disappearance? there's questions. >> you have a busy weekend. >> yeah, nikki haley is joining us in columbia, south carolina for a fox news town hall where she will get together with voters, maybe some that have made up their minds, some undecided and take questions. we'll have a few questions of our own. this is in advance of the big south carolina primary a week from tomorrow, which she lagged behind substantially in the polls but hoping to make up ground. >> she has to answer the big question. do you have a path? really? are you going to -- >> here she is in texas. she's going to texas. she's got a team in georgia as well. so yeah. >> good luck. i'll be watching. thanks for having me, john. >> good to be with you. "the story" with martha starts right now. >> martha: good afternoon.

i'm martha maccallum in new york. this is the story right now. any minute now we expect to hear from judge arthur engoron. this is a friday afternoon. this will happen shortly by our best estimation. you remember this. sometimes it's hard to deal these cases straight. we expect that any minute now he will decide and come forward with a statement about former president trump. how much will he have to pay for the business fraud case in manhattan. letitia james thinks he should pay $370 million for misvaluing in her interpretation his properties. now, she claims that that was business fraud. he claims that this is a no fault situation, that the banks didn't ever complain that they got paid all of this. we watched this go back and forth. there she is smiling november 1 in the courtroom. she spent a lot of time coming to watch how this case was

playing out. james also wants president trump to be banned for life from doing any business in the state of new york. obviously he made his name here in new york as a real estate magnet. he has several of his marquee properties here, including trump tower. probably the most famous of all of the trump properties. he said he didn't do anything wrong in this case and his lawyer says that she is already planning her appeal. ari fleischer and shannon bream standing by. first, let's go to eric shawn reporting live on this as we wait for the judge's decision any moment here in new york. hi, eric. >> all of those properties you just showed, they could be in jeopardy. the decision now on the eve of a long weekend could cripple the trump organization. arthur engoron expected to rule as he found that the president and his name sake company falsely inflated real estate values to get better terms on

bank loans. the claims include conspiracy, issues false financial statements, falsifying business records and insurance fraud. all showing trump overstated his value by billions of dollars. faking the values on trump's real estate holdings that ininclude mar-a-largo, trump's apartment in trump tower, the westchester facilities office buildings and other property, all has claimed to deceive lenders and insurance company. and james seeking to bar mr. trump from doing business in new york state for life. his sons, banning them for five years. the former president has called this case a witch hunt. he said there were no victims. noting the bank didn't lose any money and he relied on accountants and lawyers for evaluations. the july has found that the former president and his sons did deceive the banks by massively overvaluing the properties and trump's own net

worth. he ruled that trump lives in a fantasy world. the judge ruled that mr. trump should be stripped of his company and a receiver appointed to handle the dissolution of his buildings. trump's lawyer has vowed to appeal. this comes on top of the defamation decision where the jury order mr. trump to pay miss carroll $83 million in damages. right now we're waiting for the decision, the final report. we're told it's lengthy. waiting for it to be posted. we understand we have the decision. we're awaiting -- he's found libel. the former president of the united states found libel. waiting for the amount. if we have that. we don't have it yet. the top headline, judge engoron does find the president libel. we'll see what that means. >> martha: thanks, eric. we do have this decision.

we're waiting for the content of it. it's 92 pages long. it's no price that judge engoron has found the former president, donald trump, libel in this case. this is a civil case. there is about money, not criminality. just to rewind a little bit here. there's a lot of different cases to keep track on. in this case, letitia james said when she was running for attorney general that she was going to get trump. we'll play what she said. the decision is in. it's 92 pages long. james asked for $370 million in damages. she wants him to be prevented from doing business in new york state. so as we wait to download all of this and get a look at the number and as soon as we get it, we'll tell you what it is. this is something that the former president is watching closely. he has layers of judicial dates, appointments, decisions coming down in the middle of the south carolina primary, which is coming up february 24 and super

tuesday. so all of this interwoven for former president trump. i want to bring in ari fleischer, the former white house press secretary and fox news contributor and shannon breen, our chief legal correspondent. shannon, let's start with you. no surprise obviously that he was found libel. the judge found him libel before the case began. correct? >> correct. i jetted to the bottom to see what we could find. there's several big numbers in there. the judge talks about in this finding donald trump, donald trump jr. and eric trump and alan weisselberg and others involved. one of the first things he orders is that several of them together including donald trump and his trust and trump organization will have to pay $168 million and change. the next paragraph says that there's another ruling for $126 million and change.

another one for $60 million. we'll have to look and see if they're overlapping or if we add them up. these are the numbers coming out. donald trump jr., $4 million in one case and allen wiseleburg a million dollars. so there's a lot of numbers there. we'll parse through the numbers. they're big. there was a big ask. looks like they may be in the neighborhood of close to $300 million or more. >> martha: we're seeing this. i believe this is a reuter's report. we're starting to balance up the numbers here. according to some of the reporting out there, the number is $354.9 million. as you say, the damages are spread across a number of the trump family members that are deeply involved in the business. don jr., eric trump, $4 million. perhaps equally importantly, according to the early reporting that we're seeing here, the judge has banned donald trump from serving as an officer or director of any new york corporation or other legal

entity in new york for three years is the period here on this. now, that wouldn't have a lot of impact on president trump. he's running for president and hopes to be president during that time. eric trump and don jr. and eric in a large way are very instrumental in business here. it would prevent them from serving as an officer or director of any new york corporation or other legal entity in new york for two years. so $355 million here in the judgment from arthur engoron against the former president, donald trump. ari, what is your reaction to this? >> martha, i just have a hard time seeing any of the court cases including this one as anything other than a continuation of the resistance that began when donald trump was elected president and instantly protesters took to the streets

of fifth avenue. look at all of these cases. they're being brought against the former president in the bluest of blue counties across the united states of america. because if they were brought in a purple county let alone a red county, they would have no chance of success whether it was a jury or a judge. i think this is a continuation of the nastiness that law has turned into to serve the political ends as letitia james, the attorney general of new york, campaigned on getting donald trump. i remember when she said that. i'm a new yorker. i remember when she was a candidate and she vowed to do that. it struck me as a miscarriage of justice then and now that she's delivered on it, it's an even bigger miscarriage. >> this also -- the judge says that the trump organization must install an independent director of compliance and says the independent monitor shall continue in her role, it says, for at least three years.

shannon, you know, of all the cases that have come against the former president, this one i would say and the hush money, stormy daniels case, was problematic in terms of the interpretation of a lot of people that study the law as you do. in this case, none of the banks came forward. none of these real estate investment companies came forward and said that the trump organization failed to repay them. they claimed that mar-a-largo estate, for example, was worth $18 million, which is preposterous for anybody that -- >> i'd love to get in on that. >> you couldn't get a cottage in that neighborhood for that kind of money. so it's really shocking how political this appears to be in going after him. let's play those letitia james comments when she was running to be the attorney general. watch this. >> no one is above the law

including this ill legitimate president. i look forward to going into the office of attorney general every day suing him, defending your rights and going home. >> i say one name, donald trump. that should motivate you. >> will you sue him for us? >> oh, we're going to definitely sue him. we're going to be a real pain in the [bleep]. he's going to know my name. >> martha: every time i see that, shocking behavior from someone that wants to be an attorney general. >> yeah. the line she has about nobody is above the law, his folks will say nobody is below it either. you cannot use the law as a cujole. this goes to the argument the president makes. it's not just a prosecution. they're persecutions and his bali rally to that every time. as you noted there and as he continues to note, there weren't

victims here. there weren't people that demanded justice from the attorney general. in new york even though we're referring to this as the supreme court, they have unusual language that they use in new york. it's not the final court of appeals. their court of appeals is above their state supreme court. the trump team feels like that they have a really strong measure on appeal. no doubt that they're going to take every penny of this to appeal. so what happens in the meantime? a lot has been put on hold taking the business licenses and those kinds of things. we'll see how they do on appeal. no doubt that's what they're going to do. >> martha: ari, when you valuate your own properties for the purpose of insurance or the purpose of getting a loan from a bank, it comes with language that says this is our assessment and the banks do their assessments on how much the property is valued. in none of those cases involving the trump organization did any of these parties bring any litigation against the trump organization for any false

representation. correct? >> no, that is exactly right. nobody has ever accused any of these new york bankers or insurance people of being behind the ball. these guys are sharp. they know how to sharpen their pencils. all of this is why i put this in the political category, not a legal category. it's one of the reasons the norms have broken down in this country. when the democrats go to these kinds of resorts to get somebody they don't like, we all lose faith in the system. it's the same thing as two impeachments that violated the rules of the house. all to get the man they don't want. the perverse result of it is they'll get the man they don't want. as a result, donald trump leap frogged in the republican nomination. if they wanted to get rid of trump, they wouldn't have prosecuted him and ron desantis may have had a chance back in january of 2023. these indictments led to the rallying of the base because of the way people question justice,

which has been a four-year pattern when donald trump was president. it's the most foolish thing the democrats could do unless they want him to return to power. >> martha: you're so right. ignoring this might have produced a different outcome. you think about 91 indictments against this individual. shannon, looking at other civil cases which have a monetary price tag on them. this is not a criminal case here. i looked back. o.j. simpson was found libel in the deaths of two people, his wife and nicole brown and her friend. $33 million. in the deaths of two human beings in one of the most high profile cases in american history. what do you think about that? >> they were clearly victims in that case, which goes back to the argument that nobody complained. ever got paid back. so regardless of how you feel

about the outcome, when the president, former president and his supporters have this argument that it's political, it looks that way, especially with the clips you played earlier. something interesting to know. we had out now fox polling this week. you and i have talked to folks in new hampshire and iowa and everywhere in between that said they would not move away from president trump if he was indicted or convicted. there is some softening there if he's convicted on a criminal charge. this new polling there we have out of critical states, new hampshire and michigan this week, found that more biden supporters are worried about his mental acutie than trump supporters are worried about his legal issues. this will rally most of the base to him. it forced all of his gop rivals to run to his defense every time he was indicted. as ari points out, it cleared the field in a different way. voters say for the majority, it won't move them. they won't waiver in the face of verdicts like this. >> martha: you're right, shannon. there's no end -- indication

this has a negative impact, if anything, it has a positive impact. when they see him under attack, they understand what it's like to be under the thumb of the government or of the law in one way or the other and they rally to him and support him, which has been a fascinating political phenomenon to watch. i want to invite to talk with us, constitutional law attorney, jonathan turley, gwu law professor and a fox news contributor. welcome. good to have you with us this afternoon. i'm seeing numbers as high as $364 million. she asked for $370 million. she got a big chunk of change here if that end up not being overturned on appeal, jonathan. >> well, this court really proved oscar wild's rule that the only way to get rid of temptation is to yield to it. the court has done everything

short of ordering that trump be thrown into a wood chipper. he's imposed almost the maximum amount that james requested. he's barring him from doing business in the city where he's an iconic business figure. barring him from getting loans. the last part is ironic. the banks not only said that they were not victims and did not complain about the alleged fraud, but they said that they wanted to do more business with trump. they described him as a whale client. so this is all being done essentially in their name as victims even though no one lost any money. none of us could find a case like this. yet, the first one, you have this fortune that is being demanded by the court to be turned over. i think there's real problems here. i think that this is going to have the same impact on some appellate judges.

there have to be some limits, including constitutional limits on the size of penalties. in my view, just excessive. you know, i think there's a major appeal obviously that will come. i was hoping the court would defy its critics and show a more moderate response. to show that yes, there were assets that were undervalued and overvalued. but to impose a more reasonable fine. you know, many of us believed that there were cases of valuation problems. but those are ubiquitous in this field of real estate. this is extremely common for businesses to undervalue property, to try to lower tax costs and to overvalue and securing loans. often you look at the victims themselves to see if those

practices produced the type of injury that warrants this rare action. the victims in court saying we're not victims. we didn't really take these numbers on their face. >> martha: yeah. you know, one thing i want to ask you, jonathan, is how do they arrive at this number? i'm going at some of the case work here. eric trump is going to read some of this for people to understand. i'm not sure how you arrive at these damages when you don't have anyone claiming that they were financially damaged. >> yeah, the court seems to have compounded the highest figures in most areas of how much could have been claimed and might have impacted loans or taxes. and then imposed those costs. the new york law is an odd one. it does not require that anyone actually lose money.

so james was able to come in here with this figure and she kept going on. of course, that pleased a lot of people in new york. the question i think is whether at some point this shocks the conscious. you know, you have bragg, prosecuting the president in a case that many of us view as just a raw political exercise. you have james who promised to bag this president for some undefined reason, which he ran for office. now you have this extreme and abuse of penalty. at some point, new yorkers have to wonder is this what we want from a legal system. it's raw and it's political. i am not saying that there was not a basis to impose a fine. but when you're imposing fines larger than the budget of some countries, you really have to wonder whether you have allowed

your impulse to run away with your judgment. >> martha: ari, your thoughts on the fact that the family has been gone after here as well. it's interesting from the political perspective. we haven't seen the level of involvement from the trump family so far in the campaign that we saw the last time around. the former president has said all of this was at times too much. he didn't want to inflict any more pain on any members of his family. i don't want to quote him but something to that effect. your thoughts on this -- they're involved in the business, to the family as well, ari, politically. >> yeah, here's the problem when you live in an overwhelmingly blue state. new york county, which is where manhattan is, manhattan votes 85 to 15 democrat to republican in presidential races. that was the margin that biden beat trump on. also the margin that george bush

lost by, mitt romney lost by and john mccain lost by. overwhelming democrats. this is what led to them taking the trump name down off of buildings in manhattan. buildings that used to have trump's name in manhattan, white plains an throughout the city. the extension of all of these people that want to take trump's name off of the building is drive them out of business. when that gets in to the hands of authorities, legal authorities, prosecutors, d.a.s, this is what is pernicious. this is where politics has leaped on to the power of white collar officials that sit at desks to drum up opposition to knock somebody out of political business by going after their corporate business. that's how they think in blue states. because it's so overwhelmingly democrat, there's little pressure pushing back on the politicians here to stop doing it because it's wrong. unless the appeals process in

new york comes to the rescue -- new york is a legal banana republic. they're so determined to get donald trump. they want to take his name off of the buildings and knock his family out of the business. >> martha: we're looking at video from las vegas and the various rallies politically. the president, the former president, has gone all cylinders showing up even when he didn't have to at these court dates. he was in this particular courtroom with arthur engoron as letitia james would come down the aisle and sit in her seat. they with within probably 15 feet of each other at that point. i mean, you know, the impact in your mind as you cover politics and the nexus of the courts on the campaign, if there is one. >> it was a couple weeks ago, a civil verdict against him for more than $80 million. it was a huge flash in the headlines for maybe three or

four days. he was back on the campaign trail with tens of thousands of people showing up. we have almost for gotten about the e. jean carroll verdict. this will make headlines and get a lot of attention and do what he did after the e jean carroll case and say look at this corrupt prosecution coming after me. these people are trying to destroy me. i'm standing between you and them. i'm the barrier that they want to take out of the way. i would imagine with the rallies and things we'll hear from in the wake of this nearly $400 million verdict against him and his family, he's going to use it to say the same thing. i think that most people from the outside looking in, his supporters are definitely going to feel like this is another verdict that they're not going to see as legitimate in any way. it will only lend to his argument. we have all of the planes coming in for runways with these trials coming. we stand by also to see if the

supreme court gets involved in the immunity case, which really is a big decider about whether jack smith's january 6th case starts or stops or when it happens at all. this could be another big legal day for him on other fronts if we get that news, to. >> martha: it's an extraordinary line-up, as you say. it's like planes lined up on the tarmac waiting to tack off. jonathan turley, explain for everybody at home, what comes next in this case. we expect to hear from alaina hobba. she was the attorney on this case. you can see her on the right-hand side of the picture that we're showing with president trump. what happens now with this appeals case? if this case has been very lit call, does it get any better at that level in new york? >> i'm not sure whether it does. the fact is that appeals started in the earlier stage when the court found that trump had committed fraud.

there are pending matters with regard to that appellate line. there will be a new appellate line on the basis of this figure. the question is whether the appellate judges will show more restraint than this judge. i hope that they will. i don't mean to say that everyone in the new york legal system has been corrupted by political animus. there's very good judges, many good lawyers. this is a time when i think that they have to come forward and throw a flag on the play. it's not that the court was necessarily wrong that there was undervaluation or overvaluation. but the size of this fine and the level of sanctions here is breathtaking. it does raise serious questions, even aside from the evidencery basis used by the court. it goes to at what point does a

fine become so excessive that it violates the constitutional rights of an individual. >> martha: it's punitive, right? so the amount of it is so extraordinary that can it be described as an effort to punish the corporation, right? to punish the people involved. i just want to point out that $364 million number, that number includes donald trump jr., eric trump and alan wiseleburg who has already done time in a new york prison. he's in his 70s, i believe. when you look at the punitive nature of this, what does that say, jonathan? as you said, you hope they'll be more cooler heads prevailing in the next round in the appeals court. >> i think that the ultimate judgment really does undermine the court's analysis, the court -- appellate court will have to look at in what was my view a selective prosecutions of

the civil case but clearly james made this pledge that she was going to bag donald trump. it is part of an overall campaign that seems to be an effort at death by exposure both on the civil and criminal side. she did carry through on her pledge. the question is whether that will shock the conscious of judges going forward. just the size and tenor of these sanctions. i think there's legitimate grounds here to look at this and to say there's got to be some reduction for this to be moved in the navigational beacons. >> martha: i would love to know and maybe one of you know if there has ever been any comparable punishment in a similar case? any precedent at all for using the law that was used in this case and punishing any company in new york in any comparable

way? >> i don't know of any case under this law that was a natural -- analogous. i assure you the judges on the appellate level won't love donald trump. that's not the issue. the question is even whether trump deserves a more equal and blind justice. >> there's been other companies in new york that have misvalued their properties or could be argued to have misvalued their properties and none of us are aware of any other case that has been brought in that regard. i have a statement from alina habba here, the trump attorney on this case. we saw her every day coming and going from the courtroom with this. let's put this statement up from her. she says this verdict is a manifest injustice, plain and simple. it's the culmination of a multiyear politically fueled

witch hunt designed to take down donald trump. before letitia james ever stepped before in the attorney general's office. there was no wrong doing, no crime and no victim. given the grave stakes, we trust the appellate division will overturn this verdict and end this relentless persecution about my client. this is not just about donald trump, she says. if this decision stands. it will serve as a signal to every single american that new york is no longer open for business. ari, your thoughts on that statement from the attorney? >> yeah, that last line about new york no longer being open for business, it does occur to me if you're the trump organization, if you're eric and donald jr., what are you going to do? i don't know the laws but you move your company to florida and continue to do everything they do. continue to say good-bye to new york, which fits a pattern

that many successful people have been doing and leaving new york. new york is just too political and, too blue and too punitive. many people just want to get out of here, not to mention the problem that crime is causing. these are the statewide cases, these new york cases, georgia, fulton county case. beyond the reach of a president of the united states. either pardon or drop the prosecution. it does strike me for the federal cases, the immunity case, classified document case, that is our nation's first crowd-sourced jury. think about it. if donald trump wins re-election, he will be able to tell the department of justice, his attorney general to drop all of those charges. how will that decision get made? if the american people elect donald trump, that's what will happen on the federal level. if they elect joe biden, the charges will continue. it's fascinating that that jury

will be the american people in the election. it's a crowd sourced jury of every voter. that's because they made this their big issue, trying to judicially get donald trump. >> martha: very interesting take, ari. thank you. if you could stand by for just a moment. let's go back to eric shawn who has been going through this 92-page document and breaks some of it down for us. >> i'm going to talk about the application of the law in a second. we've been reading this. this is the first page. pretty stark and blunt from judge engoron. he said the defendants submitted blatantly false financial data to the accountants resulting in fraudulent financial statements. when confronted at trial with the statements, the experts witnesses did not reality. the defendants failed to accept any responsibility or any internal controls. the president throughout these proceedings has said that he has

boasted his brand and that the valuations were based on billions of dollars. the judge says when you have two appraisals on two substantially different assumptions, that is not an evidence of a different of opinions. it's an evidence of deceit. as far as mar-a-largo is concern, the former president says it was worth $1.5 billion today. the judge engoron writes that would require not only valuing it as a private resident, which it is, but it's the most ex expectsive private residence in the country. donald trump rarely responded to the questions last and interjected long irrelevant speeches for beyond the scope of the trial. his refusal to answer the questions directly or in some cases at all severely compromised his credibility.

in terms of what you were talking about in terms of the application of the law, the "new york times" about a month or so ago did the study of this law. as it applies to companies throughout new york state. they went through hundreds of cases. they found that basically this law has been applied when there's been abject fraud, ill legality and companies going out of business or criminal activity which supporters say none of that is evident in this trial. so in this case. so it seems as you have pointed out, this is a generally rarely applied application of real estate law when dealing with the company that did not go out of business, did not scam people as you have pointed out. the banks basically went with it and never complained. even though the valuations were false. >> martha: that process, talk to a number of people when we have

all been covering this case. that process between the bank and the corporation in terms of valuations is, you know, one side presents, here's what we think the property is worth. there's always a variable in terms of the value of property. if it were -- is there a buyer for it today? you know, or are we now talking about if it were to be sold today. all of these things go on. they have huge teams after these huge new york financial institutions whose job it is to evaluate anyone that comes to them for a loan and to kick the tires and go through ever repiece of paper, every accountant document given to them and figure out is this client actually giving us true value on these properties and does that merit the loan that they are requesting. this is a huge process that goes back and forth. of all of these cases, this is the most difficult one to sort

of wrap you head around and especially we're seeing this enormous dollar sign on it. eric, thanks very much for going through these documents. i know you will continue to do that. jonathan turley, you know, with regard to if future of people wanting to do business in new york and not to mention the design of american citizens to want to run for political office, right? when they see the potential for this kind of being mired in these sorts of situations, if you dare to put up your hand and run for office, jonathan. your thoughts on that. >> well, the only positive thing is if you have nothing to worry about if you're a liberal corporation. disney and nike will do fine. it does have an impact on businesses which want to be assured that they can do business without becoming political footballs. keep in mind, james also fought for years to disband the national rifle association.

she said it was also a corporation that was rife with fraud. she's not done that with liberal organizations like black lives matter that have been accused of fraud and failure to report. that does have an impact. it's one of the greatest ironies of this case. in the name of protecting businesses new york, you probably just led to hundreds of businesses looking at potential rentals in florida. they look at this and they go -- they go wow. if we fall on the wrong side of the politics in new york, they could sell us off for spare parts. >> martha: no doubt. no doubt. that is happening as we speak. we have watched such an enormous migration of people from new york not only to florida but also to texas and other places. shannon, i'm curious about this. are you surprised at all that

they put a two and three-year time period on the inability of former president trump and of his sons and associate alan wiseleburg, you can't be the officer of a new york company for three years in trump's case and two years in the others case? >> and he was facing potentially president trump a lifetime ban. so the fact that they came back with less than that actually surprised me a little bit. they didn't go fully swing for the fences and banning him. eric talks about some of the language. as you dig through this, very, very pointed about president trump and about his family and saying that there was no remorse. they say it borders on pathological. that's why we have to have the relief not allowing him to operate these businesses because the defendants will continue their fraudulent ways. i'm surprised they didn't say this is something he will never

do. this court is something that is different involving fani willis with a live feed. we didn't have that with this case. there wasn't this live feed. when the judge characterizes the president's comments and his conduct in a certain way, there's not that video feed that enabled us to see this. jonathan, you've written about this, how the media is handling these in two different ways. when president trump is doing this, he's insulent and surly and when fani willis does it, she's standing up for herself. >> martha: that's the great irony. when they read those lines that the judge said how trump testified, it could have been a reference to fani willis. she did all of that. but was not even sanctioned. i think there is a troubling

disconnect. that doesn't excuse the president's conduct in court outside of court. it doesn't excuse his business practices. this is not unique in the real estate area. these types of under and overvaluations are a common factor. the weird thing is here, the judge is telling these banks, no, i won't let you do business with them. it's like a business big gulp law. i'm protecting you from doing business with someone that you considered to be a good client. so the disconnects are really quite glaring. >> martha: indeed. this issue of no remorse -- i want to stress, we're talking about this particular case today. all of these cases are different. they all carry with them their own set of circumstances. as americans what you count on is for the legal process and judicial process to treat each

thing individually and to treat the people that are part of this case as if they were any other american citizen. i think the dollar number on this and the charge that he had no remorse and was pathological is hard to have remorse when you don't have an injured party, i would say. so i want to thank all of you for being with us. just stand by if you would. we'll bring in matt whitaker, the former acting attorney general and tomi lahren, most of tomi lahren is fearless. welcome to both of you. good to have you here. matt, you worked in the doj, in the trump administration. you've had probably a chance to look through some of the 92 pages of this decision in the new york courtroom today by judge arthur engoron. what is your reaction? >> it's not surprising, but at the same time, it's disturbing. martha, as i think about all of these cases, you know, each one of them may be resting on different facts and brought in

different jurisdictions. they're all part of a thread of donald trump being taken on by his political opponents, whether it's the biden doj, the democrats in new york or the democrats in atlanta. in every case, there's always someone that is political opponent that is bringing these cases. you know, this is not how justice is done in the united states of america. especially to your point, martha, where there's no victim in this case. all the banks said they were paid back in full. >> martha: tomi, what is your take today? >> i think it's apparent trump dearrangement syndrome has seeped in to the legal system. that's really sad for americans. i don't care if you like donald trump, you voted for him, vote for him again. doesn't matter, this should be alarming and appalling. i also look at the resiliency of former president donald trump. hit with everything. hit with case after case at charge, charge, charge. he's still out there. he's still campaigning. he's still talking to the american people. he wants to talk to the american

people every chance that he can get. some networks cut away from him when he tries to talk to the american people. contrast that to our current president, joe biden, who has been found to be not cognitively libel. i think the american people look at the resiliency of trump and they're seeing that as far as voters go. they say that's what i want in my president. no matter what they throw at this man, he stands tall and he goes out there, he speaks to the american people, he's unafraid, he's fearless, he's stable. i think that a lot of americans are saying that's what i want in the man that is protecting and defending the united states of america. they can come at him with whatever they want. they will continue to do this. if he gets re-elected, they won't stop. they're always going after him. he stands tall anyway. it's alarming and trouble for the american people, it shows us what kind of man donald trump is

and he's not backing down any time soon. >> martha: you know, no matter which side of the trump question you're on, he, matt, is the most fascinating political figure of our time. that's across the board. absolutely fair. a multi-generational political figure, whether people love him or hate him, he has had an enormous impact and an enormous presence on the national stage. now he is continuously under attack. tomi is right. if he were to win again, that would intense phi -- more than 50% of people polled today in a monmouth poll said they wouldn't vote for joe biden. what is your take under this attack and the fact that he keeps going?

>> obviously i know him well not only working in his administration closely, but also, you know, recently spending a lot of time with him in iowa as we won the state by regard numbers. the donald trump i know is not only the fighter that you see every day out there working on behalf of what he thinks is in the best interest of the american people, but also, you know, he's a human being. he's a very generous human being at that. i have more stories that i can tell today how he has been one of the first people if not the first person there when someone needed help, support, encouragement. he's tireless. he eats these kind of things like energy bars. ultimately the donald trump i know will fight through this. again, justice will prevail. if i was talking to him today, maybe later today, i'd say, you know, this is one small skirmish. you're going to win this battle. you need to keep going and

driving and there's a lot of us that are pushing from behind. >> martha: so we have -- saw new new hampshire polls. about a 30-point lead -- not new hampshire. south carolina. that's next february 24th. 30-point lead there. a healthy lead in the march 5th super tuesday states as well. it's just as you say, the latest skirmish. over 350 million. as we have said, there's an appeal pending. alina habba will speak about that with sean hannity tonight in terms of what that will like like and when. we're going to squeeze in a quick break and we'll be back with more of the breaking coverage of judge engoron's decision, over $350 million against the trump organization. more when we come back. ( bell ringing) customize and save with libberty bibberty.

liberty bushumal. libtreally blubatoo. mark that one. that was nice! i think you're supposed to stand over there. oh am i? thank you. so, a couple more? we'll just...we'll rip. we'll go quick. libu smeebo. libu bribu. limu bibu...and me. doug: he's an emu! only pay for what you need. jingle: ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ kayak. no way. why would i use kayak to compare hundreds of travel sites at once? kayak. i like to do things myself. i do my own searching. it isn't efficient. use kayak. i can't trust anything else to do the job right. aaaaaaaahhhh! kayak. search one and done. type 2 diabetes? discover the ozempic® tri-zone. ♪ ♪

i got the power of 3. i lowered my a1c, cv risk, and lost some weight. in studies, the majority of people reached an a1c under 7 and maintained it. i'm under 7. ozempic® lowers the risk of major cardiovascular events such as stroke, heart attack, or death in adults also with known heart disease. i'm lowering my risk. adults lost up to 14 pounds. i lost some weight. ozempic® isn't for people with type 1 diabetes. don't share needles or pens, or reuse needles. don't take ozempic® if you or your family ever had medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if allergic to it. stop ozempic® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, or an allergic reaction. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. gallbladder problems may occur. tell your provider about vision problems or changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase low blood sugar risk. side effects like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. living with type 2 diabetes? ask about the power of 3 with ozempic®. she runs and plays like a puppy again. his #2s are perfect! he's a brand new dog, all in less than a year.

when people switch their dog's food from kibble to the farmer's dog, they often say that it feels like magic. but there's no magic involved. (dog bark) it's simply fresh meat and vegetables, with all the nutrients dogs need— instead of dried pellets. just food made for the health of dogs. delivered in packs portioned for your dog. it's amazing what real food can do.

>> martha: we're in the middle of a breaking news story that we expected would happen late this afternoon on this friday in new york city. judge arthur engoron came forward with his statement and his decision in the trump civil fraud case. not a criminal trial. this is a civil trial. did it have a whopping price tag on it. engoron has said he expects the trump organization to pay $354 million, if you add it up, it is over 360 for others involved in the corporation involving don jr., eric trump and alan weisselberg who has already done time for financial issues surrounding the trump organization. then on top of that, there was discussion that engoron, the judge, would decide to ban the former president from operating as an officer of a new york

corporation for life. for some reason, he came down with a three-year decision is what he decided in that. for the others involved, the other three i just mentioned, weisselberg found don jr. and eric trump to not be officers of the a new york corporation for two years. the former president's attorney has called this a manifest of injustice and of course there will be an appeal to this. here's a post that just came there from don jr. involved in this as well. reacting to it. he says we have reached the point that combined with what venue your case is heard are the primary determinants of the outcome, not the facts of the case. it's truly sad when has happened to our country and i hope others see it before it's too late to correct course. so with that, we bring back in constitutional law attorney jonathan turley and ari

fleischer, former white house press secretary and fox news contributor. jonathan, the impact on the other people involved here. alan weisselberg, long-time business associate of trump. he was already convicted in a separate case against the trump organization. the impact on the two younger members of the trump family by not being allowed to incorporate or serve as officers of new york corporations for two years. >> well, they can certainly get around this. there's other jurisdictions that they can incorporate in, places like delaware. they can easily shift their business. the question will be, as ari noted earlier, how many businesses are likely to shift on their own. new york is already viewed as fairly hostile for businesses that are moving out. there's an exodus from the state. this can't be good in trying to stem that flow.

and the issue again is not that the trump organization did not inflate or undervalue properties. this is a raw partisan exercise by james. she made it that way in the election. i have no doubt in my mind that no other company in new york would have been subject to this type of draconian exercise. would have been subject to this type of ruling. that should give people pause in new york, particularly in the bars. is this what we have become? it's going to have an impact on other businesses. they have to be able to trust that there is a neutrality in their laws, that they're not just going to become pawns and political games by figures like james. >> yeah, that's what the americans expect. they expect to be treated equally. they expect that the law applies

to everyone equally. we hear that a lot, thrown around these days. but it seems unfortunately as don jr. points out in his post that it doesn't feel that way a lot of the time anymore. that's one of the things propelling the campaign of former president trump. again, this time around. i want to play this. this is from judge engoron. this is the judge that made this decision. here he is back in march of 2015 giving a speech at a local college here in queensboro. he talks about the fact that sometimes you don't really need a jury. sometimes it's better as -- you can hear his own words here. he's saying it's better not to have one. sometimes it's hard to factor out your own emissions. listen to what he says here. >> i'm going to say something controversial. even though i'm being taped,

jurors get it wrong a lot. there's a tool that i can use to deal with that. it's called judgment not withstanding the verdict. i'm an impartial referee. it's hard to factor out my own emotions. >> martha: yeah, i like it when i get to decide on my own. sometimes it's hard to factor out my emotions. kerry kupac is joining us now. i know you were just miccing up. you reaction to that in light of this decision today. >> it's laughable. i was in the courtroom when donald trump was in the courtroom. yes, there were times for the judge to shut him down when he was going on rants or something like that. there were times when donald trump was very sharply and acutely explaining his businesses and his assets. even then the judge would try to stop him from giving context. it was relevant context.

i remember thinking, this is not a fair process. this decision today reflects exactly what i saw in the courtroom. the democrats are determined to crush donald trump financially and politically. change the 2024 election. that's what this is about. we all know that based on what the a.g. campaigned on. it's not a secret. as you just discussed, is this how we do democracy in america? is this how justice should be? >> martha: no. i'll answer that. across the board. you look at what happened yesterday in the georgia courtroom. fani willis basically was able to sort of rant at length, right? she really didn't get shut down by the judge in there. let me bring ari back in on that. you know, when you look at the reporting this morning, i was watching a number of different networks and reading things out there, ari. it's like wow, she's our hero.

isn't she incredible? on the other foot, when the former president opened his mouth in court and he can rant, we all know that, but to talk about how he saw this valuation issue, he was shut down. >> this has been a fascinating week to watch justice unfold. you can watch it in georgia and in manhattan and now in one other item we haven't talked about. this was also a week in which the special counsel investigating hunter biden announced an indictment of a source the fbi had who they said lied to the fbi to make up bad stuff about hunter. fine. if a source lied to the fbi like that, i have no problem with prosecuting that person. but then why hasn't michael steele, the author of the steele dossier been prosecuted? this is the two sides of justice. if you're out to get donald trump, you get the green carpet. you can do whatever you want. just walk right down and attack donald trump. on the other side, these

prosecutors especially in blue areas of america are waiting to pounce and the press pounces along with them and paints a very sympathetic portrait. why was that source indicted and michael steele is celebrated by the left? that's the problem i have with justice in america. since donald trump came to office and the democrats have broken the norms. >> martha: jonathan turley, it may come down to a decision at the largest level at the supreme court about whether or not the former president has immunity in some of the federal cases that he faces regarding the elections and january 6 earth. how anxious do you think they are to take that on and to perhaps bring some form -- will they bring some form of equilibrium to these processes? >> well, i think that the former president is going to have difficult sledding on the immunity claim even in front of

the supreme court. the sweeping claims made will not sit well with some of the justices. i think that what the public is beginning to see is the fulfillment of trump's narrative. the democrats have done that. it's like the old joke that i'm not paranoid if people are actually out to get me. well, for a lot of folks are saying, maybe he was right. these split screens of multiple jurisdictions is driving home that message. >> martha: amazing. what fascinating times we live in, right? jonathan, thank you. kerri, thank you. ari, great to see you. continuing coverage of this. that is "the story" for now on this friday. breaking news coverage throughout the afternoon. i'll see you back here tonight on "the five." >> neil: it's a big number a staggering number. it's a