statements his face turning red, raising his voice, pointing directly at the judge seated inches away yelling, he called me a fraud and he didn't know anything about me a reference to the judges pretrial decision that ruled in the states favor, also going after the attorney general himself watching in the courtroom, mr. trump calling her political hack. >> i will not be bullied, i will not be harassed. the case will go. on >> trump did make some concessions, admitting today that he probably saw some of the disputed financial statements that went to banks and lenders while repeatedly dismissing them as not important because they included certain disclaimers saying today that his net worth is actually far greater than what's reflected in his financial statements touting the value of the trump brand. >> it's much greater than on the financial statement. and -- mar-a-lago is worth 18 billion dollars, but it's worth probably 15 to 100 times more than that. >> the judges patients, tested at times by the same rhetoric on the witness stand. calling parts of mr. trump's testimony irrelevant and rambling. warning the republican front runner, this is not a political rally. >> trump's eldest daughter ivanka trump is expected to testify on wednesday. with that, let's get smarter with the help of our leadoff panel, it's a great one, hugo lowell is here, political investigations reporter for the guardian he was in the courtroom today and has all the details on what went down. andrew weizmann, former fbi general counsel, and former senior member of the mother probe. he is now a law professor at nyu. and melissa murray, also a professor at nyu law school, she was a clerk for sonia sotomayor on the federal bench before her nomination to the supreme court. hugo, i turn to first. take us inside the courtroom. give us the scoop exactly what went down. >> it was the most tense and fraud courtroom appearance that i think trump has been in today. across all his grievance, he said nothing. today, he was on the stand and and i think that testimony was not helpful to him legally. and it was not helpful in terms of the atmosphere with the judge. i mean the judge is often the guy who's gonna make the decision, at this with the penalties here. and the constant flare-ups with him and his attorneys flirts with the judge to, i think, were particularly damaging. >> how about his james? she was in the courtroom >> just james was in the courtroom. she was looking at trump's team and trump's counsel all the way through which is kind of surreal. and they notice to because i they got a text from the trump team say why is james there. >> they texted you saying why is she looking at us? my goodness, should they be thinking about other things? andrew, what was your biggest take away? because as he goes walking us through this, trump did himself no favors with the judge. does he really care? because the only jury he really cares about is his base, the general public. because what he's running for is president. >> yeah, it depends what audience you're asking that about two in terms of the judge who was going to decide this, this new jury in this case, he did not help himself especially towards the end of the day where he gave up sort of this reliance materiality, defense because he said i understood these financial statements, which the attorney general says were fraudulent, i understood that they were relied on and intended to be relied on by deutsche bank. >> okay, i worked at deutsche bank during this period of time. trump has absolutely no choice but to say it was him. it was donald trump himself that said to the bankers, this is what my brand is where. if on what planet can you say that i may have seen the documents? he said that -- here is what i'm worth. >> listen i agree with you. my only counter to that is that this is donald trump. is he capable of saying something which is black as white? yes there's so many things where he just denied things which they could provide documents. but here clearly not playing for this audience when you turn to the judge and basically say, you called me a fraud? your fraud. this is the trier, a fact. you don't usually try to antagonize the person who is going to decide the case so he is playing, as you said, to a political audience, not to this judge. >> and the judge taking the bait. we all know, a, donald trump presents narcissistic tendencies he wants to have a fight, he wants to make it about him. and we know he's good to move because you punch me, i'm gonna punch you twice as hard. >> at the end of the day, the judge is going to look at the facts and the law, and, again, if you look at just what happened in court, not a good day for donald trump. he ended up really giving the judge a lot of ammunition for finding him on credible, finding reliance, materiality a lot of the things that the state really had been sub missing out events for the remaining causes of action. remember the first calls of action is already found. but this is already piling on and i think the judge is going to say you are liable on these other causes of action. and what remains is what the remedy is. so he could end up being barred completely from having businesses in new york state. >> melissa, maybe the answer is, put up a stink and fight with the judge because you don't have good answers for any of the questions, right? the prosecution might have some holes in their case, but in all likelihood donald trump doesn't have any good answers. >> donald trump is between a rock and a hard place with the civil fraud trial because so much of his political career, his political acumen has been built on the fact that he is some kind of savant businessmen but if you are actually a savant businessman, then you are generally complaining with basic principles of corporate governance doing due diligence of the files you're submitting, that the files were discussing. and in order to prevail in this case, or at least to minimize the penalties to which he's exposed, he has to basically say that he wasn't doing that kind of due diligence, he was essentially a paper pusher. and that sort of allows for the whole question of, is this actually a business enterprise of significant consequence? it allows it to crumble. so i think andrew is exactly right. this is about an audience that is not in this courtroom, it's an audience in middle america, the people who are likely to vote for him. and he is planned for a completely different stakes and it's likely to be present -- it doesn't matter that the judge determines he's no longer able and capable of running his business and new york state for five years. if he's running a country, that won't matter. >> my gosh, i want you to hear a little bit of what trump's lawyer, chris ties, said earlier today. >> in 33 years, i've never had a witness testify better. and absolutely brilliant performance by president trump. he is not by getting down. >> illicit given what you just said, what trump is actually running for was kise perfectly on brand and on message? >> i mean, this was some various defense, for sure. and i think that's exactly right -- [laughter] if you're plan for an audience that is going to elect this guy the chief executive of the country, maybe it doesn't matter if he's going to be the chief executive of the trump organization. >> you're in the room, hugo was it the most brilliant thing you've ever seen? >> i don't know if i'd go anywhere close to that. the thing i took away from the day as a whole was -- the first half of the morning, there was a lot of performative stuff trump was saying things because it almost seemed like a strategic effort as we've discussed trying to get the judge to take the bait and try to get him to make a mistake that they could use on appeal. but by the time we got to the second half, i think he -- >> when you're tired and hungry and you need a snickers. >> the reaction was really visceral. when he was getting asked if the valuations of mar-a-lago were fortunate, and he agreed with a new record generals office that it really struck a nerve and that's when he started to assailing the prosecutors, and a sealing the judge, and saying you who have no idea, you don't know, you don't know me. so i think it was a -- >> what did you think? >> at to hugo's point, at the end of the, day in addition to this reliance point that we've been talking about, he was just asked to really softball question about are these financial statements things that you are seeing and willing to say are true and accurate? and he essentially said, i'm gonna get back to you on that. i mean this is one where -- this is like a softball where you answer the question is absolutely. and he kept on fighting it. i mean talking about ammunition for the judge to use against him. i really think he started pretty well, certainly for his base he started well, but in the end he was giving up a lot of things. to cases point, i kept on thinking today about what it would be like to try to prepare him to testify. and i think that it probably lasted about 12 seconds. >> which, to anyone who's ever watched donald trump for ten seconds, but no that's the case. melissa, the judge kept saying over and over to trump's lawyers, keep your client in check. you have got to stop him from saying this. and they're kind of making the argument, you know, listen, he's got expressive self. let the men speak, it's all about free speech. that's not the case. when you are the lawyer, it is your job to manage that client. >> i mean, this is a client who's proven to be unmanageable in almost every situation in which he has been in open court. and even in situations that are not in court but where he is been required to scif swearing testimony. this is a performer, he's a a performer. he performs an all the areas -- whether it's to his benefit or not. i think we saw that today. as hugo said earlier, the idea that you would antagonize someone who is in the position to determine the penalties in a situation where you already have been found to have done fraudulent activity, why would you continue to do that? it's almost like he can't help himself and we saw that today. it's a lack of control, and the inability of his lawyers to control him as a client. there was some tucking back after the break where he seemed to be more concise and his answers and calmer, but that seemed to go astray as time wore on this is not someone who's capable of being in control over the long haul. which of course, haugen as well for his presidential aspirations. >> hugo, this trial is not televised there are no cameras in the room. every time there's a recess, there's a break, there's lunch, trump and his team go to the court steps where he's not underwrote and they lied to reporters. does this show how important it is to have cameras in the courtroom so the american people can actually see what's happening? >> from a recruiters perspective i would say, yes, what we see in the courtroom is so much more visceral then sometimes -- and that has been the case with any of these court hearings. weather is the one in d. c., where john lauro spars with the judge. and they have all these talking points and the judge says, i get it, you have to make your talking points. and whether it's in this case where trump really got red in the face at times and he's got this gesture kayleigh doing hand movements, and he's saying shocked, or he makes these one liners it's difficult to communicate that effectively, i think if the american public saw that from themselves, it would paint a portrait of trump that they've never seen before and it's when he's been on his most unhinged. >> the suns are done testifying, did they show up to support? i'm milani is not there >> they weren't there to support him today. but his lawyers were. there and you've seen that in other cases as well. i was there for michael cohen's testimony and i was there with someone who -- it's interesting that todd blanche who leads the federal criminal cases have been in the courtroom for these cases. and it's also interesting that is political team showed up today. there was some truth social post that were sent out today, and i would assume that its people from his campaign. >> you, topics national counsel jack smith has waited on trump's bid to dismiss the federal election interference case. and i want to share a little bit of what they wrote. quote, the defendant stands alone in american history for his alleged crimes. no other president has engaged in conspiracy and obstruction to overturn valid election results and illegitimately retain power. this is an stunning accusation about a former president, right? if anybody says, oh gosh, who cares about the hush money case. or, even this fraud case in new york, who cares about big the apartment was, who really lost money in the value of real estate -- this right here is a whole other ball of wax. >> i mean, i would add, he's also been found to commit sexual assault. so he's also been accused of retaining classified information, including nuclear secrets. there's just -- obviously, the d. c. case is the most important in terms of our democracy. i think the key thing for the audience would be what the -- what jack smith is aiming for is telling judge chutkan that two motions that could delay the march 4th trial decide those quickly. because we need to give trump enough time to be able to go to the court of appeals if necessary go to the supreme court, and want to have those done very quickly so that we have a trial on the scheduled date. those are the presidential immunity motion, and double jeopardy mission. the double jeopardy motion is laughable. that's -- he's basically saying, because i was tried in an impeachment proceeding for insurrection, he can't be charged now criminally for things that are not insurrection. that doesn't work 18 different ways. the presidential immunity issue is one that has not been decided by the supreme court. so jack smith's eye thing being really smart saying there are a lot of other motions but decide these for us because we do not want to delay the case. >> because jack smith, knows trump's best case of beating these cases, truthfully, is to delay and beat joe biden. everybody is sticking around when we come, back disturbing new reporting from the washington post about donald trump and his allies who were plotting revenge against opponents if he were to get a second term and later, even as donald trump is facing the civil fraud trial and four indictments total, the new polling out that shows him leading biden in key swing states robert gibbs and mckinnon are here with a reality check the 11th hour just getting underway on a monday night. c'mon, we're right there. c'mon baby. it's the only we need. go, go, go, go! ah! touchdown baby! -touchdown! are your neighbors watching the same game? yeah, my 5g home internet delays the game a bit. but you get used to it. try these. they're noise cancelling earmuffs. i stole them from an airport. it's always something with you, man. great! solid! -greek salad? exactly! don't delay the game with verizon or t-mobile 5g >> new reporting from the home internet. catch it on the xfinity 10g network. washington post says donald trump is already planning revenge on his critics if he wins the white house next november. the post reports trump has told -- he wants the doj to investigate one-time officials and allies who become critical of his time in office. people have talked to trump say the list includes former chief of staff john kelly, former attorney general bill barr, and former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff general mark milley. with us, hugo lowell and you're, weisman with a summary. andrew what do you? think we all say anecdotally, man, if trump becomes president, he's gonna go after people. but then you read in print with names, it takes it to a new level. >> well this is what i think. if you asked any mccabe, pete strzok, lisa page, chris krebs, i mean you can go on -- >> jim comey -- >> jim comey. gee, what do you think about this report doing if he's going to become president? and they would say, what do you mean he's going to do? that's what he did. >> they got audited while trump was in office. >> and mccabe did. so i think this is sivs playbook. the idea that there would be a -- of the white house and the department of justice, it didn't exist while he was president before. and it's not gonna exist when he becomes president again. and that means that he will go after his enemies, and his fans won't be prosecuting the same way that he was pardoned roger stone, michael flynn, steve bannon. so -- he views the justice department is just a tool. this is authoritarian third world country tactics. >> but melissa, if you were in office, again when he do that times? too because next time, around the number one thing he would be looking for in all of his top officials will be loyalty pledge. >> it's actually really interesting, the reporting also suggests that he is no longer enamored of friends like the federalist society which previously worked hand in glove with trump to stop the courts he's actually more interested in individuals who don't necessarily have fancy credentials, but do have credentials that suggest their loyalty to him. so the litmus test is going to be, are you actually a trump loyalist, not whether or not you are in leonard leo's inner circle or if you're someone high up in the federal society. that's going to be a very different motive. and it's very clear that you're going to see him much quicker in my terms of a transition than we saw in his first administration where he seemed to be caught on the back foot in terms of their readiness to begin governing. it took a long time to get that cabinet put together. he already seems to have some idea of what that cabinet might look like and it seems clear that one of the toughest that he's interested in is attorney general and it seems like he's already identified jeffrey clark, his codefendant, in the georgia case, and an unindicted coconspirator in d. c. in the election interference case, to consider him for that post. >> that's next level. hugo, are you hearing anything from trump's camp? >> yes, i think this has been something i've been to discussed for a year now according to our reporting. and it's four to think about the context in which it's being discussed because, to angie's point, he sees the justice department as part of the executive branch and the idea in the next trump administration to get back, and it's gonna make a cabinet level agency. if he makes it a cabinet level agency and he wants to point b 's loyalist to all the key roles whether it's the attorney generals office, the dog or the attorney general in the criminal division, and the kinds of people he's looking at are people who helped him with the crossfire hurricane investigation who he perceives to be allies in the -- that's people like kash patel, he's considering of heading the fbi. these are the sort of individuals they're looking at. >> we shouldn't be surprised, every rally he's been at for the last six months, he looks at the crowd and says i am your retribution. and retribution and revenge. it's gonna be on the new red hats. this is 2023. hugo lowell, andrew weissmann, melissa murray, we have a lot of work to do. coming, up a new poll raising questions about the presidential election. one year ago from the main event, how accurate are the predictions? -- when this continues. >> a new york times cnn poll shows president biden is trailing trump in five crucial battleground states. it's getting a lot of attention but remembered so early in the race and many of these results are within the margin of error. just think about this, today, trump was in a new york courtroom for civil fraud trial. he's also charged with 91 family counts in four different