thanks so much for joining us this afternoon on cnn news central. i'm horse sanchez -- we're closely tracking the closing arguments in the donald trump civil fraud trial in new york. the prosecution is set to begin in just a few minutes, a short time ago during the trump defense argument, the judge allowed the former president to address the court. trump used the opportunity to reiterate the claims -- almost every time he's appeared at this trial, to the point where the judge cut him off after five minutes. >> but trump is making sure that he will have his say. this hour he's also going to be

making public remarks. once again using a court appearance as an unofficial campaign event. we have full coverage, cnn's paula reid and kara scannell who is beside the courthouse, is there right now outside the courthouse in downtown manhattan. paula, tell us where things stand. >> closing arguments are supposed to be in our opportunity for lawyers to summarize their case, in this case in front of a judge, but they're not only speaking to the judge today, they're also making their closing arguments in the court of public opinion trying to frame this entire civil case as a political persecution. yesterday the judge appeared to close the door on the possibility of trump participating in today's closing arguments, and for the first few hours it was just trump's lawyer chris kise summarizing their case, emphasizing they believe he's being targeted for political reasons, emphasizing that their client had no motivation to defraud deutsche bank. at the very end, though, guys

asked if his former -- could speak, the judge allowed it and not surprisingly trump went on a bit of a rant, attacking the district attorney, attacking the judge, attacking the entire process. as you noted, our colleague kara scannell was in court today. this was a little bit of a surprise but it wasn't really a surprise that trump got the final word, right? >> right. it wasn't supposed to happen, but with this trial a lot of things happen that we don't see coming. the reason why the judge let trump speak is the he said initially from had the most to lose in this case. his business in new york is on the line, he could face a fine or discouragement of $370 million, so really a significant amount of money. so the judge let him speak. he gave him about a five minutes, he had a hard stop at 1:00 for lunch, and that is the reason why judge cut him off. -- trump was speaking pretty rapidly wanting to make the point he wanted to make, and he did go beyond just the facts the case, attacking the new

york attorney general letitia james in the process. at some point the judge, he's -- he's had a lot of back and forth -- the same was true when trump was there speaking before the judge. the judge saying to trump you have your own agenda, understand that, and then saying to chris kise, mr. kise try to control your client, trying to rein trump in. -- i did nothing wrong, they should pay me for what i've had to go through, would -- trump getting a little bit of his words there before the judge. he did testify in this case, and he's going to be making more public statements later before the cameras, which he has used every opportunity coming to court as an opportunity to speak to the public. the real work meaning double the -- try to convince the judge that he shouldn't find trump and his two adult sons liable, that he shouldn't ban them from doing business in new york, that he should dissolve their businesses, which is he has

already set in motion. they were trying to stick to the facts of the case, saying that the attorney generals office didn't put on a single witness to say that they were defrauded in this case. the allegations are here that trump has engaged in false financial statements with values of his properties, mar-a-lago, is xxx apartment, overly inflated. he's -- get better terms on policies and interest rates on loans. they were saying they did not hear from one person in this case who said that they would have done anything differently have they had financial statements that they said were accurate. they also made the point that these financial statements did comply with the accounting rules. and the judge interrupting at various times saying that he didn't find some of their witnesses that credible, in this case, so he is already indicated that he does not fully buy their argument. but of course he was hearing the make their final case today, and also a lawyer for donald trump jr. and eric trump, his sons were running the business, he was -- there so much on the line for them. again, this judge likes to make

jokes and stuff, and he said now is not the time your honor, this is a serious business. their business, their livelihood is at stake in this decision, that you will ultimately render. now we're expecting just a short while from now -- give their closing statements, they will have -- they said they think they go about an hour, they will have to the end of the day. -- trying to re-count their case, trying to remind -- rule in their favor. >> you make a important point, about the trump family. for them this is incredibly personal. for former president trump is also political. he had three chances already to speak to the public, he addressed cameras on his way in, he spoke to the judge, spoke briefly on the way out, and then he's expected to give a statement -- where he'll take questions, oppressive it will biloxi shortly thereafter. this is quite a contrast from what we saw in federal court on tuesday. he showed up, tried to -- oral arguments in d.c., but

federal court is quite a different thing. there are no cameras in the courtroom, there's no -- and you pull into a garage. no one sees you. he really didn't get much of a return on his investment showing up to federal court, so making sure to make the most of it today is of course not only -- he is of course once again running for the white house. it's important -- the argument that he's making to the electorate about how this is all political, election interference he calls it, just as important for him of course. breonna, boris? >> pauline kara, thank you so much. let's bring in former federal prosecutor elliott williams, republican strategist alice stewart, and joe biden biographer evan osnos with us. pretty interesting to hear what trump said in court this monologue, although he was cut off. i just wonder what you thought about the closing argument, if it was convincing? >> not anymore convincing that what's already come out. now look, the argument that the former president is making is that number one this is

politically motivated. you can set that aside because not a legal argument, it's a political one, it's a social one, whatever it is. this other point that valuing real estate is inherently subjective, who among us ladies and gentlemen has not overvalue to property by a factor of three? which is essentially the argument he's making, and that they're just trying to plate that. they know, i think, at this point that they're going to lose money on this, it's just a question of the what the judge decides, how much that's going to be. >> i think elliott is assuming that the reason donald trump went into that courtroom is to make a legal argument, and we all know that wasn't the case. he went into that are courtroom to make a political statement, and he did so. he went up there saying look, my documents were in perfect order, nothing to see here, and he also relied in his mindset on what he does know. letitia james is the attorney general of new york, campaigned on taking donald trump down, and donald trump has relied on that despite the fact that she has put forth evidence to show that he over inflated the value of his homes despite the fact

that she's put forth evidence that -- show that he didn't apply to county standards. he is ignoring all that, and he's making his case in the court of public opinion that she is using this as a political witch hunt, that he is a victim, and this is one of many legal cases against him that are nothing more than weapons 90s a shun upon prosecutors, weaponization of the d.o.t.. i don't agree with that, but that's his argument, and he's not making that as much to the courtroom today but as the court of public opinion writ large. >> and so far as -- it appears to be working for him. the revival -- cnn debate, ron desantis and nikki haley, tried to make the case that this would be a distraction for voters. it doesn't seem to be hurting him in iowa. in a general election though, the way the white house sees this, it's an advantage. >> i think the reality is what you heard on the stage last night's nikki haley same thing to people who do you want to return to chaos. what this court case has been for many americans, if you're not already in the trump camp,

is a reminder of all the theatrical, all the drama, all the expended dinner table conversation that goes on with donald trump's epicenter of the action from the joe biden campaign perspective that's fine. they're not looking to win over a whole lot of people who are at the core of trump space, they want people who say it's time to move away from that. >> one of the things, and i think this is part of the reason why this case, even though we pay so much attention to the federal election subversion case, this case is so critical because it really goes to donald trump's identity. he purports to be the shrewd businessman, and at stake here is whether or not he will be able to conduct business in new york. the idea of that is almost unfathomable. do you see that happening, and if that were the case, what would not even look like, do we know? >> this is sort of like the movie from the 90s, it's complicated. yes, the trump organization would cease to have the ability to operate in new york if it's business certificates were taken away.

it gets a bit complicated because what do you do with existing loans that they might have? what do you do with assets? do you saw the companies? could they move to another state, reincorporate there, and then do business. what would happen is you just open up late more litigation, and i don't think anybody knows for certain what would happen given how complicated the trump organization's, and their business relationships are not just in the city of new york but around the country. but yes, -- to do business in new york, and it's not good for them. >> elliott, what does an appeals process look like in this case? >> they would have a right to appeal to the appellate division in the state of new york, based on the ruling that the judge makes. the judge here is going to write up, i would do some very -- he has to document his reasons for why he's assigning the money that he is, what remedy that's forcing -- and then the appeals court will assess what was supported by

law, or did the judge make any errors here because of how complicated the case was, and how many feelings that were the -- did he step in something along the way. that's for the appeals court to sort out. >> you mentioned that you didn't necessarily agree with it, but as he's trying to cast that this is a political agenda, it's worth mentioning that this is the new york a.g. who took on andrew cuomo. he had over his accounting of covid deaths in his state, that really hurt him politically, put a huge dent in his image following covid. i don't know how he actually makes that case factually. >> because it works in his favor. clearly she is an equal opportunity lot enforcement officer, and going after whoever breaks the law regardless of what side of the political aisle you're on. to your point, this is more than just legal case against donald trump, it's more than losing an election. this is the core of donald trump's bravado, being a real

estate tycoon in new york city. if this case were to come down and strip him of that ability to brag on that, that hurts him to the core. he is going to push back on this, and use this as he is done all of these cases, saying that he has done nothing wrong and this is just an overzealous liberal justice and law enforcement official. >> there was a powerful point earlier in trial, i think it is today or yesterday, where the argument was made that while my client is an expert and business. and the judge slap that down saying no, in order to certify someone as an expert in court, there is actually a legal process based on his education, training, and experience. you can't say that here. you can say nice things about him, but you can't call him an expert in court for the reason. >> i think there's a sign that -- his defensive's been expensive, they put more than $2 million in getting experts are going to make the case. he wouldn't do that if he thought this was an unambiguous when. the reality is, at the end of this process, it will no longer be a rumor, an allegation, a question of whether donald trump inflates's business identity. it will be a matter of fact, a

matter of the record. that is a fundamental difference between what was in 2020 and 2016. >> we've repeatedly referred -- pointing the finger at president biden for putting his hand on the scale, but if trump becomes the republican nominee, how does biden attack him while simultaneously seeming as though he's not involved at all in the justice department and their proceedings? >> it's no accident that you haven't heard joe biden coming out and talking about this case a great deal. he is deliberately not putting his finger, is thumbprint, on the scale in a public way. he knows that would be a disaster. for one thing, when the cases he's made is that he's not going to interfere in the justice department the way donald trump has. from his perspective, he's happy to let the process play out on its own. it seems to be working out pretty well to the biden campaign's advantage. >> this could be very expensive, you have the a.g. wanting $370 million in return profits. it's called disgorgement because trump is arguing that there's no victim here, but it's not like -- you can't steal ten bucks from your mom, make 50 bucks, you

put the ten bucks back and you keep the 40, i think everyone knows that's not okay right? do you actually, boris? we're gonna talk after the show. evolution do that, that's my little example of that. but she is this late ad, put that dollar amount, -- when would trump, with that be the award? when would he have to pay if there is some sort of award? >> once he's exhausted his appeals and if he's lost, he will have to pay. if not pay, sell property off like we were talking about earlier or figure out a way to make that money come up. again the judge has to document how he's getting to that dollar amount, regardless of whether the prosecutor added it at the late stages, the judge has to have the basis for awarding it, and whether it's ill gotten gains on the part of trump or punitive in some way, whatever it might be, you have to be able to substantiate why you're doing it. >> elliott, alice, evan, a pleasure to have the conversation. i'll get you lose ten bucks back, i promise. >> he'll bring in the 40, to.

that's the point. >> i have not made such promises. >> i'll talk to him. >> we'll figure that out later, still ahead, still four days to go to the iowa caucuses, ron desantis and nikki haley going head to head in the cnn debate. the fight for number two is on, we'll walk through who came out on top, and how they might plan to take on trump and president biden. >> plus we have some breaking news. the faa opening a investigation into boeing's quality control after that terrifying alaska airlines incident when a part of the plane, that door plug, popped off midair. and one of michael strahan's teen daughter diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor. what we're learning about the cancer, and how many others suffer from this same kind.

after all the polls, pundits, and predictions, we're just four days away from the first actual votes in the race for the white house in 2024. the iowa caucus countdown, you're looking at right now. caucus goers got the first chance to see republicans ron desantis and nikki haley square of one-on-one at the cnn debate last night. the two contenders went more

after each other than the man they have to beat, front runner donald trump. here's a taste of last night. >> i've said it again, ron so, stop lying. >> and then she said she never said it, of course you're lying. >> it doesn't change the fact that ron's line, because ron is losing. >> i thought he lied a lot, man, nikki haley maybe gives him a run for his money. >> let's discuss with veteran pollster and communications strategy or franklin's, frank thanks for being with us. you posted that ron desantis won last night, why do you say that? >> because i was there at the debate, and by the way can i give cnn props for hosting what was a really insightful, intelligent discussion with the two candidates. sure they went out each other, and they went at each other in the significant way, when you call someone a liar that's tough politics. that said, smart questions, smart approach. you kept the candidates in order, but you asked what

people wanted to know. the reason why desantis did well is because of the first 30 minutes. he did a better job of articulating precisely why he is the better alternative than either donald trump or nikki haley. it was an anti government, anti government, pro states rights, the message was so crystal clear and it was him at his best. one has to wonder, where is this wrong desantis been over the last six months? >> i have to admit, frank, i had zero to do with the moderating the excellent moderating of my colleagues, jake tapper and dana bash. but i will take the credit for them, thank you. on the serious note, though, is there enough time for desantis to really do anything in iowa that will help him catch up to trump? >> well he has to come in second, and nikki haley is gaining and gaining fast. she was affective yesterday in criticizing the chaos that goes with donald trump and the idea

that you have to make sure that you can beat joe biden. in fact, haley's past argument is an electability argument, that she is the candidate who gets the most votes from the most states to put her over the top. is there enough time? yes, there's enough time. but with four days to go who wins, who comes in second in iowa, is up for grabs. and the actual winner of new hampshire, which is eight days after the iowa caucus, that is absolutely too close to call. >> there was a zinger that caught my attention, that haley hit desantis on. it has to do with his organization, his campaign organization. but one caucus goer that cnn spoke to didn't feel like it was much of a hard hit. let's listen to what that caucus goer said. >> i felt like she was weak, and when you couldn't come up with some answers she kept referring to how desantis isn't

a good leader because he can't manage his campaign finances. >> there is dysfunction we've reported on with desantis's pack, i'm wondering why you think that line from haley may not have worked, and also if some of that dysfunction could hurt desantis in the long run? >> it hurts desantis, but make no mistake that it's good that you showed it to your viewers. nobody cares about how a campaign is ron, frankly nobody cares about whether they run negative advertisements. what they care about is number one the ability to win, and what did not happen yesterday was a case to be made against president biden. other something all say to your viewers, imagine joe biden against either those two candidates. what would happen in that debate. no one cares about process, they care about results. the second thing is they care about issues, social issues, economic issues, and on those the two candidates were very impressive. what i was surprised that was

something that i have trouble doing even in an interview like this. no i'm's, no office. they vote spoke fast, they spoke clearly, they gave presentations. and i was frankly thinking, what happens when you put joe biden into that debate standing? what is he going to do? and that should have been what either those candidates talk about, because in the end it's a republican caucus debate, a republican primary debate. you have to be looking at what comes next in september and october. >> frank, i noticed a social media post in which you alluded to some of what you're talking about now. issues that you see with president biden. you said in that social media posts that if you had to bet, you would bet that donald trump would win the 2024 election. breakdown the logic for us, why do you believe that? >> it's a very tough thing for me to include, but i'm watching number one is trans. where the numbers going?

number two is, can you project nine months, ten months in the future? and in each of these, the republican candidates aren't gaining. inflation is lessening, the economy is strong, and yet the president isn't getting any credit for it. we have global problems, we have this issue in the middle east, we still have the challenge of china. once again, not getting any better at all. as i look at those protections, and where see where they stand right now, trump continues to gain despite the law dramas. despite the felony accusations. despite all the things that have been raised, trump is gaining. this is him and his weakness, and of joe biden at his strength. it is remarkable that trump should be relieving at this point in the campaign. >> franklin's, we're gonna pick up the conversation at a different point, likely after iowa. very quickly, any predictions

in iowa outside of donald trump winning? >> no, because it is too close to call, but i urge you to focus that what happens 15 days from now could well determine who are next president is, and that's the new hampshire primary. too close to call. >> all right, franklin's, thanks again, appreciate your time. still ahead, boeing is now being investigated by federal officials after part of an alaska airlines plane ripped off midair. the boeing ceo says the door plug was the issue, and it was caused by a quote, quality escape. what we're learning about the investigation and the safety of certain 737 max 9 planes. plus breaking news, we just -- under biden has arrived in court to face federal tax charges in los angeles. we'll take you there for a live report in just moments.

we have our eyes right now on 40 wall street, this is the trump building where the former president is expected to be speaking any moment, following closing arguments in the civil fraud trial. that is wrapping out up there in manhattan. he did unexpectedly, and harry is about to approach and make some comments. we will be fact checking this after he speaks. he says a number of things in his five minutes in court today that were untrue. the judge actually cutting him off, so we will be watching very carefully, listening very carefully, this is his attorney of course who is speaking there ahead of the president. let's listen in. >> there's not one piece of paper that showed anyone

committed fraud, and don't forget that section 60 3:12, but a couldn't sue mere fraud statute has been wrongfully used against my client -- the organization, and every employee of the trump organization which has single-handedly changed the new york skyline, including the building we are in today. these are special properties. real estate is an art, not a science. but you know what else is an art? you know what else is not a science? political motivated individuals. she's using this to paint a canvas that donald trump is a fraudster, because they can't beat him in the polls. they can't beat him in the polls, so she ran on trump because that's the only way she could win. now, today, after 11 weeks, after three years of, we have concluded that he indeed committed no wrong.

the trump organization committed no wrong, and the kids have been dragged just like the other defendants. and it is wrong. america needs to step up, and there's only one person who can do that. my client, donald trump. president trump, everybody. >> thank you very much, we've gone through years with this person. she's a political hack, the attorney general. the judge is obviously extremely friendly with the group, and we will see what happens of, i think he maybe will surprise people on a surprise positive side. we'll have to see what happens exactly. we've proven this case so conclusively. we've asked for a directed verdict at many times. they don't have any facts, they don't have any evidence against us. millions and millions of pages, years of litigation, and all politically motivated. she campaigned on a i will get trump, if you've ever seen any of the cnn clips, they're horrible clips actually. the anger she's got seriously

trump derangement cyst syndrome, there's no question about laetitia james, the corrupt attorney general of new york. we've proven our case, there is not one witness against us other than one person who is a deranged -- he's got a lot of problems. he's been a man who's been convicted of lying, he's a felon, a convicted felon. and not a good person. but that's their only witness, and he is now crashed and burned. they have no witnesses. and by the way, that witness took back everything he said. in court. he took it all back. so they have no case, it's a shame that a thing like this is able to happen. businesses leave new york, if you went after exxon and they decided to move to texas, and hundreds of millions of dollars they paid in taxes. i've paid over $300 million of taxes over the last number of years, 300 million. and they don't recognize that. they don't recognize anything. think of it, not one witness,

millions of pages of documents, years of this nonsense and now goes on. and one other factor -- we won this case already, in the court of appeals. the court of appeals voted in favor of us, but this judge has been very slow to accept that opinion because it's not the opinion that he wants. but we won in the court of appeals, that's the boss of this judge has to know that. there was a conclusive victory, statue of limitations and other things, and that case has already been won. that's the story, and i thought we'd come down to 40 wall street, which is a great building. you'll get a chance to see one of the nicest building in new york, and it convenient place, and i don't have to pay any rent because we have it and it's been a very successful building. it's a shame to have to have gone through this for years and years. and now we'll see if we're gonna get an honest verdict. we didn't have a jury, we have no rights to a jury. it's a statute that has never been used before for a purpose

like this, i just watched a certain broadcast and they said they've been looking, has it ever been used before? this is a statute that is a consumer fraud statute that is never been used for anything like this before, and it's a shame. it's really a witch hunt, in the true sense of the word. its election interference, and it just came out it was just right now letitia james visited joe biden in the white house numerous times during the trump witch hunt, and this just came out about ten minutes ago, i got it. it's all or conspiracy to try to get -- get him into office. i just want to let you know that we have our best poll numbers, we have the best everything despite this, and maybe because of this. because the people of the united states, all those people back there, but the people of united states really get it. they get it better than anyone else. , yes please?

>> -- you should not be prosecuted, or could not be prosecuted if you were -- >> you're talking about a totally different case. the immunity. i say this, on immunity, very simple. if a president of the united states do not have immunity, he'll be totally ineffective because he won't be able to do anything because it will mean he'll be prosecuted, strongly prosecuted perhaps, as soon as he leaves office by the opposing party. a president of the united states, i'm not talking just me i'm talking any president that has to have immunity -- you could get him on the border, you can get him on what happened in afghanistan, the horrible most embarrassing moment in the history of this country, you can get him on a lot of different things. you can get him taking cash from countries. you can get him on the prosecutor not prosecuting his son, or the company, or whoever it was. in ukraine. you can get him on that.

where it was a quid pro quo, if you remember that. if they don't drop the prosecutor, we're not giving him a billion dollars of u.s. funds. if you don't have immunity, you know i mean you won't be making any decisions, so you have to have it. i likened it to the fact that police have to have their control back, they have to have respect, and you could always have a bad apple, you can always have something happen but at the same time you have to stop crime in this country. it's very much like that, it's very similar to that, but you have to have immunity for the president and i think most people are seeing that. i've read a lot of legal reports lately and scholarly reports that are saying you really have to have a president of this country has to have immunity, or they're not going to be able to function in office. >> we're just days away from the iowa caucuses, what percentage of your time these days is spent on your campaign? what percentage is spent on

your legal issues? >> we'll see, my legal issues every one of them, civil, and the criminal ones, are all set up by joe biden. crooked joe biden. this is something that has never happened in this country, even when you look at this. this is all about biden and -- so even the civil ones, they're set up by biden. every single just about how a case that i'm involved in is set up by biden. they're doing it for election interference. and in a way i guess you could consider it part of the campaign, because if you look really look at it, they are doing this. it's never been done like this in this country, it's like we're a third world country, a banana republic. but every one of the things that you're right about our biden indictments. and i don't know, we just had a poll, it just came out and we're leading massively in iowa. we're leading very big in new hampshire. because the people understand this stuff. these are all set up, every

time somebody sees me in court, remember, joe biden and his dogs that surround him did it. they are trying to get a man in office you can put two sentences together, and they're doing that. but so far we seem to do very well. >> the iowa caucuses monday, and -- we'll be back in court for the eugene carroll case on wednesday? >> that's another one. that sponsored by reed hoffman and democrat operatives. i never saw this woman in my life other than i have a picture with her and her husband -- a newscaster, i remember him. she said horrible things about him since. horrible horrible things. called him bad names. i have no idea who this woman is, i have absolutely no idea. the whole thing is ridiculous, this is even a case. this should never have happened. but again this is sponsored by the democrats. it's another case, all sponsored -- it's demeaning kind of thing, and that's all they want to do. it's called election interference. and yes, i'm going to go to it,

and i'm going to explain i don't know who the she is. i've no idea. they called me up years ago and they said do you know about this woman, 25 or 30 years ago. she doesn't even know the dates, the time, the month the, season. she has no idea. and if you read and you watch, take a look at the anderson cooper interview of her. if you take a look at that, trump is so innocent, but we have been given a very unfair trial there. i don't get very fair trials in new york. >> -- whether you're gonna shop for the federal trial, -- civil fraud trial, you just said you're going to show up for the eugene carroll case, are you planning to show up in court whenever -- documents case? >> while the documents case, i just hear when they want to exonerate biden and he he did have the presidential records act, and i do. i did nothing wrong. what he did, a lot of people

say substantially wrong. you can't have two cues of justice in this country, but i want to go to all my trials. these are all set up by biden and the democrats. this is their new form of cheating. this is like last time, this is the new form of cheating. so far i think it's gone very much against them. >> yeah, during the hearing you said that exxon left new york because of -- exxon actually left in 1989. >> no they took the rest of the divisions out. they're left earlier. they were treated very badly in new york, you could have had them in new york, they could've been paying a lot of money. >> but it wasn't laetitia james. >> i think if you take a look, you read the case, you'll see that they took big divisions out after that. they originally left, and then they took the rest. >> you said you're going to -- you can get president biden on various issues you outlined. >> i didn't say i could get him

on anything, i said he is using the weaponization of the doj and the fbi to go after his political opponents. and you just can't do that. thank you very much. [inaudible] >> all right, there is former president donald trump after his civil fraud trial, his closing argument had wrapped up their. we just have to fact check a lot, and brace yourself, because this is going to take a moment there. listen, the overarching message that he was really putting out there was he was saying that joe biden indictment. it's not. it's a civil fraud trial in new york, joe biden did not set this up, he was going after the attorney general there in new york, letitia james who is calling her a hack, it was saying that she was corrupt. keep in mind there is someone else who went after her for an investigation she did and that was andrew cuomo, the former

democratic governor of new york. she uncovered and put out a quite detailed and well supported report on his covid death numbers that had been manipulated. he was saying all along there is no evidence of fraud. yes there is. his attorney was saying that, yes there is. that's already been determined here, that he actually inflated the value of his assets by a factor of three. >>'s attorney at one point made the argument they made in court, that real estate is an art, not a science. the square footage of a property is a determined thing you can measure, it's not really an art. the president, the former president, also made the case that his argument won in the court of appeals and the judge arthur engoron is ignoring that because it's not the result he wants. that's actually a misrepresentation of what took place. the court of appeals scaled back the initial case that was made by laetitia james, determining that the statute of

limitation when -- removing his daughter ivanka trump from the tate case itself. very far from saying that the appeals court sided with him, in fact the appeals court would have shut the case down according to legal experts if they had felt there wasn't a case there. further, the president made the case that there was only one witness against him, and that was his former fixer michael cohen. someone who he said was a convicted felon, convicted of lying. michael cohen was convicted in part for lying on behalf of former president trump, so make of that what you will. he also made claims about -- joe biden, things that were largely false. the president though vowing that he's going to continue attending all of his court cases as the campaign trail continues in the 2024 presidential election. >> it was interesting, his attorneys saying real estate is an art, not science. there's also math. and the thing about math is

that it's pretty clear cut, and he got it wrong. there is something he did say that it is true, which is that he said the 40 wall street building is beautiful. that's actually true, it's on the national historic register. >> i'm not seen it. that is subjective. >> you probably actually have seen it in the skyline, it's a beautiful building, built in 1930 before donald trump was never born though it does currently bear his name. let's get to paul arrayed, for the really important fact checking here. which is this -- you know he wants to say this is -- >> it took us a while to get to you, this is a political agenda, this is a joe joe biden and folks around him who are doing this. but that's not what's happening here. >> now, -- state case where i'm here today, for the civil case, in manhattan brought by the new york district attorney. attorney general. now she is a state official, she has attended public events

at the white house, and again those are public record. trump and his lawyers have tried to suggest that those visits to the white house were apart of meetings to engage in a conspiracy. there is no evidence to support that. i will note, the new york attorney general did campaign on a promise to pursue trump, so that is fair to say. but two things can be true, that could be part of her campaign and there can be sufficient evidence to support a civil in this case, case against him. that's what the judge here is found. he also suggested that biden is engaging in a conspiracy related to the federal, the two federal cases he's facing. i want to note that while biden did appoint the attorney general merrick garland, garland appointed a special counsel, jack smith, an independent entity, to pursue those cases. both the -- classified documents case against former president trump. but merrick garland has also appointed special councils to look into president biden, rob hur looking into the possible

mishandling of classified documents by president biden, and also president biden's son. who also has a special counsel who was filed to criminal cases against him. so the idea that president biden is somehow weaponizes justice department to slowly go after trump, there's no evidence to support that. in fact attorney general merrick garland has appointed multiple special councils, one for trump, one for biden, and a different one for his son. there really is no evidence to support this idea that this is election interference by president biden. >> paula, please stand by, we have cnn legal analyst elliott williams with us to parse through some of these claims. i want to go back to this idea that the judge doesn't want to accept what the court of appeals has decided. that is false. >> it's false, and it's almost sad, for us at this point, because what we're seeing here and what we've seen from the former president is a pattern of taking a fact that is a kernel of truth to its, and spinning it, a colonel of legal

truth, and spinning it in a manner that is completely inaccurate, and people will believe this nonsense. okay, as you said, the court ruled claims originated before 2014 could not be brought into this trial. even for conduct that took place before 2014 but continued into the future could be brought into this trial and as you said ivanka trump that was the decision to set her conduct that touched her was kept out. there was one sentence that was accurate which was that the court ruled in her favor. everything else he said was wrong and twisted the facts of the case. it is a legitimate lawsuit. you don't have to agree with it. you are allowed as a litigant to zealously advocate on your own behalf. you cannot twist the facts particularly someone who used to be president in may will be again. it is just sad. >> you had his lawyer saying there isn't one piece of paper that anyone committed fraud. that is not even in question.

a foregone conclusion in this case that fraud was committed. the question is how much. we know that he valued his assets overvalued it by a factor of three. 812 million but then valued it at 2.2 billion. the allegation here of course is that that was done with the with an eye to securing benefit. >> i think saying we don't agree with the quantum of evidence that has been brought is very different than saying no witnesses to come forward and there is no paper instantiating that. you have literally the receipts. that came with valuations of property. now again to his point there is some art to real estate. and to some extent the valuation of property is subjective. but if you're reaching a point where you are over valuating the property by a factor of three yukon out of the ram of subjectivity and into the world

of fraud. that is what is happening here. s multiple standard deviations. >> look at you. >> while outside the bell curve. >> never took stats in college. >> i unfortunately did. >> complements the architecture of -- >> i'm with breanna. the part of the city with cobbled streets in front of it.>> it is to french gothic for me. i did look that up. let's go back to holler read. one of the things that donald trump also said during this back and forth with reporters had to do with the question of immunity earlier this week there was that hearing in the dc court of appeals that god consistently and since hypotheticals about whether a sitting president was allowed to plan the assassination of a political rival. trump walked through his belief that a president essentially can do anything if he is president. >> he asked about that

hypothetical that was posed by one of the judges in the federal oral arguments on tuesday. asking if a sitting president could order seal team six to assassinate a political rival and get away with it. the judge was trying to test the boundaries of trump's lawyers theory about absolute presidential immunity. now trump did not answer directly that hypothetical but instead talked about the importance of presidential immunity saying presidents have to have immunity otherwise you could sue them for things like the situation at the border with president biden. if you engaged in a drone strike. the important distinction here is that presidents do have immunity for the things that they do. as president. their official duties. the distinction the special counsel jack smith has made the trump case is that his alleged efforts to subvert the 2020 election were outside the scope of his official duties. you would expect presidents could engage in warfare

obviously in part in charge of what happens at the border. but they argued the special counsel argues the criminal charges are based on the idea that what trump was doing was outside the bounds of his official duties. and that is why they argue he should not have immunity. so he is arguing if he doesn't have immunity in the federal election subversion case all is lost and presidents will be sued for the things that they do day-to-day. there is an important nuance here. distinction. special counsel arguing what he was doing that is not something you were supposed to be doing as president. it would never be considered an official act and that they believe is why he should not have immunity. >> elliott over to you the question of immunity looming over this. specifically in regard to official duties. what you make of it request next this gets back to the point about the presidents m-o when talking about the law. as paula said there is a kernel of truth is that yes presidents

are immune. there's a long history of this case is going back to richard nixon in the 1970s about the president's actions are immune from lawsuit or prosecution if they are their official duties. the drone strike example with the perfect logical legal example you would have a president using the official tools of the presidency to commit a crime. he can't do that. the constitution does not allow that. nothing no longer written in the united states allows that. this is exactly to shoot somebody on fifth avenue the president ran for office on which is that i could just walk down the street and kill somebody and get away with it. he is making that point here. even though we want our presidents to not get sued or prosecuted if they cut your taxes or raise your taxes. you want them to be able to be prosecuted if they do call a drone strike on somebody and he is just wrong. >> very much appreciate the real-time factcheck. a lot to get through. >> stay with cnn. we are back in just

a few moments.

trishh