Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Trump Appears In Court Today. Aired 9:30-10a ET

Aired October 02, 2023 - 09:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[09:30:00]

JESSICA ROTH, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: To the administration of justice. You know, the judge could give him, at a minimum, I think a very stern warning today and say stop doing this. So, the question will be, is that going to be something that the judge actually addresses at the start of the proceedings today? This has been a long, steady stream of these kinds of attacks on the judge personally, as well as on the attorney general. And I will be interested to see whether the attorney general's office raises this with the judge at the beginning of the proceedings, especially if Mr. Trump is in the room, and whether the judge decides to raise it on his own.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN HOST: All right, again, we have now seen them exit the FDR. They are getting ever so closer to the courtroom. Donald Trump arriving here for opening statements in this civil case.

We just heard from the attorney general moments ago. We'll see if he takes the chance to speak before going in. I don't think we necessarily anticipate that, but you never know.

In the meantime, I want to bring Dana Bash into this conversation.

Dana, we've been noting all morning long, yes, this is a legal proceeding, but in many respects this is a campaign event because Donald Trump is choosing to be there. He's coming from Iowa.

He was in Iowa yesterday. He spent last night in New York. Going to this campaign event today. In a way it proves the point he's been trying to make, is there's no daylight. You know, the sun can't shine through almost on any of the other candidates, Republican candidates, no matter how hard they try.

DANA BASH, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: And there is no opportunity for a spectacle that he will give up. It's -- in general, but particularly at this case, when this kind of moment is a central part of his campaign for re-election, for election again, I should say, and a central part of his campaign to galvanize Republican voters, which according to every poll, national, and more importantly, state poll, is working. His numbers have continued to go up with every indictment that he has faced. That's on the criminal charges. This, as you've been noting all morning, is a civil trial.

But I want to go back to what Kate was talking about with this Trump campaign statement. A very lengthy statement attacking Letitia James, because it plays into the notion of him as a martyr and him going after what he perceives as his political enemies. And Jessica was right, of course, that this is going to be a question legally in the courtroom about his -- his behavior, both against Letitia James and against the judge. But if you just look at it from the point of view of his political campaign, he makes point after point using quote after quote of Letitia James as a candidate for office herself. Remember, she was elected as attorney general. She is a proud Democrat. And so he is trying to turn that very much into the notion of witch hunt.

It is different from, let's say, a Jack Smith on the federal level, who is apolitical and, you know, nominated because of that or appointed because of that. This is a very different kind of thing. And he clearly feels that it is much easier to make the political argument that this is just Democrats coming after him in a way because -- because they can.

SARA SIDNER, CNN HOST: One of the arguments that's being made, Dana, and I'm curious what you think and what you've heard from the public, voters, et cetera, is that this is political for the simple fact that Donald --

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN HOST: There he is, just so we (INAUDIBLE) everybody-

SIDNER: Oh.

BASH: There he is.

BOLDUAN: Donald Trump is now leaving the motorcade and he's going to be headed in, it looks like, because this is as close as cameras are getting right now, that Donald Trump is now heading into that courthouse.

SIDNER: And we know that there are cameras there, that he's on the other side. So, we don't know if he will come through and try to talk to the cameras first or go into the courtroom immediately. We will see there. You can see inside of the courthouse there as they wait for Donald Trump and his entourage to come through.

And, again, we are expecting to have a judgment -- or a decision by the judge as to whether or not cameras will actually be allowed in the court. Highly unusual. Hasn't happened yet. But the judge has been asked and there is a question as to whether or not he would allow cameras just for the opening statements. If that happens, of course, we will bring those to you as soon as they happen and we'll give you the decision as soon as that decision becomes clear.

But there is a big case that still has to go forward here. And, Dana, you know, the argument that Donald Trump has been making is it's political for the simple fact that he has been touting his business acumen for decades. And these business records have been around for a very long time, as well as questions around his wealth. Is this an argument that is working with those who are looking at potentially putting Trump back in office?

BASH: Politically, sure, absolutely. I mean let's be clear, pretty much any argument that he makes that portrays himself as a victim of, you know, pick your word that he uses, witch-hunt, weaponization, whatever it is, it works politically. It's also a question about whether or not that argument is going to have any sway with the judge.

[09:35:06]

Again, as you guys have been saying over and over, this is not a jury trial, this is a bench trial. So far the judge last week, I believe it was, already said that he was liable because -- he wasn't found guilty, it's civil -- liable for the claims against him when it comes to defrauding several of the outlier -- of the people who are claiming, insurance companies and so forth.

The question now is how much he's going to have to pay. And, again, the fact that he is showing up -- there are other questions that are going to be dealt with in this courtroom, but the fact that he is showing up is indicative of several things. First of all is that this is that -- what he holds maybe most dear, his business. It's how he built his name, his reputation. But also about his political campaign. I mean this is a political campaign event for him. And as backwards as that is, because any other candidate would find this shameful and find this a negative, for him he sees it as a positive.

BOLDUAN: There's Eric Trump.

BERMAN: Eric.

SIDNER: There's Erica Trump. Just, Dana, we're watching as the Trumps come into court.

BOLDUAN: And (INAUDIBLE), his other attorneys.

SIDNER: We just saw Eric Trump, his son.

BERMAN: Jason Miller.

SIDNER: Jason Miller coming in. You're seeing some of the attorneys also flowing in. We have not yet seen Donald Trump, but we have just seen one of his children. Donald Trump, we know, is there. We just watched him go into the back of the courthouse. So, we are waiting to see when he will be inside the court.

BERMAN: And just to - to put a finer point on what Dana was just saying there, this is no longer a bug of the Trump campaign. This is a feature now. The court cases are a feature of the campaign. And initially it was the four criminal cases against him. I think this civil case kind of rose its head unexpectedly and the Trump campaign has seized on it and is now using it, as Kate and everyone else has been saying, to campaign around and run around.

Again, we're watching live pictures now. We just saw part of Trump's entourage into the courtroom. I guess we're waiting to see if he walks by.

BOLDUAN: Absolutely. Let - but as we continue to watch if the hallway here heading into the courthouse. We saw Eric Trump. He's - he's one of the children that is named in this lawsuit. What - and there - and there are how many - a handful of other people that are named as well. Are they all in the same boat here from this moment on or does it become -- does it peel off? I mean, we focus clearly -- this is mostly about Donald Trump and his name, his brand and his organization, but there are other people involved.

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: There are five individual defendants at this point. There's Donald Trump, the former president. There's his son, Donald Trump Jr.. There's Eric Trump, who we just saw. There's Allen Weisselberg, the former CFO, and Jeffrey McConney, who I think was the deputy CFO.

BOLDUAN: We're just seeing some Secret Service walking in. Just to keep - give everyone the play by play.

Continue, Elie, I'm sorry. Thank you.

HONIG: Ivanka Trump was actually originally named as a defendant, but her -- the case against her was dismissed basically because it was too old.

There also are about ten different corporate entities named here in this indictment, all related to Donald Trump and the Trump Organization. But to your question, Kate, technically speaking we're going to -- the judge needs to return separate verdicts for each of these defendants, each count. So, it's possible the judge finds Donald Trump liable on a certain count but let's say Jeffrey McConney not liable on that account.

However, bigger picture, I think if I'm at the defendant's table, I would want my defense to be coordinated with the others. I think I would want to have everyone sort of rowing in the same direction here.

BOLDUAN: On that note, I wanted to ask you, when we were speaking before, you said, if you were given the option, Elie, of prosecuting, of trying the criminal indictment that he's facing in New York or the hush money payments or this one -

HONIG: Right.

BOLDUAN: You would choose this one. Why?

HONIG: I would. And again, so we're clear, this is the civil case relating to the overinflation of the value of assets by tens and hundreds of millions of dollars.

BOLDUAN: Yes.

HONIG: Separately, there is a state-level criminal case relating to the falsification of business records over those hush money payments.

BOLDUAN: This was the first indictment that Donald Trump faced back in April.

HONIG: Yes. Right. And it's interesting because the AG and the Manhattan DA at times have worked together to investigate these cases. If you gave me the choice, I think the one that we're seeing today, the overinflation of the assets, is a better case, a stronger case to pursue. I think people can understand it more easily. We're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars in discrepancies. Especially, by the way, if they're able -- and this is one of the big questions, will the AG be able to show some solid loss? Was there cheating on taxes that lowered his taxes? Was there insurance fraud that cheated the insurance companies out of money?

BOLDUAN: That's what she's claiming.

HONIG: Right. To me, and we'll see if they can prove that -

BOLDUAN: Right.

HONIG: That's not one of the counts that's already been decided.

BOLDUAN: Right.

HONIG: That's one of the big things to watch. But given the choice there, I think it's a stronger case, I think it's a larger case. I think it's more easy for a jury or a judge to digest.

[09:40:03]

BERMAN: You're nodding yes.

ROTH: It's a much bigger case. It's much more significant. It's more pervasive.

BERMAN: Yes.

ROTH: The conduct is extreme. And she has a much lower standard of proof that she has to establish, preponderance, which is why it's also an easier case. I mean this is partly why the Manhattan district attorney didn't pursue this criminal case, was citing the higher standard of proof in the criminal case.

But back to your question about the different defendants.

BOLDUAN: Yes.

ROTH: I think what's going to be really interesting is if in fact the attorney general is proceeding on her other causes of action, which the judge did not decide, and she said this morning she is, those actually do require a finding of intent to defraud. The first count that he decided does not. It was essentially an objective assessment of the fraudulent nature of the documents.

But for the other causes of action, she does have to show individual intent to defraud. And so there could be a differentiation among the individual defendants depending on the evidence of their intent to defraud. And so depending on how the evidence comes in from the various witnesses, it could be that the judge finds Donald Trump Sr. did intend to defraud but Jr. didn't, or something like that, and that could affect not only his verdict on those individual causes of action, but also the remedy that he imposes as to each of them in terms of whether they're individually barred from holding a corporate office or position.

SIDNER: Jessica, can we assume that the -- since the court has already ruled that they have defrauded, they have been fraudulent in their dealings, that there will be some sort of damages, where do those go? Who do those - who are those paid to since we don't know the insurance companies, the banks. Like, who is going to get this money in the end, the government?

ROTH: Those - those - yes. Those go into the coffers of New York state. And so that's going to be an interesting question then further, of sort of what -- to what use they go. But that is where essentially they would be paid into is the treasury of New York state.

BOLDUAN: Just -- if the judge -- just from the outside looking in, right, if the judge already said that fraud was committed, what are they going to spend three months doing here?

ROTH: That's a great question.

BERMAN: There are - there are some - actually, we should make clear, there are some counts here that it's more than just damages.

SIDNER: (INAUDIBLE).

BOLDUAN: Yes, I totally agree. I'm just saying, like, what are they - what are they spending three months doing here?

BERMAN: And those require intent. And actually that will take some time. Is that what this is going to be about?

HONIG: Yes, so there's actually seven counts in this case. The attorney general has alleged seven violations of law. The first one is called persistent or repeated fraud. That's the one the judge has already ruled in the AG's favor last week. There are six other counts that are still to be contested, falsifying business records, falsifying financial statements and insurance fraud and then conspiracy to do each of those three things. That's how we get up to seven. It is in play -- one option available to the attorney general's office is to say, look, we won the big one. We won count one. We won the most important one. We don't need to proceed on the other six. We don't think it adds anything. Clearly the attorney general is not going to make that decision. I think she just sort of amplified that just now. But from a criminal perspective sometimes, if you get a guilty plea, let's say, to count one of your indictment, you often will say to a judge, we don't need to proceed on counts two through seven because we already won count one. But we are going to have this trial. It is going to focus on, A, is Donald Trump liable for those other counts, which as we said may require some showing of actual loss.

BOLDUAN: Good friend Bob Costa.

HONIG: There you go.

BERMAN: CBS News, walking around there.

HONIG: And then b is, what's the amount of damages, and they're going to have to prove that up to the judge.

ROTH: And it may be that an additional reason to pursue the additional counts is because what if on appeal the appellate court were to disagree with the judge's ruling or they --

BOLDUAN: What does an appeal look like? I mean it's assure (ph) that it's happening.

ROTH: Yes.

BOLDUAN: What does the appeal process look like here?

ROTH: Well, if this goes -

BOLDUAN: Where do I begin?

ROTH: Yes. SO, in the ordinary course, from this point forward, it would proceed to trial. The case would proceed to trial. The judge would then render a verdict. If he were to find Trump and the other defendants liable, so render a verdict for the attorney general, then at that point, once he's entered his final judgment, which would include any penalties, then it would go up on appeal to the appellate division, which is the intermediate court in New York state, which just rendered that decision last week that basically said we're not going to stay the trial.

BOLDUAN: Gotcha.

ROTH: And then after their decision, it could go up to the highest court of New York state, the New York Court of Appeals.

SIDNER: And we should - and we should just reiterate what the New York attorney general is seeking, $250 million in damages, big money, a ban from serving as officers of New York business. The judge has already decided that he's trying to dissolve those businesses, basically take those licenses away, and then a five-year ban on business transactions in New York. These are really big stakes. I'm wondering, Elie, because I think I talked about this with you earlier, because Mar-a-Lago is part of this, it's in a different state.

HONIG: Right.

SIDNER: So, can this have impact on whether he can do business in Florida, for example, or his actual property in Florida?

HONIG: Yes, it can indirectly. So, the judge in New York cannot say, I hereby shut down and seize every property across the United States.

SIDNER: Right.

HONIG: But as a practical matter, if this case goes against Donald Trump, as it has thus far with the first count, then that can make it difficult to impossible for Trump to continue doing business in other states. Would they grant certificates to do business. And the properties that are in, let's say, other states, they may have to be seized. [09:45:04]

If there's a judgment for hundreds of millions of dollars that Trump can't pay, then that may have to be seized in order to pay that judgment off.

One other thing that's important to notice on damages. And this is why I think this is different from the other civil cases. This is going to be more than just cutting a check. When Donald Trump lost his judgment to E. Jean Carroll, $5 million, ultimately he can cut a check. In this instance, not only could there be monetary damages, but we could also see an ongoing impediment to conducting business.

BERMAN: I think we just saw Chris Kise, who is the lead counsel here for Donald Trump, enter. I think that's just who walked by here.

I want to reset just a big here so people know what they're looking at on the screen. You're inside the court building now in lower Manhattan where Donald Trump is due to arrive any minute. This is a civil trial from the New York attorney general against him. A judge has already ruled that he committed fraud. He and his corporation committed fraud. Today begins the civil trial about how much he's going to have to pay for that, as well as some other counts.

I do want to bring in John Miller right now because, John, you've been in this building more than the rest of us, not because you've had your own legal issues but because you've worked on this process.

BOLDUAN: Well, we won't get into that today.

BERMAN: Explain to us where they are. Donald Trump, we think, will walk by. He could, I imagine, turn and speak to the cameras we just saw moments ago.

JOHN MILLER, CNN CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLIGENCE ANALYST: Well, I think we're on the third floor of the state supreme court house. We all know this building, I've been in it more than some, but we know this building as the iconic scene setter where, you know, every scene from "Law and Order" and so many other popular TV shows because of its majesty, it's 32 steps and its 16 pillars and its quote from George Washington that the true administration of justice is the firmest pillar of good government. It is an icon as courthouses go.

But as we've been watching the hallway, we've seen the Secret Service agent at the barrier here. We've seen some of the 4,000 New York state court officers that are the security for these buildings across the state. We see Mike Magliano (ph), the chief of the court officers, walk by a few moments ago. He was the individual with the four stars on his court officer uniform.

And we've been seeing Lushan Chalfin (ph), who is the -- basically the press officer for the office of court administration pacing back and forth on his cell phone, probably waiting for word as to whether or not cameras will be allowed in the courtroom to take pictures or to record the opening statements as that goes. So, it's a lot of activity in a building that's recognized by a lot of people in a civil case. Interestingly, it is a block away from the other courthouse at 100

Center Street, where Donald Trump was brought in for the criminal case, which also included the charge of falsifying business records. So, for the court officers of New York state and for these buildings and for the NYPD and the Secret Service, this has become a bit of a familiar set of grounds and routines.

BOLDUAN: Yes, we're watching this and we're - just -- we're going to keep an eye trained here. More people entering that are not Donald Trump.

Stick with me, John.

Paula Reid. I know Paula's been sticking with us, watching -- watching this live shot as we are watching this play out on live TV with you.

Paula, one thing we know is that this investigation by Letitia James came after Michael Cohen testified publicly to Congress about everything that he saw, he knew and he said that, you know, he witnessed and was involved in. I heard Michael Cohen say that he's likely to be in the courtroom today. We know he's on the witness list as well. How important is he turning out to be in this what is going to be -- I mean what this is, is Donald Trump's business empire on trial.

PAULA REID, CNN SENIOR LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Look, Michael Cohen's testimony, when he sort of turned on the former president, because, of course, for a long time he was his fixer. He was a long- time friend and attorney. Did a lot of his, quote, "dirty work." After he flipped and publicly testified about the former president, that gave investigators a lot to work with because Michael Cohen alleged and tried to lay out how he believed that the former president had lied about his income, about the value of his assets so that he could pay less in taxes but also get more favorable terms from banks, from insurance companies and other lenders. I mean that is the kind of crime that investigators would really seize on because it is far easier to investigate and potentially easier to prove, if it is true, than something, you know, like colluding with a foreign government, things like that.

So, that testimony really did open the doors for additional investigations. And here we've seen in the state of New York it has eventually wound up with the state attorney general here.

[09:50:05]

And I think I heard Elie say earlier, and I would agree, I mean, this seems to be one of the strongest cases that could be brought in the state of New York, arguably more so than the criminal hush money case which Michael Cohen also played a big role in that has actually ben brought by the district attorney in Manhattan. This case seems to be pretty well supported and far easier to prove.

But, again, this is a civil case. Michael Cohen has played a huge role in this. It's interesting that he is going to show up. He has not ceded the limelight. He has continued to be a fierce critic of the former president. But it's not clear how the prosecutor is going to feel about him hanging out in the courtroom because, again, he is a potential witness here. So, it appears it might just be looking to draw some attention to himself, but it may not necessarily be the best thing for the case.

BOLDUAN: Elie, you wanted to say something about Michael Cohen?

HONIG: Yes, Michael Cohen is an interesting witness, a potential witness. Do you call Michael Cohen if you're the attorney general's office. On the one hand, as Paula correctly said, Michael Cohen was sort of the first one to bring this all to our attention in 2019.

BOLDUAN: Right.

HONIG: He testified in front of Congress, and he said this is something, this inflation and deflation of assets, is something that was done all the time at the Trump Organization.

On the other hand, he obviously has baggage. He's plead guilty to various fraud and perjury offenses on his case several years ago. He obviously strongly dislikes Donald Trump, to put it mildly.

The real question I have with respect to Michael Cohen as a potential witness is, how specific is his knowledge, because he's been pressed by this, including here on CNN where he's appeared a couple of times, what specific transaction can you point to, he's been asked, that you know the value was inflated. And Cohen's response is usually, well, I can just tell you that's something that was done generally, across the board, which is helpful to the AG's office but maybe not by what you need to make this case shown.

SIDNER: Don't they have two people that really can tell them, Allan Weisselberg -

HONIG: Yes.

SIDNER: Who's already gone to prison for evading -- tax evasion.

HONIG: Right.

SIDNER: And Donald Bender, who was the accountant. I mean these are people who were in the books.

HONIG: Yes, I would not count on Allen Weisselberg if I was the AG's office. I mean Allen Weisselberg, unlike Michael Cohen, remains very much in the Trump -

SIDNER: Yes, he went to jail. Yes, very true.

HONIG: Yes, he went all the way. He didn't flip.

SIDNER: Yes.

HONIG: He got convicted. He served jail time.

ROTH: That said, I would avoid calling Michael Cohen at all costs if I could, if I were the attorney general's office. I mean the fact that it's not a jury trial slightly perhaps changes the calculous. But, nevertheless, I think he could be an enormous distraction. And as Elie said, he may not have the specifics. The judge has already found for the attorney general on the first count, which means he's crediting a lot of the documents and the deposition testimony. I think there's just - especially with the cross-examination, there's just a huge potential for things to get sidetracked. So, I would try to avoid calling him if I could.

BERMAN: Let's talk about the thing that we're likely to hear first this morning, in the next few minutes -

BOLDUAN: Yes, yes, yes.

BERMAN: Which is whether or not there will be cameras allowed in the courtroom for the opening statements.

BOLDUAN: What's the pro/con of it? I mean, yes.

BERMAN: Yes. What do you think?

ROTH: I'd be flummoxed to see the court - the cameras in the courtroom. But then I'm a creature of the federal courts, where it's just not permitted under any circumstances under current law.

But, on the other hand, there's tremendous public interest in this case and so there's a good argument there is authority for the judge to permit it. So, it will be really interesting. But then why just opening arguments and not the rest of the trial. So, I'll be very interested to see how that unfolds.

HONIG: Yes, I'd be flummoxed but delighted as well.

The New York rules say presumptively there's not supposed to be live feed cameras in the courtroom. However, the presiding judge, the chief judge, can carve out a difference.

It's worth remembering, when we were in the criminal case, the Manhattan DA case, the judge allowed still photographs. That's why we saw those photos of Donald Trump sitting at his lawyers table. He set aside some time in the beginning. He said people can take still photographs. But he did not allow any sort of live video or audio feed.

And I should say, the concerns about letting cameras in the courtroom are lessoned a bit because there's not a civilian jury here, because the worry is, you don't want the jurors sort of being influenced by outside coverage. And here it's all down to the judge. I still think it's quite unlikely that this judge allows a televised - but maybe - and if he is going to try to thread the needle, maybe he allows it just for opening because then you're not showing witness.

BOLDUAN: OK.

HONIG: So, we'll see. He should be ruling on that. I would think that's one of the first orders of business. BERMAN: And, again, we're watching the live pictures right now. Donald

Trump should walk through there any minute.

Dana Bash, if you're still with us, our chief pollical correspondent, to that question of cameras in the courtroom, it's curious, this time around, normally you would think that maybe on the criminal cases Donald Trump didn't want them in there initially. I wonder if this time, given how public he has been, given how much he actually has leaned into this specific court appearance, if he would want the cameras inside?

BASH: I mean it's hard to imagine he wouldn't. This - the cameras that we have outside right now, what we're looking at, waiting for him to come in, I mean this is his political dream. It's not his business dream to be in the trouble that he is in, the potential to pay millions and millions of dollars because he now has been found by this judge that he defrauded the taxpayers of New York by making up a lot of the business acumen that he claims that he has.

[09:55:17]

Which, by the way, is part of how he got to where he got in 2016 because people kind of believed that.

But just to kind of give you a data point of just how much the Trump campaign is milking this, as we're talking, as we're waiting for this, I just got a fundraising email -- I'm sure you guys have it too, from the Trump campaign with a mug "never surrender" with her - with his mug shot on it asking the people on this email chain to give a contribution of $35 or more to help President Trump win back the White House and never surrender.

So, what he's doing is he is going after those small dollar donors. Not that $35 is nothing. But when you compare that to the big donors, it's the small dollar donors, to stoke their outrage, to stoke their support - to mine their support and to raise money. He is literally raising money off of these moments right now, and we cannot underscore that and sort of highlight the political move that he is making in this appearance today.

BOLDUAN: Let's also bring in on that -- on that - on that point, Dana, let me also bring in Kristen Holmes, who's standing outside Trump Tower for us.

And, Kristen, you've been getting some insight from the Trump team on what their view of this trial, what their view of this day means.

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: That is right, Kate.

So, a couple of things here to point out here. We're talking about the camera use in the courtroom, if Trump wants that, what exactly is his thinking? They are very aware and following very closely every twist and turn around this camera. They know how many seats are there. They know where the press cameras are. They know about this ruling and are waiting to see what's going to happen. They want press coverage. And I actually just got off the phone with a Trump adviser who essentially conceded that this was, in fact, similar to a campaign event. And it's not just what Dana said about that blast out, raising money off of the mug shot. It's also the fact that essentially right as he was leaving Trump Tower, they put out a blast attacking Letitia James the same way that you would a campaign rival. He is absolutely capitalizing on this and does want the media attention.

Now, as we have said, this is not something that he wants in general. It is damaging to his brand. The politician in himself, the fact that he has sold himself as a rich businessman and this undermines that, this trial. However, they do know that the cameras are on him when it comes to these legal issues. They want that traction. And they do believe that it helps them at least with primary voter.

Now, of course, when we look ahead to 2024 and the general election, there is some concern even among his top advisers that there will be Trump fatigue. However, Trump himself believes that if he can face these charges, if he can paint himself as a victim of election interference, of - be -- Democrats' political insertion into the court system, that that is something that will help him in the election, actually potentially could help him with some voters that are down the middle.

Now, that remains to be seen. There is no indication that that is true. But these are at - these are the beliefs that they hold as he is going down to courthouse, as he is in front of those cameras, as he is really taking this opportunity, as Dana said, milking this to get the most eyes on him at this time, partly because it is a campaign event. There is no line between his legal issues and his campaign. He is continuing to campaign off of the legal issues, to fund raise off of the legal issues. And that's not going to stop any time soon. And, of course, we've seen a rise in the polls as he has done so.

BERMAN: And there he is, we're about to see, we have a different angle right now.

BOLDUAN: Take the other camera, guys. Yes, there we go

BERMAN: There we go, Donald Trump in the courtroom. Let's listen.

DONALD TRUMP, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: Hello. Thank you very much.

(INAUDIBLE).

QUESTION: Mr. Trump, are you looking forward to being vindicated?

TRUMP: (INAUDIBLE).

[10:00:00]

QUESTION: Are you looking forward to being vindicated?

TRUMP: Yes, I am. (INAUDIBLE).

QUESTION: Any comments? (INAUDIBLE).