Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Trump Returns To Stand In NY Civil Fraud Trial; Trump Back On Stand After Clashing With Judge. Aired 2:30-3p ET

Aired November 06, 2023 - 14:30   ET

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

[14:30:00]

PAULA REID, CNN HOST: And we've seen a few times today where the judge even was a little snarky with him, right, suggesting that he read his opinion, perhaps, for the first time.

Letitia James, the attorney general, she was going into the courtroom, joked with cameras that they were trained, waiting on Trump, on the wrong person, not looking at her.

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 and the law, as they would for anyone else, could potentially play into the narrative that this is somehow politically biased.

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN HOST: There's also been points where she's been very involved where they were talking about one property, 40 Wall Street or 20 Wall Street.

And Trump was remarking from the witness stand, she doesn't even know, pointing to the attorney general, who was in the first row of seats, saying she doesn't even know where this location is.

And according to our friends in the room, she laughed out loud at that comment. So she's not even staying quiet inside the courtroom. She's not speaking, but she is visibly responding to some of the lines of questioning and Trump's answers.

REID: Which is surprising, because, of course, it's shocking that someone on the witness stand would attack the attorney general of the state, the person who has brought this case against him.

Not as surprising, of course, 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.

Again, I think it's worth pointing out that 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.

COLLINS: The other line of questioning where Trump just 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?

REID: What they wanted to know, is at that time -- and let me look at the notes from our colleagues inside to make sure we have all of the details -- that he had to personally guarantee this loan.

In order to do that, he had to have $50 million in unencumbered cash. He said to the court, quote, "Yes, I had a lot of cash." Of course, a bit of a humble brag.

But at the core of this case is the question about whether he fraudulently misrepresented his net worth to get more favorable terms on loans and more favorable terms from insurance companies.

So while he's sort of joking a little about how much cash he had on hand, his net worth, what that was, 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."

COLLINS: No one is disputing that he had money. No one is saying that Trump was destitute and had nothing.

But they're disputing how much money he had and what he was saying his net worth was and what the values of these properties were when he was securing these loans. Nobody was arguing he didn't have money.

What he was trying to argue earlier was that, actually, the property values of some of these places were underestimated, undervalued rather than being overvalued, which is not -- and he acknowledged some were up, some were down.

But for the most part, he was saying undervalued, which is not what the judge has already found.

REID: Exactly. And this really gets to what frustrates him so much about this case. It's personal, right? He has put forth a persona as a successful billionaire tycoon.

He did it through "The Apprentice." He's done 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.

Now, it's one thing to lie to the press but another entirely to lie to banks or insurance companies. And that's what he's up against here.

You can tell it is a sensitive subject for him whenever the valuation of certain properties comes up. He has, in the past, the past line of questioning over the past few minutes, since they've been back from the lunch break, he has remained more disciplined, more composed and more on script.

Certainly, more so than right before lunch where he was attacking the judge, he was attacking the attorney general. He was all over the place.

COLLINS: Yes. 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.

[14:34:04]

We'll continue to cover all of this as Donald Trump is back on the witness stand. We'll be back just after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:38:32]

WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: 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.

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Right.

BLITZER: But if he were paying attention, what kind of advice do you think they gave him during the lunch break?

WILLIAMS: Well, let me say this. What any rational attorney would provide to their client is advice to just answer the questions you're asked.

Certainly, he has every incentive to bluster and play to the cameras and play to the political audiences. But not answering the questions you're asked could have huge consequences in the courtroom.

That's what I would advise. I don't know what Trump's attorneys would do.

DANA BASH, CNN HOST: This is a very, very different atmosphere, a different approach, a different everything, Jamie. And he's running the show. You see --

(CROSSTALK) JAMIE GANGEL, CNN SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT: You see me laughing over here.

BASH: 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.

GANGEL: So 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.

[14:40:06]

And 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.

GLORIA BORGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Look, this is, as we've been saying over and over again, it's political. And if you were Trump's lawyer, you might advise 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," right?

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.

LAURA COATES, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: The thing is, he has a lot to lose through the conduct now. Right?

BORGER: I would argue that.

COATES: You would argue that.

(CROSSTALK)

COATES: (INAUDIBLE)

But let's assume that we're in Trump world. In Trump world, in that courtroom, his belief is, what he should think, that there is no chance to have less of a legal or financial exposure.

There's still a chance that he will not have a conservatorship, the chance that he would be able to self-retain and do business in that court 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 in what he'll allow to happen there.

But image this. You're talking about counsel. In other cases in this world, where he's going to be relying on the defense of guidance and advice of counsel.

If, in this context, if he says, I don't listen to those attorneys, or I don't have reason to do so, how does that play in the other cases he will be in?

Because what is good for the goose is good for the gander to the other prosecutors in this case.

Ultimately, Trump still has a shot to not have the book thrown at him in liability. He keeps messing around and thinking the only way to win this case is to get under the judge's skin.

But there's a real world where he could actually come out of this with less exposure than he believes.

(CROSSTALK)

WILLIAMS: Real quick, the idea of the advice that Trump would or would not have gotten, to some extent, calling it a witch hunt -- we touched on this a little in the last hour -- using the witch hunt, it's all political, that's a legal strategy as well.

(CROSSTALK)

WILLIAMS: Because 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 it now, even if it sounds silly, this is a witch hunt.

BASH: 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 --

(LAUGHTER)

BASH: -- 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 is that -- I know, Elliot, you rolled your eyes, suggesting that's

not going to happen.

WILLIAMS: Yes, he has every right to file it, and he should.

(CROSSTALK)

WILLIAMS: He should.

(CROSSTALK)

COATES: He should.

BASH: Go ahead.

(LAUGHTER)

(CROSSTALK)

WILLIAMS: 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, many of them, but you still have to say them at trial. And filing for a mistrial is one such thing is important for him to do.

COATES: The reason he would have to make that -- mind you, who rules on the mistrial? The judge.

(CROSSTALK)

BASH: Can you explain how that works?

COATES: Well, essentially, the judge will hear an argument from both sides that will say --

(CROSSTALK)

COATES: -- here are the reasons -- 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 actually have.

No judge wants to be appealed. They will look to see if there's any instance of bias. He will not find any on his own accord.

That's probably the reason the judge stepped back from the more antagonistic in the trial today, and said, all right, prosecutors, it's your job now to rule and control this witness. Otherwise, it becomes him doing all this as opposed to the A.G.'s office.

But it goes back to what his role is. His role is fact finder, it is a credibility assessment. Those are virtually untouchable on appeal. [14:45:02]

So the more that he makes credibility findings, the more he makes statements that they're not being objective, or go back a little bit in time to when he had that second sanction for the gag order and said, I do not find you to be credible.

Donald Trump, saying, you meant Michael Cohen, as opposed to my law clerk sitting next to me.

Those are the kinds of things they'll have to do on the record for that reason.

BORGER: What about the arguments, lawyers, what about the argument that they, the prosecution has no case because nobody lost any money here? There wasn't -- you know, the Donald Trump Organization did not victimize any lending institution whatsoever and show me how much money people have lost.

WILLIAMS: The old victimless crime, which is very common.

(CROSSTALK)

WILLIAMS: 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.

BLITZER: But, Laura, big picture, how big of a threat is this case right now to Trump's business empire?

COATES: 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 yet again, to rule and govern from the 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 did 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.

BLITZER: So basically what I hear you saying is, if he loses this case, the judge would say to him, you're fired?

(LAUGHTER)

BASH: With a New York accent.

(CROSSTALK)

BORGER: This is a judge who loves pop culture. It would have been welcome in that courtroom.

BASH: That's it. I'm done. All of you.

BLITZER: Everybody stand by. We're going to take you back to the courthouse for more details. Lots still going on. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:52:09]

BLITZER: 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 multi- billion-dollar business fraud.

BASH: CNN's Kaitlan Collins is outside the courthouse in New York as she has been all day long.

Kaitlan, 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?

COLLINS: Yes, 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 Deutsch Bank, what kind of net worth he was required to maintain as a condition of the loans that he got.

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, he believes, 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 just want to read you a few quotes.

At one point, he says, "The net worth of me was far greater than the financial statements, far greater. 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 of his net worth, if his brand value was factored into that.

And 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."

And Trump is essentially saying they have no case, the questions and 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. They care about cash on hand. That is not something that 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 valuing 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.

But it speaks to why Trump is on the witness stand right now and this penchant he has for exaggerating his worth, his net worth, the value of his properties, something he has been arguing with the assistant attorney general about in this line of questioning.

[14:55:02]

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.

BASH: Kaitlan, thank you so much.

So maybe state the obvious about how historic this is, unprecedented, what we are seeing, and have heard from our reporters in that courthouse behind you all day long.

Kaitlan, thank you.

Thank you for joining us. I'm Dana Bash. Be sure to join Kaitlan Collins, who you just saw there, Laura Coates

as well in primetime for their live special coverage. "THE SOURCE" with Kaitlan Collins starts at 9:00 p.m. Eastern. Laura Coates begins at 11:00 p.m.

And you can catch me tomorrow at noon on "INSIDE POLITICS."

BLITZER: Certainly will, Dana. A pleasure, always, working with you.

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.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)