thanks for being with us on cnn news central. donald trump lashed out at his civil trial. nothing really new there. what is new he was able to make some more of those very same claims inside the courtroom today during closing arguments. the judge made the move of letting trump address the courtroom with $370 million and his ability to do business in new york on the line. trump spoke from the defense table. >> after five minutes the judge actually cut him off. prosecutors for the new york attorney general are giving their closing argument. we have

a reporter scattered across lower manhattan. including in the court room. let's start now with kristin holmes who got in a few questions with trump. down in wall street. kristin what else did we here at this press conference? >> reporter: at the top. it was very much what we heard before that this election interference in political persecution. he again said that this case was working in cahoots with president biden because biden did not want to run against him in 2024. a lot of the same. but i did ask him about something that was brought up by a judge in the case on tuesday was a hypothetical scenario. essentially asking how much immunity a president should have and does donald trump agree that if he were to order seal team six to kill a political opponent, should he not be prosecuted. here is what he said. >> that you should not be prosecuted or could not be prosecuted if you order seal

team six to kill a political opponent. >> you are talking about a totally different case. i say this on immunity very simple. if the president of united states does not have immunity, you will be totally ineffective because he won't be able to do anything. it will mean he will be prosecuted strongly prosecuted perhaps as soon as he leaves office by his but the opposing party. so a president of the united states i'm not talking just me, i'm talking any president has to have immunity. >> >> reporter: it certainly sounds like he is saying in some ways the president is above the law. of course what we are talking about is immunity claims case that we saw on tuesday. part of what trump's lawyers are arguing is that what he was doing in the election subversion case was part of his official duties. jack smith has said that was not part of his official duties. the other thing i want to point out as i asked if he was going to be attending the e jean

carroll case next week. he said yes. he was going to speak. i had questions out as to whether or not that is even a possibility. this is just the beginning the opening remarks of that case. second defamation trial against donald trump from i ching carol. but clearly he is going to continue on this path. he does not have to be in that court either. he did not have to be here today and he did not have to be in the federal court on tuesday. he is choosing to do this as he is merging his campaign events with his legal events. he is using all of these legal issues to elevate himself with media coverage to try and set all the oxygen out of the race and to try to really move the focus away from nikki haley and ron desantis who are both duking it out for 2nd place in iowa. >> is a very good point kristin thank you. actually that's mix. that's good to paula reed live outside the courthouse with where things stand with closing arguments. >> reporter: right now the

attorney general's office making their closing arguments. an eventful morning. the trump team presented their closing arguments to the judge. closing arguments are a chance for lawyers to summarize their case. after two hours of -- summarizing their defense trump used five minutes to attack the district attorney the judge to declare himself an innocent man.>> paula reed live outside the courthouse in new york. thanks so much. let's expand the conversation with a peer of legal experts. seth waxman and legal analyst norm ison. thank you both for being with us. if you are the prosecutor in that trial taking in the trump defense argument how do you feel about your case?'s very strong. i don't think donald trump's lawyers were really trying to fight back against this particular allegation. i think this was more about political theater.

the judge in the case has already ruled donald trump and his entities are liable. that was determined last fall. this was supposed to be about damages. if they were really trying to attack this case they would be saying look judge we think you got it wrong last fall but we respect your honest opinion. this talk about damages. what the attorney general wants $370 million is wildly inflated. the idea we should be forever barred from business in new york that is a ridiculous result. so you take those issues on. you wouldn't be saying this whole case is not good and that there is no basis in law to have found liability. the judge has already done that. that ship has sailed. smith it is a foregone conclusion the issue of fraud which you could not tell if you were just listening to trump and his lawyer. that is a very important point to consider. >> it is. the gravitational force of the judges summary judgment finding on that one count on the first count in the case is now slipping down through the

remaining six counts where trump is struggling to find a way to resist the judge reaching the same conclusion. and then the damages issue the money and the junction just like a corporate death penalty for trump and his family. they may be forced out of their businesses depending on what the judge does here. i thought that there were technical arguments and at times during this very long trial trump's team actually scored some points but they did not focus on that. in the argument today certainly not in donald trump's press conference. i listed the defenses that he laid out. that his financial valuations were perfect. that is not persuasive. we know his condo 10,000 square feet he said it was 30,000 square feet. and the same with mar-a-lago. 40 wall street. and the seven springs estate.

that there were no witnesses, the state put on witness after witness. expert witness fact witness. he put on members of donald trump's the state ags lawyers put on members of donald trump's on family. to substantiate that. and on and on and on. it just was not persuasive. >> curious about the argument from trump and his team that the result in this case the ultimate verdict perhaps barring him from doing business in new york could impact other businesses in the city. that if your claim? >> donald trump could be bear barred. that raises the question of donald trump incorporated a new company across the river in new jersey. that company were to do business is that going to be barred by this rule if the judge imposes it? what we will end up seeing may be as decades of education.

every time donald trump wants to do business in new york he creates a new entity or has one of his consiglio areas create a new company. there could be a cat and mouse game for years if not decades. the idea that this could bleed over into other company but each case stands on its own. abc company that is being run by john jones across the street has nothing to do with this case. this is focused on donald trump and his entities. >> if trump would only allow his lawyers to make real arguments. we saw this with the assassination position. that his lawyers were forced into. absolute immunity. he says absolute immunity the lack of absolute immunity will expose every president. we've gotten along fine for 250 years without absolute immunity. you can see the trump pressure on his lawyers. the smart thing one of the many smart things that his lawyer should have done today is hammer the remedies not just the money. this corporate death penalty. why?

the appellate division has already expressed skepticism about that remedy. on the earlier one count holding summary judgment. they put that on hold. why not surge there and make the judge second-guess they judge whatever you do on damages you can't do this. but, donald trump once again his own worst enemy. >> are you surprised there were negotiations between the defense and the judge because donald trump didn't want to take part in the closing arguments? the judge wanted there to be preconditions. donald trump's lawyers could not agree to them because he would not agree to them. go past the deadline so it looks like he is not going to be a part of the closing arguments. that he shows up and he ends up being part of the closing arguments anyway. are you surprised it went down like that? >> this is about political pageantry for donald trump speaking to voters. from the judges perspective this is a bench trial. there is no jury to worry about. certainly we had jurors that are not schooled in law there could be some concern that they

are inflammatory arguments irregular political speeches made at this jury may be unfairly tainted. the judge knows what evidence is relevant. what he should and should not be considered. i think at the end of the day donald trump has been talking about how he's been muzzled in the case. the judge gave him an opportunity to speak. so he no longer he donald trump no longer has that muzzling argument. >> very important what is actually going on in the judge has been clever about this. he is getting ready to give a gigantic damages verdict in very severe injunctive relief against donald trump he is preparing his case for appellate scrutiny. so now donald trump can't complain he would let me speak in court in my own defense on the last day. he said i will let you speak but only a little bit then he cut him off. >> appreciate the expertise. thank you so much. select plenty more news to come including hunter biden arriving at a california courthouse. he is set this face a judge for

arraignment on federal tax charges. all of this happening one day after he crashed a hearing on capitol hill. if you moments we will speak to a democratic lawmaker about that surprise appearance.

hunter biden is set to appear in a california federal court room on tax related charges in less than an hour after a plea deal collapsed last july at the last minute. in court is the judge's questions revealed the prosecution and biden were not on the same page about what the deal actually meant. prosecutors allege over four years hunter biden failed to pay one $.4 million in federal taxes. potentially even more. the younger biden faces nine counts including failure to pay

failure to file rather than pay taxes. evasion of assessment and filing a false or fraudulent tax return. if convicted he faces a maximum sentence of 17 years in prison. >> on capitol hill to house committees have now approved a contempt resolution against hunter biden for not complying with a subpoena to testify in a closed-door deposition as part of an impeachment inquiry into his father. that vote happening just hours after he unexpectedly showed up to be in the audience at the hearing right as republicans began the contempt proceedings. is lawmakers argued with each other we heard from one democrat who called that what he described as gop hypocrisy saying he would vote with them to hold the president son in contempt if they would support an amendment to at the names of republican lawmakers who also refused to comply with congressional subpoenas. >> here is the subpoena to representative scott perry who did not comply. i would like to enter this into the record.

here is the subpoena to mark meadows. i would like to enter this into the record who did not comply. here is the subpoena to jim jordan who did not comply. i would like to enter that into the record. he was the subpoena to mr. mccarthy who did not comply i would like to enter that into the record. joining as is a member of the house oversight committee democratic congressman from illinois --. thank you so much for being with us. dramatic moment there. intellectually consistent not so sure. here is my thing as i look at that. why would republicans refer jim jordan at all to doj for contempt when your party democrats in the house did not bother to refer jim jordan to doj when they had the chance and they did have the chance? >> i think that the bigger point is that unfortunately people aren't complying with these subpoenas. and yet it seems like there is a double standard with regard

to whether some are sanctionable and others are not. in this particular case again hunter biden wanted to testify openly. and yet the republican majority does not want that to happen. >> but some are sanctionable and others are not. but of that has to do with how congress itself has policed himself. right? congress is anyway determined which ones are sanctionable and there is a question of a double standard for members of congress. what about members of congress referring members of congress to doj? may be just refer them to ethics as democrats did with jim jordan which just died in committee because republicans took over. members of congress all of you part of the problem here when it comes to taking the teeth out of congressional subpoenas? >> i'm shocked you would accuse us of hypocrisy breanna. i think this place is a

forcefully sometimes a circus. there is a lot of that to go around. i think in this particular case what we know and this is something that a lot of republicans even say is that regardless of what is happening with hunter biden i have not seen a shred of evidence implicating his father in any wrongdoing let alone a high crime or misdemeanor or impeachable offense. >> what you think would happen if hunter biden did proceed with a closed-door testimony in a republican-led committee like this? >> what we've seen unfortunately is that the testimony gets distorted. it gets selectively disclosed. but his lawyers are saying is let's just avoid all those problems. let him testify in public so everyone can see that in real time. >> i heard you say this democrats are certain that there is no wrongdoing. on the part of president biden. you find yourself you find yourselves many members in your

party racking up hunter biden. who certainly is a flawed individual. what do you think about being in that position and do you see that as an argument to go forward with a deposition if you are sure it is not going to show anything untoward? >> i have no problem with a deposition going forward. i think if it could be in public where everyone can see that is the ideal. i think the court of law is likely going to see it that way as well. with regard to hunter biden there is no doubt he has problems he has challenges he has legal problems. including done and tax charges that have been filed against him. he deserves his day in court of course. >> do you think hunter biden will ultimately be found in contempt by a full boat of congress? >> i don't know. i think a lot of my colleagues on the other side don't want to take that vote.

it is just something that i think i hear privately they view as a complete distraction something their constituents that is not something they are focused on at this moment. >> i want to ask you what i have you there is a new report out today from the inspector general of the pentagon. who is in charge of dod oversight. it finds in part that the u.s. did not properly track more than $1 billion worth of weapons that were sent to ukraine the office of defense cooperation in ukraine is saying they don't have enough personnel to properly inventory this massive volume of weapons. coming to ukraine. what are your concerns finding this out? >> i'm very concerned. and i think that we have to basically do a couple things. we have to make sure the pentagon has the resources to actually conduct oversight to make sure the weapons end up where they belong. and then secondly just going forward we should take extra precautions in this regard. but

the overall point with regard to this being an excuse not to provide ukraine with the aid they need in this moment of desperation against russia that i cannot, i can't agree with. i think they absolutely need assistance to repel this criminal invasion by russia. >> congressman thank you for your time today. today israel pleading its case at the international court of justice. after the country was accused of committing genocide against telecine and and gaza. accused by south africa. how the outcome of the case could affect israel's war with hamas. >>

israel is preparing to make its case to the world as the un's international court of justice hears arguments about whether it committed acts of genocide against palestinian civilians. >> south africa urged world leaders to order israel to stop its bombing of gaza claiming israel's intentions are to destroyed not only hamas but the palestinian population. inside the enclave. >> the case before the icg -- international system. it is a moment of naked truth. to provide hope to humanity at the time when it is sorely

needed. leaders have a historic responsibility and their actions will be judged by history. >> israel vehemently denies the allegations of genocide and said it has warrant hamas is the act of self-defense. live at the -- with more. israel will be presenting its case tomorrow. how did the court react to today's arguments as south africa is really seeking what is akin to a restraining order to bring about these fire? >> reporter: that was the point of today and tomorrow's hearings. that the south africans are seeking from the world court behind me the un's highest court almost an injunction that would order israel to stop the war -- substantial question of whether south africa alleges genocidal acts are being committed in gaza by israel. what was so interesting about today's testimony chilling at

times difficult to listen to often was forensic categorization of what israel is accused of having done and continues to do. in gaza. the killings of civilians but also the wider impact it is having on everyday life. you heard several varistors get up and make the case including one woman at one point one of the barristers pointing out this was the first genocide she said in the history of humanity were a people's own destruction had been live streamed by themselves for the time being. to the global indifference of the entire world. that is what south africans are trying to change. but getting this on the public record they hope it will force the world to get up and take notice. no sooner had the south african lawyers finished there was already a rebuttal from the israelis the shape of the spokesman for their foreign minister. south africans and then sue would follow.>> israel's special genocide intent is

rooted in the belief that in fact the enemy is not just the military wing of hamas. or indeed hamas generally. but is embedded in the fabric of palestinian life in gaza. >> today we witnessed one of the greatest -- compounded by the support and basis claims. south africa which is -- legal arm of the hamas --. the reality that gaza in gaza -- and completely ignore the fact hamas terrorist infiltrated israel murdered executed mass acuteand abducted israeli citizens. >> reporter: angry rebuttal to

begin with. we will wait to hear what the israeli defense says when it stands here tomorrow. but for today it was three hours of chilling testimony about what has gone on in gaza so far based on the evidence provided by the united nations agencies and some of its highest officials people who been on the ground about what they have seen going on. the idea here is to put before the court these allegations of genocide. they could take years for the international court of justice to rule on in the immediate future what south africans are hoping this injunction will force israel to sit up and listen pause it's hostilities that the rest of the world specifically the united nations can get into. out exactly what has been going on. >> live thank you so much. still to come a deeply personal message from actress -- striking a chord she recalls being by someone she once called a friend. we will talk about she endured

and how she persevered after a quick break.

we want to give you a quick warning because we are about to discuss a sensitive subject. it might be upsetting for some of our viewers. we want you to consider that before we get into the discussion. is detective benson on the hit show lawton order sbu mariska hargitay has helped victims find strength and demand

justice. the actress is showing her own personal story about being in her 30s by a friend and a powerful essay published in people magazine. >> she said for years survivors that watch the show credited her for giving them strength. though survivors have been her source of strength. with us now is psychiatrist and psychoanalyst doctor gail saltz. doctor saltz i think mariska hargitay is the character that she played for years she has been such a hero when to victims even starting the joyful heart foundation as well. even she says for the longest time she did not identify is a victim. she did not think about this is a . she really could not process it had actually happened to her. until she started to talk about it. and realized oh my goodness yes it did. how common is that? >> actually it is really is common. that is because is tremendously traumatic.

and sometimes after a traumatic event our minds basically repress a memory. it is really a defense mechanism. to spare us when we come in so overwhelmingly anxious and depressed in the face of trauma that these memories are suppressed and we don't have access to them. sometimes it is called dissociative amnesia. you don't remember. it may be much later perhaps a trigger happens something that reminds you in any way of the event. you might have an intrusive memory. and more and more memories. later you may be able to process that may different way than you could have earlier. be able to manage work your way through trauma develop resilience coping tools as she seems to have done. and come out to another place. that is what it sounds like it is a very common occurrence. >> she talks about in her essay about how she learned about the

biology of trauma and how it changed her experience of what happened. she also writes she wants to reframe how is seen. she wanted to talk about sexual assault the way we talk about cancer. she writes until someone who survived cancer in your celebrated. i want the same response for sexual assault survivors. i'm wondering what your reaction to that is. >> she is absolutely right. she brings up many points in this piece that survivors need to know about. importantly that many people undergoing a trauma like this do freeze. and freezing is a neurobiological response to trauma and it is not the same as consent. sadly as she brings up many people who freeze during that event later blamed themselves. because society blames them for not having fought or run. when this is a neurobiological mechanism that happens to people undergoing this kind of trauma. and we have to know about this so that we don't blame ourselves or blame the victims

which only traumatizes them. so these are excellent important points in first person that she brings up which will really help i think other women who have been victimized or who may be victimized in the future to understand these very very important points. >> is such a good point because she talks about how she froze. she did not want to escalate to sexual violence. and then she realized looking back on it that it was sexual violence. there is this common perception that unless it escalates to this very violent fighting situation that it isn't actually a real . and for anything less than that especially there is victim blaming. it really is something that needs to be changed. i wonder how you change that. >> well this is a good step because she is a huge celebrity. with a following.

a lot of people are listening. but generally education education to potential victims out there but also education in terms of policy and courtrooms. where often again, women either do not bring it to a courtroom because they are afraid because they self blame. or they get blamed in the courtroom because it is not understood. that in fact freezing is probably the most common thing to happen to a woman during a sexual assault. that is because the flight or fight response is basically moved into a freeze response because the woman does not see a quick exit to the situation. and because she fears escalate the violence against her as this person said she feared. until i think, lawyers understand this and judges understand this, basically the public at large it is hard to make a shift.

so education is important. i think the kind of philanthropic organization she is started is important. they do education. they support women and help them understand and the moment that this is what happened and it means that they are the victim and the person who did this is fully the perpetrator. they have no responsibility. >> it is so illuminating and brave what she is doing. we appreciate you doctor for talking to us about it. thank you. thank you for having me today. if you or someone you know has been sexually assaulted you can find support at the national sexual assault hotline one 806 56 hope. for 673 or -- we are learning today a prominent tv personality revealed a very difficult personal struggle that his family has been enduring since the fall. >> in an emotional moment michael stranahan and his teenage daughter isabella

announced on good morning america she is fighting a brain tumor. >> this morning our dear friend michael side-by-side with his daughter isabella. as they reveal what they have been facing over the last few months. >> papa bear. papa bear. how proud are you of your daughter for wanting to take control and to be the one to share her story? >> i'm very proud of her. she's always been a strong. this is something that is so personal that i did not know if it was be something she wanted to share. i'm extremely proud. >> i know that smile anywhere. isabella how are you doing at this very moment? >> i'm feeling good. not too bad. i'm very excited for this whole process to wrap. but you just have to keep living every day i think through the whole thing. >> isabella stranahan is 19

years old and she has been diagnosed with medulloblastoma. joining us to talk about it is our chief medical correspondent doctor gunther. certainly we wish her and her family all the best she is fighting this. tell us more about this type of cancer. >> that was really touching. i have kids that age now. you really strikes you in this case daughter calls and says she has been having headaches for some time. obviously thinking initially it is just headaches. but a medulloblastoma is what this ends up being with is a type of brain tumor. it is rare. someone is calling with headaches it is typically not going to be this. we talk about rear in the united states some few hundred people are diagnosed every year. around 4000 just under 4000 people are living with a tumor like this. you get an idea of how small the numbers are. it is the most common pediatric brain cancer.

even though small numbers when it comes to pediatric brain tumors, this is the one that is the most common. a couple things about this. it is considered a malignant tumor. that is something that means it could potentially spread. within the brain or even spread to the spinal cord or within the fluid around the brain. usually appears in the back of the brain. i want to show you this image. this is not isabella's image specifically. this will give you an idea of what this looks like. the left image i don't know if you can tell this but that white area near the back of the brain. that is the tumor. that should not be there. you can also see on the other image that same area. little harder to tell but that white area in the back of the brain that is where these tumors sort of arise. they can be problematic because of that they can cause fluid to

back up inside the brain. and cause all the symptoms that she was having. that is what the doctors are targeting. >> what kind of treatments are available what is the typical prognosis? >> as far as treatments go there's a couple things to think about. as you know i removed tumors like this as well. one of the things if we could put the image up of the tumor. i want to show you this. when you are looking at that tumor you are also thinking about the fact that fluid may build up on top of the brain. sometimes you have to remove some of that excess fluid. and then you also want to actually do an operation to take out the tumor. what you have to assume with these types of tumors because they are malignant is that no matter how much of the tumor you remove during the operation that their maze still be some tumor remaining. that is why radiation is often given which is something isabella has already received. she will be getting chemotherapy as well. it is an aggressive tumor requiring aggressive treatment. >> all of our best to her. and for her strength in talking

about it. thank you so much for telling us more about it. >> president biden has pushed to make the economy a key part of his reelection message. now we have a full picture of how effective last year's fight against inflation was. what the new numbers say about what we are paying for key goods like housing and food.

not just any whiteboard... ...katie porter's whiteboard is one way she's: [news anchor] ...often seen grilling top executives of banks, big pharma, even top administration officials. katie porter. never taken corporate pac money - never will. leading the fight to ban congressional stock trading. and the only democrat who opposed wasteful “earmarks” that fund politicians' pet projects. katie porter. focused on your challenges - from lowering housing costs to fighting climate change. shake up the senate - with democrat katie porter. i'm katie porter and i approve this message. clicks the final consumer inflation report of 2023 is out today, showing prices you pay for everyday items picked up in the latest month, but they cooled down significantly overall in 2023.

the consumer price index rose 3.4% for the year, nearly cut in half, compared to 2022. real wages also grew in 2022 for the first time in years. >> vanessa, what does this final report tell us? >> it tells us that there is going to be a little bit of a bumpy road to the finish line. we are saying that last year, prices rose 3.4%, and in december, we saw prices rise, a little hotter than what analysts were predicting, but not alarming. it is sort of like if you are trying to lose weight, the fed has set a target goal, people set target weight spritz the first few pounds it may come off easily, but it is the last little bit that can be tough, and that's exactly where we are right now. but we have come down dramatically from the high inflation we saw in the summer of 2022. you can see about 9.1% could then december 2022, we were at

6.5%, so we are certainly making progress. here is where people are still feeling the pinch and maybe where there are some savings. if you look at food prices, still high at the grocery store, up 2.7%. you have shelter cannot rent too expensive. shelter made up about half of the entire month of december in terms of that increase we saw. he was in some savings on energy, that is really good as gas prices have been coming down. also, airfares have dropped about nine point 1% on the year, but motor vehicle insurance, that is up more than 20%, that could be because of all of the interest rate hikes that we have seen the federal reserve do over the past year and a half. when you hike interest rates, that means that mortgage rates go up, that means what you are paying on your car loan, your student loan goes up, and that's why we may be seeing that. and you can see those gas

prices coming down pretty dramatically over the last year and a half. and i think the big question is what is the fed in all of this? analysts have predicted we could see the fed start to cut rates in march of this year. this report might change things a little bit. there might be more of a pause in march as opposed to a cut, but we are clearly on the road to recovery, to that 2% target, but we do have a ways to go. people still feeling the pain of higher prices, but the fight continues and moving in the right direction, guys. >> the fight continues, vanessa, thank you so much. we have heard about the way that tell us that can impact the economy is in major cities when she comes to town, now she is being asked to use her influence of her political elections. we will explain. >> [ music ]

huh. internet's out. wanna hear a fun fact? elbows are impossible to lick. i meant your own elbows. you don't settle for bad internet. that's why you have the xfinity 10g network, with ultra-low lag for better streaming. wish you would have been more specific about your elbow. only from xfinity.

in a bid to boost youth turnout in the upcoming european elections, one eu official is turning into a familiar face, a really familiar face, none other than superstar taylor swift. surprisingly coming from a european commission vice president calling on swift to rally her fans to the ballot box during the european leg of her tour this summer which kicks off conveniently just before voting gets underway. >> swift has more than 279 million followers on instagram and she is increasingly speaking out on political issues. last september, or calls for voters in the united states to register saw a vote.org reporting 23% jump in registrations compared to the year before, so she is rocking the boat. >> harnessed that, you sure want to