hi, i'm jason. i've lost 228 pounds on golo. so when my doctor told me i needed weight loss surgery, 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?

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. good afternoon. i'm chris jansing reporting live from msnbc headquarters in new york city, and it is suddenly another wild day inside a manhattan courtroom. breaking news as we come on the air, former president trump addressing the court right now, part of the final chapter in the civil fraud trial that could bring down the empire that made

donald trump a mogul and then arguably president. today there were dramatic closing arguments as the former president tried to argue his way out of a devastating blow to his business. lawyers putting their final mark on what has been an intense and important 11 weeks. i want to bring in "new york times" investigative reporter suzanne craig. also with us "new york times" chief white house correspondent and msnbc political analyst, peter baker. and former brooklyn, new york, prosecutor and msnbc legal analyst, charles coleman here with me on set. so correct me if i'm wrong here, susanna, as i understand it, donald trump's lawyer chris kise says to the judge, my client would like just a few minutes to address the court. in fact, the judge gives him a few more. he says there's five, but you can't start going off on attacks or on political things, and the question i immediately had when

i heard this was how long could that last. tell us what's going on inside that courtroom right now. >> right and i just stepped out but i'm sort of looking at a live feed and trump has immediately launched into an attack of the attorney general. you know, he's saying that she hates trump and is just using him -- using this case to get elected. and that's where we're at right now. i'm not in there, but it's pretty contentious, and you know, there's a lot of ground to cover. the morning started with trump's lawyers, you know, some of the phrases that have been used is we shouldn't be here. in fact, donald trump should be getting a medal for the things that he has done for new york, and then it's devolved to just before i left the court and trump got up, his attorney, alina habba, there's several attorneys who are speaking. she's one of the more i would say animated. she even went after the attorney general saying she has her shoes off right now and is drinking

starbucks in the court. it's sort of fairly kind of going off the rails at this point, and we're about to break for lunch, and then the attorney general's team is up this afternoon to give their side of all of this. >> i mean, it's far off the legal part of it. did you say has her shoes off. >> the judge actually when that comment was made and this would apply to trump, she was admonished for saying that and alina habba, trump's lawyer said i just state the facts, and the judge said they have to be facts relevant to this case. and that's really where this comes down to. you know, i think a lot of people know donald trump wanted to and he had said he was going to give the closing arguments today. why he is not giving the closing arguments came down to a dispute over the judge said he can give the closing arguments. i'm open to that, but he has to stick to the facts at hand. the facts of this case, and he never agreed to that in writing, and so he was not allowed to give the closing arguments.

he's now been given a few minutes. it's clearly, you know, unfortunately not there. i caught a little bit of it. it's not going well, but they are giving him some time to speak his piece today. >> why do you think, charles, that a judge who knows that donald trump has made threats, has gone off of some people would say the rails, but certainly gone off of what would be normal decorum for a defendant by far and allow him to speak? why do that? >> well, chris, i think part of it is once this is over with, judge engoron wants it to be as over with as it can be, and he's not trying to create any sort of issue or argument regarding donald trump's right not only to fair representation but also to being heard. now, this is something, to be clear, that he did not have to allow. he did not have to grant it, had he denied it and given his reasons for denial, he likely would have been on solid ground. by granting it, he has now taken

away even more of an excuse for donald trump to say i was treated unfairly. i was not allowed an opportunity to be heard, and therefore, i should be able to appeal whatever the eventual verdict is in this case. judge engoron has decided that, look, i'm not going to give you that leeway even though i'm going to restrict what it is that you can and cannot say. you will not after this verdict is rendered turn around and try to appeal on the basis of not having been heard or having an opportunity to represent yourself if that's what you have chosen to do. >> so i suppose, peter, all of us could have predicted that donald trump wouldn't take long to go where the judge said he couldn't go. i'm looking at some of the notes and understand that our folks are sending these in realtime. it's not like they're in complete sentences or anything. among the things -- well, first of all, i should say the judge says if i let you speak for five minutes, will you focus on the facts and not go outside? you start talking about how, you

know, his home, his triplex is worth much more than they said it was. but then he gets into that legal scholars find this disgraceful. i'm an innocent man persecute bid someone running for office. the person in the room now hates trump and doesn't want him to get elected. they found nothing and now they want 370 million for what? . predictable, was it not, peter, but what does donald trump get out of being able to speak in court? >> well, yes, predictable, obviously. nobody is surprised i suppose. but there's a couple of things he gets. one, of course, he is trying to make an argument not to this judge who he knows he's not going to convince but to the next court up and the court of public opinion, right? he is running his presidential campaign from the courthouse. he has no real choice because he has been sued and charged on so many different matters. he's being to be spending most of the spring, if not the year, rung his campaign from the courthouse either inside or on

the steps. he's making the case to the broader public. he's making the case to his base days away from the iowa caucus, that he is a victim, that he is the persecuted candidate. therefore, they should not give credit to the ruling that this judge will make and has already made. the judge already determined that president trump committed fraud with these valuations of his property, and now the only question is how much he'll pay for that. donald trump is trying to explain that to the audience of voters who may only be paying attention now as the iowa caucuses near on monday and the new hampshire primary follows a week after that. >> charles, both by his lawyers during their can closing statements and now by donald trump, they are making an argument that fraud wasn't committed when, in fact, that has already been decided. so what is their strategy by doing that? >> bad lawyering. and i really know that may sound very simple, but at the end of the day, as you said, this is

something that had already been decided. there are a remaining six counts with respect to insurance fraud that they have argued has not been proven and some of the paperwork involved, and that's what you see remaining on the docket. in terms of what has already been decided around the general notion of fraud and the intention to commit it, yes, that question is well settled. i think that, again, to peter's point, part of this is litigating in the court of public opinion. part of this is sort of the many times that i say this, hopefully at some point it will catch wind to somewhere, to someone, and this narrative will become true. i don't think that they realize or believe, rather, that it's going to be a successful legal strategy. i think that they are still trying to make the case that, for example, we shouldn't be here and, therefore, whatever the damages that you are going to award letitia james and the state, should be as minimal as possible, but i don't think strategically that this is the right approach and the way to do it. >> so strategically, let's talk a little bit about this, peter, because you have to go back and just look at the idea that donald trump decided that he was

not going to be in iowa today. i was looking at the schedule just a few minutes ago where ron desantis was this morning, where nikki haley was this morning, and of course they were on the debate stage last night when he was wasn't. but he made a decision that he was going to not be in iowa today. as we look at that, first of all, but also in the bigger picture of as you say, he has all these other court cases including four criminal cases that are potentially coming up between now and november, although most people think that obviously that's all not going to get pulled off. there will be various places for him to be, why go if you don't have to? >> yeah, i mean, look, the question the opposite of that, why go to iowa where the temperature is i think 0 degrees and snowy if you don't have to. hazy good excuse not to know and donald trump isn't known for favoring physical discomfort. it may be as simple as that. he's way, way ahead in iowa, and

i think that he is looking ahead actually to new hampshire where he's facing a larger potential threat in nikki haley with chris christie dropping out yesterday. he doesn't necessarily need to be in iowa to win. i think that may be their calculation. that i think he wants, you know, to make his case arguably in front of this judge on his business empire. it does matter to him. he spent a lifetime building his reputation as a business tycoon, had a tv show that was based on the idea that somehow he was a business genius, and this case not only challenges his ability to do business in the future there, but challenges his very legacy. suzanne has wri an awful lot about this, it really challenges the idea of who he is as he has presented himse to the country over these years. >> let's talk about that legacy, the attorney general is now looking for a fine of $370 million from trump and a lifetime ban on doing business in new york. how big of a blow would that be to donald trump the man, donald trump the politician, and his

legacy? >> well, it's devastating, and i think it was notable today, you know, the word corporate death penalty has been thrown around a lot. today it was used several times by his own lawyers. this will put him out of business in new york. it's a huge blow, and he's going to have to come up with potentially hundreds of millions of dollars of a fine. we don't know where it's going to land, but the attorney general is asking for 370 million up from 280 million, and you know, the records, the financial records that we have looked at at "the new york times" that we've had access to, the tax records, the records of the attorney general has looked at, they show he doesn't have anywhere close to that amount of cash. so he is looking at having to sell significant assets to meet that fine, and that's why there's a receiver over this now, or part of the reason why there's a receiver over that so that we don't see an asset bleed

outside of new york. it's to protect right now potentially the taxpayers of new york because at some point he may have to sell something in order to meet that fine. i think we're a ways away from that. but this is huge for him. you know, i can't -- you can't overstate it. it's incredibly important to him and that's why i think he's here today. he wants to get his final two cents in. they're speaking today bodes to their supporters, but also to the appellate court where they've had one ruling that they think could go in their favor on the statute of limitations which could cut this down when we go to the appellate court. it's going to be going on for a while. this is very real to him. >> when we say going on for a while, charles, what are we looking at here? >> it depends, we know that judge engoron is going to rule on this sooner than later. that date has already been set. when you're talking about the different ways that donald trump can seek to appeal this, that's what we're talking about judge

engoron trying to limit that in terms of his rulings now around the closing arguments. as susannse was just saying trust that donald trump and his defense team are going to try to find as many ways as possible to appeal whatever the ultimate verdict is, and whatever the ultimate judge in this case that judge engoron issues. in terms of the money changing hands, we could literally be looking at years before there is an ultimate decision that determines what of the judgment that judge engoron enters, donald trump is going to actually be responsible for having to pay. so the ramifications of this in the immediate sense are much more reputational than they are practical. that won't come until several years later. >> let's bring in msnbc legal analyst lisa rubin. you were in the court and just moments after former trump -- former president trump spoke. you were able to come outside to

tell us what that moment was like. what was the interaction like between the judge and donald trump? >> electric for lack of a better word, chris. you could have expected that donald trump would make a request to address the court and indeed he did through his lawyer, chris kise after his side had already taken up their 2 hours and 15 minutes of argument. judge engoron asked him can you adhere to the facts of the law, not take your presentation beyond it, and it was in his purported answer to that question that trump essentially got to say everything he wanted to say without ever having to answer the question yes or no. engoron was looking for a commitment that trump wouldn't go outside the facts of the law and he essentially did just that, attacking attorney general tish james for her political witch hunt, accusing her of election interference, even saying that the judge himself has an agenda and was incapable

of listening to trump for more than one minute engoron didn't interrupt him except for two occasions. once to ask mr. kise to please control his client, and when trump proclaimed very loudly that he's an innocent man, engoron asked him mr. trump, haven't you been sued before. trump just completely glossed over that. i was hoping i would come out here and we would have a substantive conversation about the defense presentations and instead we are doing exactly what donald trump wants us to do. and for one, i sort of resent being the dog in his dog and pony show right now and i hope our viewers do as well. >> so tell us a little bit more about what you sensed from judge engoron and his decision to do this and what was his misdemeanor throughout this? i mean, it couldn't have come to any more surprise to him than us that donald trump again to go into attack mode. >> reporter: you know, i think judge engoron was resigned to the fact that this request would

be made. he was expecting it to come early in the day and when it didn't, he must have concluded that it wouldn't because one of his early reactions was mr. kise, there was a better way to do this. he felt cornered, and he felt as if he had no choice because if he had denied trump, the reaction, of course, would be more threats, vociferous social media posts about how trump had been denied a forum to speak. and because he had in the first instance offered trump that opportunity, he decided to reoffer it on the same terms. can you promise me that you will add hear as any attorney in this court of law would have to to the facts and the law here, and i think at the end engoron was perhaps resigned to the fact that this interaction went exactly the way that anyone on this panel could have told you it would, and yet, engoron still held out hope perhaps idealistically that this would turn out somewhat differently. >> let's go away for just a moment if we can, charles, from

the dog and pony show and talk about the arguments and as lisa points out the possibility that there might be one appealable area here. what can you see that may have actually advanced the legal case today? >> well, today not very much. i mean, i think that for the most part closing arguments in summation are going to be far more impressionable on a jury than they are on a judge, and it's important to understand that we are talking about a bench trial here. so this is a question essentially of law, not one of fact. i think that what people need to understand about what each side was trying to do or is trying to do is, number one, establish a clear record of when it is that they believe that the evidence shows and what it is that that says to them about the law and where that should go, but also refresh the judge, if they will, around what their most salient points are and salient

arguments. from a legal standpoint, i think that what the defense has tried to do is basically position this case in front of judge engoron in a way that gives him a much tougher row to give them a harsher penalty and more or less say you already heard the usage of the term corporate death penalty. those are very extreme terms and they're being utilized on the record for a reason. what they want to do is put pressure on the judge to say maybe i don't want to go that hard. if i do that perhaps i am now opening the door for something that could be seen as excessive or politically motivated. that has also been a reoccurring theme that they've used as part of the defense strategy. ultimately with something like this, yes, they would love to avoid the reliability on the remaining count thes. more importantly what they are trying to do chris is trying to minimize whatever they can, whatever the judgment is and penalty that comes from that judge. >> so we are now in that lunch break, i will say the morning session certainly as described for us by lisa ended with a

bang, but what are we looking at this afternoon? how is that going to unfold? >> you know, we're going to see the attorney general's case, and they're going to go through why they feel donald trump is liable on this and why the fines should be -- and i think the disgorgement will probably be a key component of this, why it should be as high as they're asking, the $370 million. you know, in a few cases, they're saying that there should be an absolute disgorgement of profits from two sales, donald trump has just to give one example, he owned a hotel in washington, the old post office hotel. it was used a lot during his presidency for wining and dining and that sort of thing. he custodial it, and the attorney general is arguing in that case that the profits from that should be disgorged because they're sort of -- you know, they're part of the poisonous tree here that he used

fraudulent documents in order to get the loan, so all of that should be disgorged. and i think you're going to see arguments this afternoon that i think go particularly to the disgorgement point and why it should be so high. >> sue craig and lisa rubin, maybe you'll have a moment to grab a bite yourselves before grow back into the courtroom. thank you for coming out to talk to us. charles, you're going to stay with me. up next, the reported bomb threat, the latest chapter in a troubling trend facing our legal system. we're back in 60 seconds. we're s . he doesn't even have a mustache. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

with nurtec odt i can treat and prevent my migraine attacks all in one. don't take if allergic to nurtec. allergic reactions can occur even days after using. most common side effects were nausea, indigestion and stomach pain. talk to your doctor about nurtec today. so just hours before these closing arguments at the trump trial in manhattan this morning, police in long island responded to a bomb threat at the home of the judge. meantime, in lower manhattan a small group of anti-trump protesters blocked traffic outside the courthouse chanting no dictators in the usa. joining me now, frank figliuzzi,

former assistant director for counterintelligence at the fbi and msnbc national security analyst. let me start, frank, with this bomb threat targeting the judge's home. how does it impact security that was in place today inside the courtroom? >> security was already high, but it may be now elevated around the judge, his family, and his residence more than was previously the case. but i think we need to look at this through a much larger lens than just the bomb threat northern. we'd be remiss if we didn't lump in all the bomb threats going on around the country, all the swatting incidents at people's homes, particularly jack smith, judge chutkan in d.c. and many others simply trying to do their job or express contrary opinions to donald trump. this is a form of terrorism carried out by others inspired

by a leadership figure who doesn't have to lift a finger except to motivate and inspire threats or intimidations. that's what this is about, getting people to not stay on target and stay on pursuit of justice. we are watching through all of these threats, what we're watching is a seemingly or previously unchecked authority figure who now is colliding head first with consequences. and i'm sorry to say, it's going to ratchet up because this authority figure, donald trump, is about to realize accountability and consequences. he's not going to like it. he's already set the stage. this is unfair. i am a victim. they're coming after me. all of this designed to get people to react even violently, which he will not repudiate. he's been given the chance to do it. he's mentioned bedlam is coming, and here we go again with a kind of january 6 public response if he doesn't tone it down, and there's no sign he will. >> look, there's all kinds of

reporting about the increase in threats against people whether they are working in elections or whether they're working in the criminalusce system, whether they're in the courts and, frank, the formerbi director james comey has an op-ed in "the washington post" today about these threats of violence, man of them that we know come from trump supporters and basically says you cannot let that rattle you. he writes in part as a country we need to refuse to let our imaginations give threats power over our national life. we must not let the idea of trumpian violence become some kind of boogeyman frightening us away from our commitment to the rule of law. theoretically that is hard to argue with, but how much harder might it be in actual practice? >> so the comey is speaking the truth in the sense that the data indicates that the number of threats that aren't executed on is very high. the percentage that are actually

executed on and that violence occurs or an attempted threat is carried out is very low, but that also misses the point because the intent here is, for example, swatting people in the middle of the night where officers come with long guns to your home and bound on the door to see if you're okay is designed to wake you up, get you tired for the next day of court or whatever you've got going on, and send a signal that you better think twice before you pursue your profession and your calling. so the fact that the violence is never carried out still doesn't negate the fact that the negative impact is happening. so comey is trying to reassure people in election positions, that volunteer for election precincts and other roles all the way up to fbi agents, he's telling them stay on target, to your job, pursue justice, uphold your oath and keep moving, and i get that, but the reality is that nevertheless, there's a negative impact here. until we see very high profile

arrests for the swatting incidents, for the bomb threats, i think we'll see this continue through an intimidation strategy. >> frank, thank you so much. we appreciate it. the fate of donald trump's business empire is not in the hands of a jury, but of the judge who got that bomb threat. judge arthur engoron will be the sole person who determines whether trump must pay hundreds of millions of dollars in damages and whether he can continue to do business in new york. earlier today, donald trump complained outside of court about the lack of a jury. >> it's a very unfair trial, never seen anything like this. i don't think i've ever seen anything like this. we have a situation where a statute was used that doesn't give me a jury, so i have no jury. i really have no rights and nobody -- nobody thinks it's constitutional. >> his grievances come as "axios" points out trump's own legal team appears to have failed to request a jury. back with us, charles coleman. what's the truth about what we

just heard from donald trump? >> the idea of donald trump talking about the constitution and being some sort of constitutional scholar is so rich that i can't even begin to laugh at it. chris, here's the deal, when you are a plaintiff or a defendant in a civil trial, you have an opportunity to request a trial by jury, and the opposing party can either respond by denying that or opposing that request or agreeing with that request. in this case, the paperwork is very, very clear, the state attorney general's office led by letitia james requested a jury trial. donald trump's defense team did not. ultimately a bench trial was granted and that's how it went forward because donald trump's team did not request to have a jury. now, the idea that he is now trying to make this a matter of him being treated unfairly and being persecuted, all of this plays into the notion that his defense strategy in part has

been about playing to the public narrative and it's also important to understand that at this point, chris, we're not seeing a big distinction between donald trump the candidate and donald trump the defendant, particularly in civil cases. as you noted, he could be this iowa today. but he's not, he's in front of cameras in new york in a courtroom. but he's still campaigning. there's no truth to that from a legal standpoint, but this is something that is important for him from a narrative place to continue to advance so that people believe that somehow he's being railroaded. >> how significant do you think ultimately the lack of a jury is here? i mean, i wonder if, you know, donald trump appealing to them personally today or some of the complexities, frankly, of the way things are valued in real estate might have worked in his favor. i mean, i get the political reason that he can sort of go and act like he's being persecuted and whatever, but i

wonder if that was strategically, at least politically, as well as legally a mistake. >> i would argue that in new york, juries are not necessarily going to be as kind to donald trump as they might be somewhere else. and i do think that that's something people have to be very clear on. when you are making a decision about going forward on a jury trial and also who gets to sit on that jury, you are thinking about how your client is going to be perceived by the 12 individuals responsible for rendering judgment. in new york city, we know that that's not likely going to work in donald trump's favor, so regardless of the complexities of this, what makes this unique is the demographic and the makeup of what that jury would have looked like in new york. i definitely think at some point his attorneys realize this is probably not the best forum for our client to get a favorable judgment. >> all right, charles, stay with me again. we have a lot more to talk about today. up next, nikki haley and ron desantis face off on the debate

stage, but was it donald trump who actually won the night? you're watching "chris jansing reports" only on msnbc. watching reports" only on msnbc short of h just reading a book... but i didn't wait. they told their doctors. and found out they had... atrial fibrillation. a condition which makes it about five times more likely to have a stroke. if you have one or more of these symptoms irregular heartbeat, heart racing, chest pain, shortness of breath, fatigue or lightheadedness, contact your doctor. this is no time to wait. looking for a bladder leak pad that keeps you dry? all of the things that you're looking for in a pad, that is always discreet. look at how it absorbs all of the liquid. and locking it right on in! you feel no wetness. - oh my gosh! - totally absorbed! i got to get some always discreet!

[dice dreams game] when i grow up, i want to be just like my mom. eva longoria. she's really famous and rich, because she steals money from her friends. she's taking money from my dad. she wants to destroy him. ah... it's dice dreams. dice dreams, attack your friends and steal their coins. play now. municipal bonds don't usually get the media coverage the stock market does. in fact, most people don't find them all that exciting. but, if you're looking for the potential for consistent income that's federally tax-free, now is an excellent time to consider municipal bonds from hennion & walsh. if you have at least 10,000 dollars to invest, call and talk with one of our bond specialists at 1-800-286-4286. we'll send you our exclusive bond guide, free.

with details about how bonds can be an important part of your portfolio. hennion & walsh has specialized in fixed income and growth solutions for 30 years, and offers high-quality municipal bonds from across the country. they provide the potential for regular income... are federally tax-free... and have historically low risk. call today to request your free bond guide. 1-800-286-4286. that's 1-800-286-4286. (son) dad. you ok? (dad)800-286-4286. it's our phone bill! we pay for things that we don't need! bloated bundles, the reckless spending! no more... (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.

the 2024 presidential contest is heating up in freezing iowa as donald trump's main rivals face off in the race for second place. on the debate stage last night, the stakes were very, very high. ron desantis needing a strong second place finish in iowa to keep his campaign alive.

nikki haley is hoping for critical momentum ahead of the new hampshire primary eight days later where she is polling better. but once again, the two spent most of the night taking shots at each other rather than the absent front runner. >> we don't need another mealy-mouthed politician who just tells you what she thinks you want to hear just to try to get your vote. >> he has blown through $150 million. i don't even know how you do that, through his campaign. he has nothing to show for it. if you can't manage a campaign, how are you going to manage a country. >> you can take the ambassador out of the united nations, but you can't take the united nations out of the ambassador. >> that's such a lie, ron. >> that is wrong, you've supported all that money going over there. >> you're so desperate. >> but perhaps the most significant event of the night may not have been on the stage at all, but rather chris christie's announcement that he is out. nbc's vaughn hillyard and ali

vitali are both on the ground in iowa. i'm glad to see them inside and not out in the elements. susan del percio is a republican strategist and msnbc political analyst. great to have you all here. susan, did desantis and haley move the needle at all last night? >> i actually don't think they did. it was a better performance probably for desantis, one on one. i think nikki haley does better when there was a group on the stage, but i still think nikki haley has the momentum and desantis didn't do anything that will really help him, i think, on caucus night. as a matter of fact, i still think that nikki haley can come in at number two in iowa. >> so i haven't seen any official counting ali, but generally you want to see does one of my soundbites get like a lot of play and make me look good. i would argue just watching our coverage last night that the most play went to chris christie and his hot mic comments

apparently suggesting that nikki haley is not up to the job. tell us about what happened there. >> reporter: yeah, christie suggesting in a hot mic moment just before he officially left the race that nikki haley in his estimation is not up to this, but also that he had a phone call with the florida governor ron desantis and described desantis as petriied at the idea that christie could leave the race. you look at crowds like this where i am right now with nikki haley, you see her on stage behind me. pretty packed room here just about 20 minutes outside of the des moines. this is the kind of crowd you want to be gathering in the final countdown. for someone like nikki haley, she sees the attacks as a sign that she's doing it the way that she needs to in order to be a threat. listen to how she responded to the barbs and attacks that she faced not just from desantis on the debate stage last night, but from christie even hundreds of miles away. >> it's not a surprise, these fellas have been talking like that from the beginning when it

was 14 candidates and i was at 2 %. for us it's been slow and steady that wins the race. we have been putting in 11 months of campaigning not just in one state but in every state. that's why you see this has become a two-person race with me and donald trump, and you know, while everybody else wants to discount us, i'll tell you we keep moving and we're moving for a reason. >> reporter: two goals here for the haley campaign, one in the short-term and one in the longer term. in the short-term the goal is tables like this one that i'm standing next to, getting people to commit to caucus, sign their names, give their numbers, lead the charge at caucus sites across the state of iowa come caucus night on monday. that's the immediate term goal. rallies like this and events are meant to help bolster that effort. the second piece is contingent on what happens on the ground in iowa. haley being able to push her way into a strong second that would allow her a spring board effect when she actually gets on the ground in new hampshire. i do think that you and susan are both right. the debate stage last night

might not have changed anything in a significant way, but chris christie leaving the race frees up votes, frees up voters and in a game of inches that might be enough for nikki haley to make a strong showing in new hampshire. might explain also why my sources in her camp are feeling pretty good this morning. >> yeah, you know, susan, as she points out, in trying presumably to weaken donald trump by consolidating the opposition, i wonder is it possible chris christie actually with that open mic moment gave some fume to donald trump, giving them talking points about what's wrong with the two main remaining opponents? >> well, i don't think christie was trying to help donald trump with that hot mic moment -- >> no, no, no, he was trying to help anybody who isn't trump. >> oh, who isn't, yeah. it's interesting when you're conceding your campaign in essence like christie did,

that's a hard emotional thing to do. do i think it was intentional? maybe yes, maybe no. from what i heard in the christie camp, the thing that really kind of pushed it was his donor base. they were done with him because they saw that haley could make a difference, so if there was a lot of pressure to not go further and drop out before new hampshire, but christie is also -- can be a salty guy, and i think that's also what you saw, a little bit of anger and perhaps upset that this is where he was at this time. >> yeah, all right. so meanwhile, vaughn, donald trump seems to be looking past the primary. he suggested last night when he was counterprogramming the debate that he's already select add vp. tell us more about that. >> reporter: right, i was inside of that hall with donald trump last night at the fox news town hall. we were actually just two mails from where ali and the debate with ron desantis and nikki haley was taking place, but they

felt like two very different worlds and felt donald trump focused very little on his gop rivals. instead, he got into talking about his vice presidential pick and it was an interesting response when asked who he was considering. take a listen. >> 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: quote, i already know who it's going to be. now a campaign adviser told me that nothing has actually been finalized but donald trump knows the qualities that he is looking for this a vp. there's one other angle to the chris christie story that everybody should recall. that political group no labels is still getting ballot access around the country to put a potential bipartisan ticket, while new reporting that that group has engaged with allies of chris christie to gauge his interest in potentially joining

that third-party presidential effort. you heard chris christie last night suggest he's going to do what he can over the next ten months to make sure donald trump is not president again, but we had a conversation with the campaign manager for chris christie who said he has not directly engaged in any conversation with no labels at this time, yet has not express lid ruled it out. it's been a busy 24 hours for him. that's a story we'll be watching in the days and weeks ahead. >> using the old at this time line. whatever he may decide to do and whether this is really the end of the presidential road for him, i was thinking last night as i was watching the debate and also reading the criticism this morning that they needed to go after trump, something we've heard from the very first day that any of them announced, right? that's nothing new. but chris christie did that, and look where he ended up. so was it always going to be an exercise in futility, susan? >> well, to some extent, the

argument of going after trump made sense when trump was weaker after the 2023 elections, 2022 elections, when all of a sudden like whoever donald trump back lost his polling numbers were down. it was pre-indictment. he looked weaker. that's when desantis's numbers were actually pretty good against donald trump, and i guess the desantis team thought, like, why -- we want to get his support -- or his supporters i should say. donald trump won't be able to continue. except when your argument is i'm, you know, i'm the trump alternative and donald trump is still viable, it doesn't really work because donald trump is a viable nominee and, you know, general election opponent to joe biden. the polls are close enough that trump is definitely still in it. the going after trump needed to

happen many, many months ago. right now i think if you look at desantis and nikki haley, nikki haley figures so far she could hold this path until new hampshire. she can maybe make a decision if she really gets some crazy great momentum, but ron desantis is also looking at 2028, so they made their calculated decisions. >> susan del percio, vaughn hillyard, ali vitali, thank you all so much. and up next, digging deeper into the complex web of legal troubles donald trump is stuck in, especially when you add in the potential ripple effects from today's closing arguments. you're watching "chris jansing reports" only on msnbc. hi mom. that's the value of ownership.

life, diabetes, there's no slowing down. each day is a unique blend of people to see and things to do. that's why you choose glucerna to help manage blood sugar response.

uniquely designed with carbsteady. glucerna. bring on the day. 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.

donald trump's civil business fraud trial that we're watching today is just one battle in an increasingly complex legal war for the former president and his attorneys. next week a manhattan jury will consider how much trump has to pay writer e. jean carroll after a previous jury found him liable of defamation and sexual abuse. then a cascade of criminal hearings begin in d.c. that's where special counsel jack smith brought four federal charges against trump for allegedly attempting to interfere with the 2020 election. the current march 4th trial date one day before super tuesday probably will move. on march 25th in manhattan, trump will stand trial for an

alleged hush money scheme to cover a sex scandal during his 2016 campaign. he has been charged with 34 felonies in that case. then to south florida and the mar-a-lago classified documen trial, currently scheduled to start on may 20th. trump is facing 40 felonies for allegedly mishandling highly sensitive national security materials. and then finally, georgia, where trump and 18 allies were indicted in a sweeping racketeering case involving efforts to overturn his 2020 loss in that state. august 5th is the proposed start date for that trial. charles coleman is back with me. i was thinking do a bunch of lawyers have a pool on when any of these trials get going. >> that would be a good one. you're talking about someone an this, but part of it that people need to understand is that there's been a significant delay in terms of charging him because of the thoroughn these

investigations. you don't necessarily see something wrong on y 6th and indict and arrest the president on january 8. these are the results of very very detailed and layered investigations that have gotten to the facts and given prosecutors the evidence that they need to build these cases, and that's how these things have moved forward. >> is part of building the case, even though we're looking primarily at the criminal cases, right, watching what's happening in the manhattan courtroom today. are there lessons to be learned, things to watch. are there changes in strategy that lawyers might consider watching what's happening now? >> well, i think more of that is going to be around the technical aspects of how you go about trying a case against the former president and not necessarily anything legally around arguments that you expect his attorneys to make. i think that's going to be pretty well settled, but i also think that if you are a prosecutor and you're looking at this or you're a judge looking at this, you're thinking how am i going to approach this issue, and you're thinking about what the potential sort of pitfalls

can be that may come up and arising in a trial. no two trials are the same. you're going to see a recurrence of different issues that surface in a variety of ways, and so as a prosecutor, you're now trying to envision as many different scenarios, hey, what would i do in this situation, how am i going to control this from being an issue, and it may make motions in limine before any of these trials. >> in limine? i need to go back to my legal books. >> that's right. these are the pretrial motions that you file as a party to basically try and limit what can be discussed, what evidence comes in, what doesn't, how certain things are going to be discussed. these things you might go back to the drawing board and think, hey, if i give them an opening here, there's a chance donald trump may try to push the public narrative in a way that's going to be disruptive. this is what i'm going to ask for. those are the things that prosecutors if anything are making adjustments to as they watch different sort of venues unfold with the respective cases

donald trump is facing. >> maybe they're wondering if he wants to give the closing argument at their trial. hunter biden is expected to appear in a california court where he faces nine tax related charges. the arraignment comes a day after the president's son made the surprise appearance on capitol hill walking in and out after what was already a chaotic hearing. mike memoli is live outside los angeles court. first lady, dr. jill biden appeared on "morning joe" earlier today. she spoke about the challenges hunter biden is facing. what did she say, and what's the latest from where you are on the ground? >> the comments from the first lady are so interesting because of what we haven't been hearing from the white house from the biden campaign, the political reasons, they want to keep the focus on the economy and the president's democracy message, and also they want to keep the fire wall between the president and the just department. they have been very reluctant to talk about the charges being

faced by hunter biden or what we saw on capitol hill yesterday. but of course, dr. jill biden is coming to this from the perspective of a wife, mother and grandmother, and that comes through in her comments this morning. let's take a listen. >> what they are 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. >> reporter: so, chris, this hearing here, this arraignment should begin in two hours. that means we should expect to see hunter biden arriving fairly soon. we expect a brief and fairly routine hearing, but of course, chris, there's no doubt there's nothing routine about the child of the sitting president of the united states facing federal charges, serious charges, tax evasion and filing false returns as he will in a couple of hours. we expect him to plead not guilty to the charges.

>> and in the middle of a campaign season. mike memoli, at least you're in a fairly warm place. thank you so much for that. and charles, thank you for sitting around for the hour, being my anchor buddy, i appreciate that. up next, we're back at the courtroom in new york, closing arguments expected to resume soon in donald trump's civil fraud trial afterhe president unexpectedly spoke just before the lunch breaker. first, you can watch the best parts of our show on you tube, go to msnbc.com/jansing, stay close, more "chris jansing reports" after this. ports" afte.

always dry scoop before you run. the hot dog diet got me shredded! the world is full of "health experts"... it's time we listen to science. one a day is formulated with b vitamins to help convert food into fuel. science that matters.

my mental health was much better. but i struggled with uncontrollable movements called td, tardive dyskinesia. td can be caused by some mental health meds. and it's unlikely to improve without treatment. i felt like my movements were in the spotlight. #1-prescribed ingrezza is the only td treatment for adults that's always one pill, once daily. ingrezza 80 mg is proven to reduce td movements in 7 out of 10 people. people taking ingrezza can stay on most mental health meds. ingrezza can cause depression, suicidal thoughts, or actions in patients with huntington's disease. pay close attention to and call your doctor if you become depressed, have sudden changes in mood, behaviors, feelings, or have thoughts of suicide. don't take ingrezza if you're allergic to its ingredients. ingrezza may cause serious side effects, including angioedema, potential heart rhythm problems, and abnormal movements. report fevers, stiff muscles, or problems thinking as these may be life threatening. sleepiness is the most common side effect. it's nice. people focus more on me. ask your doctor about #1 prescribed, once-daily ingrezza.

♪ ingrezza ♪ it is good to be back with you on this second hour of "chris jansing reports." at this hour, is the city that made donald trump famous about to deliver his come up its. the former president making a fiery closing argument in a trial that could cost him millions up next, it's the prosecution. plus, ron desantis says being the underdog suits him better. his final clash with nikki haley ahead of the first votes in iowa. can he make up any ground? and hunter biden grabbing headlines again. the president's son due to be arraigned in california just a day after a wild confrontation on the hill. our nbc news reporters are following the latest developments and we start with what's happening just about 15 minutes from now. the prosecution due to pre