The court temporarily froze
the gag order against former President
Trump in the special counsel's
election interference case.
While the appeals court
considers his claim
that those restrictions violate
his First Amendment rights.
Until then, Mr.
Trump allowed
to speak freely about the case
and criticized witnesses,
prosecutors and court staff.
Meanwhile, at a courthouse
here in New York today,
after two days of testimony,
Eric Trump said
his father
is, quote,
fired up to take the stand on Monday
in that $250
million civil fraud trial
against the Trump family business.
The former
president's daughter, Ivanka,
who is not part of
the lawsuit, will also testify
next week
after she failed in a bid
to get that testimony pushed off.
The judge in this case
has already ruled there was, quote,
persistent and repeated fraud.
Now he must determine six
other claims,
including falsifying
business records and insurance fraud.
The Trumps
and other executives at the company
or accused of
inflating the value of properties
to secure more favorable
loans and insurance policies.
They all deny wrongdoing.
CNN's Carol Scannell joins us now
from the courthouse in Lower Manhattan.
Carol,
first, let's start with Eric Trump.
What can you tell us
more about his testimony?
Yes, this is Eric Trump's
second day on the stand.
He testified for a total of 4 hours
over two days.
And today in his testimony,
he was standing by the accuracy
of these financial statements,
the ones that the judge
has already found to be fraudulent.
He said that he was speaking
with attorneys and lawyers
and he was comforted by them
that these were, quote,
perfect financial statements.
And he said
he was more than happy to sign them.
He also said he would not have
signed any statements
that he believed to be inaccurate.
So really doubling down
on the accuracy of the statements.
And also today, the judge
extending the gag order
in this case saying that it no longer
just applies to the former president,
but also applies
to the attorneys in this case,
he was saying that no one is
can talk about any of the communications
a judge has had with his law clerk.
It has been something
that Trump's attorneys have brought up
repeatedly during the trial,
saying that there is a perception of bias
by the law clerk
who is passing notes to the judge.
The judge saying now that is off limits.
He said they've received
hundreds of threatening emails, letters
and packages to his chambers.
And he said that far outweighs
Trump's First Amendment rights.
John and Carol,
take us ahead to next week.
Former President Trump
will take the stand.
His daughter Ivanka will take the stand.
There'll be a lot of theater there.
What's the important substance,
right?
Well,
this is going to
be Donald Trump
under oath having to answer questions
about his financial statements,
which has been the focus of his life
for more than 50 years
before even ran for president.
So the actual accuracy
of these statements,
his role in the statements is at stake.
And it is going to be theater.
It is going to be filled with tension.
He's criticized
the judge will be sitting near feet
from the New York attorney general,
is expected to be in attendance.
She's been in court
every time
the former president has been there.
So it's expected to be a lot of tension,
a lot of theater.
But there's also a lot at stake since the
the issue here
for the judge to decide is
what happens to the future
of Trump's business in New York
and him and his family's ability
to conduct business in the state.
Once his testimony wraps,
Ivanka Trump will be on the stand.
She is expected to testify on Wednesday.
She will be the state's last witness,
and then New York will rest its case.
It will be Donald
Trump's turn
to put on any kind of defense.
John.
Fascinating next week ahead, Carrasquillo
outside the courthouse, thanks so much.
Let's get more perspective
now on all of this
from the former federal prosecutor
Jessica RATH,
a professor at Cardozo Law School, now
as well as our CNN political analyst,
Maggie Haberman.
She, of course,
The New York Times
senior political correspondent
who has covered the former
president for decades,
and also the author
you see it
there of the bestselling book
about him, Confidence Man,
The Making of Donald Trump
and the Breaking of America.
Again, so many conversations
about Trump and the family.
Now you have the court of law
and the court of public opinion.
That's where we are.
The sun's
helping him or hurting him.
I think it depends on
how you look at this.
I think that there was nothing
that was a bombshell that you saw.
There was a moment with Eric Trump's
testimony yesterday in particular,
where he was confronted with saying
that he had not been involved in
a piece of it.
I believe it was a certification.
And he was
there were some emails
suggesting that he did know.
The Trump sons have blamed things
they didn't recall on memory lapses.
I think that Donald Trump
Junior was generally perceived
as faring better than his brother did.
I don't know how much of a difference
it makes in a case.
You will have
probably a stronger
opinion on this than I do.
I don't know how much of a difference
it makes in a case
where the judge has already done
a partial summary judgment
and there are just these
outstanding claims.
And clearly
the judge is already questioning
the credibility of all of the Trumps.
I want to get to that.
The legal part,
the court part in a minute.
But the former president on the stand,
Eric Trump,
says he's fired up to testify.
I think that's definitely true.
That's definitely true.
But you also know better than most,
Donald Trump and discipline
aren't often in the same sentence.
What are the risks there?
There are a number of risks.
You know,
this is the kind of setting that
he has not been in, in ten years.
He has testified
other than actually previously,
briefly in this case.
He last testified in May of 2013,
in a case in a civil case
in Chicago against him, that he won
a lot has happened since then.
This is going to be a performance
in one on one direct
interpersonal confrontation.
He tends to back off.
I don't see that being the case. Here.
He is. So angry.
He has had some time
to look at how this courtroom is,
how this is because he's
been sitting in the trial,
in the courtroom,
which he didn't have to do
over a couple of days.
But who knows?
I mean, he has a history of,
you know,
making extemporaneous
remarks during depositions
that don't always help him
if he gets himself all worked up,
we could see him get himself in trouble.
I do think you are seeing
just one pause here in terms of what
he might be attempting to do.
He's not good at discipline,
but he can be good at theatrics.
And they are clearly
trying on the Trump team
to try to create a trail to accuse
the judge of bias
and conceivably ask for a mistrial.
So let's come to those legal points.
So let's start
first with the testimony,
the sense that anything
did you see anything
that actually helps
the Trump family defense?
I didn't.
I mean, they were making the case
we expected them to,
which is that
essentially was
the accountant's
responsibility
to prepare these financial statements
to the extent you see our names on that.
That's really essentially
just because our role was to sign,
but we had no involvement
in the valuation
and we didn't really review
what was in substantively
what was in these valuations.
We relied on the experts for that.
That was expected.
But the documents,
which the judge has already relied on in
granting partial summary judgment
on that really important
first cause of action,
really do link the brothers
to these transactions
and suggest that they were involved
and that they did sign off on them,
which would suggest
some intent on their part.
Now, what remains for the judge
to decide
on the remaining causes of action
is whether they actually
did intend to defraud as opposed
to just have involvement
in the creation of statements
that were objectively
false and fraudulent.
So the judge is going to be making
a credibility determination
in evaluating their denial
that they acted with intent to defraud
and to make his point
about the former president on the stand.
He is clearly trying to make the case
this is not fair.
He's not being treated fairly.
There's been this dust up and back
and forth continuing
throughout the week over
the judge's clerk
and characterizations
of whether the clerk
is being fair or not.
Do you see is there
if you were on the Trump legal team,
do you see enough seeds there
to put together a path for an appeal?
I do not.
On the issue of bias at all,
but I do think we're seeing
a strategy
both to distract
today from what was happening
in terms of the Trump
Sons testimony
and how it wasn't particularly helpful
to the Trump defendants
by focusing on the clerk
and I think maybe also
an intentional effort
to provoke the judge.
The judge issued a very strongly worded
order this evening,
extending to the lawyers
the gag order that he had already
imposed on the former president
and not to speak about his staff.
And, of course, he's
being protective of his clerk primarily.
The lawyers know that judges communicate
with their staff and their law clerks
throughout proceedings.
That's a normal part of the process.
So it was really ridiculous
that they raised
this issue of passing notes.
And it makes me think
that it was strategic
in order to perhaps
provoke the judge into reacting
or to just distract from
what was otherwise
not a particularly good day
for them in court.
Jessica Ross, Maggie
Haberman, grateful
you're both here tonight
to help me understand all that.
Thank you. Thanks for coming in.