a major update just in on the wrestling mogul vince mcmahon who's just resigned as executive chairman of wwe's parent company tko. this comes amid disturbing new allegations of sexual assault, trafficking, and physical abuse that were made against him in a lawsuit that was filed by a former wwe employee. mcmahon has denied thaallegations and said he's prepared to defend himself in court, but in a statement tonight he said he was resigning, quote, out of respect for the wwe universe. i want to thank you so much for

joining us tonight on this very busy news week. you're going to get some great perspective coming up. laura coates live starts right now. $5 million didn't stop donald trump. will $83.3 million? tonight on a bonus hour of laura coates live. the jury says that donald trump must pay $83.3 million to e. jean carroll for defamatory statements that he made against her in 2019. vastly more than i think anyone even expected, and a huge victory for e. jean carroll. after that verdict sheet was given to the judge before it was actually read, the judge asked the jury foreperson what does the "m" mean? the answer, million.

and that comes on top of $5 million already awarded back in may by the jury that found trump sexually abused carroll and then defamed her in 2022 by disparaging her and denying the allegations. sources telling cnn the former president is livid. obviously. and he's gone on social media also obviously to try to blame, wait for it, president joe biden. and to falsely claim that his first amendment rights were taken away even though the first amendment doesn't actually give him the right to defame. remember just yesterday the judge admonished trump for loudly insisting, quote, i never met the woman and struck his claim that carroll's accusations were, quote, totally false because the earlier jury had already found her accusations to be true. and his antics continued today, getting up and leaving the courtroom in the middle of carroll's attorneys closing argument. and yes, it was a unanimous verdict. the judge warning them.

this tells you a lot about where we are right now in the state of affairs. warning those jurors, quote, my advice is to never disclose that you were on this jury. we have lots to discuss tonight with the former federal prosecutor, also rebecca legrand, a white collar federal criminal defense attorney. sorry for the slip because white house has apparently big issues. when you think about this, first of all, taking a step back. $83.3 million. he was on notice that there was already a trial that confirmed he, in fact, had done what he was acude of doing. he had a chance at that point in time to argue his case. he wanted to do it here instead. as a defense attorney are you surprised they tried to bite the apple again? >> i'm surprised they tried to bite the apple again when the judge had issued multiple orders saying you cannot bite the apple again, which is a well-established legal principle. the judge found at the outset we

are not going to relitigate what i've already determined and what the jury had already determined in the first trial, which was that donald trump sexually assaulted ms. carroll. that had been determined and determined more graphically than that. and so as a defense lawyer, i would follow the judge's order. but that is not the choice that was made here. >> let me ask you i think a lot of people are wondering at this point when it comes to that line between professing innocence, defending, i didn't do it, i don't know her, i didn't accuse what you're accusing me of doing, presumption of innocence and then defamatory statements, when you look at this he's making arguments about the first amendment still to this day. he's claiming he's not able to defend himself, this is all part of a political witch hunt. help me explain this distinction between one's defense in a case and defamatory statements. >> well, i mean in a defamation case you have the right to say -- make a comment about a person's character if you have a

basis, but in this case he called her a liar, and he said other things that just attack the core of her moral compass. so that takes it from first amendment to defamation. you know, one thing i want to say about this is donald trump when he walked into that courtroom, and i can't wait until they have the january 6th trial. when he walked into that courtroom, he realized one thing. i'm the big dog and i cannot control what's going on in this room. and that's what i saw with donald trump. he likes to control things. he likes to be a dictator. and when he was before judge kaplan, he was like an emperor with no clothes. and that drove him absolutely categorically bonkers. and when he walked out during roberta kaplan's closing argument -- >> wasn't that amazing to think about? >> -- that to me he wants to be president of the united states, and he walks out of a courtroom

during the closing argument of roberta kaplan'spressinitation. that doesn't show a person who should be president again. that shows a person who should be in a corner with a dunce cap. >> first of all, let's take aside the presidency. let's talk about strategy for a second. if you're a defendant in a courtroom, and we've all been in trials. we've seen the way that defense attorneys maybe you have as well could have guided the client to dress a certain way, maybe some fake glasses go on, they get cleaned up in different ways, haircuts change, attitude, you're looking at the jury in different ways. you don't have them get up in the middle of a trial and storm out. >> client control is a thing we talk about. and there are clients where that's easier or harder. usually, though, you build a relationship, you build trust and your clients trust you and you i know this is going to be hard but you've got to sit still, not make any faces even though it's hard.

you know you can't control donald trump. i think it's true he couldn't handle sitting still in court listening to someone say something he didn't like. >> listen to what e. jean carroll's lawyer had to say about that moment when he walked out of the courthouse. >> i think it hurt him terribly. i mean our whole case was about the fact that donald trump is unable to follow the law, unable to follow the rulesch he thinks they don't apply to him. and as bad as what he did to e. jean carroll was and the sexual assault was terrible, and as horrifying as the defamation was back in 2019, the most amazing shocking part of it all is that he kept on doing it. >> that's the part i think that is so important, that you frame this entire thing even found sexual abuse but instead of, look, we told you not to say anything, you should not say anything. it's defamatory if you do say things and then you walk out. did that hurt him, you think so? >> in my criminal life when i

was a prosecutor i used to love when a defendant would laugh at me, and i've had defendants laugh at me during trial, during closing arguments, during direct examinations or cross. i used to love that because when a jury sees that, when a jury sees conduct that is unbecoming, a former president of the united states especially, that jury -- that's why they only took less than three hours to find 65m, 65 million. his conduct destroyed him. >> he's been attacking alina habba outside the courthouse, attacking the justice system, attacking a new york jury, talking about this was aforegone conclusion. we know he's a floridian, but that is why she talks it was not going to be a fair shake. this was not part of the trial. what do you make of her attacking the system in.

>> it's her client's m.o., right? every time donald trump uses something he blames everybody else. he's the victim, the court wasn't fair, the election wasn't fair. again and again we see this, but this was a jury of new yorkers from a broad -- they weren't, you know, women from manhattan. it was only two women on the jury. this was a broad group of nine jurors, the second set of nine jurors who unanimously found the same way he's a new yorker. i mean this is a jury of his peers. what is she -- this is fair. this is how our system works. to criticize -- i was pretty horrified to see an attorney stand on the courthouse steps and say the system is corrupt after a jury of nine people unanimously returned a decision. >> you know, when you look at theinable, again, people are almost gob smacked by the number maybe in part because you wonder who's got this kind of money, but you remember who we're talking about here and the break down of compensatory and punitive damages $83 million compared to $5 million last

year. $7.3 for emotional harm, 11 for reputational repair and $65 million for punitive, ala, punishment, the punishment factor here. can that stand? >> oh, the amount of the verdict? >> yeah. >> absolutely. and when donald trump appeals he has to put up a bond, and he has to put up a bond that's equal to $83 million plus interest. so his bond has to be about $95 million before he appeals. and if he loses his appeal, that money all goes to e. jean carroll, and it also will go to her in the first case because he had to put a bond up for that. they will collect the money, it may take time, but in both cases he will have to cough up. >> and it may not be liquid assets, right? this cancan be the collective. >> yes. >> e. jean carroll towers? >> others have said it first. >> thank you both so much. look, the jury has spoken.

in fact, two juries now have spoken. it's not the end of all of this as you can imagine. how will the judge make his final decision? of course an order and then it becomes the law. we'll break it down next.

we're back with more on our huge story tonight. a jury saying that the former president, donald trump, shz pay $83.3 million in damages to e. jean carroll. now, trump's legal team says it plans to immediately appeal this verdict. joining me to break down the damages, cnn legal analyst and criminal defense attorney joey jackson, who i can only imagine whenever you're watching these high profile trials you're thinking to yourself what would i have done differently, what would have been better? and now that you have the outcome, joey, i mean 83 -- was it 18.3 million in compensatory damages. compensatory meaning what, punitive meaning what? >> sure, laura, great to be with you. starting with the compensatory damages a we see there, what happens is compensatory damages are damages designed as they note to compensate you, to put you in the position that you

would have been in absent the harm. here you see the delineation between the emotional and reputational. well, why? because from a reputational perspective, laura, obviously there's a cost involved when someone ipuns your reputation particularly from the bully pulpit, which is the presidency of the united states. how does that impair your reputation? how does it impair your business, how does it impair your ability to deal in the social world we deal with and the revenue that would be associated with that. emotional damage, right, a little more difficult to quantify, but certainly there's psychological and other injuries that really when there's a problem like this, when people are harassing you on social media. boy, do we have a social mead agree with lightening speed that can tell you exactly how they feel about you. >> unsolicited, by the way. >> exactly, right, laura. you can have someone a second letter send tweets and facebook and all kinds of things that

really give your opinion. as it relates to punitive damages, those damages are designed to punish. and that punishment is to let you know that what you did is unacceptable, measuring your conduct and certainly deterring you from engaging in that conduct again, i think the jury was persuaded by the fact you had a defendant in this case, the president who seemed undeterred because he kept repeating, repeating again what the defamatory claims were here. so those are the nature of the damages that the jury imposed today, and boy, were they substantial. >> they are. and again, he was on notice. $5 million last year, a different type of trial, that based more on the underlying allegations to determine, whether in fact, he had sexually abused her. this is about what it would cost him after that factual finding had been determined. but, you know, there's a moment in time from when the jury renders their verdict, gives this amount, and the judge officially signing off on it. so you've got this little window, i'm going to call it a window of opportunity, joey. because if you were on trump's

legal team, what with would you be doing to les then damages by the jury? by the time that sign off goes it's a little bit less. >> you know what, laura? this is great question, but unfortunately that question comes a week too late. i think tonally when you're trying to case yourself and it was only about damages, the defamatory statements, right, defamation statements that impugn your reputation, that ultimately damage you. and that's what defamation is all about. that's what the trial was all about. but i just think tonally, the tone of the defense team was disconnected from reality. and i think it annoyed the jury. at some point you have to be contrite. at some point you have to accept responsibility, perhaps it could have went a different way. you don't storm out of courtrooms in the middle of closing arguments. so the reason i say that, laura, in response to your question is i think a case is just not about after a verdict making arguments before a judge as to the disproportionality of the verdict as to whether it could

have been different as to what happened. i think the start comes right at the start at the beginning. and then at this point perhaps you raise some arguments and other issues, but and just think that they -- the trump team played for that 13th juror, we call it the 13th juror, the people at home the politics the election year, and this is about what happened in a courtroom. and i think that was a missed opportunity. and i think the damages awarded although that were significant certainly have a good chance of standing. >> he's been trying to appeal to that 13th juror for quite some time, even the appearance and decision when to prioritize appearances and when not to do so. you have pundits stomping all the time at camp pain stops, and there will be some moments and they will appeal. they've already said they were going to immediately appeal the verdict. that's not based on fact, though. the factual findings are not going to be appealable unless

there's some judicial error in allowing testimony in or in considering some particular legal argument. but did you hear anything during this trial? again, the damages phase that could lead to overturning today's decision at all? >> yeah, you know, laura, so that's a great point because this is different and unique, this being the trial inasmuch as generally trials about factual determinations. you have a verdict as to those facts which would be defamation, false statements and then you go to the issue once liability is established as to how much it costs. this was just about what the costs were. but i think that's -- you know, that's what a lot of appeals are inside baseball. what the judge allowed you to do, what the judge didn't, motions you made about the judge about evidence that should be introduced and perhaps the judge let in. i think at its core the trump team in addition to all the statements you made his attorney making on the courthouse steps that are in themselves disconnected from reality. that's another segment. but i think that it's going to

be about the reasonability of the particular verdict. was this reasonable? was the actual conduct so egregious as to merit this? was the award disproportionate to ultimately the injury that was suffered. and was it similar or dissimilar to other awards? briefly, laur withdraw, that's a tough question because who gets defamed by the president of the united states? that's a bully pulpit that so many people hear about, right? so the reality is it's hard to measure this case against others. the point i'm making, though, is that they will argue that it's so grossly disproportionate as to shock the conscience and as a result of that it should be diminished. let's see if that carries the day. last point, laura, and that is we know punitive damages really are designed to send a message and to halt, stop the conduct. what would it take to stop a person in trump's position to stop? perhaps that number, right, that was awarded is the appropriate number for this particular circumstance. so that's an argument the trump

team's going to have to overcome for a person standing in his shoes and for a person who has his way. >> that person in those shoes will have a series of microphones and cameras in front of him at many a campaign stop and rally and of course he's got his thumb on all the social media. so we'll see if in fact he's deterred. always great to hear your mind. >> thank you, laura. be well. up next a controversial alabama execution using a tested method is drawing big backlash. now even the white house is weighing into all of it. plus the breaking news in the wrestling world after wwe foumder vince mcmahon was accused of sexual assault.

in order for small businesses to thrive,

they need to be smart, efficient, savvy. making the most of every opportunity. that's why comcast business is introducing the small business bonus. for a limited time you can get up to $1000 prepaid card with qualifying internet. yup, $1000. so switch to business internet from the company with the largest fastest reliable network. give your business a head start in 2024 with this great offer. plus, ask how to get up to $1000 prepaid card with qualifying internet. the white house weighing in on the highly controversial execution of a death row inmate in alabama. saying it's, quote, deeply troubled. now, last night the state executed convicted murderer kenneth smith using nitrogen gas. it was the first that method had ever been used in this country. the u.n. high commissioner over

human rights says it may amount to torture. but alabama officials, they are doubling down. the state's attorney general saying this today. >> as of last night nitrogen hipoxy as means of execution is no longer a test. it's a means of execution. >> but take a listen to a witness of the inmate's execution. >> he appeared conscious for several minutes into the execution. for about two minutes following that shook and writhed for about two minutes on a gurney. that was followed by several minutes of deep breaths on the gurney. following that his breath slowed until it was no longer

perceptible for many witnesses. >> joining me now is the author of "dead man walking" and an anti-death penalty activist for the last three decades. sister, thank you so much for being here today. i mean we have been covering this and the wider issue of what this means constitutionally because as you know, sister, the 8th amendment protects american citizens from cruel and unusual punishment, something we've seen. and everything we've seen so far with this particular case, do you think that kenneth smith's execution was spared from that cruel or unusual punishment? >> no, i believe he did experience torture, which is defined, and we have signed the torture convention -- anti-torture convention, an extreme mental or physical assault on someone rendered defenseless. i've accompanied six executions and they all have the same

nightmare, anticipatory waiting to die, and the might mare is the guard coming to get them when it's their time. people on death row are human beings who are conscious, imaginative beings. and then they are given a date of anticipation and they begin to anticipate it. so now we're looking at the method, which i lay right in the lap of the supreme court of the united states, which is allowing states to experiment with different methods. ever since the pharmaceutical company in europe cut off the drug they had been using, the supreme court allows them to use different methods. try this out, see if this works. so now you have the a.g. of alabama saying, yep, it worked and we're going to use it. you're a he can lying on that gurney so it's always torture, always cruel punishment. >> i've always wondered, sister, i'm so familiar with your work and advocacy. i've always wondered what it is

like. you've worked with death row inmates for decades. and what is it like when you're in these rooms, when you're asked to be a spiritual advisor? what is that process like logistically but emotionally at those times? >> yeah. well, one of the things is i know what my mission is. i know who i am there. and the total focus is on them. and for them to look at my face as it happens because my face is saying to them you are a son of god, you are a human being. and they know i am resisting their death in every way i can. but in terms of costliness, do we often think of the guards and the people who have to carry this out in my name? i tell the story in "dead man walking" of one of it guards on death row that was part of the execution team. after five executions he calls me in the office and he goes,

sister, i have to quit this job. i've known them, i've served them their breakfast, i've got to know them. i know they did a terrible crime. but then when you deal with them and they're defenseless, and you help kill them. and i get in my lazy boy chair and i cent eat and sleep. and i know i helped to kill a defenseless person. >> what is that like for you to hear? what guidance or wisdom do you provide? >> yeah, well, i mean i can just see the costliness, and i was -- we're doing all we can to prevent his death on february 28th in texas, more and more evidence is coming out all the unfair things told at his trial. we're just trying to get a hearing that they can look at the new evidence. it was one of the weirdest experiences of all. i'm with some nice people, i'm with some of the religious advisers, some of the people who, you know, do religion on

death row with people. you can tell they're kind people and they're going have to participate in this. and it's my orientation, what i can do when i'm in the execution chamber. and i've got about five or six different signals. they didn't say we oppose the execution, but signals so we know we're not too unhappy about this. again, it's their job and they're being involved in this system including the warden who participates, who presides over all these executions in texas, who's killed one. third of all the people executed in this country. >> sister, just thinking about making the choice to be the last face that one sees, knowing that the supreme court oftentimes rejects the last minute pleas for a stay of execution, and then balancing that against the families of the victims of the person that had been killed, it

must be overwhelming to think about even those of the deepest faith, even those with the most centered and stable emotional state, it must take its toll. the cost on you must also be great. is it? >> well, we can't look at the cost on me. this thing of balancing with the victim's family, it does nothing to heal a victim's family. and often the death penalty divides a family. some are for it, some are against it. the average weight of a victim's family when someone gets sentence to death at trial until their execution is 17 years. how can people hear in a very public space waiting for somebody to be killed? look at this and we say to them you're going to get to sit and you're going to get to watch as the state kills the one who killed your loved one and watching that killing is going

to heal you, look how bankrupt that is. and there's no balancing the victim's families. the d.a.'s use that to try to justify what they're doing. a person has died, a person has been killed, that is wrong. our role in society is to keep citizens safe, you know, incapacitate the violent person, that's what prisons are for, but not imitate it. i mean you kill a killer like brian stevenson was saying. someone burns down a house, they rape somebody you send a rape squad in every friday night. you imitate the worst possible human behavior. how does that save anybody? we can do better than this, we've got to do better than this. the only way you've got to keep educating the people to say are you sure we need to do this, is this what we need to be doing? and it doesn't stop violence in any way. we really know that. there's no deterrent value in

this at all. >> sister helen prejean, you're asking the right questions. one you've mentioned on february 28th. we will follow that story. and please, don't hesitate to come back. i've learned a lot from you over the years. it has guided many a principle prosecutor, and i appreciate your time. thank you. >> laura, what's going to stop it is us. us getting educated, people like you, people like us keep getting the truth out. thank you. there is breaking news. the founder of wwe vince mcmahon resigning from his role in the company after being accused of sexual assault and trafficking and physical abuse against a former staffer. i'll have more on that in just a moment.

breaking news tonight. vince mcmahon has just resigned from his role as executive chairman of tko, that's the parent company of wwe, the wrestling behemoth that he founded. now, this resignation comes amidst a lawsuit from a former wwe employee that accuses mcmahon of sexual assault and trafficking and physical abuse. now, he is saying, quote, out of respect for the wwe universe, the extraordinary tko business, and its board members and shareholders, partners and constituents and all of the employees and superstars who helped make wwe into the global leader it is today, i have decided to resign from my executive chairmanship and the tko board of directors effective immediately. let's get right to enterprise reporter for "the wall street journal." you were the one to foirs report on the allegations in this case. what more can you tell us

tonight about resignation now? >> so this as you said follows actually like a day after the lawsuit was filed. it was filed just yesterday. so i've covered many stories about misconduct at the workplace, and this lawsuit is among the most serious i've seen in terms of the nature of allegations. it alleges sex trafficking, abuse, and one thing to note was like in the complaint there are text messages between the staffer and vince mcmahon that were reproduced there that back up many portions of of the story. and it describes the classic signs of grooming and abusive relationship and then intensifying sexual demands. and the allegations were very serious. there were sexual assaults in the wwe offices. she's describing mcmahon in one instance defecating on her head. there was him sharing explicit

photos of her with others in the wwe offices. alleging that she was trafficked to others at the workplace, too. >> i mean it -- the allegations are unbelievable to even put one's mind around and think about. i should mention of course a spokesman for mcmahon claimed it's complete with lies and vindictive distortion of the truth. i have to ask given this statement and what you've just described as the allegations, in 2022 he retired from his role at wwe amid, i believe, a special committee investigation into his alleged misconduct while chairman and ceo. but then he returned as a chair of the wwe parent company tko. what can you tell us about that investigation? is at all similar or connected? >> yeah, so it's completely connected because the -- what

happened was grant who's an employee in this instance with this lawsuit she signed a nondisclosure agreement in 2022 in which mcmahon agreed to pay her $3 million to not disclose their relationship. the board got an anonymous tip about that relationship, which prompted that board investigation that he left amid. so now we're finally getting to see in this lawsuit what the nature of those allegations were because at the time it was just we knew that there was a payout and that it was -- there was a relationship. but we didn't know at the time that she viewed the relationship as sexual abuse and sex trafficking. >> why now are we just learning -- there was a nondisclosure agreement i understand. it was tied to an amount of money that was to be paid or supposed to be paid. why are we learning about this now? why has she decided to come forward now with this heart wrenching and disturbing

allegations? >> from the complaint we can find out he made one installment of the payment, $1 million, and then he stopped making payments. the lawsuit actually seeks to the void that nda. and her lawyer we corresponded with she said her allegations coming out is to make sure that other women aren't victimized because we do know of other payments he's made related to sexual misconduct. >> thank you so much for your reporting. it's truly unbelievable. thank you so much for illuminating this, and we'll continue to follow what happens next. i appreciate it. >> thank you for having me. there are six people missing in missouri, and they have been missing for months. and police believe they may have fallen prey to some kind of an online cult led by someone who's claiming to be a prophet. the mother of one of the missing is my guest next.

tonight four adults and two children vanish without a trace from the missouri home that they shared. now, police that they joined some kind of an online cult run by a so-called prophet. 25-year-old michaela wickerson's mother says her daughter ghosted her family, quit her job and maxed out her credit cards before disappearing in august, according to ur our affiliate

ksdk. missouri police believe they're following the teaches of a man named rashad jamal, a self-proclaimed prophet with thousands of followers. he's currently serving a prison sentence in georgia for child molestation and denies being a cult leader. her mother joins me now. thank you so much for being here today. just hearing and learning about what has been going on, i mean i cannot imagine what you've had to endure as a mother waiting to have some word about your family. it has been six months since you last saw or even heard from your daughter. talk to us about when moment you found that she was missing. >> it's just like a nightmare that i'm waiting to wake

i would have never believed that i would be going through this right now and my heart is hurting right now. i just want them to come home, i just want them to know that we love them and i want them to come back home. >> it's heartbreaking, i can hear it in your voice, the pain is so evident in what you are going through, i mean, you say michaela was suffering from depression, she cut off all communication with family before disappearing. can you tell us what your last interaction with her was like? was there any idea of what was to come? >> actually, now that i look back, she was distancing herself before, you know,

isolating, like not answering her phone calls. she was saying that she was going on a spiritual journey and she probably would not be answering our phone calls if we called her and i said well, i respect you are on a spiritual journey but that's a little odd, just to cut us off like that. so, i was doing wellness checks with the police department and cps calls, but at least i knew where she was i would periodically drive down, you know, her street, so that brought me some kind of comfort . i do believe she is suffering from depression. >> neighbors reported seeing

michaela and her housemates meditating outside with their hands up and hugging trees and sometimes standing outside naked in the rain and people are saying that the members of these called, they go to great lengths to be off the grid and not found. why do you think, if you can even imagine, why do you think she would at all want to do this or possibly join this particular cult? >> i believe that she's hurting. i believe she is hurting on the inside and searching for something and so, i believe we are using her. i believe that they know that she was vulnerable and they took advantage of it.

>> well, i am just learning about what has happened and what you are going through. we certainly have to keep following and trying to give you some semblance of peace and i'm grateful for you coming on and expressing and sharing what you've been feeling about your family and your daughter. thank you so much. >> thank you. up next, on the second hour of laura coates live, eight jury ruling that trump must pay more than $83 million for e. jean carroll for defaming her and what does that all mean politically?

not just any whiteboard... ...katie porter's whiteboard is one way she's: [news anchor] ...often seen grilling top executives of banks,

big pharma, even top administration officials. katie porter. never taken corporate pac money - never will. leading the fight to ban congressional stock trading. and the only democrat who opposed wasteful “earmarks” that fund politicians' pet projects. katie porter. focused on your challenges - from lowering housing costs to fighting climate change. shake up the senate - with democrat katie porter. i'm katie porter and i approve this message.

$83.3 million in damages for defaming e. jean carroll, that's a that are pilfered donald trump to swallow or anyone, really, but after he built his political career on the notion that he's