percent month over month, which accounted for more than half of the rise in core consumer prices. it's more pronounced on a year-over-year basis where shelter costs were 6.2% higher overall. good news possibly, we did see that wage gains adjusted for inflation did outpace some of the estimates out there. we will see if that happens on a better basis. >> thank you so very much. appreciate it. that wraps up the hour for me. i'm jose diaz-balart. reach me on social media @jdbalart. thank you for the privilege of your time. right now on "andrea mitchell reports," former president trump is back in court watching closing arguments in a case that could end the trump organization in the place that made it.

>> i am hoping to speak and to help my lawyers reveal all of the defects of this case. this is a case that should have never been brought, and it was brought. it's very unfair. >> could this be the start of a new day for the 2024 gop race? chris christie dropping out. the field could solidify behind one trump challenger as soon as next week. >> we don't need a politician who tells you what she thinks you want to hear just to try to get your vote. >> every time he lies, drake university don't turn this into a drinking game, because you will be overserved by the end of the night. >> 25 hours after hunter biden surprised congress, he is in california preparing to face a federal judge this afternoon.

good to be with you. court is in a break and donald trump is speaking. we will show live pictures in a moment. andrea mitchell is on assignment. donald trump's defense team should be finishing their closing arguments relatively soon this afternoon. right now they are on a morning break. this is the $370 million civil fraud trial against donald trump here in new york city. they have been in court, before this break, for about two hours, despite a bomb threat at the home of the judge. police are investigating. yesterday on truth social, the former president posted that the judge and the new york attorney general were, quote, working closely together to screw me. trump wanted to presumably say something like that to the judge's face today, requesting to deliver part of his closing

arguments himself. the judge had said he was inclined to let trump. ultimately, denied the request after trump refused to agree to the legal norms any attorney would be held to. stick to the facts and away from campaign speeches and personal attacks. outside of the courtroom this morning, where donald trump was free to address reporters, he once again argued that he was the victim. >> i want to speak. i want to make a summation. at this moment, the judge is not letting me because i bring up things he doesn't want to hear. it's a very unfair trial. nobody has seen anything like this. >> the judge has found the former president committed fraud by inflating the value of his properties to get favorable loan deals. he will decide what penalties trump owes and if he can continue to operate in new york. lawyers will have two hours for

closing later today. they have said they won't need that long. we will start with national correspondent jasmine vasuvian and joyce vance and andrew weissmann. they are on a break right now? does that mean the closing argument for the trump team is over? do they have more to give? >> reporter: we don't know the answer to that. they are on break as i'm being told from our reporters inside the courtroom. from what we knew going into this thing, the defense will have two hours to deliver their closing arguments followed by the prosecution that will have two hours. they said they don't need that much time. if two hours is what they have been given, they are right around time. if they are not necessarily done, they don't have much left after chris kise wrapped.

there are a couple things i want to weigh in on. first, the bomb threat at the judge's house. we are getting a statement saying the police department continues to investigate this morning's threat and takes seriously any threat made to an individual. the police department continues to work with our local, state and federal law enforcement officers on all aspects of that case. we don't know the details whether or not -- we don't know whether or not -- excuse me, i got distracted. my producer was telling me something. they are on break. i want to reiterate that. we don't know the details as to whether the judge was inside the house when the bomb threat came through. let me walk you through what we have been hearing in court throughout the day from these closing arguments. as you mentioned, the judge said the former president could not offer any arguments or remarks. he laid out parameters.

he said trump would be allowed to speak only about material facts that are in evidence, application of the relevant law to the facts. he said he will not allow a campaign speech or to attack the judge, his staff, or the ag. he had not responded by the deadline noon yesterday to say whether or not he would abide by that or his attorneys had not responded to that. hence, the reason why he was not able to offer those remarks today. he said he will try to do it. it looks like it's not happening because the judge said, no, it's not happening. let me walk you through also some of the highlights. i know you have andrew weissmann and joyce vance to weigh in. from what we have been hearing in closing, some of the things that stood out, there was a back and forth when it came to disgorgement. the banks were satisfied.

the ag disgorgement claim is based on total speculation. the only remaining theory relates to the certifications. the judge said, let's talk about disgorgement. ill gotten gains. if you do something wrong, you are supposed to disgorge those profits. you talk about damage or harm. there doesn't have to be evidence of harm. kise says, you can't make a number. it doesn't have to be quantified like a damage. they still have the burden to demonstrate that there was some harm that president trump got something that he did not deserve. do you know how many thousands of these deals are done every day? she comes along because she doesn't president trump. one other thing. this is something you know very well. we are talking about damages here. the judge has made a decision. this is going to come down to the number, the fines that are going to be issued against the former president and his organization.

by the way, will he be banned for life from serving as director and/or head of this corporation? in these closing arguments, chris kise talks about the former president's personal wealth. he says, he has one of the strongest personal balance sheets you have ever seen. extensive real estate, a billion in equity, net worth of 4.2 adjusted to 2.4. that is what is material to them, not the annual financial statements. when you read that, i think it means two different things. one, that they are talking about the former president's personal wealth, but two, as you are analyzing it, imagining how hard -- you know this very well from following the former president for so long. how hard something like this is going to hit the former president and how he defines himself as a real estate magnate

in the new york city area and the wealth that he has compiled over the last half century because of that work. what it would do to him if he were unable to do that and practice real estate in the city of new york for the rest of his life. >> how much does it damage his ego? it's not just him, it's potentially his two adult sons not being able to do business here in new york for, i think it's about five years. there's a question of how much cash the president -- former president has on hand. he has some big legal fines to pay. those could get larger as a second version of the e. jean carroll case goes to trial. the ag was asking for $250 million in this case, the new york civil fraud case. now she's asking for $370 million. there are questions about how much liquid cash donald trump has on hand. he calls himself a billionaire multiple times over. forbes says he is not worth wha he says he is. it's unclear the exact dollar

amount you can attribute to donald trump right now. there's a question of what he would need to sell off to pay down the debt. there's going to be appeals. if it gets to the $370illion mark, it could get diminished in a second round of court cases. andrew, i want to ask you about what yasmin is talking about. the lawyers say there's no real world impact. donald trump has a great personal wealth. banks were never really taking a chance. this didn't matter what he had on paper, because he had so much money to his name. if that's the case, why lie about the value of these properties? why lie about the square footage of trump tower? if he didn't need these numbers to get these loans, why exaggerate them? >> yeah. >> andrew, i will start with you. >> then defer to my esteemed

colleague, joyce. that's a great point. let's just focus on what the law is here with respect to all seven causes of action. that's going to be what governs this case as the judgeas held as yasmin said in connection with the first cause of action. to the first cause of action where liability has been found, the judge did not have to find whether there was an intent to defraud. that was not required in the first cause of action. it would be required if he finds liability for cause of actions two through seven. to your point, it is not required that the bank actually rely on the false statements. one of the reasons that people put in exaggerated statements to get a bank loan is because they want to maximize the chance that the loan will be approved.

they want to maximize the chance that the loan will be approved at a favorable rate. both of those things are incentives somebody would have to inflate their assets and deflate their liabilities. one of the things that struck me was that in the argument this morning, there really was not a strong effort to deal with the evidence that the state put on and is detailed in their closing brief with respect to, for instance, the size -- the most notorious example because it's the clearest and also so easy for people to understand, the inflation of the size of the trump tower apartment, saying the size is three times the amount that it was. there was very little effort to deal with the fact that the valuation of the mar-a-lago

estate ignored the restrictions on that. the same thing happened with other real estate where it was valued as if the apartments were not regulated by rent control and rent stabilization. there was another illustration of donald trump's including cash on hand for an account that his accountants said you cannot include that cash because it is not in your account. it was falsely listed as being something within an account he controlled when it, in fact, was not. in fact, that was the lead example in the state's closing brief. there really is a sense of ships passing in the night. legally and factually -- the final point is it was a little striking to me that chris kise opened his argument by saying that they didn't have a jury

here but they would have wanted one. the reason i find that so striking is donald trump's papers did not ask for a jury. that point is factually incorrect. it was simply not sought by donald trump. why do you think he would be leading with that argument? it feels so much more like a campaign talking point that he was somehow denied a jury here when, in fact, donald trump never asked for it. i thought that was an odd way to start off. it does suggest that they don't think the judge is going to rule for them, because that's such -- that is such a leading with your chin in terms of your opening argument. >> an argument on the statute of limitations can be take ton the appellate courts. arguing when they were owed a

jury trial when they didn't tick the box for that is an oversight. they are going back right now. the defense is done with closing arguments. the other trump lawyers are going to get up and give shorter versions of their closings. donald trump wanted to do it during this but wouldn't agree to the terms of sticking to the relevant facts of the case and not making a campaign speech. joyce, i want your opinion on what i first asked, why exaggerate, and then whether the defense made any decent points here today in the closing so far or during the case that could limit the amount of money that the judge fines donald trump and whether he might allow the business to continue operating. the court is back in session, by the way. >> yeah, that's a great question.

it goes to the heart of what's at stake here. we are not talking at this point about whether or not the trump organization will be found responsible on first count that was brought against them. that's a forgone conclusion. the judge has already said that he will dissolve trump organization by pulling its certificate to do business. i think all of the examples that andrew goes through, to your question about why would they lie about these things that are so readily disprovedisproven, i trump's argument today -- and it's his argument on appeal because the judge has already made up his mind -- is that it doesn't matter what you do, it doesn't matter how many misstatements you make to a bank, as long as you end up succeeding in business. trump, in essence, said look at me, i'm a success. i have this positive balance

sheet. i was a good risk no matter what i said. that argument in some ways really goes to prove the fraud. i think we will see james point to that when the attorney general offers their closing argument. that's why they don't need a lot of time. by admitting to the misrepresentations and saying, so what, there are no victims, in essence they acknowledged there was fraud. the attorney general has shown that resulted in benefits to trump. >> they are saying the ends justify the means. andrew, do me a favor. yasmin was talking about disgorgement. i didn't go to law school. can you explain? >> sure. there are different types of damages that can be awarded. one is -- the more traditional one you think of is that somebody was harmed.

there's a victim and their money was taken. if you rob a bank, the bank can lose money. they will say, this is the amount of money that we lost and should be given back. disgorgement is -- the example i gave was be exactly the same dollar amount, but what you are looking at is, what is the benefit that the culprit received from engaging in this conduct? what did they get? in this case, the state's argument is tha there was -- a, they got loans they weren't entitled to. b, they loans at a better rate than they were entitled to. they could take that extra money and not only did they get that extra money that they would have had to use to pay interest -- just think about if anyone is listening has a mortgage on

their home. you would love to have a lower rate. the difference between the rate that you got through fraud versus the rate that you should have been charged is what you have to disgorge. in addition, if you take that money that you saved and then invest it, that's also additional proceeds of what you got from your bad conduct. one way to think about it is the court wants to make sure you are not in any way profiting directly or indirectly from the illegal conduct and is disgorging that from the culprit. that's really the main battleground that you are going to be hearing about in terms of -- what does that dollar amount consist of? chris kise argued for donald trump this morning that that number was simply made up. you will hear from the attorney general i'm sure that that's not

the case. they put on an expert to talk about that very issue. obviously, it remains to be seen. an issue that has not been decided by judge is what is the dollar amount that he thinks is appropriate. we are hearing, by the way, that the judge may issue his decision as soon as this month. that does make sense. he certainly had a lengthy trial. he has had a lot of time over the holidays to examine that record. this is the final piece, which is hearing from both parties, their final arguments. i think that seems fair that he would issue his decision relatively soon. >> he said he will file it to the docket by the end of the month. suzann craig, she was in the courtroom, of something donald trump wrote, always spend other people's money. tell me what it was like in the courtroom so far. >> right. we started out and we got team trump's closing arguments right at the start this morning.

they are still going on. i want to go about their arguments and talk about two that are unique and go to the heart of the case. they started out with some of the greatest hits. they say he is a real estate genius and that he knew -- donald trump knew the banks would be doing their own due diligence. we went to his financial statements. these are the statements that are at the heart of the case. they were submitted to the banks and the attorney general is saying that they were fraudulent. team trump is saying the financial statements, in fact, had disclaimers on them. they say they are like a buyer beware notice. the third point that trump had professionals. he relied on professional advice. they went through these things. real estate valuations, they are

not science. i think there was two important arguments that haven't been as discussed to date that i want to talk about. one was right at the top. chris kise, who is a lawyer for donald trump, he said that -- this is an argument directed right at the appeals court that most of the behavior here is outside of the statute of limitations. after we finish here today, there's going to be some sort of verdict. there's going to be a fine. then it will go and be fought in the appeals court. they are -- we saw team trump laying the groundwork for that. the second thing that came up -- i think the word of the morning was unrebutted. chris kise kept saying a lot of the evidence was unrebutted. the attorney general never came back with anything to say, hey, that's the evidence that team

trump got and they never rebutted it. the judge interjected and said, he doesn't have to accept unrebutted evidence if he doesn't find it credible. there was back and forth about that. the third thing that came up was the issue of disgorgement. what is the final fine? the attorney general is now looking at $370 million. there was a lot of wrangling about that and a lot of dispute from the trump team about that number, that it's crazy, it's delusional. that's where we are at right now. >> can you explain how she went from 250 to 370? >> right. they looked, after the evidence, this they said there was more harm done. the banks are owed more. they should have gotten more interest off of the loans than they did because trump submitted the financial statements that overly timistic.

he got preferential treatment. there's two other important -- or two pieces of it, one other component to that, which is that two of the loans are on properties that have since been sold. because they are fruit of the poisonous tree, those -- the profits -- those properties have been sold and the profits from those properties should be disgorged. one is the post office and the other is the golf course. >> we will let you get back into court. thank you very much. joyce, andrew, i know you are sticking around. the home stretch. ron desantis and nikki haley are back on the campaign trail in iowa after a contentious debate last night. we have a little bit more news about chris christie and what he might do next. don't go anywhere. we are back in 60 seconds. k in .

(announcer) enough with the calorie counting, carb cutting, diet fatigue, and stress.

just taking one golo release capsule with three balanced meals a day has been clinically proven to repair metabolism, optimize insulin levels, and balance the hormones that make weight loss easy. release works with your body, not against it, so you can put dieting behind you and go live your life. head to golo.com now to join the over 2 million people who have found the right way to lose weight and get healthier with golo. the power goes out and we still have wifi to do our homework. and that's a good thing? great in my book! who are you? no power? no problem. introducing storm-ready wifi. now you can stay reliably connected through power outages with unlimited cellular data and up to 4 hours of battery back-up to keep you online. only from xfinity. home of the xfinity 10g network.

the iowa caucuses -- caucus, excuse me, singular, is monday. ron desantis and nikki haley went face to face on the debate stage in des moines last night trading jabs at each other. chris christie narrowed the field for republican voters when he dropped out of the race only hours before that debate. just before making his announcement, chris christie was caught on a hot mike saying this about nikki haley. >> joining me from des moines is dasha burns. dasha, how does chris christie leaving the race change iowa? >> reporter: so much drama yesterday in the final days here. no doubt, mathematically, it helps nikki haley. the last part of the hot mike he

did say desantis called him petrified. it is going to help her in new hampshire. it might help her here in iowa. let me show you really quickly, we just heard a ding. i'm at the never back down headquarters. regardless of chris christie's role -- second ding. it's all about ground game. it's all about get out the vote right now. that is what the focus is right now for the folks trying to support desantis. they are calling voters right now. they are trying to get the caucus goers out. the gongs, they got two precinct captains. those are the people that are many local communities that are going to make sure that the voters are turning out. they will help get the 80-year-olds in the van, in the cold, cold night that's supposed to be caucus night, get them

coats and jackets, through the ice to their caucus location. no matter what folks saw last night, which was a slugfest, two hours of the two of them going after one another, for iowans, it's about this kind of operation. the desantis team has been doing -- i was in this office in june when they were starting to get out. this has been a textbook campaign. this is the closest that a republican campaign has come to an obama-style operation, which is legendary. this is why desantis needs to have a strong showing in iowa. they have poured so much into the operation that if he doesn't make up that ground, really have a strong showing here, it's hard to argue viability going forward. >> nikki haley argued he is nowhere in any of the next states. nowhere in new hampshire. nowhere in south carolina. he is focusing on iowa. dasha, thank you. let's bring in jim messina,

former republican congressman from pennsylvania charlie dent, and tim miller, former top advisor on jeb bush's 2016 presidential campaign. let's talk about how this changes the race. tim, chris christie out of the race. he is not saying such nice things about his former competitors. getting a little news from a couple of our reporters in new hampshire. they are engaging chris christie and his allies on a potential third party run. joining the no labels ticket. would he be interested in that? what would that mean for the race? tim? >> i'm not -- i don't have any insight into chris christie's personal thinking. he said he was not interested in the no labels ticket. sometimes people change their mind. here is why i think he shouldn't if he wants to live up to the rhetoric in new hampshire last night where he said very clearly

that he doesn't want to do anything to help donald trump. it might seem on the surface to someone that isn't deep ingrained in politics that chris christie running on a third party ticket might help joe biden because he might take some republican voters, but that's a dated view of our political scene right now. chris christie had -- was deeply underwater. he had 70% unfavorable rating among republican voters in the primary. he is more popular with democratic voters. if chris christie was to run on the no labels ticket, he would almost certainly take from my people, former republican type voters that are -- that maybe don't agree with joe biden on everything but prefer him to donald trump. i think chris christie, if he is aware of that, which he will be and he will look at data, i think it will end up being unappealing for him to run on the no labels ticket if he wants to live up to his promise of not helping donald trump. >> charlie, could we see after monday night, after what happens

in iowa, the race narrowing to one person against donald trump, solidifying behind one competitor? that's what everybody said needed to happen in 2016. it didn't happen until basically the convention. if it happens as early as iowa, is it in the bag for donald trump? >> well, it seems right now that donald trump is likely to become the nominee. however, ron desantis does not have much of a path at all. maybe he finishes second in iowa. i don't see -- he will get smoked in new hampshire and south carolina and super tuesday, i can't imagine he would do well. haley does have a very narrow path through new hampshire. she has momentum. maybe she comes out of iowa in second place. she can maybe consolidate some of the non-trump vote in new hampshire and then maybe that could springboard her to a victory there. it's possible. not saying it's going to happen but it's possible. who knows from there? nikki haley is the only

non-trump candidate who has some sort of a viable path. it's a narrow one that it might not happen. stay tuned. >> momentum could change things. we have seen surprises in these races before. of course, donald trump is a different animal entirely. if you are the biden team watching this, are you hoping for a trump win or are you hoping for nikki haley pulling something off, jim? if nikki haley or desantis does -- is able to beat donald trump and get the nomination, does the republican party solidify behind that candidate? does donald trump tear off a large portion of it because he is angry that he didn't win? >> i have seen nothing in the ten years donald trump has been on the national political stage to say that he would play nicely with others. i think it's clear he would want to burn this thing to the ground. that said, i agree with the congressman. what democrats believe is they are running against donald

trump. it doesn't matter if desantis gets out after iowa and if this gets down to two people, because you have to have a contrast. last night, the republicans refused to go after donald trump. to beat the king, you have to hit the king. these guys are so concerned about getting in a fight with him. it doesn't matter we get down to two candidates if none of them will ever lay a hand on this. it's so very clear to democrats that we are running against donald trump. the general election really starts now. >> jim, thank you very much. tim and charlie, appreciate it. we have breaking news from massachusetts to bring you. robert kraft made it official at a press conference that bill belichick will not return for a 25th season, ending an historic and unprecedented run of nfl successes that will likely -- who knows?

will never be duplicated. he will have suitors in the coming weeks. for now, an amicable split from the franchise. belichick and brady built it into a powerhouse throughout the century. >> robert and i have, after discussions, have agreed to part ways. for me, this is a day of gratitude and celebration. start with robert and his family. so much thanks for the opportunity to be head coach here for 24 years. it's an amazing opportunity. received tremendous support. we had a vision of building a championship football team here. that exceeded my wildest dreams and expectations. >> no word on who will replace belichick for the patriots yet.

coming up, in the spotlight. hunter biden goes from a capitol hill hearing to a california federal courtroom. we are live after the break. federal courtroom. we are live after the break. ready? everywhere you look beautiful people. oh my gosh! eva. eva, love the dress. -thank you. -what do you think? mommy's going to steal the show, right? she steals everything especially money. she steals my friends. she steals from everyone. it's dice dreams. i don't steal, you know. dice dreams, attack your friends and steal their coins. play now.

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. hunter biden is in los angeles for his arrangement this afternoon in federal court on nine tax-related charges. three are felonies. the president's son is accused of failing to pay more than a million dollars in taxes. the charging documents money spent on drugs, escorts, rental properties, exotic cars and clothing. everything but his taxes. those funds have been paid since then. in an interview, dr. jill biden spoke about what the attacks on hunter biden has meant for the first family. >> i think what they are doing to hunter is cruel.

i'm really proud of how hunter has rebuilt his life after addiction. i think -- i love my son. it has hurt my grandchildren. that's what i'm so concerned about, that it's affecting their lives as well. >> joining me now from outside the courthouse is sara fitzpatrick. the hunter team is facing a steep legal charge -- a number of steep legal charges here in los angeles. what's going to happen today? >> reporter: today is going to be a very routine first appearance. it's expected to last ten minutes. the judge will set the main topic of discussion, going through certain motions, setting a schedule. most importantly, setting a schedule for discovery and

perhaps a trial date. the main thing we look for today is what the government anticipates in terms of what their case is. of course, we have reported previously that the main investigation of this case has been over for quite some time. it will be interesting to see if there's new evidence or new information that the government is going to offer since that plea deal fell apart early early this summer. >> what about what happened yesterday? what was the goal, the strategy for hunter biden and his legal team showing up to congress out of nowhere? >> reporter: the strategy was essentially to highlight, as we have been told, what they consider the house oversight committee's hypocrisy. they claim -- house republicans claim to want to seek facts, to talk to hunter biden, to educate the american people and to sit there in the courtroom and say, hey, i'm here. there was an interesting moment

in which there was a show of hands, who wants to hear from hunter biden today. of course, we saw that was clearly split down the aisle with no republicans raising their hands. it was intended to make a point more than anything. >> he was willing to talk, just not behind closed doors. thank you very much. back with us, joyce vance and andrew weissmann. joyce, let's start with you. hunter biden is facing serious charges. all that money has been paid back. what do you anticipate happening? >> the first thing we will see, and the fact the money is paid back i think wil be the springboard, is a series of arguments made by hunter biden's lawyers suggesting the charges should be dismissed. like any other american who finds themselves under indictment, biden will likely have to make a decision down the road, re-visiting this early spectacle we saw in a delaware

courtroom, does he want to negotiate a plea? does he want to establish he is not guilty? that's where this heads quickly. >> is there any way he gets out of this without time in jail? >> yes. that's possible. he, like the former president, is going to have his day in court. he could prevail on his two federal cases. even if he does not prevail, if he is found guilty, it doesn't mean that a sentencing judge will think it's appropriate in a first-time tax offense to send somebody to jail. the data on that is -- there are a lot of people on a first-time tax offense that don't go to jail. a judge could view this as a more serious type of tax crime. i would like to note that one of

your questions about disgorgement that you raised with respect to the state case, somebody might say, isn't this an example of no harm, no foul, because he paid the money back? i wanted to point out the differences. it really isn't a case of where in both cases you say no one was hurt. what judge engoron will look at is, did donald trump pay everything back, if he was given loans he should not have been given, if he paid lower interest rates, then he has not paid all the money back? that's why there's disgorgement. in the case of hunter biden, his lawyer will say he actually did give the money back. >> andrew, thank you for anticipating the likely questions. i appreciate that. joyce vance, thank you as well. coming up, we will go back to the courthouse in lower manhattan for more on the closing arguments in the trump organization's civil trial, which is ongoing right now. don't go anywhere. ow don't go anywhere. n had me taking antacid after antacid all day long

but with prilosec otc just one pill a day blocks heartburn for a full 24 hours. for one and done heartburn relief, prilosec otc. one pill a day, 24 hours, zero heartburn.

>> woman: what's my safelite story? for one and done heartburn relief, prilosec otc. i'm a photographer. and when i'm driving, i see inspiration right through my glass. so when my windshield cracked, it had to be fixed right. i scheduled with safelite autoglass. their experts replaced my windshield and recalibrated my car's advanced safety system. ♪ acoustic rock music ♪ >> woman: safelite is the one i trust. they focus on safety so i can focus on this view. >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪ what about your husband? is he here? no, unfortunately, he couldn't make it. she attacked him last night. you attacked your husband? [silence] dice dreams, attack your friends and steal their coins. play now.

attorneys for new york attorney general james will have their shot to deliver closing arguments in the $370 million civil fraud case against donald trump, with the future of trump's business on the line. joining our panel is jeff mason and joyce vance and andrew weiss weissman. what would this mean for donald trump to be put out of business in new york? >> it's funny. on one level, i don't think anything that is a conviction is good for anyone and would be a mark -- a negative mark on former president trump's list, as it were. the truth is, all attention for president trump has always been good attention. that's the way he views it and

that's the way it's reflected in the polls. to talk about this and play victim, if he is convicted and has to pay a fine, having a chance to say he has been unfairly targeted, those messages, whether they are right or wrong, almost always resonate with his base. that leads to the increase in polling and to people supporting him. >> what do we know about his finances and whether he can afford to pay this money back? >> that's a good question. i don't have any specific intel on that. the reporting has shown he is not as wealthy as he says he is. that said, whether or not he would end up paying a fine that he is levied at all i think is an open question. >> joyce, the attorney general and her team -- not her specifically, but her team will give closing arguments after trump's team is done, which should be soon. what do you think she will -- that team will say to encourage

judge engoron to mete the fine they think is warranted, $370 million? >> they have won their case. something that trial lawyers know is that it's time to move on after you have won a point. don't dig yourself a hole. i think it's correct to say that they will focus on the appropriate dollar amount here. the calculus that you have to engage in if you are the judge is what dollar amount is both appropriate and affirmable on appeal. if for instance he reaches for some extraordinarily high number that can't be justified, it's likely that that number will be reduced on appeal. i think we will see him stick very squarely to the proof. that means that the team needs to put together the expert testimony to put it in focus of the disgorgement argument that andrew made.

this is about forcing the trump organization to give back to the people of new york any profits that they unfairly attracted through fraudulent practices. that means she will focus on the numbers, on specific incidents where fraud resulted in benefits to donald trump that should not have been available to him, and how you quantify those amounts. a lot is very subjective. she will have to ground it in hard numbers that are available to her. >> one of the arguments is the defense is making is that this is bad for business in new york. if the judge fines donald trump this much money and if ty lose on appeal, this will mean businesses in new york are going to leave or be unfairly targeted. do they have any case there? >> in a word, no. i think you will hear from the attorney general that argument that this is going to be a precedent for other businesses

in new york. i think you will hear the attorney. >> john: -- general to say, damn straight, from the attorney general's point of view. they will say holding companies like this, which they say have engaged in repeated fraud, is something that they are duty bound to protect the citizens of new york to do. it's very reminiscent of an argument that judge chutkan made in the d.c. trial court when she was addressing donald trump's claim that he should be immune from criminal liability for his conduct as president of the united states. she said, that deterrent is a good thing, not a bad thing. united states, and she said that deterrent is a good thing, not a bad thing. deterring somebody who's the president from engaging in crime is a good thing for the country, not a bad thing, and i think

that's what you're going to hear in this very different context in connection with the attorney general's view of her obligation to the citizens here in the state of new york. >> jeff, politically speaking, how is this going for former president trump? >> well, going back to what i said before, every single negative thing that happens to him usually helps him. that said, it's a distraction. it's a distraction at a time when nikki haley is encroaching on him in new hampshire, it's a distraction at a time when he needs to be out on the campaign trail, and i think that's what we're going to see in 2024. he'll be balancing these multiple courtroom appearances that he will have to make with the need and the desire to be out amongst the public competing for the office or in this case, in the first case, the nomination for the office that he wants to win. that said, again, the voters who support him already in most cases see this as something that is just another reason to support him. >> yeah, what about the independents? what about the general election voters?

what about not the primary voters? what's this mean for them? >> that's the big question. >> jeff and joyce and anew, thank you. antony blinken is on his way home, he shuttled between israel and arab states. secretary blinken spoke to reporters at the airport about a path forward for peace in the region. >> that path is clearly there. it's possible, and we can see it, and there's a path that brings israel's needs and desires for integration in the region and security with as well the palestinian aspirations of first state of their own. >> joining me is collin clarke, director of research at the sufan group. one of the things that secretary of state antony blinken said there has to be a resolution to

the conflict number one, in gaza, but there also has to be a clear pathway for a palestinian state. the netanyahu government has been against that. benjamin netanyahu regardless of what he personally believes, politically speaking can't do that because he's alienate the far right in this government. they will toss him overboard, and he'll be out of office. how does a resolution come with benjamin netanyahu still in power? >> i don't know that it does, katy. i think netanyahu may be out, and there are protests in israel, you know, over the past couple of weeks agitaing towards that. i think netanyahu has been perceived as self-serving, and you know, asleep at the wheel because in the past his message was you may not like me personally, but i keep you safe. well, now that that veil has been lifted, what does he actually do? so i think there's going to be, you know, a real meeting of the minds within israeli domestic politics to figure out a way

forward because without a political solution to this conflict, we'll be back here 6, 12, 18 months from now. we keep talki about an escalation in tensions and escalating worries about this war spilling out and broadening through the region. there have been repeated attacks by houthi rebels in the red sea. there's stuff happening in the gulf of oman, which is over the bend from saudi arabia. what do you anticipate happening, and is there actually a threat of this broadening? how much on the precipice are we? or does the region see this as a localized problem, and yes, the main street, the arab mainstream is going to get angry about it. long-term, this is not something that anyone wants to escalate. >> well, i think we're actually in a low boil regional war at the moment. there's a lot of talk about heading that off, but i think we're there. the question becomes do we escalate into a broader

conflagration that kind of brings in all of these iranian proxies, even more fully into the fray than they already are. the houthi rebels in yemen, iraqi shia militias. you know, various groups in syria that have been agitating. and this is all orchestrated by the iranians. we see, you know, the iranians are more brazen today than they've been since anytime i'd say since the 1980s, and so, you know, we're reaching a point where the united states needs to respond in this various theaters. they responded in iraq, which has caused, you know, a couple of other additional problems there, but there's going to have to be something done in yemen because houthi rebels keep threatening global shipping, global commerce, and i know the pentagon has plans thrown up to strike some drone and missile depots. we're probably getting very close to operationalizing those plants. >> collin clarke, thank you very much. we have a little more news to bring you from the trump trial that is happening right

now. chris kise is asking judge engoron once again if he would reconsider allowing president trump to address the court for two to three minutes. he said that you said addressing the judge in your own email you would benefit, you the judge would benefit and that no one is more affected than donald trump. i'm refreshing this google doc from our reporters inside the courtroom to see what judge engoron says. we have joyce vance back with us. joyce, you know what, let me give you a little bit more. judge engoron says if i let you speak for five minutes, will you focus on the facts and not go outside? trump says the financial statements are perfect. the banks got all their money. the banks are happy as they can be. they were not defrauded, and there was -- i got to wait for this document to update. it sounds like engoron might be leaning toward a yes depending on trump's answer here. >> you know, this is so unusual,

katy. it seems like there are no rules when donald trump is involved. the reason that people hire lawyers to represent them in court is because lawyers understand what the issues are. any litigant might want to be in the position donald trump's in and to focus the judge on what's important to them, but the judge has to make legal decisions based on the evidence that was put forth in court and what the law says, and it's very unlikely that donald trump can shed any light on any of those issues more capably than the three lawyers who the judge has permitted to argue for him today but trump is trump. >> yeah. >> i'm sorry to interrupt. i just want to read a little bit more of this because it's getting interesting. >> trump says the financial statements are perfect. the banks got all their money. they were not defrauded and there was not one person affected. we should receive damages for what we have gone through, again saying that they're the victims here. he says the money is irrelevant. it is a small number, and regarding the triplex, which was

again 10,000 feet but listed as 30,000 square feet, he says the triplex was an honest mistake. they heard -- i assume the accountants heard triplex and multiplied it by three. the dollar number was not so far off. we have a situation. i am an innocent man persecuted. i'm going to leave it there. chris jansing is going to pick this up in a couple of minute thes. do not go anywhere. "chris jansing reports" right after a very quick break. "chris jansing reports" right after a very quick break asn't cutting it. and that's not good for baking. or judging. or writing. so, we switched to verizon, the network businesses rely on. with verizon business unlimited, i get 5g, truly unlimited data, and unlimited hotspot data. so, no matter what, i'm running this kitchen. (vo) make the switch. it's your business. it's your verizon. hi. are you ready? are you santiago's mother? yes, i am.

and she's a thief! [silence] let's go. dice dreams, attack your friends and steal their coins. play now. ♪ (upbeat music) ♪ ( ♪♪ ) constant contact's advanced automation lets you send the right message at the right time, every time. ( ♪♪ ) constant contact. helping the small stand tall. liberty mutual customized my car insurance and i saved hundreds. that's great. i know, i've bee telling everyone. baby: liberty. oh! baby: liberty. how many people did you tell? only pay for what you need. jingle: ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ baby: ♪ liberty. ♪ [stomach growling] it's nothing... sounds like something. ♪when you have nausea, heartburn, indigestion♪ ♪upset stomach, diarrhea♪ pepto bismol coats and soothes for fast relief when you need it most.

hi, i'm jason. i've lost 228 pounds on golo. so when my doctor told me i needed weight loss surgery, pepto bismol coats and soothes i knew i had to make a change. golo's helped me transition to a healthier, sustainable lifestyle. i'm so surprised just how crazy my metabolism has fired up. i have a trust in golo 'cause i know it works. golo isn't like every other program out there, and i'm living proof of it. (announcer) change your life at golo.com. that's golo.com. huh. internet's out. wanna hear a fun fact?