good to be with you. i'm katy tur. the judge engoron decision has just been posted. we are working on downloading it. wait for us as we get the document up. we're going to tell you what his ruling is. is he going to agree with ag

letitia james and fine donald trump $370 million for civil fraud, and bar the trump organization from doing business in the state of new york. the stakes are truly huge for the former president. he could owe hundreds of millions of dollars. 450 million if you add in what he now owes e. jean carroll. does he have that money? in a deposition last year, he claimed trump org had 400 million in cash. even if that is true, it might not be enough. if he's force to sell off properties, are they worth as much as he claims. are there enough buyers for what he has to offer. commercial real estate isn't exactly in a boom moment thanks to the pandemic, and his personal properties are highly specific. if it comes to it, who exactly is going to want to buy his new york penthouse for the seven springs estate with its pricey upkeep. the number is 127 million, is what i'm getting told in my ear. joining us now, msnbc national

correspondent, yasmin vossoughian, nbc legal correspondent, lisa rubin who's furiously checking her phone, and "new york times" investigative reporter and msnbc contributor, suzanne craig. i heard $170 million from my producer, is that correct? >> i don't have the opinion right now, but i'm looking at it on sue's phone. i believe there are multiple awards here. that $127 million that you just referenced. >> 186 million from the other charge that's been posted. >> keep telling me numbers in my ear, and i'll try to keep track of it. >> do you want to read it? >> it looks like there are a number of different, yes, we're up to $186,828,000. but then on top of that there's another $168 million. so we are talking about, i believe, now we're talking about over $300 million. in excess of $300 million

because there are at least three increments, i'm going to read them to you. the first one is 168 -- >> trump cannot operate in new york for three years, the boys for two years. that's a major blow. >> and even allen weisselberg is one of the people against whom this disgorgement penalty, the new york attorney general said weisselberg should have to give over he has severance agreement, $2 million severance agreement, he has been paid a fraction of it, now they're saying he has to pay $1 million of that. the idea that only trump is liable for this fraud, no, in fact, this was a conspiracy with multiple people that he was involved with at his organization who were carrying out his wishes at his behest. >> as we ae wait these numbers, they're coming in as we're currently speaking, the numbers added up. bear with us as the information gets to us and to you watching. let's talk about what it means for donald trump not to be able to do business, operate in new york state for three years.

this is not just donald trump. it's the organization. right? >> i think over the coming weeks we're going to learn more exactly about what it means about not having business licenses but just now i'm reading, you know, they can't, for example, paraphrase, but they can't apply for loans from financial institutions, chartered or registered with the new york financial businesses. it's the business capital. it's hard to get lending. it's going to be very difficult for them to do any sort of lending on top of, you know, just these huge penalties that we're looking at. >> this is a 92-page ruling. give us some time. it's an extraordinarily small print as well. but, again, the number we are currently at, and it could go higher, the number we currently are confident in saying is $186 million in fines. again, letitia james was asking for 370 million. she got to the number because

she said based on the actual valuation, and it is somewhat subjective, but the actual valuation, according to her office of his properties was much lower than he had put out there, that he used to get bank loans, and because of that the loans would have been higher. he would have paid more. he would have had more interest, and that's how they got to the 370 number. i'm going to stop talking for one second. more than $364 million in total. that's very close to what ag james was asking for, and again, trump can't do business for three years here in new york. the boys can't do business for two years here in new york state. that means that somebody who wants to do business with the trump organization here will not be named donald trump. will not be named trump period. >> we don't know how that's going to look, but they already have a monitor over the company. you can't just see a quick asset sale of some of the assets they have. we know about trump tower. he owns the commercial space at

trump tower. he just can't now go and sell that and try to get out from under this penalty. i can talk a little bit more. i think lisa wants to talk. >> important that i want to state that even as judge engoron has awarded over $360 million to come back to essentially the people of the state of new york from the trumps and the trump organization, he has clarified something that he did previously that many people thought would lead to a liquidation of the trump organization, assets, he's saying on the third to last page of the decision, previously he had canceled some of the business licenses and that the trumps had appealed that. that appeal was on hold while we waited for the trial to fully play itself out. and he's saying, now that he's ordered a sort of two-tiered system of oversight with judge barbara jones continuing to serve as an independent monitor and forcing the trump organization to hire an independent director of compliance, cancellation of the business licenses is no longer necessary. so we can't talk about this

opinion as sort of forcing the trumps no longer to do business in new york, because the trump organization will be able to continue to do business. however, they have been ordered to return 360 plus million dollars and we've got some industry bans for donald trump, his sons, and allen weisselberg. >> there's a question of whether he can afford this. he has claimed in depositions last year that he had $400 million in cash for the trump organization. if you add in the e. jean carroll number, that's getting you to over $400 million in cash. and could he possibly hand all of that over? i know he's going to appeal it, obviously, but he still has to post some of that money. >> that's right. he does, and i think when we've heard this $400 million number, and i just want to put it in perspective, which is on a given day, he says he might have had that, the next day there could have been 50 million, $100 million withdrawal to plug a hole in one of his many money

losing companies. we don't know exactly how much cash on hand he has today but we do know, one of the things that was sort of not talked about as much during his presidency was the shrinking orbit of the trump organization. he sold two money losing properties that we know about. operating licenses, one a golf course in new york, another at a hotel in washington. for that, he got $139 million. he sold condos quietly in buildings that owns in new york. a mansion in l.a. while he was in the white house, and currently has a property in the bahamas up for sale. so we know he's got some cash coming in but he has huge financial, 83.3 million, plus 5 million. and he also has, and we don't talk about it a lot. potentially a huge penalty. we don't know where the irs audit is that we talked about. that could go against him.

it may already have. but we haven't heard. that's more than $100 million right there. and then he's got multiple money losing businesses that often need injections of capital to keep going. >> let's reiterate, $364 million is what judge engoron ordered he pay. he will appeal this, but he will have to post some of money. >> he's going to have to post a full undertaking, whether he can find someone to do that for him, and in exchange, a down payment. it feels like a bondsman. >> and they're going to want more than that. >> they'll want it in collateral, 10 or 20% up front in cash, and collateral in the form of real estate assets. now, in the e. jean carroll verdict one where he was fined essentially $5 million, he put that all up himself. the implication there was that he couldn't find a new york company willing to loan him that money or maybe it was so

inconsequential relative to these larger awards that he was just willing to do it himself. here we're talking about now we've got a 360 plus million dollars award here. the clock starts ticking on that for an appeal and posting of the bond, and around 30 days, and similar with e. jean carroll. >> that was decided a couple of weeks ago. when does he have to post that money? >> the judgment in the case, the beginning of the ticking of the clock was entered last week. he has 30 days from that date to post the bond of the 83.3 million. >> hold on one second, let's go to outside trump tower where msnbc's yasmin vossoughian has been patiently waiting for us. yasmin, we're talking about does donald trump have the money. what can you tell us about what his properties are valued as here in new york, and how much money he has in those properties. >> reporter: i'm sure sue can weigh in on this as well, we're getting breaking news from letitia james, a statement from her at 6:00 p.m. later on this

evening, which we are expecting after this decision was delivered. we're going to be looking out for that. katy, you spent time in the building mind me, trump tower in the early days of his campaign for presidency, 2016, 2015, force is valuing the building behind me, the only building in this entire city that he outright owns, 160 million. that valuation has come down significantly in the past six years or so. he has got about $100 million debt on the building behind him. if he's in a situation where he's finding himself in, that he has to sell off assets, right, let's say, for instance, and we have no reporting on this, he would have to sell off trump tower. he's walking away with $60 million after he pays back some of his debt. just around the corner, he's got another building, a 30% stake in it, a nike town building. for instance. if you're looking at new york city assets, forbes is valuing

the assets and, sue craig can weigh in on this, at $690 million in this city. right? he's banned from operating in this city for three years, two years ago as you mentioned for his sons. 364 million to pay back here, in which alina habba said they're going to appeal that. that's $6 million short of what ag letitia james has asked for. $6 million short. a lot of folks were predicting this was going to be lower than it is. this is a major gut punch as we all well know to donald trump, to his legacy, to how he defines himself. it's not the fact that he's been found liable of sexual assault of e. jean carroll, it's not the case out of d.c., it's not the case we're going to be watching, trial we're going to be watching in manhattan for the hush money case, it's not the mar-a-lago documents case in florida. it is his real estate empire here in new york city. the very picture of that behind

me. trump tower, in which he now owes $364 million with this decision now here. >> so, yasmin, $355 million is what trump owes, according to this decision. 4 million is what don jr. owes. 4 million is what eric trump owes. 1 million is what weisselberg owes. that's how they get to the $364 million number. again, 355 to trump. 4 to don jr., 4 to eric. 1 million to weisselberg. i'm getting handed papers left and right. let's go to andrew weissmann who's joining us as well. can you talk to us about the business side of things, the operating side of things? >> sure. a couple of things i've noted are in addition to, as you have been talking about the fact that to the extent there's an ongoing business, there's not only going to be the former federal judge

whose independent monitor, given enhanced authority, up to and including if she recommends, pulling the licenses, there will also be an independent compliance officer overseeing the company, and notably, for three years, donald trump and a whole variety of entities cannot seek to have a loan from any company that is chartered in new york. to be clear, that is license to do business here. that is many, many banks. they don't have to be physically located here, as long as they're licensed to do business here, and the judge has barred the obtaining of loans from them. so that puts a real damper on the way in which donald trump can seek to keep his companies afloat, because he can not, for three years, seek that as a recourse. so i think as yasmin was saying, one of the ways out is to have a

sale of assets as a way to get this money or to at least be able to put up the money so that he can take an appeal. so this is really a decision that will cause a lot of pain, not just because of the number but because of the way in which the company is restricted going forward. its limited ability to act in new york and to basically have the life blood of a company, which is taking out loans since that is really necessary to so many buildings. a very severe decision from judge engoron. >> let me read from the summary of judge engoron's decision. i think it is worth reading out loud. defendant submitted blatantly false financial data to the accountants, resulting in fraudulent financial statements. when confronts at trial with the

statements, defendant's fact and expert witnesses simply denied reality. and defendants failed to accept responsibility or to impose internal controls to prevent future recurrences. as detailed herein, the court finds defendants liable, continues the appointment of an independent monitor, orders the installation of an independent director of compliance and limits defendants' right to conduct business in new york for a few years. but lisa, this is not a lifetime ban. >> it's not a lifetime ban. nor is it the ban on his participation in the real estate industry that the attorney general sought. what it does do is recognize the harm to the public. you know, donald trump throughout this trial kept shouting about various defenses that he had. one of his favorite ones was nobody was harmed, and the banks loved him, and everybody got repaid. judge engoron is wholesale rejecting that saying timely and total repayment of loans does

not extinguish the harm that false statements inflict on the marketplace. the common excuse that everybody does it is all the more reason to strive for honest and transparency, and here despite the false financial statements, it's undisputed that they have made all required payments on time. the next group of lenders to receive bogus statements might not be so lucky. >> you know, i'm looking for a little bit of reporting that the associated press did regarding these sorts of decisions. these sorts of investigations, these trials. i'm not finding it this pile of papers i have in front of me. they went back over 70 years and looked at all the cases that have been tried under this rule, 36 or 6312. which is used here, which doesn't have to show harm done. it's not the burden. you don't have to show that anybody was hurt by your practices. there's nobody you defrauded specifically. they looked at 150 cases and

found there was no case where there was a ban on doing business. where there wasn't harm shown. so even though the threshold is harm shown, in the past, it has only been used to ban someone doing business when it's been shown that somebody was hurt, say you're selling cosmetics that are poisoning you. there's somebody that was hurt there, the cosmetics company gets banned. is this fair to go after donald trump like this in this environment is my question? >> well, look, i think what you said about the statute is absolutely true. tristan just joined us at the table. >> i was going to introduce him, but we can introduce him as well. tristan snell is here. you used this, 6312 in a trump university suit. a university that was scamming people, wasn't actually giving them useful information for them to do business. >> and once licensed and wasn't a university, et cetera, yes.

>> so tell me, is it fair? >> the notion that 6312 is a weird thing that shouldn't be applied and so forth, this statute and the statute that was based on the martin act, which may be the one people are more familiar with, the martin act applies to securities. the martin act was put on the books in new york about 100 years ago. we have a lot of case law to support this. the statute is used by the ag's office every day against all sorts of other frauds and misdeeds. the legal standard is whether there was a tendency to deceive. that's what it is, and the legislature in new york made a public policy choice to say that was an important weapon for the ag's office to have to vindicate the public good in this situation. >> and it seems like what judge engoron found is there was intention, not just a tendency, there was intention to deceive. >> which is higher than they needed. the bar is here, the evidence went way over the bar.

>> when confronted, defendants fact and expert witnesses denied reality and defendants failed to accept responsibility or to impose internal controls to prevent future recurrences. >> under 6312, you don't need intent but intent becomes an aggravating factor. so that's part of why we see the penalties so high here. >> i know this feels like a lot. it's a 93-page decision. we're all trying to go through it and figure out exactly what it means. >> i think, too, the interesting thing about victims is there were victims here, and they were the banks, just not the most popular victims in society. >> listen, i'm not arguing in any one's defense, they have said they didn't feel like they lost. >> they still did, and that's the conclusion, and that's where they're at today. if they had known the facts, they would have charged a higher interest rate. and they lost money. >> this is tish james getting everything she wants. she's going to have a news conference at 6:00 p.m. to discuss this.

>> i think this case and we're going to read through it and dissect it, when you step back, it's also a shot from the judge and part of the reason why the attorney general brought it was to say that this sort of behavior in new york, okay, you cannot submit false statements to financial institutions, and it's okay. and just because everybody does it doesn't mean it's okay. in fact, that's a confession. >> some people in real estate, businesses in real estate have said that they're worried about what this is going to mean going forward for their business. is this just, tell me why they would have that concern. >> i've covered donald trump's finances for a long time, and in doing so, i have talked to people in the ecosystem about this issue, particularly of appraisals and we always go high in certain situations, talking to the irs, we go low. there's a range within that, i think, that's acceptable, at least when we've looked at it to

the irs. donald trump went far over that line, and that's why he found himself -- >> give us the example of trump, the penthouse and trump tower. >> the penthouse was sort of the extreme example, but really, i think it's an exclamation mark on it where that was a penthouse that was 11,000 square feet, and we heard that he had just tripled the size of it. >> it was 33,000 square feet. he counted elevators and all of the things that are never counted when he tried to get around the lie he was told. >> he was valuing it at a price that letitia james says has never been gotten in new york real estate. i think 250, there's one that's currently on sale, and he was asking for a price much higher than. >> when they came into court, they didn't say, and they didn't say, oh, sorry, we were wrong, they doubled down on it. they said not only were their financial statements in which these were submitted to the banks, not only were they right,

they were under valuing the assets. they doubled down on what they were doing in the face of all of this evidence. >> katy, can i say one other thing? when we're talking about this case and why other real estate companies might not be susceptible to this, this case wasn't just about valuation discrepancy and the delta being unacceptable. it was about just blatant misrepresentations to potential investors and existing investors. and i want to give you another example. there were places in donald trump's financial statements where he said again and again, these financial statements do not reflect or incorporate value of my brand or what is known as goodwill. doesn't reflect that at all. and yet, the value of ump teen number of golf courses year after year, reflected a 15 to 30% premium on the value of each golf course, for what, the value of the trump name. and so it wasn't just that he was valuing the properties at values beyond which they would get or could get in a reasonable

real estate market, it was that he was saying he was doing things or not doing things that in fact, he was, in ways that most potential lenders or insurers would not have the wherewithal to discover if not for doing their own excavation of his work papers and files. >> it's not just an art and science about real estate appraisals, they were valuing apartments where they were going for, you know, you have to have comparables in the neighborhood. >> it is whatever somebody decides to pay, but in order to base a price. >> but it's more than that. >> you have to get comps from the neighborhood. >> and they were falsifying comps, everything. >> having his name on it inflated the value by tens sometimes hundreds of millions of dollars. >> right, he's been saying that for decades, that his name on it means so much more, and i think now there could be an argument if his name is on it, it's worth less. >> they talk about it here in the city of new york. his name has been taken off a

number of buildings. they're not buildings that he owned. they're buildings he licensed his names for, especially on riverside drive if you're familiar at all with new york city. when donald trump became president and during the campaign, there were apartment co-op boards saying we got to take these don't. we can't rent these apartments, sell these apartments, donald trump's name is tainted in new york, and there's the problem we're facing in the city, post pandemic, people aren't working in the office the same rate they used to, and he owns and has a stake in office buildings. how much are the office buildings worth. >> the most valuable assets, i'm glad you brought those up. in a partnership he has no management control over. but they are the most valuable things he owns, and when i talk on the brand issue, i've talked to branding experts, and some don't rank him anymore because they see him as a political figure. he's not a brand like he used to be. there was a time his brand

commanded a premium, now there's not. >> might demand a premium somewhere other than new york city. >> tristan, you want to join in on this is this. >> there's a couple of things. one, there was a great graphic up a second ago, showed seven springs was one of them. let's talk about the numbers here. the sheer quantity of the disparity between what he claimed the property was and what it was appraised for, we're not talking about something where he rounded up a little bit or added a little 10, 20%, 30%, that one right there, that's the one. take a look at this. seven springs, 30 million appraised value, and he tried to value it at my eyesight is terrible. >> 261 to $291 million. you got to be kidding me. just that is it. right there. screen shot that. that's your exhibit a right there. if you want to know why is he in this much trouble, that's why.

he tried to give a 10x premium over reality. >> hold on, guys, let me read from specifically the piece in this ruling on seven springs. i happen to have it in front of me. 2011 to 2014, when valuing a plot of land, mcconney relied on valuations provided by eric trump, who advised to value 160 million on the 2012 fsc, this assumed future events that would not occur including that the trump organization had received legal permission to develop the lots, that the mansions were already built and available for sale, and that there would be no construction or development costs associated with building the mansions. eric trump further advised to use the values again in 2013 and 2014. he was aware that the values he was providing would be used on his father's fscs.

upon realizing that buildings the seven mansions would not be feasible nor profitable, the trump organization through outside counsel, sherry dillon commissioned appraisal to determine the value of the development rights for the plot of land upon which the trump organization had previously considered building the seven mansions. in august 2013, eric trump advised mcconney to continue to used undiscounted value of 161 million for the seven mansion development despite having received an initial estimate approximately 5.5 million from kushman and wakefield. and one little portion further. on september 8th, 2014, david mccart l advised trump verbally, that he had appraised it at 14 million. eric trump advised to continue using the $161 million value. so on september 8th he was told

his 14 million, four days later, september 12th, he advised to continue using the $161 million value. underscoring your point. >> right. >> so that's number one. number two, going back to talking about the bans or the cancellation of the corporate charters which now is out of the punishment here, whereas before it had been in. there's one thing i want to point out to when we talk about harm is that what should be looked at here, i think the ag's office should be looking at this. i hope it's something we see in further arguments in this case, and that on appeal is that we should not just be looking at the fraud and illegality that was committed in this particular case. when 6312 has been used before to bring about these kind of removal of licenses or banning from industries, and so forth and so on, it is to look at the totality of that bad actors

misconduct in new york state. so in my view, we should be looking at trump university. we should be looking at the trump foundation. we should be looking at the manhattan -- >> the foundation that was order -- >> they were stealing money from a kid, money that was supposed to go to kids' cancer charities. we have the manhattan d.a., we forget about this case now, a conviction of the trump organization what was it, a year or two ago, for tax fraud with regard to executive compensation, and that also applied to allen weisselberg and he spent time in riker's for it. he took $40 million that was supposed to not be used out of the trump organization and used it improperly for personal expenses. all of this adds up to, i'm colloquializing here, but it's crime. >> i'm going to give a hats off to andrew weissmann for pointing this out.

87, refusal to admit error. the english poet, alexander pope first declared to err is human. to forgive is divine. defendants apparently are of a different mind. after some four years of investigation and litigation, the only error inadvertent, of course, his quotes not mine that they acknowledge is the tripling of the size of the trump tower penthouse, which cannot be gain said. their complete lack of contrition and remorse boards on pathological. they are accused only of inflating asset values to make more money. the documents prove this over and over again. defendants did not commit murder or arson, they did not rob a bank at gunpoint. donald trump is not bernard madoff. yet defendants are incapable of admitting the error of their ways. they adopt a see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil posture that evidence belies.

he is quoting from the english poet alexander pope who died, by the way, in 1744. is andrew weissmann still with us? you pointed this out, i would love to get your comments on it. >> sure. i am still here. so, you know, i'm still obviously reading this as everyone else is, i think one of the things we're seeing here, even though this is a very heavy blow on donald trump, his companies, actually also on the former chief financial officer weisselberg, the two children, eric and don jr. it is also the case that the judge does sort of signal what he sees as limits. in other words, it's one thing to think of this as, oh, he's just throwing the book at them.

he is in terms of the financial amount, but it's all documented, but he doesn't, for instance, you know, say he is bernie madoff. he understands as a judge should, this isn't a murder case. it is a financial case. and so he tries to put it in context. i would note one thing that i find interesting is so far, it's clear the judge did not believe donald trump. he did not believe allen weisselberg, but i'm not seeing yet a direct credibility finding. and why is that important. i mean, it's so obviously implicit that he's saying he doesn't believe them or else he would presumably be ruling in their favor, but having a credibility determination where the court says i find that when he said x, that's not true. this person appeared in front of

me. i don't believe it. the reason those are important is when donald trump appeals this, as is his right, just to be clear because the necessary bond, like anyone else, he's entitled to appeal this, the court of appeals at various stages give deference to the trial court's credibility finds. i think there's going to be a little bit of a back and forth on appeal, about whether there was a sufficient credibility finding. so far i'm not seeing it explicitly. but i'm sure a lot of the legal eagles at that table will be able to point that out and a direct comment on that. >> i want to talk about weisselberg and michael cohen. there's a bit about michael cohen. let's go to nbc news correspondent vaughn hillyard who's standing by for us, i believe, outside of or just over the channel from mar-a-lago. vaughn, the trump spokesperson, a trump spokesperson has released a statement. tell me the reaction from trump

world. >> reporter: right. the alina habba, the attorney for donald trump made it clear in a statement that they will appeal within the next 30 days. we don't have a statement directly from donald trump or his campaign at this point. he is here at mar-a-lago before making stops in the philadelphia area tomorrow, and then a rally just outside of detroit, michigan, tomorrow. i think, though, when we look back on this, you've got to go back to november there, katy, when i was standing outside the courthouse the day donald trump testified, for more than three and a half hours. it was judge engoron who told donald trump directly he would have no choice but to make a quote, negative inference from his quasi answers from the stand. i asked her whether she urged her client, donald trump, to control his answers or directly answer the questions from the

new york attorney general's prosecutors, and she told me that she would never ever take on a client just to turn around and tell that client how they should or should not answer the questions. donald trump in this trial made a decision that he was going to defend his family business to the extent that he could, even if it meant the judge coming down hard on him, which here this afternoon, he chose to do just that. but politically what comes out of this, katy, i think that we have to acknowledge here in the year of 2024 is that now a judge has found donald trump liable for sexual abuse, his has found him liable for defamation, and no long allegations of fraud, donald trump has been found to repeatedly engage in financial fraud. the judge also found him to have issued false financial statements, falsified business records, engage in conspiracy to falsify business records and engage in conspiracy to falsify

financial statements, and commit insurance fraud. march 19th, katy, is the day that donald trump's campaign will wrap up the republican nomination, leaving nikki haley with very little time in the republican primary. but for the democrats and joe biden, they now have a judge's order in terms of how donald trump has conducted business over the course of a sustained period of time. not only in the state of new york, but beyond, katy. >> vaughn hillyard, thank you very much. this michael cohen bit is interesting, hold your breath for one second. i have four minutes left with sue craig. i'm going to go to her. you wanted to talk about allen weisselberg. >> i think it's interesting, he has been a fixture in donald trump's life and the trump organization forever, and he is currently, you know, first of all, you know, he had a plea deal to cooperate in the criminal trial, and now we see, and it's just interesting that he is getting a million dollar fine, and what is curious about that is that the way out of the

trump organization, he got a $2 million severance package. and the judge notes here, there is substantial evidence that allen weisselberg's $2 million separation agreement was negotiated to compensate him for his continued noncooperation with any entities, with any legal interests adverse to defendants. that is disgorgement. >> what about the perjury allegation? >> it's up in the air. we're going to find out how that's going to go. he's looking at potential trouble. >> why hasn't weisselberg flipped after all of this time and these judgments, all of this trouble he's has to go through, why is she still -- >> the $2 million, after the disgorgement award, it will be interesting to see whether his incentives change. people who have studied the situation closely say they don't think he's going to flip. a perjury charge insulates him

from testimony at the upcoming hush money case, meaning that michael cohen's version of events with respect to meetings he took with weisselberg alone or with weisselberg and trump will be unrebutted because nobody will put allen weisselberg on the stand after he pleads guilty to perjury. your question is one that has people like me scratching my head for months if not years, why hasn't weisselberg flipped, i think the 2 million is part of it. i also think it's something else. >> i think he's 76 years old, and he's worked for fred trump, and at a certain point, at your core, if you were to flip, what that would take is a denial of self that's, you know, so huge, i don't think you can, and i think he sees this as a witch hunt as donald trump does. >> i thought it was so interesting. i was watching a little bit earlier, and we got to let you go so you can get to "deadline: white house."

this goes back 100 years. the trump legacy, the empire that his father fred trump built and handed over to him when he died. >> right. and you can think what you want about the trumps, fred trump. >> he has a spotted legacy. >> he does. he profited, and some people think well beyond the line of milking federal programs, and building housing, but the trump name goes back a long way, and fred trump, you know, it's a history today that i think this is like another chapter, but it's incredible to me, whatever you think of fred trump, donald trump got a lot of money from fred trump, and fred trump had every bet donald trump ever made is covered. and donald trump has squandered that money. >> let's talk about that because i know donald trump became president, he's become a larger idea and force in this country politically speaking. he's less aligned with new york city than ever, but the donald

trump before 2016 was a donald trump that was firmly rooted in the fabric of this city. firmly rooted in the legend of this city, the story of this city, the tabloids. trump and new york city were synonymous. >> they were. and that's going to change now. we don't know what it's going to look like. this is going to take a long time to go through the appeals court, but he's already been reducing his footprint in the city, and it's a new game, a new day. >> i'm being yelled at, you have to leave. so i want to talk about michael cohen. lisa rubin brought this up. michael was an important witness on behalf of the plaintiff, although hardly the lynch pin that the defendants, donald trump's team have attempted to portray him to be. his testimony was significantly compromised by his having pleaded guilty to perjury, and by some seeming contradictions in what he said at trial, however, carefully parsed he testified that although donald trump did not expressly direct him to reverse engineer financial statements, he ordered

him to do so indirectly in his quote, mob voice. the animosity between the witness and the defendant is palpable, cohen testified while trump was in the room. first time they have seen each other in years, providing cohen with an incentive to lie, the court found his testimony credible based on the relaxed manner in which he testified, the general plausibility of his statements, and most importantly, the way his testimony was corroborated by other trial evidence. a less forgiving fact finder might have concluded differently, might not have believed a single word of a convicted perjurer. this fact finder does not believe pleading guilty to perjury means you can never tell the truth. michael cohen told the truth. it is in the opinion of judge engoron. andrew weissmann, because we're still working on cameras, i'm to go ask you this. is this a reason to appeal if you're trump's team?

>> no. that is precisely, when you make a factual finding about the witnesses, that is something that is given really great deference by the court of appeals, and it logically makes sense, katy. let's say you were interviewing a witness, and you said, this is, you know, i saw the witness, these are the reasons i did not believe or i did believe the person. on appeal, someone doesn't really second guess that because they just a cold record. they didn't get to assess the demeanor. and there i think that judge engoron is doing frankly what a jury would do, which is you take -- you listen to someone's testimony. you certainly consider bad acts being perjury as certainly one of those. just because you committed percentage doesn't mean that you are incapable of ever telling the truth. here, with respect to michael cohen, you would assess his credibility, but you would also ask at corroboration for what he

did. so, for instance, the perjury, at least the perjury with respect to his congressional testimony was so locally done, as he said, but it also makes logical sense want he only did it for donald trump. that was the reason to have protected him when he lied to congress about the moscow tower project. so i think that judge engoron is very safe on appeal on that issue, and i think that's the reason that the sort of factual findings of credibility are useful. i did, by the way, in the course see that there are other places where the judge talks about credibility. talks about what he found to be plausible. what he found to be implausible. he also contrasted what people said on the stand to the documents, the evidence that he saw, and then finally, just at page 87, page 88 that you were reading. it's important for people to

understand that one of the reasons judge engoron says why i'm imposing a ban, why i'm imposing an independent monitor and compliance officer is he says there's just this pattern, this history of fraud, and combining that with the fact that none of the defendants are taking responsibility for what they did. in other words, if you're concerned about ongoing fraud, one thing you would look at is are the people contrite. are they willing to say i did something wrong, i'm willing to fix it. if you're sitting there saying, i didn't do anything wrong, plan on doing everything going forward, the way i did before, that's precisely when you impose some sort of ban, why you would want independent people like barbara jones, the former federal judge in the company making sure this is not going on so the new yorkers, the state of new york is by regulation, is there to protect that you have those people on site to make

sure this doesn't continue. >> let's talk more about credibility. if you're out there and hear a lot of papers rustling. i'm sorry. again, it's a 93-page decision. and we have a bunch of people on set going through it. so bear with us. let's talk about ivanka trump. a thoughtful, articulate, page 45. a thoughtful, articulate and poised within. the court found her inconsistent recall, depending on whether she was questioned by oag, or the defense, suspect. in any event, what ms. trump cannot recall is memorialized in contemporaneous e-mails and documents. in the absence of her memory, the documents speak for themselves. >> i was in the courtroom the day ivanka testified. i agree with the general characterization of her. she was calm, thoughtful, articulate and poised, and yet her lack of recollection was suspect, for lack of a better word, but one of the things that

the attorney general's office showed her and went through sort of methodically were all the e-mails she had, particularly as she maintained the relationship with deutsche bank as well as e-mails where she reached out to her husband to get introductions to prospective lenders. it was showing the desperation of the trump situation. they were already in a position where many of the most well known, vaunted commercial lenders in new york city, the types of banks we talk about all the time weren't in a position where they wanted to lend to him, and the trumps knew that, and the fact that ivanka was calling on jared to try and broaden their relationship to other lenders was something she couldn't deny. the e-mails spoke for themselves. i want to talk about one other credibility determination, and maybe the most important one of all, and that's of the former president, where judge engoron says overall, donald trump rarely responded to the questions asked, and he

frequently interjected long irrelevant speeches on issues far beyond the scope of the trial. his refusal to answer the questions directly or in some cases at all, severely compromised his credibility. >> does that give him pause for showing up and trying to not just testify but just showing up to some of these, he's going to have to -- >> okay. great. i think that was weissman saying good-bye. andrew, thank you. go ahead. >> i just want to interject real quick, with regard to ivanka, we can sum that up as "but her e-mails." anyhow, with regard to donald, i think the issue is he's going to these trials not because he's actually hoping to move the needle with regard to the legal outcome here. i don't think that's really what he's doing. he went to basically pontificate, to play to his crowd, to get them to donate more money to his campaign, and

to his super pac and thereby, that flows right into his legal defense as we now know, and i think he was doing it to see if he could provoke judge engoron -- engoron in this case, the judge did not do something that would beyond the pale that could create the issue to reverse on appeal. it's not going to be because of anything judge engoron did. i don't think trump even thought he was going to win the case by showing up and doing this. he did probably make his situation worse. maybe that will give him pause, but probably not. he's going to go there to be the martyr, that then allows him to pass the hat around in a very self-pitying way, and say i'm the victim, i'm the victim, and get money from fans who unfortunately are still being conned by him. >> so there were a lot of

witnesses who testified, and if you look at the chunky midsection of this decision, you'll see paragraphs on each one of those experts, including eli bartov, and yasmin vossoughian has gone to this. their expert witness who got fiery in the courtroom, tell me what judge engoron taught of him. >> reporter: i want to get on the reading as well. i have been reading this thing out here in the cold. lisa and i were covering this thingtogether, and he was considered one of the star witnesses for the defense and nyu accounting professor and i thought it was interesting what the judge in his decision wrote saying, professor bartoff did not assess any of the evaluations of donald trump's statement of financial conditions. yet as this court noted when denying defendant's motion for a directed verdict, bartoff's

point was the subject's statement of financial condition were accurate in every respect and that they were, quote, 100% consistent with generally accepted accounting practices. as this court discussed in excruciating detail in the september 26th, 2023 decision and order the statement financial conditions contained numerous significant errors by doggedly attempting to justify every misstatement professor bartoff lost credibility in the eyes of the court. eli bartoff made paid just under a million dollars for his testimony for the former president in this case. one note i want to make because i want to circle back to michael cohen, i was focused on the paragraph you read as well, michael cohen, likely having somewhat of a, i'm sure, happy reaction today to this decision, a key witness in this case, and then let's think ahead for a moment because they all tie

together, right, march 25th, jury selection is going to be happening with the hush money case of stormy daniels. guess who is going to be the key witness for that case as well? when you talk about allen weisselberg, for instance, not flipping on the former president, we know michael cohen has served time, 36 months or so, for his wrongdoing, he flipped on the former president and at this point i'm sure michael cohen is considering it a major win. >> here's a statement from the trump organization. today's ruling is a gross miscarriage of justice and the trump organization never missed any payment or been in default. some of the largest banks in the world were represented by the most prestigious law firms in the country and did due diligence prior to entering into these transactions and in the end db deutsch bank and others made hundreds of millions in profits having an incredible relationship with our organization. if the attorney general is permitted to retroactively insert herself into private commercial transactions between

sophisticated parties no business transaction entered into in the state of new york will be beyond the attorney general's per view. every member of the business community no matter the industry should be concerned with this overreach and brazen attempt by the attorney general to exert limitless power where no private or public harm has been established. the ruling will only further expedite the continuing exodus of companies from new york. this is a spokesperson for the trump organization. it's going to sound different than what trump will post on truth social. let's bring in david, our favorite numbers guy, investigative reporter of the new york times. thank you for waiting. talk to me about how donald trump might be able to pay this back. >> well, if he waits long enough he'll get money from his special purpose acquisition vehicle truth social approved by the sec. he has cash on hand and a lot of real estate.

i don't think anybody should see donald trump in a barrel down fifth avenue. he has real estate, he owns stakes in pretty expensive buildings in new york and san francisco. if push came to shove he could sell any of those and pay this. the bigger consequence for him will be that that starts to shrink this empire which was shrinking and sort of make you ask what's the point of the trump organization? just to house donald trump and give him a place to have parties or really a business? >> david, trying to understand the motivation that donald trump's team had in refusing to give an inch on this, i mean one of the notes that judge engoron makes is that there is no remorse, that they only gave on the square footage of the trump penthouse in trump tower, the only place they made a mistake. what is the motivation from your reporting on the organization to not show any contrition? >> this is how they approach legal fights and they have for decades. they never admit defeat.

they never admit fault. they push -- they sort of wage war on the process of the judicial process. never admitting fault, never sort of complying with the rules, trying to delay and attack the judge. that's been how they've done things forever. they never tried admitting fault and showing remorse and don't expect them to stop now. nobody in the company is in power. donald trump is the only person who has any power there and the way he wants to act and take this on and always has, is the way everyone else is going follow. >> what about with the trump team, the organization says in their statement, every member of the new york business community, no matter the industry, should be gravely concerned with the gross overreach and brazen attempt by the attorney general to exert limitless power where no private or public harm has been established? david, have you heard that from other businesses or organizations who worry about this? >> no. here's what's important to know about this. trump has always tried to cast himself as sort of a martyr for

a broader community or to say look, what i did is just what everybody else did. i'm getting punished for a thing that's common in new york real estate or new york. we talk to experts about real estate assessment who know this world and said look, nobody does what he did. yeah, sometimes there's a little bit of wiggle room and pumping the numbers to make yourself look better. nobody makes up houses, makes up extra floors to a triplex. acreage on lot. that's the way they did it. nobody makes up facts and uses fake facts to justify a bigger value. it's not like he's doing something other people are doing. what he did was in a class by itself. >> you want to react as well? >> yeah. again, economy back to it's a difference between i'm going to add another 10% on to this thing as opposed to 10 x. we're talking it's a d massive disparity between what property was actually worth and what he

claimed it was worth in these statements. also, second here is that with regard to their statement, they're basically saying, you know what, they're basically saying the a.g. shouldn't have the power to do this at all and the a.g. shouldn't have the power to police the marketplace. >> you have to change the law, right? >> you have to change the law. go ahead. if you think that's true and that there's this outcry from the business community to do this, repeal the martin act, go ahead and repeal executive law 6312. go ahead. >> do you know why the martin act was enacted in the first place? >> it was enacted because there were a lot of phony stocks floated and in new york during the boom of the '20s. it was a landmark piece of legislation and one of the first of its kind in america. this was before the sec was created. the sec wasn't created until by fdr in '33- '34. i think the martin act was 1927. this was at the height of the stock market bubble of the '20s

and people were making up stocks that had no backing or anything behind them at all, and the -- there was an outcry to say hey, we actually need to have some laws on the books that will allow the attorney general or some other entity and they picked the attorney general to be the one, to say hey, you can't do that. there actually has to be some basis in truth and fact. >> do you see thisby to a strong parallel to the trump university case? >> yeah. this is a larger version of that. it turns out there is a section in the opinion regarding trump u and trump foundation and showing this is are part of a broader history and pattern and that is what the law requires, it's repeated in persistent fraud and illegality. even if we're saying deutsch bank wasn't harmed by this and think everything is great go talk to the victims of trump university and ask them whether they were harmed or whether there was an injury there. because this is part of a larger pattern of fraud that has crushed people's lives at times.

talk to all the small business owners that he has ripped off over the years and ask them if there is any harm or fraud or injury to them that's occurred from his misdeeds. >> alina habba says they will appeal and they have how long to do so? >> 30 days. >> is there anything in here that sticks out to you that they could appeal on? >> you know, i got to read the whole thing. there's a lot here, folks. i hope everybody goes and reads it. >> yeah. >> it's actually amazing. it's really well done. >> it is. you know, it's 93 pages and just to recap because we only have a minute left, tristan, thank you very much, you're going to go through it, the judgment is that donald trump owes $355 million. donald trump himself owes $355 million. don junior his son owes $4 million, eric owes $4 million as well and allen weisselberg, cfo owes $1 million. that gets us to around $364

million. donald trump is banned from doing business for three years in the state of new york. his sons don junior and eric are banned from doing business in the state of new york for two years. let me just reiterate what he says, what judge engoron says about contrition here. he sums it up. the english poet alexander pope first declared to err is human, to forgive is divine, defendants apparently are of a different mind. they are accused of only inflating asset values to make more money. that they did it over and over again, he says. that is going to do it for me today. thank you to tristan snell who joined us for the hour. it's been a wild one. it's only going to get more interesting on "deadline: white house" which starts right now. hi, everyone. it is 4:00 here in new york. i'm alicia menendez in for