hello, i'm ana cabrera reporting from new york. i want to get right to the breaking news we're following this morning. donald trump arriving just moments ago at a manhattan courthouse for the closing arguments in his multimillion dollar civil fraud trial, and he spoke just before going into the courtroom. there is high tension this morning because trump has suggested he could challenge the judge who has barred him from speaking during closing arguments. another big development, a threat we're following, law enforcement responding to a reported bomb threat at the judge's house this morning. a source with direct knowledge tells nbc news. i want to get right to our yasmin vossoughian joining us from outside the courthouse in lower manhattan. and also with us, former u.s.

attorney barbara mcquade and criminal defense attorney danny cevallos. we just saw trump speaking before heading into the courtroom saying, you know, it's not fair that the judge won't let him speak at closing arguments, although he says he does plan to speak later today in a press conference of some sort. what can we expect as closing arguments get underway? >> reporter: there's been a lot of, ana, back and forth since january 4th when this request was initially made by chris kise, the former president's attorney, in asking if the former president could offer remarks at the closing arguments. there was a lot of email exchanges between chris kise along with judge engoron, and there were parameters laid out by judge engoron. i want to read a quote from what judge engoron wrote. to help you understand what it is he wanted from the former president to allow him to speak today. and many of these parameters are the same parameters, by the way, that are asked of by attorneys

marks as well.ing closing he said trump would be allowed to speak only about materially facts that are in evidence in application of the relevant law to those facts. he also said he will not aow a campaign speech or to attack the court, his staff, the judge, and attorney general letitia james as well. and so there is this expectation, ana, this morning because the trial is supposed to get started, closing arguments around 10:00 a.m. the former president is seated in the courtroom right now. we just heard remarks from him. about 45 minutes or so i saw attorney general letitia james make her way into the courtroom as well. closing arguments are going to be delivered by the defense's team for two hours' time followed by the prosecution for two hours' time as well. there will likely be some appeals made or we expect to see some appeals made by the defense team as to asking the judge if, in fact, the former president

could offer those closing remarks once again. i expect judge engoron not to allow that to happen, right? he extended that deadline multiple times, and when noon came yesterday they had this back and forth with chris kiser, listen, are you going to abide by those parameters or not, so judge engoron decided it's not happening. those closing arguments are not going to happen. so after we get prosecution closing arguments, defense closing arguments as well, and then they will adjourn, and we'll have to await a decision from the judge in which we expect to come in the next couple of weeks, likely before the end of the month, but this is a judge that has taken his time. he has been very definitive. he has been very meticulous in delivering his decision throughout this entire period, so we're expecting him to do the same when it comes to this decision and the fines which will be leveled against the former president and his organization. >> and so yasmin, what about

this bomb threat? what do we know? >> we don't know a lot, right? so we know that there was a bomb threat earlier this morning against judge engoron. we don't know if he was actually in the home or not in nasa county, nasa county police visited the house as well to investigate this bomb threat. so it's happened befor in other high profile cases. again, judge engoron has been at the front and center of this trial from the very beginning. he has been very decided about his opinions in this case, and as we've seen, the former president has attacked both judge engoron along with his clerk as well. as of now, it's not supposed to delay any trial going forward today. no further threat exists at this moment, but again, as we learn more, i'm going to bring it to you. >> stay with me, yasmin, as trump is complaining about not being allowed to speakn the closing arguments, apparently his attorneys had suggested he

was interested abo wk ago. the judge had said okay, but he to agree to these conditions. and i want to put those conditions back up again for our audience here. no introducing new evidence. no acting as a witness and e essentially testifying without cross examination. he can't bring up irrelevant matters, deliv a campaign speech, or impugn the judge, his court staff, or the prosecution, but trump's team didn't agree to these terms by the judge's extended deadline, which was yesterday. danny, trump's team, they didn't agree. you're a defense attorney yourself. what would you have done with this? would you have wanted trump to testify? or was this an easy out for them? >> i would have done nothing because this motion would never have been granted unless a party is named trump. this isn't how any of this works. originally when it was reported that justice engoron denied the request, i thought that makes sense because no other party with counsel unless they're pro se doing the whole thing by themselves, but if you have an

attorney, almost every judge i can think of would tell you, no, you have an attorney. you don't get to stand up and make speeches. that's in both the criminal and civil context. but then yesterday it appeared that -- and we're seeing now that justice engoron not only considered this, he offered some rules. that's a lot more than an ordinary person that you've never heard of would get. they simply would not get this chance to get up and give this sort of blended closing argument. you see those rules, those rules track the rules we attorneys have to follow when we make closing arguments. it looks pretty seamless on tv, but there are rules of evidence and although it's rare, the other side will object if you stray from those rules. the rules are complicated. it's hard to follow. trump may not be able to differentiate or he may choose not to differentiate between testifying as fact witness and adhering to the rules of closing arguments. that's why attorneys handle them because they are complicated. but look, we're in -- as we often are with trump -- an area where the ordinary rules of

procedure have been thrown out the window. we say that he doesn't get differential treatment. this is differential treatment that this is even being considered. in my view, this is a motion that should have been denied right away. the defense is even being offered these terms and they really want him to speak, they should take them, but i don't think that achieves the mission that they're setting out here. >> we're hearing from inside the courtroom and our reporters there that court is officially in session now, and barbara, we mentioned the judge was a target of a bomb threat at his home this morning, and that is just the latest in a recent string of threats against judges and prosecutors involved in these trump cases. how concerning is this, and what do we need in terms of the security here for the judges and others who are involved? >> i think it's very concerning. i think it is the consequence of people like donald trump who enga in such vitriolic and targeted rhetoric when they're

talking about people. it is not unlikely that someone out there will hear his words as a call to action, and so now we are seeing this trend. it is often the case when someone swats someone else or makes a bomb threat, we see copycats. this has become a trend around the country. it's incredibly dangerous, and i put the responsibility at the feet of people like donald trump who engage in the kind of rhetoric that starts this. what do we need to do? i think we need to enforce the law to its fullest extent to make sure people understand that this is a serious crime, and that there are consequences to be paid. >> hey, barbara, we're looking at these live images right now inside the courtroom. we've been given an opportunity to get a camera in before the proceedings officially get underway, but there you see donald trump sitting at his defense table alongside chris kise and alina habba. again, defense goes first with two hours or so of closing

arguments followed by the prosecution or the a.g.'s office in this case, likely to give their closing arguments this afternoon the. but there you see him in his red tie, his blue jacket looking pretty solemn and serious with his hands crossed in front of him as we get this quick pool spray before those closing arguments actually get underway. what do you see, barb, as the strongest defense here after watching and reporting out the past few months of trial? >> yeah, i imagine they will come back with some of the same arguments that we heard during the trial, which is that the trump properties are valued far in excess of what their ordinary market value would be because of the trump brand and brands are difficult to quantify, so when you add that, then they acted in good faith when they represented the values of these properties. i don't know that those arguments are going to carry the day, but i think those are the best arguments!

there's the attorney general, letitia james. she's in the courtroom, not expected to be the one delivering the closing argument, though. >> and you know, with regard to this idea that donald trump himself would speak i believe was a stunt from the start. they had to know at one point or another either the judge or his own lawyers would put a stop to it. it gives donald trump the opportunity to, once again, play the role of the aggrieved and say they silenced me. i don't think he ever intended to speak here. if he had, it would have been legal malpractice. >> yasmin, the judge already found trump liable for fraud. so now the judge has to decide the penalty here. the attorney general is asking the judge to level $370 million in damagesst trump, plus interest. initially it was $250 million. why the increase? >> reporter: so i want to actually read a quote in talking about this increase really kind of breaks down what attorney general letitia james is actually asking for, now 370

million. attorneys from james' office requested the punishmt impose trial motions filed friday in the trump fraud case. they said that trump owes 168 million of interest alleg saved through aud, 152ilon from the sale of the old post office building in washington, d.c., the site of one of trump's hotels. 60 million through the tra of the ferry point golf course contract. and 2.5 million from severance agreements for former trump organization chief financial officer allen weisselberg and ex-trump controller, jeff mcconney. i want to go a little further because attorney general letitia james is asking for the former president to be banned for life, by the way, from working in new york city and banned from serving as an officer and/or director of the new york

corporation. think about this, ana, for a second, if you will, and i would love barbara and danny to weigh in on this as well. we have been covering donald trump for quite some time now. we covered him as a candidate and as a president, but before that we covered him as a businessman. who did we know him for? how did we know him, right? we knew him as a new york city real estate magnate, right? that is what he has based his entire identity on for the last half century. he is from queens, new york, and he bases his identity off the money he has made in his lifetime. how many times have we heard him talk about how much he is actually worth, right? if this fine to this degree and this level is leveled against him and he is no longer able to practice and work in this city, that will be a major blow, ana, to the individual that is donald trump. sure here's looking at all these

indictments, sure he's looking at all these criminal trials. sure he's looking at the federal case in d.c. and the case out of miami with the documents. this is going to hit at the heart of who this former president is. >> it's his essence, i think i've said that before, and that's how we know him. it's about his brand. it's his identity. these images, again, from earlier just moments ago when we were allowed inside the courtroom, we are told chris kise, the attorney sitting next to donald trump at that defense table is starting his closing argument right now, danny, starting out saying if there were a jury here, i'd be looking at them. that's something trump has tried to emphasize that there's no jury in this case. it's just the judge. remind us why that is. >> it's a pretty rare bench trial, and it's even stranger because many of the issues were already decided on summary judgment. so you don't normally have a trial where summary judgment's been decided as to many issues including liability, and then you're making your case to a

judge. but you know, there are benefits and negatives to a bench only trial. you have cut through the wheat and the chaff. you don't have to deal with the procedural issues of bringing a jury in and out. the person who decides what's relevant or admissible or even inappropriate as evidence is the judge, so he can't unring that bell in his head. it's a very interesting thing to try a case before a judge, a bench trial, and so your closing argument has to be tailored to that. you've got to get right down to the bare bones. focus on your main bullet points. don't go in for the theatrics because you don't have a jury. so much of the closing argument is demonstrative, is the theatrics, expected to be shorter than it would be if is were a jury trial and expect kise to focus on their best witnesses, none of whom were named trump. >> he was a witness,lo with eric, and don jr. and ivanka. >> sure, but that wasn't the best part of their case.

the best part of their case was the accounting expert from nyu that they called. the other good witnesses were the deutsche bank executives who essentially testified that, you know, the books or the deals, the numbers that you're seeing, they weren't so bad to us. also compelling evidence, that's the stuff you need to focus on. focus on the good. deal with the bad, try to defuse it because you know the other side is going to come up and focus on that. but with the bench trial, you're talking essentially lawyer to former lawyer being the judge, and you can get right down to brass tacks very quickly. >> trump's been super adversarial against this judge, when we talk about $370 million in damages, potential that he could be barred from doing business in the state of new york after the past three months seeing both sides present their case, hearing all this witness testimony, danny, what do you think the judge does with this penalty? what do you see as best and worst-case scenarios for trump at the end of the day?

>> if you're betting, the odds are that he's going to side with the attorney general. the best evidence of that is that he already did so in his opinion granting summary judgment to the attorney general. he essentially goes into this case already half deciding it for the a.g. now, over the course of the last couple of months, could the defense have chipped away at this? did justice engoron keep an open mind? i'm sure he did. and if there was some compelling evidence, for example, the expert i just mentioned, the deutsche bank executives, did that have an effect on the judge. and i think he probably especially given the high profile nature of this trial, probably extra committed himself to being as impartial as he could, once -- and that's after donald trump had left the courthouse, intentioned had died down because, look, like i said earlier, the best part of the case for the defense was not donald trump. all he it was antagonize the judge. i think you remember there was this talk he might come back and testify at the end of the case,

and then that that was canceled. i think that was a good choice by the defense. you don't want to call the most antagonistic witness at the end of your case. you want to leave the judge with a good impression, and i think some of the witnesses they called may have chipped away or dug themselves somewhat out of the hole. i'm mixing all my metaphors, but i think you know where i'm going o'. >> i do that all the time. i'm glad i'm not the only one. i'm glad you brought that up, though, it was interesting that donald trump, don jr., eric, ivanka, they were actually witnesses called by the attorney general's office as they were presenting their case, barbara. do you think the a.g.'s office made a strong enough case to warrant a maximum penalty here, or are there any loose ends they need to tie up today? >> well, i think one of their goals today will be to summarize and to try to provide for the judge an accounting for those numbers to show how they get to that math. but yes, i think they did make a strong case here, and i think that the written opinion that

the judge issue even before the trial i think is an indication that this case mostly comes down to documents. you know, what we're interested in perhaps as viewers are the visuals of seeing these witnesses take the stand and seeing their cross examination, but mostly this case is about documents and what prosecutors love about documents is documents don't lie. documents don't forget. documents don't shade the truth. when you compare the numbers on these various properties with what the properties were actually valued at, it's very difficult to get around the fact that they were grossly exaggerated in their numbers. now, you know, there's room for interpretation in the math, and so i don't know that they get the full $370 million that they're seeking here. but when prosecutors ask for money, it isn't like an ordinary negotiation where i'm going to come in and ask for 370 million, but what i really hope to get is only 100 million. if they're asking for 370 million, it's because they believe that 370 million is the correct valuation, and they have the receipts, they're going to

show how they get there, and they're going to ask for every penny. >> and yasmin walked us through what those specific benchmarks were where they're getting that $370 million in damages. yasmin, you have something to add? >> reporter: yeah, we're just getting some more from the closing arguments in which they have gun. chris kise from the defense has started his closing arguments. i just want to read a little bit to you from what we're hearing from him. he says this, not one witness over a three-year investigation, a year of litigation, 44 days of trial, not one witness said there was fraud or identified a material misstatement. not one said the loan terms or pricing would have been any different. they didn't cite witnesses, bank officers or experts. the only witness was michael cohen. this entire case is a political agenda. he also says the a.g. says the goal is to protect counterparties in the marketplace. no counterparties or anyone from the marketplace showed up to say there were problems, and the only citation they have, judge -- this is what chris kise

says and hear this -- the only citation they have, judge, is you, not one witness came into the courtroom to say there was fraud. so we're hearing that from chris kise, the beginning of this closing argument which will go on for two hours. i do want to circle back, and danny knows i love to go at him with this kind of stuff. he is a defense attorney and went to law school, i did not and i am not. i want to remind folks about ellie bar tof, somebody that danny brought up, the nyu tenured professor, and this is what judge engoron said about eli bartov. bartr ov is a tenured professor, but the only thing his testimony proves is that for a million dollars some experts will say whatever you want them to say, and this guy, ana, was considered the star witness for the defense in the final days

before they wrapped until we have now resumed for closing arguments. he was paid upwards of $900,000 for his testimony, which lasted about a day and a half. >> yeah, i actually -- i remember that comment, yasmin, and i have to say, look, when it comes to experts, is $900,000 a lot? yeah, but experts are really expensive. and if you want the best guy in the field, he's going to be really expensive. now, do they command 900,000 for accounting. if you're eli bartov, you can say how important is my testimony to you, this is my going rate. and for whatever reason they decided to pay it. you're absolutely right. it is relevant and fair game to ask experts what is paid. that is something the court needs to know about and the jury as well. so totally common, ask experts what they're paid and you find out they're paid a lot. >> danny, yasmin, barbara, please stay close. we're going to keep tracking these closing arguments today

and what's happening inside this manhattan courtroom. we'll bring you more as it happens. we're also tracking developments in another case, hunter biden set to answer nine tax-related charges in an l.a. courtroom today after his dramatic appearance on capitol hill yesterday. plus, caucus countdown, four days left for the four remaining gop candidates in iowa as chris christie is caught on a hot mic just before he exits the race. all that and more when we're back in just 60 seconds. you're watching "ana cabrera reports." reports. (mom) that's a bit dramatic... a better plan is verizon. it starts at 25 dollars a line. (dad) did you say 25 dollars a line? (sister) and save big on things we love, like netflix and max! (dad) oh, that's awesome (mom) spaghetti night -- dinner in 30 (dad) oh, happy day! (vo) a better plan to save is verizon. it starts at $25 per line guaranteed for 3 years and get both netflix and max for just $10/mo. only on verizon. do you like that bone? i got a great price on it. did you see my tail when that chewy box showed up?

oh, i saw it. my tail goes bonkers for treats at great prices. sorry about the vase. shop and get a $30 egift card through january 14th, at chewy. ♪oh what a good time we will have♪ ♪you... can make it happen...♪ ♪♪ try dietary supplements from voltaren for healthy joints. let me take you to the west coast now. hunter biden will appear in a california courtroom this afternoon. he faces nine tax-related charges after a plea deal collapsed over the summer. he could face up to 17 years in prison if convicted. and this comes just a day after the president's son created quite a stir surpriing the

republican-led house oversight hearing just as republicans were looking to hold him in contempt for defying a congressional subpoena. nbc's mike memoli is outside that courthouse in los angeles where we'll see hunter biden there in just a few hours. also with us carol lam, former federal prosecutor and msnbc legal analyst. so mike, talk to us about what we can expect today there in los angeles and the allegations at the heart of this indictment. >> reporter: well, ana, certainly we won't see the kind of fireworks we saw on capitol hill yesterday. i say that advisedly, what we expect to be a fairly routine hearing today later this afternoon is the consequence of that failed plea agreement that fell apart last summer. this is the second now indictment that the president's son is pleading we expect not guilty to today. as a result of the collapse of that plea agreement. this all has to do with conduct during a very dark period from his life from 2016 to 2019, hunter biden accused of not paying taxes on his income and

failure to report those taxes. now, what hunter biden's legal team is arguing here is not necessarily the facts here but that the prosecution itself is what they call selective and vindictive. they're arguing that what the federal government here is doing and with the special counsel is involved in doing here is responding to pressure from house republicans to bring charges that are only being brought as they ago because of his last name. >> carol, hunter was previously set to plead guilty to the misdemeanor tax charges and to serve probation in this plea deal that fell apart last summer. so how much heft does this case have considering it was all about to be pleaded out a few months ago? >> look, these tax charges are serious charges. it was a large amount of money that he did he notay in satisfaction of his tax obligations, and so i think it falls within the discretion of a prosecutor to bring charges like

this. it also fell within the discretion of a prosecutor to plead it out if there had been an agreement, if there had been a meeting of the minds with respect to that plea agreement to put this case to rest given that the money had been ultimately paid back to give him a probationary sentence. there is pretty wide discretion in this area because the addiction that he was suffering at the time that he did not pay these taxes, even though his conduct was far from exemplary, it's hard to say how that will play out with a jury. it's hard to say whether they will actually feel sorry for him to some extent, you know, lots of jurors have had addiction issues in their families or whether they're going to say, hey, he was not responsible with respect to the way he handled his finances. so it's very difficult to tell. >> the image so many people have of hunter in their mind is what we saw yesterday, mike, when he made that surprise appearance. we had the camera following him into the building, into the hearing room as he's sitting

there, and then the lawmakers reacting. they eventually did vote to advance this contempt of congress motion to the full house to take up, so we'll watch and see where that goes next. what are you hearing from biden world about why he chose to appear? >> reporter: well, i've covered a lot of these capitol hill hearings, that was quite a spectacle, a little hollywood drama given the setting of where we are today. from the perspective of hunter's team this was really mission accomplished. you saw the coordination with the house democrats to in their view try to call out house republicans for what they believe is a political exercise. hunter has offered to testify in public in response to their subpoena. he's willing to have this discussion in the public. they're arging republicans want to do this quietly behind the scenes. the white house has taken a different view. they're concerned about the

legal equities as it relates to president biden. they don't want to have this kind of politicization of this issue, but it was interesting to hear this morning from dr. jill biden, the first lady, who was responding as a wife, as a mother and a grandmother. take a listen to what she told our colleague mika brzezinski. >> i think what they're doing to hunter is cruel, and i'm really proud of how hunter has rebuilt his life after addiction, and i think, you know, i love my son, and it's hurt my grandchildren, and that's what i'm so concerned about, that it's affecting their lives as well. >> reporter: despite what we saw on capitol hill yesterday, the republicans were undaunted. they moved that motion to the floor if the house ultimately, the full house does approve that contempt resolution. it sets up another decision for the justice department about whether to prosecute this case

as well. >> carol, do you see a broader defense strategy emerging from hunter biden and his team from that appearance he made yesterday to the remarks he gave outside the capitol last month? >> there's absolutely a broader approach here because ultimately, you have to look at where this might go. if, in fact, the full house decides that they're going to hold hunter biden in contempt, then the question is what happens after that. what happens after that is it goes to the department of justice for a determination whether a criminal case is going to be brought against him, and what we saw with the january 6th committee is that four referrals were made to the justice department, and only two cases were pursued by the justice department. now, why? why were mark meadows and dan scavino not prosecuted but two others were, and that's because meadows and scavino engaged in a lot of negotiation with the committee to try to come to some

agreement. that's what happens on capitol hill. there are always discussions and attempts at negotiations and that's part of what the department of justice would take into account in deciding whether criminal contempt charges are justified, whether criminal contempt charges are justified. and so, you know, it's very much a part of the strategy to show, hey, we have been engaged in negotiations. we have tried. we even showed up publicly, even though technically this is a violation of the subpoena not to agree to the house's terms, we tried and that will go into the decision that doj has to make whether to bring criminal contempt charges. i think the larger question is who's going to make that decision at doj and does merrick garland feel that he has to appoint a special counsel. we would have yet one more special counsel to make that determination. >> we'll see if it even gets to that because it does require at least a simple majority from the full house to advance it to the department of justice, carol lam

and mike memoli, thank you both for that discussion. and back to our top story, new details being fed from inside a new york courtroom where closing arguments are underway right now in donald trump's civil fraud trial. that's next. (vo) sail through the heart of historic cities and unforgettable scenery with viking. unpack once, and get closer to iconic landmarks, local life, and cultural treasures. because when you experience europe on a viking longship, you'll spend less time getting there and more time being there.

viking. exploring the world in comfort. you always got your mind on the green. not you. you! your business bank account with quickbooks money now earns 5% apy. (♪♪) that's how you business differently. intuit quickbooks. ♪♪ here's to... one year bolder. ♪♪ ♪boost♪ nutrition for now.

huh. internet's out. ♪boost♪ 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.

back to our top story this morning, the breaking news here in manhattan, donald trump in a new york courtroom for the closing arguments in his civil fraud trial. let's get right back to msnbc's yasmin vossoughian outside the courthouse and our legal panel, barbara mcquade and danny cevallos. yasmin, what's the latest? >> reporter: we haven't heard much. what i'm looking at right now -- because i'm just glancing down at my phone, ana -- is kind of the back and forth in closing arguments from kise inside the courtroom. he's listing a number of loans that predate the statute of limitations. now, the certifications are accurate but they are not a

license to evade the statute. the a.g. has not established any impact. it belies common sense and the a.g. relies on you. kise is saying almost the entire case put forth by the attorney general is outside of the stding at a podium directly in front of the judge using a large computer monitor for his notes and documents. he's referring to are being shown on a large tv screen to the gallery. the big monitor is right in front of the a.g. and trump is sitting up in the chair and listening pretty intently, excuse me, it's pretty cold out here. but i'm actually interested to hear from barbara along with danny about the argument that's being made by chris kise in these closing arguments about how much of the case put forward by the a.g. is outside the statute of limitations and kind of what their sense is on that defense. >> so i think that is interesting, danny, because we

know from pretty much the beginning of this trial, trump's team has been saying they're going to appeal, right? because, again, the judge already found fraud, so they know that there will be damages here that trump will be ordered to pay at the end of the day. this is a case that began years ago when trump was still president when we learned of this investigation and the charges themselves were brought in 2021. this argument that it's all tied to the statute of limitations, what say you? >> they're still maintaining this argument. this is something that trump talked about in one of his conference when is he came out of the courthouse many weeks, if not months, ago. they're arguing that some of the claims the a.g. didn't bring them within the applicable statute of limitations. now, there are all kinds of rules to get around the statute of limitations. it can be an ongoing course of conduct. there are many exceptions to a hard rule that after a certain date you can no longer bring the claim. they've repeatedly made those arguments. it's not a surprise to see them in closing as well.

it just means they've moved on from their initial stage, which apparently was no evidence, no evidence, and now this section appears to be, hey, statute of limitations and then they seem to be methodically going through each of their major points that they've made along the way. and then of course at the end of all of this, there will be appeals just as you said. >> the other quote that stands out to me from our reporters inside that courtroom reporting out the closing argument from the defense team is not one witness came into the courtroom to say there was fraud. the marketplace functioned as it should. the entire case is a manufactured claim to pursue a political agenda. that is the argument made today throughout the trial by donald trump's defense team. so barbara, this idea that valuations are subjective and so how can you prove fraud here? your response to that argument that the defense team is sticking with? >> yeah, this is a lawyer's trick saying not one witness walked into this room and used

the word fraud. that's because fraud is a legal conclusion. if they had used the word fraud there would have been an objection that would have been sustained. witnesses testify about facts, and the fact finder, the judge, appies the law to the fact to determine whether there was fraud. yes, we all agree not a single witness used the word fraud, but that doesn't mean that the ultimate conclusion will not be fraud because that's because this is all about documents and about the valuation of properties that exceeded their fair market value. and so i think at the end of the day, this idea that there was no harm done here is not going to prevail, and that's because the harm is sometimes difficult to quantify, difficult to measure. that's why they're seeking to disgorge profit, not to look at the loss amount. if donald trump received better terms on loans than others, then he got a competitive advantage others did not receive. >> barbara mcquade, yasmin vossoughian, danny cevallos, everybody stay with me. ahead we will have more details

from inside the courtroom where these closing arguments are underway in donald trump's civil trial. and we're also following the campaign trail, hot takes on a hot mic, what chris christie thinks about nikki haley's and ron desantis's chances against donald trump, and who stands to gain most from christie's exit from the race. you're watching "ana cabrera reports." stay right there. ight there if you have chronic kidney disease you can reduce the risk of kidney failure with farxiga. because there are places you'd rather be. farxiga can cause serious side effects, including ketoacidosis that may be fatal, dehydration, urinary tract, or genital yeast infections, and low blood sugar. a rare, life-threatening bacterial infection

in the skin of the perineum could occur. stop taking farxiga and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of this infection, an allergic reaction, or ketoacidosis. ♪ far-xi-ga ♪

to the campaign trail now and the marp to the caucus continues with dueling events last night in iowa. florida governor ron desantis and former south carolina governor nikki haley duking it out on the debate stage while likely holding their fire for the absent donald trump who skipped the debate to appear solo at a town hall. iowa voters head to the polls less than four days from today, and in the latest shake-up, chris christie ending his bid for the white house, conceing no real path to victory but promising to keep up the fight

against trump's candidacy from the sidelines. garrett haake is live for us this morning in des moines, also with us nbc senior national political reporter jonathan allen and carlos curbelo. let's start with the debate. what did we hear from desantis and haley? >> reporter: this was a pretty compelling debate in a lot of ways, ana. it was policy-focused. the two candidates were clearly prepared for the possibility of facing off against one another, but it also kind of took place in an alternate universe in which donald trump was hardly a factor rather than the 20 to 30 point favorite here who both of them desperately need to make up ground on should they have any desire to actually become president of the united states. in fact, there was barely any mention of trump across the two-hour debate except for a few kind of glancing blows like these from the candidates early on. listen. >> do you believe donald trump has the character to be president again? >> well, i'm running because i'm

the guy that's going to be able to engineer a comeback for this country. i appreciated what president trump did, but let's just be honest, he said he was going to build a wall and have mexico pay for it. he did not deliver that. he said he was going to drain the swamp, he did not deliver that. he said he was going to hold hillary accountable and he let her off the hook. he said he was going to eliminate the debt and he added $7.8 trillion to the debt. >> the fact that he didn't deal with china when it came to stealing intellectual property, the fact that they gave us koid. they've gone and continued to put up chinese police station. he didn't do enough to make sure we were standing with our friends and doing some other things. what we need is a leader that's not looking at four years and eight years. we need a president that's looking at 20 and 30 years. >> reporter: that gives you a flavor of the kinds of attacks that we saw against trump, not necessarily even going after him directly, but trying to draft off of him as if to say we liked his ideas, we liked him then. i will be a better trump now going forward than trump could

be. >> yeah, i'm going back to the original question there, which was do you believe donald trump has the character to be president again, and those were the answers they provided. garrett, we also heard from trump, just not on the same stage, last night. what's he telling voters in his comments in the run up to iowa's caucuses? >> reporter: well, donald trump's been doing everything heck for the last several months really to look past the primaries, to elevate himself as though he were the presumptive nominee trying to take on joe biden for the white house. we saw that throughout the course of this town hall event last night, and we really kind of looked at -- i can tell you, it is very much january. it feels like january in des moines, but this one particular comment made it sound more like june with donald trump saying he's got his vice presidential candidate already picked out. listen to what he told fox. >> if you are the nominee, which i know you expect to be, who would be in the running for vice president? >> well, i can't tell you that really. i mean, i know who it's going to

be -- >> give us a hint. >> we'll do another show sometime. >> reporter: trump walked back this comment, the idea that he had already selected his vice presidential candidate or at least his campaign did, but that's a comment that's going to launch a thousand ships today about donald trump basically asking like a presumptive nominee, ana. >> garrett haake reporting for us from des moines, thank you. congressman, when given the chance to attack trump's character, haley and desantis essentially dodged. they spent most of that debate attacking each other. how's that going to help them, either of them beat trump? >> well, ana, this is the high wire act that we have seen a lot of republicans try to pull off here during this primary season, and it's very difficult to do. now, that doesn't mean that this race for second place in the republican primary in iowa is irrelevant because of what's happening in new hampshire.

nikki haley does have a chance to jolt this race in new hampshire. she is within striking distance. you could see her kind of playing defense last night not wanting to be too aggressive because she knows she has a chance in new hampshire, especially after chris christie dropped out of the race. so these candidates, ana, they know they have to go up against donald trump, but they're trying to postpone that battle as long as possible because they know that most republican primary voters still approve of and support donald trump, so they have to try to win over these voters without being too aggressive in their attacks against the former president. >> let's talk more about that other big moment yesterday, chris christie dropping out of the ra. jonathan, as hedid, he injected some fresh drama in the race. caught saying on a hot mic. >> yeah, i mean, look, she spent illion so far just on tv. spent 68 million so far. 59 million by desantis, and

we've spent 12. i mean, who's punching above their weight and who's getting a return on their investment, y know. and she's going to get smoked, and you and iot know it. she's not up to this. >> she hasn't even been -- >> and she's still 20 points behind trump in new hampshire, right? >> yeah, oh, yeah. >> and he's still going to carry out right? >> desantis called me petrified that -- >> she's going to get smoked, desantis is petrified. christie is dropping out saying he wants to stop trump. what do you make of those comments presumably when he was referring to she talking about nikki haley. >> yeah, we go from fear and loathing, the hunter thompson book about the '72 campaign to smoked and petrified, the chris christie version of '24 pretty quickly. in like a lion, out like a lion. we can presume he was talking about nikki haley because she's the only she in the race. so when he talks about her getting smoked and trailing, that's what he's talking about.

i think, you know, what he gave her in terms of a potential boost in new hampshire by getting out of the race and we think most of his voters will end up going toward her because of polling and because of the reporting that myself and others on the nbc team have done in new hampshire, what he gave her with that, he took away by saying that she was going to get smoked and i think even more important and more damaging over the long-term, the idea that she's just not up to it. >> congressman, i do want to dig into the numbers about the impact of christie leaving the race. he wasn't doing well in iowa. he spent no timethere, so probably not going to see an impact, but in new hampshire where haley is surging, a recent boston globe usa today poll showed nearly half of chrise voters were saying haley's their second choice. and yet, you know, trump's trying to spin this, his campaign team is saying it doesn't matter if he makes an endorsement, she's not going to -- no one's going to end up picking up gop votes.

what do you think? >> well, look, ana, the trump campaign is definitely worried about nikki haley and new hampshire. they are attacking her. they know that if nikki haley happens to win in new hampshire, even if she comes in a close second, it really does diminish this idea that donald trump is invincible and that his being the republican nominee is inevitable. so they're worried about nikki haley, with chris christie dropping out, she's within striking distance, she has a chance of overtaking donald trump, something that was unimaginable just a few weeks ago. >> former congressman carlos curbelo and jonathan allen, thank you both. up next here on "ana cabrera reports," from the trail back to a trial in the new york courtroom where closing arguments are

we're back with more of our top story this morning, donald trump in court for closing arguments in his multimillion dollar civil fraud trial. our legal team is back with us,

barbara mcquade and danny cevallos. so, at the end of the day, here, barbara, closing arguments will wrap up and the judge will have to make a decision on how much in damages trump will have to pay, whether he'll be able to continue his businesses here in new york. a lot is on the line here. how quickly do you think we'll have a ruling, one, and given that his team is going to appeal at the end, how long could it be before this is all wrapped up? >> well, based on what we saw before with the summary judgment that the judge issued, i think it will be timely, but not today. i think the judge will engage in what is called findings of fact and conclusions of law. and we'll put those -- that document together. but i imagine, you know, within the next week or two we could see an opinion from judge engoron. >> when you look at the legal cases right now, how do you see this one stacking up? >> in terms of the threat to

donald trump the person you go to the criminal cases first there are four. among them, if you're playing the odds, you go with federal cases of which there are two because the federal government has a 90 plus percent conviction rate. playing the odds, donald trump should be the most concerned about his federal criminal cases. but, of course, this civil case is certainly in my view the biggest financial threat to donald trump, more than, say, e. jean carroll's lawsuit against him. this one could really devastate his businesses and as we talked about earlier, prevent him from serving in a managerial role in new york corporations going forward. now, that doesn't mean he can't be involved in corporations in other states, but that would be a pretty devastating blow to donald trump and his business organization. so if you're talking about categorizing the different threats to donald trump, as a person, definitely the criminal. and then as someone who is campaigning for president, you might argue that the ballot access case is posed the biggest

threat to donald trump as the candidate for president. >> how do you see it, barb? how would you rank the threats to trump legally? >> well, i still see the federal election interference case as probably the most significant case. that's the jack smith case. that's the one that seems to be looming, even if there is some delay based on immunity. i still see that case going to trial before the summer. and i think a conviction in that case not only presents prison time for donald trump, but also exposes the big lie and the attack on democracy. i think it is important and a threat not only to donald trump, but really important to our country and our history going forward. >> danny, looking outside the courtroom, when trump was headed in, we reported out how he was still really angry that the judge wasn't going to allow him today to deliver part of the closing argument for the defense and is vowing to have a press conference. so he will speak today later on. could words that come after

these closing arguments impact this case at all? >> not likely. i mean, number one, they're not evidence. and they really won't affect -- though in theory justice engoron could bring him back and say, i told you not to say this about my clerk or whatever else and you went out and did it after the case was over. in theory, he could do that. but really what he might make a decision is that, hey, it is probably discretion may be the better part of valor. it is really difficult to hold a former president, someone like donald trump in contempt. how do you do that? that is a challenging thing, it is something that i think most judges really if they're being honest would prefer not to do. so, maybe trump sees this as an opportunity to really sound off once closing arguments are over. >> danny cevallos, barbara mcquade, thank you so much. that does it for us today. see you back here tomorrow, same time, same ac you can catch our show anytime around the clock online on youtube and other platforms. for now, i'm ana cabrera reporting from new york. jose diaz-balart picks up our coverage right after this. jose diaz-balart picks up our

coverage right after this. my skin has been so much smoother so much more hydrated. it's olay! with olay hyaluronic body wash 95% of women had visibly-better skin. and my skin is so much more moisturized. see the difference with olay. i have moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. thanks to skyrizi i'm playing with clearer skin. 3 out of 4 people achieved 90% clearer skin at 4 months. and skyrizi is just 4 doses a year after 2 starter doses. serious allergic reactions and an increased risk of infections or a lower ability to fight them may occur.

tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms, had a vaccine, or plan to. with skyrizi, nothing on my skin means everything! ♪ nothing is everything ♪ ask your dermatologist about skyrizi. learn how abbvie could help you save. when my doctor gave me breztri for my copd things changed for me. breztri gave me better breathing, symptom improvement, and reduced flare-ups. breztri won't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden breathing problems. it is not for asthma. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking it. don't take breztri more than prescribed. breztri may increase your risk of thrush, pneumonia, and osteoporosis. call your doctor if worsened breathing, chest pain, mouth or tongue swelling, problems urinating, vision changes, or eye pain occur. ask your doctor about breztri. (smelling) ew. gotta get rid of this. ♪tell me why♪ because it stinks. ♪have you tried downy rinse and refresh♪ it helps remove odors 3x better than detergent alone. it worked guys! ♪yeahhhh♪