donald trump, announcing that he is not testifying tomorrow in an 11th hour u-turn. the supposed party of law in order exposed, a maga mike johnson is desperately trying to rewrite history and protects rioters who stormed the capitol. and we're gonna unpack the growing backlash following remarks by university presidents about antisemitism on campus. i'm ayman mohyeldin, let's get started. will he, or won't he? it looks like we finally have our answer. breaking tonight, an 11th hour reversal, former president announced that he will not take the witness stand tomorrow in the 250 million dollar civil fraud trial against him and his company. the disgraced ex presidents decision comes after a new york appellate court notified his lawyers that they missed a deadline that challenge the gag order issued against trump in the case. trump'swyers argued that their client would've been irrevocably harmed by the order lasting through the end of his testimony. following that loss, trump attorney chris fat got desperate and made a, quote, lengthily request to judge arthur engoron to postpone trump's testimony until the appeals court can review the gag order. judge engoron quickly shot that request down, telling him, quote, absolutely not, no way, no how, it is a nonstarter. after engoron's denial, the disgraced ex president, in typical trump fashion, had a full meltdown, claiming the gag order was in place because, quote, they're afraid to have me speak. we should note here that the gag order only prevents trump from targeting court staff. not the judge or the attorney general's team. nor from defending himself against the states claims in public. but considering trump's decision today, it appears he is the one who is now afraid to speak. and perhaps he should be considering what a disaster his testimony was the last time around. just last month, the ex president spent his time on the stand hurdling attacks against the judge, the lawyers in the case, dodging questions, and repeatedly going off on nonsensical tensions. the former president also got into a heated exchange with engoron after the judge excoriated him for giving unresponsive answers. after the sweep, the trial is set to go on break until january 11th. at that time, closing arguments will be given, and the case will rest in the hands of the judge, with no definite timeline for when a ruling may be handed down. it's important to remember here that trump has already been found to have inflated the value of his new york assets, which means the case isn't it's penalty phase. come judgment, trump risks losing his business certificates, meaning relevant assets like trump tower, trump national golf course, hudson valley, all of that could be put under the control of a court appointed receiver. that receiver would not only manage the properties, but could also be permitted by the court to sell some of them to pay off illegal penalties. even if trump -- busiss certificates, there are options on the table that could weaken his real estate empire. like a possible five-year -- here in w york. one of the five-year ban on applying from loans from any financial institutions charted by are registered in new york. there's also a possible permanent disbarment of trump and his three oldest children from serving as officers or directors in a business headquarter registered and or licensed in new york. as accesses dan premier lays out, the disgraced ex president stands to lose his namesake real este empire, the bedrock of his supposed political credit ability. quote, the legal proceedings could forever alter trump's business legacy, the same legacy he parlayed into his political career. here to discuss this and more, danya perry, former deputy attorney general for the state of new york and chief of investigations for the -- investigate public corruption. and suzanne craig, new york times investigative reporter, also an msnbc contributor. great to have both of you with us. danielle, i'll start with you. trump's decision not to testify. are you shocked? he seems to have finally taken the advice of his lawyers and not taking the stand. >> i am shocked he finally took the advice of his lawyers. i'm not shocked in this case that he is not testifying. it would've been a legally terrible idea for him to decide, and there's also a long history of pattern and practice, if you will, of him failing to appear when he is said up and down that he will. this just happened in the case where i represent michael cohen, and affirmative 500 million dollar case that the -- trump brought against my client where he delayed producing discovery, the late deposition, and on the eve of the deposition i had been quarter and it, he simply voluntarily dismiss the case. so i didn't think he was gonna subject himself to cross-examination, which he really didn't the first time around and his trial testimony. and also, tempt fate by, you know, by somehow running afoul of the gag order that is still in place against him. so i was not shocked at all. i think it was the right call for him. >> suzanne, your thoughts on this. does this decision surprise you? you are actually inside the courtroom the last time the ex president took the stand. so you had that first, i guess, first time account of seeing how he performs on the witness stand. and i guess you know better than most whether or not he would've been able to pull this off tomorrow without any major hiccups. >> yeah. i don't think there was much to be gained by this. this judge, you know, to be kept an obvious here, does not like him. he's already found against him on summary judgment and found him liable of this. they're just haggling over damages. that day in court was very contentious, and the judge was fed up with him. and you've got now, looking right towards the end of the trial, he sort of start to feel this maybe wasn't going to happen. that he wasn't going to show up tomorrow, when eric trump decided not to testify with counsel from his lawyers. they don't really need to put -- they didn't need to put eric on, and they didn't need, i don't think, tomorrow, to put donald trump on. one of the reasons we felt that they may come and they put don jr. on was to get certain evidence in, and that just isn't the case this time. i think he could only of dunham sophomore damaged by showing up tomorrow. given his performance the first time, we know from that and a history of him testifying and giving depositions that are usually very testy -- i just don't see any point for him in continuing to upset is judge. diane, i wanted tyou about the other ruling in this case. on thursday, you had a panel state and appellate division judges -- dissolving some of trump's businesses as a result of his finding that he and his company had in fact engaged in persistent fraud. trump has celebrated this decision as a win, but can you walk us through what this actually means for the ex president and his businesses in practice? is it a win? >> well, for mr. trump, delay is usually a win. that is his m.o.. he has done successfully for many, many years. so here, the fate of his business will, you know, live to perhaps die another day. it is simply a stay, as you say. it just means that the execution of the punishment will not be immediate. and that is not surprising. this corporate death penalty that the judge had ordered is quite unusual. and so, i think the appellate division, wanting to give it some time, see how the trial pans out, see what the evidence shows, and decide in a more measured fashion. so not a surprise. again, highly unusual for these business certifications to be pulled. and i think it really is just a wait and see kind of approach >> suzanne, let me ask you about another defense witness who testified in court last week. he lived by a trough, and accounting professor at new york university, it's interesting, because we later learned that the former president's -- action committee paid for portion of his fees, and while it's not unusual for a defendant in this -- what does the use of campaign funds possible signal about trump's finances here? >> i'm so glad you mentioned that, because i just found that fascinating. you're seeing not only in this form, but you've seen his pack in other instances pay legal fees, and it really does go to the idea that, you know, at least in part, donald trump seems to be running in order to raise money to pay for all of these legal proceedings. the numbers that were involved with an expert who is still got potentially some time left on the stand, there was an upward of 1 million dollars, some of that was being paid for by his pack. i think it's good that we found that out, and it's important to amplify it. this is not the trump organization solely picking up these bills. it's very much, you know, you see it's a political proceeding, but political rhetoric that's going on, and in fact, it's being paid for by political money that's coming in. >> danya, the defenses only other remaining witnesses bartos, whose cross-examination will resume tuesday, and, then as i mentioned, the trial is scheduled to go on break until january 11th for the holidays. talk us through what we could expect to see once the court goes back in possession. how close are we to actually getting a ruling from judge engoron here? >> it sounds like the cross examination will happen on tuesday. the accounting expert. and as we understand it, that's the last defense witness. the prosecution has the opportunity to put on a rebuttal case. we'll see if they do. and then, they'll be closing statements, and the judge has said, and that could happen as early as this week or next, and the judge has said that he expects that he will rule by the end of january. so it's not as immediate as a jury verdict, of course, but it's pretty soon. it certainly will in advance of any of the other trials that are coming up in the spring and on. >> susan, you've been following trump for decades, you probably know his finances better than anyone. a few moments ago, we laid out some of what he risks losing come judgment. how do you think that's weighing on the ex president? is he scared? and how important is it? we've all gotten to learn trump before his presidency, as trump, the real estate magnate of new york. these were his crown jewels, if you will. and to see these crown jewels potentially stripped away from him, what, if anything, will they do to the psychology of this man? >> i think we've seen it play out. i think so many people have been surprised just how rattled he is by this. i have to say, having studied his finances now for years, i'm not -- i, mean this is really his essence. when you talk about is money, it's the language that he speaks. and this -- may be at stake. it's the inheritance of his children and his grandchildren. it's just a big deal. and he stands to lose, you know, hundreds of millions of dollars. that's why people are talking, it comes in around 200 and $50 million -- that is big money. you think about the fact he's probably gonna have to sell assets to meet that tab. i think about it just in terms of one asset. he sold, in washington d.c., a hotel, the old post office hotel that's family had rehabbed. it was sort of the last project that they did going into the white house, that they sold that. just from that, he got about 100 and $30 million. that's not a profit. they put a lot of money into that. but that was the distribution that he got from that. just to give you an idea, probably their best asset was sold, that's what he got from it, you know, they're gonna have to come up with a lot of money. we don't know what he's bought from the live golf tournament and some of the other things he's done post presidency. but that's a lot of money for someone, anyone, to come up with, and that penalty when it comes will not be taxed -- tax deductible. it's a significant deal for him. also, just his inability to do business in new york city, he's a boy from queens, and he made his name in new york. he owns not sick -- not in significant assets here, and he's gonna be run out of town. >> a very important point about that post office building converted to a hotel. became the subject of a lot of scrutiny when people realize the foreign governments were paying to stay at that hotel, and people were looking as to whether or not it was a way to gain favor with the sitting president and his family at the time. danya perry, susan -- thank you to both of you. greatly appreciate your time and insights this evening. up next, i'll speak with democratic congressman zoe lofgren about republican revisionist history and the new speakers efforts to protect january 6th rioters. and the giggles. the family that takes delsym together, feels better together. every day, more dog people, and more vets are deciding it's time for a fresh approach to pet food. they're quitting the kibble. and kicking the cans. and feeding their dogs dog food that's actually well, food. developed with vets. made from real meat and veggies. portioned for your dog. and delivered right to your door. it's smarter, healthier pet food. get 50% off your first box at thefarmersdog.com/realfood i'm free to explore. i'm free to learn. i'm free to forge my own path. contra costa college is free for full-time students, which makes you free to explore all the incredible opportunities unleashed by higher learning. >> when mike johnson was start your future and apply today at contracosta.edu/free campaigning for a speakership made a promise to some of the more extreme members of his caucus. it was a play like this. he would agree to release tens of thousands of hours of revenue from january 6th, that is what he wanted to do to basically placate them. it was a move that the far right house republicans have long pushed for an order to rewrite the history of that data because they wanted to find out who was there, get to the bottom of it. johnson said that he and his colleagues are blurring the footage in order to protect the rioters from being charged with crimes. here is what johnson, a man who was deeply involved in efforts to overturn our 2020 elections, had to say about that move. >> we want the american people to draw their own conclusions. i don't think that partisan elected officials in washington should present a narrative and expect that it should be seen as the ultimate truth. >> interesting strategy there. wanting the public to see the quote, ultimate truth, by blurring raw footage. what exactly is johnson trying to accomplish here? joining me to discuss, this congresswoman -- from california. she's a member of the january six committee tasked with investigating this attack on the capital. thanks for saying, we welcome back on the. show let's there with the general reaction to that go mind johnson. who do you think is behind the blurring of people's faces in this january 6th footage? and what do you think their strategy is here? >> i just listen to what he said. i served with mike and the judiciary committee for years. he is not a casual guy. he has been slowly and deliberately -- what he said is that he is trying to keep their identity away from the prosecutors. to keep them from being prosecuted for the crimes they were committing. it is pretty shocking but that is what he said. it is obstructing justice in a way. what he against him know is that the video with the rioters had already been given to the fbi and that they were not released a video that did not have right terms in it for the escape routes in that we try to keep that for security purposes back. i guess they're going to let that go to. it endangers the institution, and the people in it. >> that is an interesting point. you are saying that he made released footage that the committee and congress did not want to at the time for the reason i'm not jeopardizing the security and members of congress and the functioning of congress. he may release that footage and by doing so ultimately risk members of congress down the road in the future. knowing what these escape routes are. >> he said he is going to release it all. take him at his word. and all of it shows some escape routes that the capitol police were very adamant should not be made public for security purposes. so that would not be too wise. but really, they are trying to spin a brutal riot, where more than 160 power police officers and metropolitan police officers were -- eyes gouged out, fingers lost. injuries so severe some of them could not get back to work. and somehow, this was a picnic. this was a long mark, that was absurd. they released a lot of video. you can watch with your own eyes what happened. -- so was mike. we were evacuated. and now to try to make it into something else is really -- you must think people are stupid right now. they can convince them not to believe there -- >> it is such an important point about not believing they're lying eyes. they did something the republican party does, they ghastly american public. -- in trying to rewrite american history? it is not that long. it has been three years since january six. and yet republicans are trying to make it as protesters defending our democracy. a rigged election. and it seems to be working with their base. the overwhelming majority of republicans believe the 2020 election was stolen. and january six was nothing more than the protest against the election. >> apparently people did not get the actual video. fox news did not cover this. there was an effort which luster you revealed in the book, to actually have them put on tv. they decided not to. they put out a false narrative to try to convince people. i think it is pretty sad that this riot, this effort by the then president to overturn the election through violence it is not understood by people who support it. it's a dangerous thing that people were hurt. but the constitution was endangered. and there was a lot of talk now about what trump would do if he got a second term in terms of democracy. we can take a look at what he did leading up to january 6th and on the six to get the answer to that question. this is not a guy who believes in the constitution or democracy or the rule of law. >> let me ask you about some of the republican colleagues in the house i'm going to do next. jim jordan has announced that they're going to do an investigation between the cooperation of the january six committee and -- fani willis. give me a general response. here is that unusual? second of all, what do you make of their attempt to kind of conflate the to and use that as some kind of conspiracy that there is something nefarious going on? >> it is absurd. as it turns out, the dea did send a letter. and asked for us to send a transcript. we had a discussion and we decided we were not going to send it. the transcripts will be released to the public. and anybody else who wants them when it is done. there was nothing improper about her seeing information and talking to her lawyers and trying to find out who the witnesses were. that was public because the press would stay out, telling her and anyone else who the witnesses were. does nothing against the republicans. they do not have anything. the ex president is being prosecuted for a variety of things. and they're trying to cast doubt. there is no role for the legislative body to play in criminal prosecutions. but jordan's heedless as to that, along with his colleagues on the other side of the aisle. they're trying to interfere with the administration of justice. it is highly improper. >> speaking of what the president and the republicans are trying to do there, you have them unveiling a resolution about an inquiry. they're confident they have the votes to approve it. give me your thoughts on that. how do you think they can counter program this baseless probe? we have -- basically saying that the indictment of hunter biden was part of a cover-up. >> thes