I want to go to Ty Cobb now, the former Trump White House lawyer. So Ty, you hear what happened today and the way Andrea described it, that Trump, as the spectator, was sitting there. No one could look at him. He couldn't do anything. He had to sit there all day and listen to Electra and Gap accounting, all to get in front of that camera for those few moments when he came out and say, Well, I should be in Iowa. Now he's going to take the stand on Monday again. This is now going to be again, because he did testify last month. It was nearly four hours that he testified last time. At one point he said, it is a terrible, terrible thing you've done. You believe this political hack back there. And that's unfortunate. So now he goes back on the stand on Monday. How do you think this is going to go, Ty?

Well, first of all, Aaron, I would say nice to be with you. Thanks for having me on. I'm not sure you will testify. I'd say it's still 50-50 because as the lawyer in me says, why put him on? I mean, he's going to be subject to an eviscerating cross-examination, which won't focus on what Trump wants to talk about. It'll focus on every lie that he has told in the 10 years that are relevant under these financial statements. And as we know, I mean, he told several more whoppers on the steps of the court today. There's a lot of material to work with. So I think a talented, skillful prosecutor could cross-examine him in a way that would just eviscerate him. On the other hand, that's the legal, that's the legal stuff. As you all were discussing correctly, this really isn't legal anymore because it's clear that his assets were inflated. It's clear that there are multiple misstatements, misrepresentations and lies on the numbers that were provided. And that's all the statute. The statute doesn't talk about gap accounting. The statute doesn't talk about materiality. The statute just says misrepresentations and omissions, even without a materiality statement.

So that's why the judge was able to rule in advance of trial that Trump was guilty of fraud and subject to penalties. And this is really more about the discouragement, the amount of money that Trump will have to pay. So there is nothing that Trump set on the courthouse steps today that's true other than I'm happy to be here because he had a free microphone, which he wouldn't have had in Iowa or he wouldn't have had in New York.

Well, and then that makes him look like everybody else that's running, right? Which he obviously doesn't want to do because he could have been at the debate. He could be in Iowa there. He purposely seems to avoid where they are. But when you talk about how this all comes down to what the amount of discouragement will be, how much money Trump will have to pay, and, of course, whether he'd be able to do business again in the way he defines it. How significant, how big do you think that number could be, given what you've seen thus far?

Well, she's asked for $250 million. I think the evidence, the most compelling evidence on damages so far was the evidence that came in that suggested that the Trump organization had saved $168 million or received the benefit of $168 million it would not have otherwise been entitled to because of the documents provided. I think $168 million is in evidence. I'm not sure what are additional arguments will be made to enhance that figure. Then the real risk is, of course, the possibility of losing the ability to do business in New York, which, as we know, the Court of appeals today said, they were going to reserve decision on that until they considered the entire appeal, which is the ordinary process and frankly, the way it should be done. It's being treated by Trump, of course, as a giant victory. But really, it's the only way the case could have proceeded.

All right, Ty, thank you.

My pleasure. Great to be with you.