hello, i'm wolf blitzer, alongside dana bash. we're here in washington. moments from now, donald trump will be back under oath after a historic and heated day in the new york civil fraud trial against him, after two impeachments and multiple lawsuits and depositions, the former president is defending himself on the stand for the first time. within minutes, trump was accused of making speeches, and later he insulted the new york attorney general and he publicly criticized the judge in this case. the judge has already found that trump and his eldest sons committed what were described as, quote, persistent and repeated fraud, by inflating certain property values to acquire loans and insurance

benefits. >> now judge arthur engoron is trying to figure out what damages the trumps should pay. he spent much of the morning admonishing trump for, quote, long-winded answers and not answering the questions being asked to him, even telling trump's attorney at one point to, quote, i beseech you to control him, if you can. if you can't, i will. i will excuse him and draw every negative inference that i can. do you understand that? cnn's kaitlan collins and paula reid are outside the courthouse. the judge seemed to take a new approach to the trump testimony after making that threat, but it didn't change the tension in the courtroom, tension that trump seems to be -- it seems to be part of the trump strategy. >> yeah, it certainly does. i guess that's the question of if it's a strategy that works,

because we already know what the judge is determining here, how much, if anything, trump is going to have to pay in penalties, given he's already been found liable of the fraud that the attorney general's office accused him of. it's important to remember that this is incredibly personal for trump. this case has made him angrier than almost any other case he's been facing because it goes to the heart of his entire identity, his real estate empire that he has built his name off of, which he has used to get himself into office when he ran for president in 2016, and something he has continued to talk about. now this case is threatening that. what the judge was so frustrated by were trump's long, meandering answers that the judge did not feel were sufficient answers to yes or no questions in the judge's mind, and that was frustrating because this is the only day trump is expected to be on the witness stand. the court is closed tomorrow, it's election day. he's not expected to return. there's a big question of what this is going to look like in a

few minutes when trump is back in the room. because he hasn't seemed to mind frustrating this judge even though the judge is the decisionmaker here. >> reporter: that's exactly right. this was our second break today. what we saw after the first break in court today is that the judge changed up his strategy, but trump kept right on with his. the judge initially was stopping trump, every time he felt like he went off script or talked too long, he was interrupting him. that set off disputes with trump's lawyers, discussions with the attorney general's office. it took up a lot of time. it made the whole situation quite chaotic between trump's what were described as speeches, the judge interrupting, the lawyers interjecting. it was a chaotic first hour there. they took a break. when we came back it was notable that the judge stopped interrupting trump and let him talk, instead deferring to the attorney general's office to decide how to police the questioning and stop if they didn't feel like they were getting the right answer. now that everybody has had a lunch break, a little food,

stabilized their blood sugar, it will be interesting to see if he changes his strategy. his lawyer, alina has beencame . he's made the most negative inference possible, which means this testimony could go as bad as it could possibly go. the first break prompted some changes. >> despite all the tension and craziness, there were points where trump acknowledged that he did have a role in assembling together some of these financial documents, so the attorney general's office has gotten some of what they were looking for. the question is with about two hours left of testimony, how much more do they need to establish the extent to which he was or was not involved? >> reporter: it seemed once they were able to get some questions in in the second part of the morning, they got through some of the properties, but not all of them.

they haven't talked about, for example, the doral golf course and the d.c. postal office project. so we can expect that if they're able to ask questions, they'll go to the backbone of this case, the valuation of a specific list of properties. >> wolf and dana, speaking of that, the trump tower apartment is one of the biggest points at the center of all of these allegations, and the process koort prosecutors were trying to use trump's own words against him, what he said to "forbes" magazine, bragging about the size, which was three times smaller than he was saying. they are trying to use what he has said previously against him in this back and forth. >> trump had said repeatedly that that apartment was some 30,000 square feet, when in fact, after they counted it precisely, it was a little more than 10,000 square feet. we'll get back to you guys. thanks very much for doing what you're doing. we're going to talk about all of this further with our experts

right now. laura, let me start with you. you're our chief legal affairs analysts, you're an anchor at krp cnn now. talk about what we're learning and where the case is moving. >> we're learning the former president of the united states, donald trump, is hoping to capitalize on this country without cameras in the courtroom by hoping in the long run to suggest that he is politically persecuted by a prosecutor who used her campaign to suggest that she would target him. the judge is somebody that's also in his virtual cross hairs here, somebody he is hoping to convince the public that he is biased against him. none of this changes the facts that were presented at trial. there's been 23 witnesses who have testified to this effect and there's a summary judgment motion that says that fraudulent documents were already in place. he's already been found liable. now, how expensive is it going to be for donald trump and

company? he's in a real catch 22. on the one hand, he wants to say i'm in control, i'm the head honcho, nobody makes decisions without me, donald trump. on the other hand, if he says that in the court of public opinion in a courtroom, it's suggesting that he should be liable to some of this as well. how does he get around it? >> jamie, i should say what we're watching on the screen here is outside the courthouse. it says it there, it's 2:07 p.m. eastern, court is supposed to resume at 2:15 eastern. we'll watch for them walking back in to see if the former president says anything. but, jamie, i know one thing that laura mentioned is something you've been eager to talk about, which is not just the catch-22, but the potential contradiction in the notion of trump saying, well, i wasn't really the decider here on how we file, and yet him also trying to portray himself as the

biggest, baddest business person on the planet. >> i think the word he used was everyone was involved in these decisions. anybody who knows about donald trump's business knows one thing, the buck stops -- it begins, it ends with donald trump. his own children who have been involved with the business for years, i am told, would not make a move without checking in on him. and i think sometimes people think the trump organization is much bigger than it is. you had said, what is it, about six people. i actually texted with michael cohen. he said there are about 20 executives, but at the end, donald trump makes all the decisions. i just want to add one other thing big picture when we're talking about strategy, the legal strategy, the political strategy. donald trump not only has this case, he has four criminal cases he is facing elsewhere. but he has his eye on one thing,

and that's next november and winning and being the next president, even though there are state cases where he cannot theoretically pardon himself. we have seen him over and over try to discredit the justice department, the rule of law, the judicial system. so at the end of the day, is this painful for him? absolutely. does he want to pay $250 million? absolutely not. does he want his business in new york dismantled? of course not. but the big prize is next november in his mind. >> it's all about power. and, you know, there's more power in the presidency than even there is being a real estate mogul in new york. but, again, i keep coming back to the thought that this is so definitional for him as to who he is as a human being. he was born and bred as the real

estate mogul and used that to run for the presidency, and now will use the fact that he says he's been victimized to run for the presidency. but in his heart of hearts, as he said today, i know more about real estate than anybody else in this room, that's who he is. and so i think he's -- >> that's letitia james, the new york attorney general, who just walked in. >> i think he's conflicted. i think he's conflicted. he said, for example, i made suggestions to the people who worked for him, because he didn't want to appear to be somebody who ran a company and knew nothing about it. that's not part of the image. the image is, i made this company into something great. but by saying he made suggestions, he hurts himself legally in the trial. so it's very difficult, and clearly they are all coming down on the side of, what have you

got to lose. >> this whole idea of this being part of business and this is how we do things is sort of the argument that certainly the former president, but for to the point, his sons have made. number one, we're experts here. >> here comes the former president. >> that's what he did the last time, a thumbs up. didn't say anything. >> we're all experts here, and valuing buildings is subjective. so it's a little fuzzy. that's debunked by a lot of evidence presented in the court filings, which is that they're over-valuing buildings by a factor of two or three. they're saying we have accountants to do these kinds of things and we're relying on information, just like any good businessman would do, we're relying on what's coming from our accountants. and if you don't believe those two things, ladies and gentlemen, you have to understand that this is just a witch hunt being carried out by democratic politicians. each of those three arguments,

that it's subjective, accountants or a witch hunt are all weak and are going to fail in different ways. >> that's why he wanted a jury, though. and that's why having a judge who is accustomed to civil fraud trials, who has had other very rich people come in and had to prove their cases, the average person is not wealthy. the average person looks at someone like donald trump and says, i guess this is how rich people live their lives. i guess they're not using turbotax. all these are luxuries. one of the things he's hoping to use is suggest this is how we do things, and everybody else is n naive. this is how the wealthy get away with different things. having a judge who is accustomed to the way things work according to the law, the charges including conspiracy to calcify documents, conspiracy to make statements and beyond, reckless disregard for the truth, that's

the tragedy of having a judge. >> when the judge is the one guy assessing everybody's credibility and the quality of the evidence, the one thing he did to inflame the judge more than anything else was attack the judge's law clerk. and you might think that's a separate ancillary thing that didn't matter. but, no, these defendants have gone after court personnel, career court personnel that i think angered the judge. it was clear from his order that he was quite upset. you and i both appeared in front of judges. those are the kinds of things that we know well. once you get under the judge's skin, you're not going to get out, and that can have an impact on how the judge rules, and it can't be overturned on appeal sometimes if the judge can justify why he's ruling the way he does. >> we're going to sneak in another quick break. donald trump is about to take the stand again, testifying under oath. more of our special live coverage after a quick break.

welcome back to our special coverage. donald trump is returning to the stand in the civil fraud trial against him.

the former president delivered fiery and combative testimony for about three hours before court broke for lunch. sources tell us the former president's team is happy with his performance so far. >> interesting. cnn's kristen holmes is live for us outside of trump tower in new york city. this is all happening just almost exactly one year from the 2024 presidential election. how are trump's lawyers and trump's campaign staff managing all of this? >> reporter: look, they are working together hand in hand. i'm told by campaign advisers that this is really a team effort. one of the things we talk about with trump's messaging over and over again is that the campaign and the legal have blended together, that he's using the legal to help with his political campaign. but that also applies behind the scenes, that these two lines have really blurred, and the campaign advisers tell us that they are working in a symbiotic

relationship with the lawyers to figure out how to manage the schedule of donald trump, bouncing back and forth between being on the campaign trail and being in a courtroom. this is the first of many potential appearances for donald trump. his team believes that there will be at least one more trial, probably more, before the 2024 election. they are trying to figure out how exactly to campaign around it. one of the things is what we're seeing today, which is this idea that you can turn these court appearances into a spectacle or a campaign event in itself. the other part of this is trying to manage a schedule, to have the lawyers blocking out some potential dates for when donald trump might actually be in court when they can schedule campaign events around that. this is very complicated because you can't plan far in advance because they don't want to be canceling and postponing campaign events on a regular basis. i did speak to one adviser who said they are putting infrastructure on the ground,

particularly in early states so if donald trump can't be there, that he's forced to be in a trial during the days before an election or primary, that they believe they can still succeed or win there, even without him on the ground. but this is a lot of guesswork here. we have never been in this kind of situation. they don't actually know what this is going to look like, in the same way that, yes, they do believe right now this is helping them politically. when they look down the line, they have no idea if donald trump ends up being the nominee how this would play out in a general. it is very uncharted waters here in right now. >> trump is calling the trial, and i'm quoting him now, unfair and a political witch hunt. it seems like he's using this to make some sort of political statement. i know you've spoken to a number of his advisers. is this all part of his campaign strategy? >> reporter: absolutely. when we talk about the messaging, this is all part of it. they want the legal and political to be one and the

same. they are going to make the argument that he is unfairly being persecuted because he is running for president, that this is all about democrats or various leaders or opponents to him, that they are all trying to silence him because he is running for president and doing well. they believe that that helps him. the key message here is what we've always known about donald trump, he does not want to face these trials in a court of law. he wants to fight them in the court of public opinion. what we're seeing him do today is using that messaging, that messaging he puts out on social media in a courtroom. he's taking it a step further. we knew he would probably do that in front of the cameras, but he's also doing it inside of the courtroom. they are trying to create a narrative that plays into what they want their political campaign to look like, which is that he's a political martyr. that is part of a very calculated strategy on their part. >> kristen holmes reporting from new york, thanks very much. a very contentious day inside the courtroom, at least so far.

our live coverage continues after a quick break.

the power goes out and we still have wifi to do our homework. and that's a good thing? great in my book! who are you? no power? no problem. introducing storm-ready wifi. now you can stay reliably connected through power outages with unlimited cellular data and up to 4 hours of battery back-up to keep you online. only from xfinity. home of the xfinity 10g network.

this resulted in a gag order for trump and thousands in fees for violating that gag order. under oath today, trump lodged more attacks. the judge's response at one point was, quote, you can attack

me, you can do whatever you want, but answer the question. cnn's kaitlan collins and paula reid are outside the courthouse for us in new york. kaitlan, the questioning just picked up after the lunch break. what are we learning? >> yeah, they're focusing on that doral property, the one down in miami that he often wanted to host world leaders at, he wanted to host a summit at one point. trump has said that he was personally involved in guaranteeing the loan that he got for national doral and that goes to the heart of what he's being questioned about, what he knew about these valuations, which of course the attorney general is saying that they were inflated. to secure more favorable loans. that is what the judge has ruled on, that he is liable for fraud. the reason he's asked these

questions about the attorney general's office is they're trying to determine what the penalties could be, the damages that trump has to actually pay. and, paula, i think what's notable, there's still that tension in the courtroom that's happening. trump's attorney, chris kise, has been trying to object to some of the questioning, saying that it was above the statute of limitations. these being overruled by the judge. but trump is kind of smirking like the judge, he believes, is being biased against him, even though it's something that is typical for the judge to do. >> reporter: exactly. and our colleagues giving us updates, they report it's been the calmest, most low impact moments. so it's unusual that kise would try to interrupt this line of questioning and not let everybody move on. perhaps he thought his client was about to get himself in trouble. one of the things that's been notable, before this got started, the attorney general, letitia james, gave an impromptu press conference, sort of

predicting, correctly, what trump would say on the stand and rebutting it. that's unusual. we don't typically see that in courtrooms, where the prosecutor comes out and tries to rebut a witness before the proceedings. trump has tried to frame this as a political pursuit, that he is the victim of political bias. and we've seen a few times today where the judge even was a little snarky with him, suggesting that he read his opinion, perhaps, for the first time. letitia james, with attorney general, joked with cameras that the cameras were trained on the wrong person. i find these moments unusual because they could play into trump's narrative that this is not just the judicial system looking at the facts, it could play into the narrative that it is politically bias. >> there have been points where she's been very involved where they were talking about one

property, 40 wall street, and trump was remarking from the witness stand, she doesn't even though, pointing to the attorney general, in the first row of seats, saying she doesn't even know where this location is. according to our friends in the room, she laughed out loud at that comment. she's not staying quiet inside the courtroom. she's not speaking, but visibly responding to some of the lines of questioning. >> reporter: which is surprising, because it's shocking that someone would attack the person on the stand. not surprising when it's trump. but she has a choice, whether she wants to engage or just remain stoic. and she is leaning into this in the court of public opinion, making remarks before everyone goes into court, interacting with him in the courtroom and joking with reporters about where their attention should be focused. i think it's worth pointing out that could feed into his narrative that there is some sort of bias against him as opposed to facts and law that do not favor him. >> the line of questioning where trump said that, yes, he was involved in personally

guaranteeing the value of doral, his location in miami, how significant is that to what the attorney general's office is trying to prove here? >> reporter: what they wanted to know, and let me look at the notes from our colleagues inside, that he had to personally guarantee this loan. in order to do that, he had to have $50 million in unencumbered cash. he said, yeah, i had a lot of cash. it's a humble brag. but at the heart of this case is the question of whether he fraudulently misrepresented his net worth to get more favorable terms on loans and from insurance companies. so while he's sort of joking a little about how much cash he had on hand, his net worth is critical to this case and whether these loan applications were legitimate, whether they were accurate. he said here that he believed as part of that loan agreement it also required him to have a net worth of $2.5 billion. he was asked, do you believe you

complied with this loan, according to our colleagues, he said, yes, i do. >> no one is disputing that he had money, no one is saying that he was destitute, but they're disputing how much money and what the values of the properties were when he was securing loans. what he was trying to argue earlier was that, actually, the property values of some of these places were undervalued an being overvalued, and he acknowledged some were up, some were down. but for the most part, he was saying undervalued, which is not what the judge found. >> reporter: this gets to what frustrates him about this case. he has put forth a persona as a successful billionaire tycoon, he did it on the campaign trail, for years and years he did it through the media, too. and then he started to be called out that maybe this wasn't accurate. it's one thing to lie to the

press but another entirely to lie to banks or insurance companies. you can tell it is a sensitive subject for him whenever the valuation of certain properties comes up. he has in the past line of questioning over the past few minutes, he has remained more disciplined, more composed and more on script. certainly more so than right before lunch where he was attacking the judge, the attorney general. he was all over the place. >> and his line to the press has been brought up in the courtroom. we'll see what past remarks continue to be brought up by the prosecutors in this case. we'll continue to cover all of this as donald trump is back on the witness stand. we'll be back just after this.

welcome back to our special

coverage, the former president, donald trump, on the stand in his new york civil fraud trial. trump resumed his testimony earlier this hour, following a lunch break. this morning, trump engaged in several hours of very intense and chaotic testimony in which he lashed out directly at the judge and the prosecutors. our legal and political panel is back with us right now. let's watch what's going on. elliot, let me start with you. what kind of advice do you think trump's lawyers gave trump, as if he pays attention, but if he were paying attention, what kind of advice do you think they gave him during the lunch break? >> what my rational attorney would provide to their client is just to answer the questions asked. certainly he has every incentive to bluster and play to the cameras and political audiences, but not answering the questions you're asked could have huge consequences in the courtroom. that's what i would advise. >> this is a very, very different atmosphere, a

different approach, a different everything, jamie. he's running the show. >> you see me laughing over here. >> it's not the attorneys. if it were me, i would do whatever my attorney told me to do. but this is a very, very different dynamic. >> one thing we know about donald trump, he always thinks that he knows best. we used to hear when he was in the white house that he would follow the advice of the last person who spoke to him. no. only if that was what he also thought was the case. look, i think we see his lawyers playing along with whatever trump's strategy is here. his lawyer said it was brilliant, another lawyer came out and made a political speech. but at the end of the day, this is donald trump's strategy. >> look, this is, as we've been saying over and over again, it's political, and if you were trump's lawyer, you might advice

him. but that would be a legal strategy. this is a political strategy. and he's playing to outside the courtroom, he said, i hope everybody is watching, and his lawyers at a certain point, we've all spoken to people who have represented donald trump, at a certain point you understand he's not going to listen to you, no matter what you say. so they're playing along with this because they understand now the strategy is political, and trump believes he's lost, anyway, and he's got nothing else to lose, and that this is what he's going to do to become president of the united states. >> the thing is, he has a lot to lose through the conduct now. assume we're in trump world. in trump world in that courtroom, his belief is, what he should think, that there is a chance to have less of a legal or financial exposure, there is a chance that he will not have a

conservatorship, the chance that he would be able to retain and do business in new york city and new york state, more broadly. he's missing the forest through the trees, because as he's trying to get notches under his belt to get under the judge's skin, that is the person that could be more generous. you're talking about counsel. his other cases in this world, where he's going to be relying on the guidance of counsel. in this context, if he says i don't listen to those attorneys, how does that play in the other cases he will be in? because what is good for the goose is good for the gander. ultimately trump has a shot to not have the book thrown at him in liability. he keeps messing around and thinking the only way to win is to get under the judge's skin when he could come out of this

with less exposure than he believes. >> real quick, the idea of the advice that trump would or would not have gotten, to some extent, calling it a witch hunt, it's all political, that's a legal strategy as well. he's trying to sort of put the chum in the water that the whole prosecution is tainted. he has to make that argument at this trial in order to say it on appeal. you can't just raise something new on appeal. you've got to say, even if it sounds silly, this is a witch hunt. >> appeal is one thing. i want to go back to what i was told that we talked about a couple of hours ago, i guess, which is the notion that there is a consideration of filing for a mistrial, and that part of what trump was trying to do, certainly this morning, was to bait the judge into saying something that would allow the trump defense to have a better case for that. i don't know if that's going to happen, i don't know if they're going to do that.

we'll see what the day brings. but i know, elliot, you rolled your eyes. >> he has every right to file it, and he should. >> he should. >> go ahead. >> i think we were going to say exactly the same thing. he should file for a mistrial just because this gets back to what's called preserving an issue on appeal. you can't claim something later on down the road once it goes to the appeal court for the first time. so all of these things that are kind of nonsense, you still have to say them at trial. and filing for a mistrial is important for him to do. >> the reason he would have to make that -- mind you, who rules on the mistrial? the judge. >> can you explain how that works? >> the judge will hear an argument from both sides that will say, what are your reasons for asking this? they often will take it under advisement for a short amount of time to figure out if there's a hook they can have.

they will look to see if there's any instance of bias. he will not find any on his own a c accord. that's probably the reason the judge stepped back this morning, and said, prosecutors, it's your job to rule and control this witness. otherwise, it becomes him doing this. it goes back to what his role is. his role is fact finder, it is a credibility assessment. those are virtually untouchable on appeal. the more that he makes credibility findings and statements about being objective, or go back in time to when he had the second sanction for the gag order and said, i do not find you to be credible, trump was saying you meant michael cohen as opposed to my law clerk. those things they'll have to do on the record for that reason. >> what about the argument that the prosecution has no case because nobody lost any money

here? you know, the donald trump organization did not victimize any lending institution whatsoever, and show me how much money people have loss. >> the old victimless crime, which is very common. it doesn't matter that you might think that something is a victimless crime. if new york state executive law, i believe that's the name of it says that falsifying business records, conspiring to falsify business records are a civil offense, because they're not being charged with crimes here. the tricky thing this puts on the judge is that the judge has to, when ruling on a mistrial or anything else, at least state his reasons for why. and he doesn't want to say too much because he doesn't want to make an error, but has to give the parties enough notice as to why he's ruling the way he is. >> laura, big picture, how big of a threat right now is this to trump's business empire? >> it's an extraordinary threat and could deliver a fatal blow.

for trump, his business acumen and empire is his political currency and vice-versa. if he loses one, if donald trump, hoping to be the commander in chief once again, to rule from is oval office, cannot even have the respect of not having a conservatorship over his own named brand entity, it could be catastrophic for him, which is why i think he is fighting so hard on this very issue. donald trump is not somebody who has got decades of political experience. he's got decades, as his father, of business experience. he has capitalized on that. if that is taken away from him, he is cut off below the knee and it will be very hard to stand politically, financially or business-wise. >> so basically what i hear you saying is if he loses this case, the judge would say to him, you're fired? [ laughter ] >> with a new york accent. >> i bit my tongue on the britney spears connection. >> this is a judge who loves pop culture. it would have been welcome in

that courtroom. >> that's it. i'm done. all you. >> everybody stand by. we're going to take you back to the courthouse for more details. lots going on. stay with us.

this is cnn's special coverage of donald trump testifying in court. the former president is back on the stand in his own defense for the first time in this civil trial, accused of committing a multibillion dollar business fraud. >> cnn's kaitlan collins is outside the courthouse in new york as she has been all day

long. what do we know at this moment about how the atmosphere has changed since they restarted after the lunch break, as opposed to what we saw this morning? >> trump is still annoyed. he keeps referencing the statute of limitations, asking why it can't be applied in the line of questioning that he is being asked by the assistant attorney general, and what they're delving into now are the amount of loans he had with doeutsche bank, what kind of net worth he was required to maintain as a condition of the loans. they're getting into a really interesting back and forth over the questioning, dana and wolf, with the assistant attorney general, where trump is talking about how his net worth, his personal value could have made the financial statements actually larger than what the numbers were that he and his accounting team actually produced through the trump organization. i want to read you a few quotes. at one point he says the net worth of me was far greater than the financial statements, so i

don't know what you're getting at, but keep going. and then the assistant attorney general asked trump if that is what he considered to be part of his financial statements, his net worth, if his brand value was factored into that. at one point he says the brand value is very substantial value. i didn't include that in the financial statements. i could have if i wanted to. if i was looking to build up the financial statement, i could have put that in, but i was not looking to do that. trump is essentially saying they have no case, the allegations about him inflating his net worth. he's saying it wasn't inflated because he's talking about how much his personal brand value was worth. of course that is not something that banks take into account when they are giving someone a loan. they care about his assets, cash on hand. but he is trying to argue that that is part of this. and i think it speaks to what is at the underlying part of this entire case, which is this argument from trump and his attorneys that valuing a

property or something you put on a loan application is subjective, that it's more of an art than a science when it comes to the numbers. that, of course, is not what the attorney general's office has been arguing, it's certainly not what the judge has found, given he's already found trump liable for fraud. it speaks to why trump is on the witness stand right now and this penchant he has for exaggerating his worth, net worth, the value of his properties, something he has been arguing with the assistant attorney general about in this line of questioning. now, the question, of course, is where this goes from here, how they continue going down what his relationships were with these banks, with the actual terms of these loan agreements. but trump is trying to argue that his brand value should be factored into this and that his financial statements could have actually been more inflated than they already were, according to the attorney general's office. >> kaitlan, thank you so. . to maybe state the maybe about how historic this is, unprecedented, what we are seeing, and have heard from our

reporters in that court house al day long. thank you for joining us. i'm dana bash. be sure to join kateitlan colli, laura coates as well. "the source" starts at 9:00 p.m. eastern and laura coates begins at 11:00 p.m., and you can catch me tomorrow at noon on "inside politics". >> you certainly will. i'm wolf blitzer. you can always catch me in "the situation room" starting later today, 6:00 p.m. eastern. boris sanchez and brianna keilar pick up our live special coverage right after a quick break.

so... i know you and george were struggling with the possibility of having to move. how's that going? we found a way to make bathing safer with a kohler walk-in bath.

a kohler walk-in bath provides a secure, spa-like bathing experience in the comfort of your own home. a kohler walk-in bath has one of the lowest step-ins of any walk-in bath for easy entry and exit. it features textured surfaces, convenient handrails for more stability, and a wide door for easier mobility. kohler® walk-in baths include two hydrotherapies— whirlpool jets and our patented bubblemassage to help soothe sore muscles in your feet, legs, and back. a kohler-certified installer will install everything quickly and conveniently in as little as a day. they made us feel completely comfortable in our home. and, yes, it's affordable. i wish we would have looked into it sooner. think i might look into one myself. stay in the home and life you've built for years to come. call... to receive $1,500 off your kohler® walk-in bath. and take advantage of our low monthly payment financing.