his name and signature on them and make the connection to the fact that he, at some point, signed for these documents or certified the truth and veracity of its contents. he's not likely going to do that. you have to sort of switch your strategy and basically take away any type of explanation that donald trump will offer as to the plausibility, even though his name is on these documents, and his name is at the top of the letter ahead that somehow he could not have known or should not have known that the level of fraud determined or existed, by the judge took place. when you have a witness like donald trump who's not going to give you the simple answer of saying, yes, that's my signature on those documents, you have to try to take away any plausible excuse that he's going to offer in front of the judge as to why somehow his name being as high on that letter head as it is, he should not be held liable or the penalty in this case should not be as high as the attorney general's office is asking. >> is there an excuse for that? all of us have signed a document, you go into a doctor's office or decide you're going to go sky diving, they're going to tell you, if you die, it's not our fatal potentially. but in a case like this, where he is the guy on the letterhead, where he is someone who on the stand today has said he knows this stuff, right. he's the smartest, the best at these kinds of things, is there a legitimate legal excuse for saying, i really didn't know what i was signing? >> well, as somebody who has tried a lot of fraud cases, a very common defense strategy is essentially saying, i'm a very busy businessman, i get lots of documents placed in front of me. i don't remember what was on page 27, that sort of thing. the problem for donald trump, as you point out, chris, here's a guy who never wants to say he's not in control, that he's not in charge. that sort of thing. that's one problem here for him. i mean, he actually has a bit of a built-in defense for a period of time here because he could say, look, this is all in a trust. my sons were running it, not me. but i don't really think he stuck to that today, and that's why i say there's not a lot of legal strategy here. the reality for trump is, he was trying to walk a bit of a tight rope by blaming others, saying he wasn't really involved. saying he wasn't really on top of things. we know that's not what donald trump was ever going to say and that's not what he said ultimately today. >> you know we're getting close to them reconvening, because attorney general letitia james has resumed her position in the front row seat inside that courtroom. at one point earlier today, charles, trump was asked about claiming that his new york apartment was triple the size it is, and he said something about having access to the roof, and when you add the roof in, you're not that far off. is that an explanation as we see donald trump walking in, giving the thumbs up, heading back into the courtroom where they expect to resume in just a few minutes. is that an explanation that he gave earlier today? >> listen, chris, i learned in law school that the law is what is boldly asserted and plausibly maintained. the truth is i don't believe that this judge is going to buy that that is plausibly maintaining the overestimation of the square footage of that apartment, i think that, again, if you look at the summary judgment motion in particular, the judge is very clear as to what he believes would be a somewhat reasonable misevaluation or extrapolation on the size of an apartment. it's just been exploited to such a large degree, that i don't necessarily think that adding on the square footage of the rooftop as a new explanation by donald trump on the stand amidst a trial is going to fly in terms of what the apartment has in terms of square footage. >> all the key players are inside the courtroom. court is scheduled to resume in less than three minutes. charles coleman, thank you, renato mariotti, stay with me. new reporting about what former president trump is planning to do with the doj if he gets reelected. we're back in 60 seconds. we're back in 60 seconds . in just the last couple of minutes we watched as donald trump returned to the courtroom as what has been described as an incredibly tense day in his civil fraud trial. when asked by prosecutors whether he was involved in the preparation of key financial documents in 2021, trump's answer, no. i was dealing with china, russia and keeping our country safe. the new york attorney general's lead lawyer then reminded him he was not president in 2021. former federal prosecutor, renato mariotti, also elise jordan t former aide to the george w. bush white house and state department. renato, what do you make of that moment where the president didn't seem to know -- the former president didn't remember he was former president in 2021. donald trump is undisciplined. he's all over the place. we talked in the last segment about some of his colorful answers. i think he's just winging it up there, and that's a dangerous spot if you're a lawyer. i have to say if that was my client on the witness stand, answering whatever came to the top of his head, making false statements under oath, i would be cringing. of course they're all smiles at the trump table because i don't think they're even trying to practice law there. they're basically just props in what can best be described as sort of a political/disinformation exercise here today to try to use our court system to try to fool and distract the public from his own misdeeds. >> elise, we hear all the time criticism about president biden confusing dates and things from his political career. but then you have donald trump who isn't much younger and seems to have had a series of these events recently, just not on the stand. >> chris, donald trump has been saying absolutely crazy things for so long, things that are just rooted in complete nonsense. i mean, do you remember bleach for covid cure? things that are just so insane that he really does get a pass when he has an actual misstep, and if it is something that's with ageing. by being so crazy he can't be pinned down, he actually tends to benefit because he doesn't get taken seriously when he is being serious, and people don't really deduct points from him. >> sorry. for a minute, i lost my ability to hear what was going on because i was being informed that donald trump has taken the witness stand. once again, the trial has been called back to order. the prosecution has begun once again to ask questions of donald trump. just reminding folks that we are getting in realtime this kind of reporting from our folks that are in the courtroom. in the meantime, renato, i want to ask you as the trial moves forward about chilling new reporting from the "washington post" describing what plans to do if voters elect him president again in 2024. and that is veryuch seek revenge. here's wt the post writes, in private, trump has tolddvisers and friends that he wants the justice department to investigate one-time officials and allies who have become critical of his time in office. is that constitutional? >> no, it's not. i have to say, just reading that just angers me as somebody who cares so deeply about the rule of law in this country, cares deeply about the administration of justice. and i'll tell you, if that does happen, if he is reelected, i'll be there on the front lines defending those people in court, and i just have to believe that judges and juries in this country are not going to go along with the abuse of the justice department. not just people like myself there for a decade, but there are people who devoted their entire lives to building up the justice department, and we were always taught that you have to use that power, the great power that prosecutors have with great care, and you actually have to, at times not bring charges even when you have evidence. abusing that power for political purposes, it is absolutely antithetical to what this country is about, and ultimately, not only unconstitutional but against the law and the sort of thing that to me, under mines, really the most important protection we have which is the protection that we have in our court system to ensure that our rights are defended, even if you have a run away presidency or a run away congress. >> yeah, elise, you worked in a white house, and obviously the staff there works very closely on all kinds of issues. but there is a very clear line with doj. what did you make of what you saw "the washington post" reporting and the idea that essentially they could be weaponized, they could weaponize the power of the presidency against enemies. >> chris, it's what trump tried to do when he actually had the presidency. he didn't understand the separation between law enforcement agencies and the doj and if they were his personal attorneys, and now you see looking at a potential second term, the stakes are higher and how far donald trump would go to actually punish his enemies, and it was a pet petrifying article surprising, surprising in that donald trump is a very vengeful man, and he focuses on revenge, and he is wounded by the people who were his allies and left him. he is vowing to go after them first, and i thought that former chief of staff john kelly had a really telling book, saying that, you know, there were some people in the first administration who weren't sycophants, and now those people aren't going to go in next time, and it's just going to be people who actually execute the orders no matter how unconstitutional. >> i want to bring in nbc's vaughn hillyard, again, he is outside the courthouse, and so the trial is back underway. we understand the prosecution has resumed questioning in these early minutes. what's been going on inside this room? >> right, this is going to be a big two and a half hours ahead, chris. this is the only day that donald trump will be taking the stand, and answering questions from the new york attorney general's prosecutor here. there is a lot for the prosecution to fit into just these few hours, and that is where you saw donald trump face a condemnation and admonishment with the judge, this morning, for presenting the new york attorney general prosecutor. just in the last few minutes, there is back and forth over deutsche bank loans, and donald trump being asked specifically in one situation whether a signature was, in fact, his. he responded yes. we are going to continue to read sort of the blow by blow in the minutes and hours ahead, chris. i think one important note here that i was waiting to see was whether the gag order that has been placed on donald trump and his attorneys to prevent them from speaking about staff of the court was going to potentially be expanded. two weeks ago when that initial gag order was misplaced, it was delivered by the judge just following a lunch break. we did not get that here. donald trump made repeated attacks against the attorney general letitia james, as well as the drug directly. one of the two lawyers representing him here inside the courtroom came and spoke from the courtroom steps in which she blasted the judge and james, but i asked her specifically about the judge's suggestion that he would make negative inferences from donald trump's long-winded, quasi tangential answers, instead of concise answers, and she told me when i asked her whether she was urging her client, donald trump, to keep his answers concise, knowing the judge in this case will determine whether the trump organization can exist in new york, and whether they will have to pay the $250 million fine. i asked whether she was urging her client, donald trump, during the lunch break to keep his answers concise this afternoon, and she defiantly told me, no, she would not have signed on to be donald trump's lawyer just to turn around and go and limit his free speech right and his ability to defend himself how he sees fit. those were the words of donald trump's lawyers. the question here in the next two and a half hours that i'm looking for, chris, is the extent to which donald trump tries to filibuster the questions from the new york attorney general's office and whether the judge tries to step in more fiercely than he did this morning. >> this has been one of the key questions throughout this, and one of the arguments that trump has made that this is a free speech, but when you're on the stand, can you say anything you want to say? >> no, of course not, and i mean, making that statement shows she doesn't know much about the first amendment or she's being disingenuous. good lawyers are trying to do that more rather than less. that really has nothing to