Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Trump in Court as $250 Million Civil Fraud Trial Set to Begin; Trump Speaks Ahead of His Civil Fraud Trial in New York; Judge Denies Request for Cameras in Courtroom. Aired 10-10:30a ET

Aired October 02, 2023 - 10:00   ET

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

[10:00:00]

DONALD TRUMP, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: Yes, I am.

Okay. Thank you very much.

This is a continuation of the single greatest witch hunt of all time. We have a rogue judge who rules that properties are worth a tiny fraction from 1 to 100, a tiny fraction of what they actually are. We have a racist attorney general who is a horror show, who ran on the basis that she was going to get Trump before she even knew anything about me. She used this to run for governor. She failed in her attempt to run for governor. She had virtually no polling. She came back and she said, well, now I'll go back to get Trump again. And this is what we have. It's a scam. It's a sham.

Just so you know, my financial statements are phenomenal. They are actually less in terms of the numbers used.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: All right, you've been listening to Donald Trump as he's getting ready to walk into the courtroom, Donald Trump speaking. I think now we know for sure this is a campaign event --

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: Exactly.

BERMAN: -- for Donald Trump, more than a legal proceeding. Yes, he is going to walk into that courtroom, but it does appear that what actually takes place in the courtroom in the next few minutes may be incidental compared to what he feels he can get out of it for campaign purposes.

You heard him going after the judge. You heard him going after the attorney general in this case. And, again, this is no longer a bug of the Trump campaign. This is the feature. The Trump campaign is the legal operation that he is facing right now.

And one thing we should make clear, though, he is using this, and to some extent, to a success in the Republican primary. He is losing this civil case already. He has already had a major ruling go against him that will cost him money, and as it stands, has lost him control of the thing he has held most dear until this point, which is control of the Trump Organization. He could lose significant control of that.

Now, he may be using that for political gain, but right now, he's got no choice. This is the situation he faces. He's trying to take advantage of that situation.

I suppose we should ask, as he is speaking here, Elie, and he's said some inflammatory things, he's about to walk into that courtroom. I don't know if the judge is watching T.V., but the judge sooner or later will hear what he just said.

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, for sure. And Donald Trump has put similar sentiments on his true social feed. It's a counterintuitive strategy to openly attack the person who's going to be rendering the verdict in this case, the judge. It seems to me, Donald Trump's strategy here is essentially, damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead. He understands he's not going to kiss up to this judge. He's not going to try to please this judge.

I think he realizes he's going to lose. As John said, he already has lost the first count, the most important count. I think he's trying to, A, make a political appeal, B, I think his legal approach here is going to be his lawyers. They're going to be hoping to set the stage for appeal, hoping that they can find something that was procedurally incorrect, find some sort of bias in the judge that will justify an appeal. But he's leaning into this, for sure.

SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR: Can we just talk about what the words that he used, because he's done this before. And every time he goes after the judge or the attorney general, saying that she's racist, they get threats. Like this is actually dangerous for them every time he does it.

HONIG: And I do think we have to call it out every time. We get used to it because he does it every single time. But there are real consequences to these statements. They are, in my view, what we just heard is over the line.

Look, you are allowed, as a defendant in a criminal case or a civil case, you're allowed to criticize the prosecutor. You're allowed to criticize the other party. You're allowed to criticize the judge. Again, query whether that's a smart decision, but you can do that. But there is a line, and when you get to the point of calling the attorney general a racist, when you get to the point of saying some of the things that I won't repeat about this A.G., about other prosecutors, about the judge, that becomes dangerous.

And the question is, will either the prosecutors in any of these cases or the judges in any of these cases do anything about it. We see that starting to happen now in one of the criminal cases, the federal case in D.C., the judges considering a gag order, as we speak. And, by the way, these statements that we're hearing today probably aren't going to help Donald Trump in arguing against that.

SIDNER: Right.

BOLDUAN: The Kristen Holmes, I'm going to get back out to you standing outside Trump Tower. What is happening right now is exactly what you have been hearing from his advisors. I mean, I don't know if you have a monitor out there, Kristen, and you could see it, but the stagecraft of this is notable in and of itself, which was Donald Trump stood there for a period of time. This was not a passing commentary that he was making on the way in to face the judge. He stood there and waited for the cameras, I would assume, to adjust, to prepare, and make sure everyone's mics were ready before he began speaking to like for a long period of time, really, before he made his commentary. This speaks to just what you said.

[10:05:00]

This is part of his campaign. This is his campaign now.

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes. And I talked to a number of sources for the last several months as to what exactly it would look like when he is in the middle of all of these trials and trying to run a presidential campaign.

And it was really unclear how they were going to plan for it. Originally, they said that they thought we've legal maneuvering would help delay the election at the trial so after the election but it became clear that these trials would likely go on while he was running for president.

Now it seems as though they have figured out at least one way to campaign while he is going on trial, and that is to make the trials themselves a form of a campaign event. And as you noted he knew exactly where the cameras were and he knew exactly what was needed for the cameras to be ready to take his remarks for the networks, for the news outlets to say he is going up to the podium, he is going up to the cameras and he is about to speak and then waited and then spoke and delivered those remarks, remarks that he says on the campaign trail every day but yet don't get picked up because we often do not report on them because of the fact that they are oftentimes not accurate and not true.

And so because of that, though, now we know they are going to be looking at these legal events, these trials as an opportunity to essentially campaign. They paraded him down there. And, again, they know every single twist and turn here when it comes to visual optics and press.

I was in Michigan last week when he spoke at that non-union shop and they had set up a stage that had Trump flanked on either side by groups of people that had signs that said Union Members for Trump. That is not an accident. That is intentional. That is for optics it was a made for television event so the cameras would show that union members, which we don't have -- we don't have confirmed that they were union members, but that was the show that they were putting on the camera there for that, that is one thing that Donald Trump and his team are very good at.

And I do think it's interesting to note here, again, I have been talking to his team for weeks, months about how he is going to be on the trail if he is in trial every single day. And it does appear that this is one strategy that they are definitely going to try in terms of campaigning for president 2024.

BERMAN: And, again, Donald Trump speaking there. BERMAN: He's still talking.

BOLDUAN: He's still talking.

BERMAN: Kristen, stand by. Donald Trump among other things called this judge, you know, Judge Arthur Engoron, a rogue judge. He can't be more than 30 yards from where the judge is right now, behind another door. We should also note the attorney general of New York is about 30 feet away behind the door that Donald Trump is speaking at right now.

I want to bring Paula Reid back into this discussion because Donald Trump is talking and talking and talking and talking in front of cameras now, making statements that if they don't allow cameras in this courtroom, to a certain extent, will go unanswered on camera, Paula.

PAULA REID, CNN SENIOR LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Yes, watching him address the cameras, just as he did when we were covering him at the White House, just as he does on the campaign trail, it's a reminder to me and I think a strong argument for cameras being in the courtroom, not just for this case, but for all of the cases that he is facing.

He has a massive platform. He is arguably one of the most famous people in the world. And you see in there, headed into court, he was flanked by his lawyers. I'm sure they were not thrilled about this. But this is what he is going to do, likely throughout these cases, especially headed into the election.

But I think there is an argument to be made that if he is able to stand in front of cameras and say pretty much whatever he wants about the judge, about the prosecutors, about the case, the American people should have the right to see what exactly is happening minute by minute, second by second in that courtroom.

Thankfully, we have freedom of the press. We have reporters in there who will be bringing people details. But it's not the same as if you had cameras in there. And anyone who is interested, anyone who wanted to check what he was saying could tune in and say, well, what is going on with this judge? What is he like? What is the attorney general -- what is she like? What is her office saying?

I think the fact that we saw him use these cameras -- he did not do this when he came for the criminal case, the district attorney's case earlier this year. But to see how he's using those cameras, I think that is one of the strongest arguments for having not just still photographers at the top of a hearing, but to have cameras in the courtroom covering this live so that people can see for themselves and don't rely on the former president for the blow-by-blow of what exactly is going on here.

SIDNER: Those are really good arguments. And we are going to hear whether or not the judge decides to allow cameras in, in the next, hopefully, a few minutes. It's one of the first things that he is expected to rule on this morning.

I do want to go to Brynn Gingras who is outside the court. You're getting some information about what was going on inside there. We did see this whole setup where Donald Trump stood there for quite some time, just waiting until everyone was ready so that he could make his statement, clearly a political move.

BRYNN GINGRAS, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: And, notably -- yes, and choreographed, and notably taking longer than when this court was supposed to start, right, at 10:00 A.M.

[10:10:05]

So, we'll see what the judge has to say about that.

But, yes, I do have colleagues in the courtroom, Kara Scannell and Aaron Cooper, sending back details as he walked in, not acknowledging Letitia James, who is seated inside the courtroom, in the front row, not even giving her eye contact, not giving any sort of handshake, whatsoever, and then according to my colleagues inside the courtroom, sat down at the defense table next to his two attorneys, keeping his gaze largely down.

So, we're waiting to see how he sort of acknowledges this judge, again, someone he just politically attacked outside, calling -- disparaging that judge just as he has done on the campaign trail for so long. So, we'll see how this all sort of plays out again as he's the reason actually court is beginning late, it seems, at this point.

We also should mention that we do expect him to testify. That's one of the reasons why he is inside that courtroom is he wanted to, you know, defend his reputation, as he has been saying. We don't expect that to happen today or tomorrow. It's possible he might go back to court tomorrow, but it's possible he will be back here next week because he is on that witness list and he does want to testify, according to his attorneys.

A quick thing to also (INAUDIBLE) we heard James right outside this courthouse, I want to go to that sound right now to hear (INAUDIBLE) she had to say about this remarkable case (INAUDIBLE).

SIDNER: You're just seeing the setup of Donald Trump. She was talking about the A.G. who came out and said no one is above the law. It doesn't matter how much money you make or how much money you think you have made. She was very specific in the way she put that because this whole case is about aggrandizing, about saying that you were worth more than you actually are, which is what he is being sued over.

Let's listen to this. We now have that for you. This is the A.G. who's putting on this case right now, Letitia James.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LETITIA JAMES, NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL: Good morning, everyone. Donald Trump and the other defendants have committed persistent and repeated fraud. Last week, we proved that in our motion for summary judgment. Today, we will prove our other claims.

My message is simple. No matter how powerful you are, no matter how much money you think you may have, no one is above the law. And it is my responsibility and my duty and my job to enforce it. The law is both powerful and fragile. And today in court, we will prove our case.

I thank you all for being here. And, again, justice will prevail. Thank you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GINGRAS: Yes, short and concise statement, which we've heard from the A.G. all along, as she has fought throughout the start, getting to this point of this trial.

I do want to mention, though, guys, that we did also hear from Trump side here outside the courthouse, who reiterated basically what you heard from him when he spoke in front of the cameras, that this is a witch hunt and that he is eager to testify in this trial.

And just a quick note as I look behind me right now flanking the courthouse steps is about at least 15 court marshals, tough -- heavy security out here presents not only just on the steps of the courthouse but, of course, all around me as well.

BOLDUAN: Brynn is outside the court, we got cameras outside the courtroom. Let's see if cameras will be brought inside the court at some point. This has begun. Our latest from inside the courtroom, we're hearing from our colleagues that the judge has entered the court ahead of the civil fraud trial now.

Caroline Polisi he joins us here. Caroline, with the possible range of outcomes here, what do you see happening?

CAROLINE POLISI, FEDERAL AND WHITE COLLAR CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Yes. Well, we know that Tish James has asked for $250 million in disgorgement. You know, a lot of people are referring to this as a penalty. It's really not a penalty. It's actually tied to the factual basis of, you know, the amount of money that he -- that the organizations are -- it's termed ill-gotten gains that they will have to disgorge to New York State.

So, a big part of that is going to be just sort of the numbers, a number game. But there are other counts also to be charged here, as Elie was noting, you know, five or six more counts to actually be placed into the evidence. Of course, the judge will decide.

You know, this the trial is slated to go, I think, until December 22nd. So, this is this is a long road ahead of them, a lot of -- you know I'm shocked to hear that Trump and his team are saying that he will take the stand. I think that's a disastrous move. We've heard this bluster from him before. However, he then walks it back and says something to the effect of, oh, I wanted to testify but my attorneys wouldn't let me.

BOLDUAN: Yes, there's a big difference between I want to and I'm going to, right?

POLISI: Exactly. So, I'll believe it when I see it, but that we're not going to get to that until much, much later.

[10:15:00]

BERMAN: Caroline cringed when it was noted that Donald Trump caused court to start nine minutes late today. And I do think this is -- that's a small, but I think important point here because I think what we're seeing now is really the confluence of the legal cases against Donald Trump and the politics. What he just did was for political reasons. However, it does come with some legal consequences.

POLISI: Yes, I did cringe, really not a good look to be late for court. Trust me, I've been late before. Judges do not like it, and on top of that, to be late because you're holding a presser, in which you are really slandering the judge. Now I can guarantee you the judge wasn't watching that real-time. He has better things to do with his time. However, it likely will get back to him. But, yes, really not a good look.

This is just one more -- it's of a piece of, you know, nobody's above the law. You got to abide by those dates. You have to be in court on time, things that Donald Trump is not used to really being at the beck and call of somebody above him, and that's what he is in this case.

SIDNER: Caroline, with your defense attorney hat on, Donald Trump is basically doing, you know what, if I can't beat him, I'm going to join him. And so he is joining them by just taking over and doing what he does for political reasons because he's already lost a huge majority of this case.

But I do want to ask you if there is any defense here. I mean, there are several things that still have to be decided. What would the defense look like in this case?

POLISI: Well, first of all, the initial summary judgment ruling on that one count of persistent prod absolutely is going to be appealed. And the arguments there will be, you know, not only substantive ones, but also the procedural one that, you know, the summary judgment shouldn't have been ruled on in this fashion, that there was still questions of fact to be decided by the judge.

Again, we know that this isn't a jury trial. However, there will be other arguments to these other accounts, things like intent. So, the initial ruling that the persistent fraud count didn't need a finding of intent on the part of Donald Trump and/or his other defendants --

SIDNER: Is that because it was just based on the forensic accounting? Just the paperwork did not match up. The math didn't match.

POLISI: Exactly. Not only did the math not match, in sort of real estate transactions of this kind, there is some fudging done day to day, maybe 10, 20 percent, I think, has been sort of ruled. That is up to people's discretion. However, the numbers that we're talking here, it's just ridiculous. It's laughable actually. The valuations can slide, but square footage doesn't lie, right? So, you can't sort of have those types of humongous discrepancies wherein the judge has ruled that as a matter of fact and law, this is persistent fraud. BOLDUAN: We've talked about this before, Ellie. One of the defenses, one of the ways that Donald Trump has denied wrongdoing when it comes to this is saying that what he put on his financial statements didn't really matter because there was a disclaimer that you really can't put much stock in them or they shouldn't be trusted.

HONIG: Yes.

BOLDUAN: Just -- what?

HONIG: I don't see that being a particular persuasive defense. They call this the worthless clause. Donald Trump's team calls it the worthless clause. Essentially, when his team put together these financial documents and then submitted them to the banks, they had a waiver. We've all seen waiver language right by clicking on this, I agree to whatever. Essentially, what the waiver there said is all these numbers are not to be relied on, all these numbers are worthless. And the judge in his ruling says I find that waiver to be worthless. Waivers can be relevant but there is a tipping point where you say you can't just waive away any liability.

And I will say this when we heard the attorney general, Letitia James, say outside the courthouse just there that Donald Trump had engaged in, quote, persistent and repeated fraud, she wasn't using those terms to be inflammatory. That's the name of the law that the judge has already found Donald Trump violated.

BERMAN: What we just saw, to bring people up to speed about where we are -- okay, hang on. We have some pictures from inside court. I'm not quite sure. I wonder if this means the judge has ruled.

BOLDUAN: Yes, this is unusual. Do we have audio?

BERMAN: All right. This is Letitia James, the attorney general of New York, sitting right there. You can see Donald Trump sitting there next to his attorney, Christopher Kise, his lead counsel. We are not sure exactly if the judge has ruled on this matter yet, but, nevertheless, you are seeing pictures. And there is the judge himself, Arthur Engoron.

BOLDUAN: This is really unusual, Caroline.

BERMAN: It may be that this is a picture. It may be that they're just letting us see where everyone is. No one is speaking now. But even then --

SIDNER: Wouldn't that be odd though that the judge would just let the camera go without making a judgment beforehand? I mean he smiled for the camera there. You saw everyone in the court. This is highly unusual.

BOLDUAN: Okay. We have something from Aaron Cooper inside the courtroom. The judge overseeing Trump's civil fraud trial has denied media outlets' request to allow a camera in the courtroom for opening statements.

[10:20:03]

So, that we do know. What that means to what we're seeing right here --

SIDNER: Maybe he allowed a quick photo, basically like the still photos that we saw but allowed some quick video of here's what the courtroom looks like, here's the judge, here's the A.G., here's Donald Trump, here's the defense, and now you can leave.

BOLDUAN: But we're not going to have a live feed from inside the courtroom.

HONIG: At least at the opening according to that reporting, yes. Any judge is the king or queen of his or her courtroom. He gets to decide what happens in there. There's no way that shot would have taken place without the judge's approval.

It's worth keeping in mind, though, in the criminal case in Manhattan, down across the street for the first appearance, the judge did allow still photos to be taken before the proceedings started. So, this is roughly perhaps the functional equivalent of that.

BERMAN: I want to bring back Paul Reid into this discussion, if she's been watching alongside of us right now, because now we know the cameras will not be allowed in the courtroom to see the opening statements at least and what happens today. We did just get a look at where things stand. But it does feel as if we have entered this new phase where it is clear that there is no longer a separation between the legal and the political here. There are going to be people in Donald Trump's camp who say, oh, this is the political genius of how Donald Trump is running his campaign.

But there is a real risk here. There is a real risk in this case, if the judge gets upset by what Donald Trump just said outside, and also I imagine, Paula, the other judges in these other cases will be watching how Donald Trump comports himself and what he says crosses lines into areas that matter in those courtrooms. I wonder if you can talk about the totality of all this.

REID: Yes, absolutely. You don't have to imagine this is something that is actually happening across these cases. Let's talk a little bit about what's going on here in Washington, D.C.

Of course, the special counsel has brought charges against the former president. That case is happening in front of Judge Tanya Chutkan. And she, in a couple weeks now, she will have a hearing in her courtroom to assess a request from the special counsel's office to put a gag order on the former president based on comments that he has made about prosecutors, about the judge, the argument being that he has made statements that are interfering with the judicial process.

And I was in Chutkan's courtroom for the first hearing that she held, and she made it clear. She said, look, I understand that he is a candidate for the highest office in the land, but that will not force us to overlook the fact that he needs to behave in a way that does not undermine the judicial process. So, it will be very interesting to see how she rules on that. Look, he says these things, right? They are inflammatory. Very few defendants would make these kinds of comments about prosecutors or about judges because you would expect that this would come back to haunt you. But he's making a lot of these comments in the court of public opinion as an effort to try to warp the public perception of exactly what is going on here.

That, though, puts judges in a very difficult position. Because if you do implement a gag order, restrictions beyond the usual, don't talk about the case with other witnesses, you do risk it looking like, appearing like you are potentially trying to restrict someone who is conducting a campaign.

It's a very tricky spot for judges to be in, but he is constantly, repeatedly, attesting this, particularly here in Washington, D.C., with Judge Chutkan. So, she may be the first one to really have to make a major decision on a gag order in the next few weeks.

SIDNER: Thank you so much. Let's go now to Sarah Matthews, a former Trump deputy press secretary who knows how he operates and what he was thinking at least at the time that you work with him. Can you give us some sense of how his mind works as we're seeing this play out? He is turning this into a political campaign stop at the court using words like fake indictment. And he did mention that every time there is an indictment of him, his polling numbers go up.

SARAH MATTHEWS, FORMER TRUMP WHITE HOUSE DEPUTY PRESS SECRETARY: Exactly. I think he is angry that he's dealing with all of these legal troubles, but at the end of the day, him and his team know that, politically, this is going to benefit him, at least in the short term. And so they're going to do everything they can to capitalize on this.

That's why you're seeing him go to the courthouse, go in front of cameras, and give his narrative. So, that way he can at least spin it into a positive.

And for any normal candidate, I think you would see their poll numbers diminish in this kind of situation, but we've seen time and time again that Donald Trump's poll numbers have not just remained at the top among the GOP field. They've actually gone up, and he has fundraised off of this.

So, they're going to continue to use this to their advantage as much as they can, so that way he can control the media narrative. And while we're sitting here talking about Donald Trump, guess what, we're not talking about his GOP rivals.

BOLDUAN: Sarah, also, you can see, as we're playing this video from inside the courtroom, you see the New York attorney general, Letitia James, sitting there, and then as the camera pulls out, you see she's looking right at Donald Trump.

[10:25:12]

What do you see in this phase? What do you see in this Donald Trump when you see this?

MATTHEWS: I think that he wants to look defiant. I think you're obviously going to see him put on this false sense of bravado. And for him to act tough in this situation in that he's not scared and he's not going to back down, and that is why he's showing up to the courthouse, because he wants to put on this brave face for his supporters.

Like I said earlier, though, I do think that, deep down, he is worried about all of the legal troubles that he's facing, but, obviously, he doesn't want to show that, because then that would show weakness.

And that is something that Donald Trump is very mindful of. He always wants to appear strong and doesn't want to seem vulnerable in any situation. And so he's definitely going to act like this is nothing, and that's why he's showing up today, and that he knows that, politically, of course, like his fundraising and his poll numbers have gone up. That's why we saw him tout those things.

But deep down, I think he is a little bit worried, because especially in this case in particular, we've already seen the one ruling knock out his way, and he has to be worried, because this is not just obviously the criminal side that he's facing with the other indictments, but in this case, this is going to be impacting his business, his empire that he spent his entire career building.

BERMAN: And, Sarah, can you talk about that a little more? Because one thing we saw as he was entering the courtroom is he talked and talked and talked about what is the crux of this case, which is his business and valuations. He could not let this slide. It appears that this is touching on the kryptonite for Donald Trump.

He can almost take anything said about him, but if you start talking about how much he's worth and how much his businesses are worth, he loses it. He really won't ever let that slide. And we saw some of that as he was walking into the courtroom.

MATTHEWS: Exactly. That's what he prides himself in. He is a businessman and I think that's why he you know he's campaigned on that and it's the differentiator between him and his Republican rivals, you know, back in 2016 and even up until today. And so for them to come after him and say that he's inflating these numbers, obviously, that strikes at the heart of who he believes he very is and his strong suit.

And I thought it was really interesting to in his statement that he put out on Truth Social where he said that the valuation for Mar-a- Lago that they put at $18 million was, in his eyes, 50 to 100 times more than that. If it was 50 times more than that, that would mean that it was nearly a billion dollars. And so, obviously, this case is all about him making fraudulent claims over inflating the valuations of his real estate and such and so just very ironic to me that even in his Truth Social post, he's still doubling down on that.

SIDNER: Right. He's ran on the Art of the Deal. His whole thing was I am not a politician. I'm a businessman. But what are we seeing? We're seeing a politician, right? I mean, that's what we're seeing. Even during these cases we're seeing a politician come out and try to make the case to the public as opposed to the judge.

Question to you Elie. He's doing this outside what happens? I mean, what can the judge do? Because at this point, this case is already well into -- we're well past the middle of this case.

HONIG: Right, in terms of the actual statements that he's been making.

SIDNER: Yes.

HONIG: So, judges do have the ability to issue gag orders or sometimes called the orders limiting what a party can say. Now, there's the line in what you allow party to say and not say can be fuzzy, can be difficult to decide, especially whereas here you have someone who's running for political office.

I actually think that prosecutors in the DOJ case, their request that's pending right now that was just referred to is overbroad. Prosecutors say he shouldn't be allowed to make any, quote, disparaging statements about anybody involved in this case. That's too much. You're allowed to make a disparaging statement about the other party, even about the judge. It's maybe not a great idea.

For me, where I think the line ought to be drawn, and there's some cases that support this, is when your statements cross the line from First Amendment expressive speech into something that could be harmful or threatening to any of the participants.

And the two entities that we're most concerned with are always going to be your jury, number one. We don't have a jury, civilian jury in this case and, number two, your witnesses, especially your victims or your vulnerable witnesses, and that we may have in this case.

BOLDUAN: We have some more reporting from inside the courtroom from Kara Scannell, and, thankfully, we have reporters in there who can bring this out now that we've got this ruling on denying request for opening statements to be on camera.

Kara reports, opening statements have begun in this civil trial against Trump, his adult sons, their businesses and executives. Kevin Wallace, an attorney for the attorney general, is speaking first and the judge. This was talked about beforehand but Kara says the judge said the trial is expected to last until December 22nd.

[10:30:02]

HONIG: So, opening statements are obviously a crucial part of any trial. A little bit different here, no jury, right?