at the trial for e. jean carroll's defamation tape against donald trump. let me read to you exactly what happened in the court. the judge asked, ms. habba, alina habba, he asked her whether or not she had any other witnesses and she said simply, yes, mr. trump, to which the judge says before he takes the stand, i have a few things to say. msnbc's yasmin vossoughian is outside the courthouse in new york. also with me, former prosecutor, kristy greenberg, and msnbc legal analyst, paul butler. so the judge had a few things to say, what were they? >> reporter: he did. and again, chris, excuse me for doing this, as you're looking down at my phone, so am i because we're getting this straight from adam reese inside the courtroom. i want to read kind of what we're hearing from the judge to make sure we're getting this thing right. and this is exactly, by the way,

before i get into it, this is exactly what we expected to happen before the former president was allowed to testify, whether or not he would be allowed to testify is kind of laying the ground rules, and the judge has said this repeatedly, over and over, that this was already litigated. the former president sexually assaulted e. jean carroll. this cannot be relitigated. let me read some of what you said. the jury unanimously concluded that you sexually assaulted her and his claim that he did not was false and defamatory. there are no do overs a prior action cannot be relitigated. trump sexually abused ms. carroll. and let me talk about the details to which he sexually abused her. i won't talk about that on television. and they said that the statements that were made in 2019 were false. carroll, in fact, did not make up those claims. this is a judge talking here as

well. and he goes on. he's kind of laying out the ground rules to which there would be testimony allowed from the former president. the former president wanted to testify the first time around in a prior trial with e. jean carroll, and he backed out, advised by his attorneys saying he could easily perjure himself on the stand or be found in contempt. the question is whether or not his attorneys are going to advise him the same with the ground rules being laid out. we know how the former president acts in situations like this. he is in the middle of a campaign just winning the new hampshire and the iowa primaries or iowa caucuses, i should say. right? he uses these moments as a campaign stop, kind of painting himself as a victim in this situation. the likelihood the former president of the united states, donald trump, would get on the stand and stick to the rules, as you and i both well know and everybody watching this, it's pretty low. but alina habba is painting the picture. he wants to get on the stand, and he wants to talk about

really his state of mind in making these remarks. when these initial allegations came out by e. jean carroll, and afterwards in her book as well, which has been established by e. jean carroll's attorneys. will alina habba, the president's attorneys agree to the ground rules and will the former president stick to them, and then, by the way, chris, if he doesn't, right, what will happen then. will judge kaplan find him in contempt of court. i'm going to look back down at my phone, keep watching this. talk amongst yourselves. >> we'll come back to you, but habba is pushing back. here's how she's pushing back. you say you want me to tell you what he's going to say. he's going to deny the allegations. he stands by his testimony, he did not make statements, referring to ms. carroll, and had to respond to accusations and deny them. she said that after the judge

said there are no doovers. >> right, so donald trump clearly wants to play the victim card here. he wants to be able to say i was just defending myself. but that's basically all authentic say because he can't, then, make the next statement, which is because she's a liar. because she was politically motivated, because she wanted to sell a book. all of those statements are defamatory, they have been found by the past jury to be false and defamatory and that he knew they were false when he made them. >> can you make an argument, i was just defending myself, and what you were defending yourself against has been shown by a jury to be true. >> so in the opening statement, ms. habba said just this, he was just defending himself. it elicited an objection from carroll's attorney and the judge said i will allow it, but don't go farther than that. so, again, maybe he will be able to say this. is donald trump going to be able to not cross the line here? it's hard to envision him

playing within these ground rules. >> paul, let me ask you about some of the other specifics that she talked about before she challenged the judge. habba says that he can offer admissible testimony on four subjects and i want to go through them. the first one she said, testify to the questions he was asked by reporters, essentially, right, when we were just discussing, can he say what his state of mind was, why he had to respond the way he responded. no, that is not to your mind, admissible testimony. >> this is a trial about damages. the only thing that can testify about that's relevant is how much money he has to pay ms. carroll. he could make arguments that she's exaggerated, the danger that she was in, but he can't make arguments that he did not sexually assault her. the jury has to accept that as a

matter of fact. he can't make arguments he didn't defame her. the jury has to accept that as a matter of fact. >> he would testify that he directed one statement that he met her on a receiving line and testified about the circumstances of his comments on her. and this is a, quote, from habba. >> they presented witnesses that maybe ms. carroll was exaggerating about the danger she was in. maybe she didn't need to call the police or have personal security. that would be appropriate, although, again, we could wonder how would trump have any information about that. as to the merits, again, as muc will shut him down. this is a judge who runs a

super orderly courtroom. trump's spokesperson got kicked out of the courtroom because his cell phone went off. >> there's more back and forth between the judge and habba. he is going to deny the allegations. he did not make statements referring to ms. carroll. judge asks, that's 100% of hat he will say. habba, i can't say what he will say. if you're asked to make a proffer, here's what he's going to say why it's relevant to testify. can you say to a judge, i can't say what he's going to say? >> absolutely not. he's her witness. it's her client. she has to know in a direct examination, the questions she's going to ask him and what he's

going to say in response, particularly where the judge has been mindful making the rulings about what is admissible and what isn't. the fact that she would tell the judge she has no idea what he's going to say is absolutely ludicrous. >> three questions the judge asked, paul butler, tell me the three questions you're going to ask. here are the questions as she said them, i will ask, do you stand by your testimony, do you make the statements in response to her accusations and his state of mind, did you ever instruct anyone to hurt ms. carroll. what do you make of those three questions? >> i don't see how they are relevant to the damages issue that the judge has to decide. they sound like trump trying to deny what the jury has found in the previous case that he did. so, chris, here's the issue, we know in trump's public life, there are two things going on, one is that he's campaigning for president, and the other thing is that he's facing all of these

criminal prosecutions and the civil litigation. so we think of those as separate, but trump seems to regard them as the same. he's incorporated his trials into his campaign. but, again, judge kaplan is not the judge to try that stuff with based on the tight ship that he runs. that is contest between the irresistible force and the unmovable object, but at the end of the day, judge kaplan is in charge. >> you know, vaughn, you have been to, we couldn't even count anymore, how many trump events, how many times you've seen, talked to donald trump in a journalistic setting. i want to pick up on what paul said, he turns his trials into his campaign, it does raise the question, how much of what we're hearing from habba to try to get the judge to allow her to ask the questions, and how much is responsive to what her client

wants to do. >> i had this conversation with alina habba but related to the fraud trial in lower manhattan. in november, when donald trump came ouch the courthouse after testifying and you'll recall judge engoron saying donald trump needed to stop making tangential statements, nontangential statements and suggested that he could be taken out of the courtroom and taken off the stand for not staying on the subject matter. i asked alina habba during lunch that day, did you tell your client to stay on message because the judge in that case said he had no choice but to make negative inferences from donald trump going off the entire basis of what was being discussed and she told me that i would not ever represent a client and tell a client what they can or cannot say. it is up to my client to defend himself how he so chooses to. and i will never tell a client on a witness stand what to say.

fast forward, we find ourselves in january. it's interesting to hear what you're saying, if she would be able to in this situation keep donald trump on message. >> donald trump is on the stand now. the judge has allowed him to take the stand. no, he's not? oh, he's actually speaking. he's not actually taken the oath. but he's speaking. yasmin vossoughian, the judge asked mr. trump, asked actually her, is mr. trump well aware of the strict confines to his testimony. you confirm that. alina habba says, yes, your honor. and then donald trump is allowed to speak, correct? >> reporter: so he wasn't allowed to speak. therein lies part of the confusion and one of the reasons why e. jean carroll's attorneys are apprehensive wanting him to speak, along with judge kaplan as well, he pipes up and speaks over his attorney, alina habba.

i don't know who this woman is and never met this woman. and the judge admonishes the former president. keep your voice down, mr. trump. you're interrupting the proceedings while your counsel is talking. that is not permitted. however, the judge goes on to say, in fact, that the former president will be permitted on the stand and you can ask him if he stands by his previous testimony, and that is it. one thing that i wanted to weigh in on quickly as we're watching this thing take place is the first question habba saying, does he stand by his testimony, the other three questions she wanted to ask, the third being, did you ever instruct anyone to hurt ms. carroll, and this is part of what the defense was trying to establish, the former president was not necessarily involved as to e. jean carroll's life being at risk, threats being leveled against her. his hands were essentially clean. he was saying what he was saying, tweeting what he was tweeting, making the statements that he was making on the campaign trail repeatedly or

while he was in the oval office, however, he was not necessarily instructing anybody. this is the case, by the way, being made by the defense to go after and/or threaten e. jean carroll, hence one of the reasons they would want to ask the third question. judge kaplan, as we're watching this thing go by is saying, well, you can ask one question, do you stand by your deposition. so we're waiting to see if the former president takes the stand, is sworn in and is asked that question. he's able to stick to the confines in which the judge has laid out. >> we're continuing to follow, just so our viewers know, if they're familiar, they know how this works. we have a producer in the room. we are following the notes that they are taking. they do a great job on notes. it's not always a thousand percent clear. let me go back to you, vaughn, though, because habba says she does confirm, your honor, that he is well aware, mr. trump, of the strict confines to his testimony and that's when he pipes up.

i don't know who this woman is. never met this woman. and we can only imagine why the judge had to say, mr. trump, keep your voice down. mr. trump, you are interrupting these proceedings while your counsel is talking. and that is not permitted. clearly whether or not he was allowed to take the stand, he was going to have his say. >> does donald trump care? does donald trump care the number of millions of dollars that he is going to have to pay out to e. jean carroll, he's running for president of the united states. he already has had to pay damages to her one time, and there's frustration that a year ago in the first trial when he was found of sexually abused e. jean carroll, he didn't show up in the courtroom. he did not testify. fast forward a year, he is in there because he believes that he is his best defender, whether it be on the campaign trail, whether it be on behalf of his businesses, he is not going to

leave this up to an attorney at this point yet alone alina habba who was at his campaign event in new hampshire. donald trump overnight, more than 40 posts about e. jean carroll, over the weekend, more than 30 posts on another night, saturday night. donald trump does not care about e. jean carroll, about her reputation. he cares about his view of the american public. for him, he wants to get on to that stand, and clearly alina habba saying donald trump will stick to the confines of what he is supposed to be able to talk about at the same time that donald trump seems to be inside of the courtroom suggesting otherwise. he wants to take the stand. he wants to speak, and he wants to defend his name. >> the jury is coming in. they are being seated, she's going to be allowed to ask a question but i want to go back to her saying she would never tell a client what he can or cannot say because -- your reaction to that visually as i was watching you, was

interesting. >> a judge can tell a witness what he can or cannot say. judge kaplan did that. he ruled there are a host of topics that donald trump is not allowed to testify. not just donald trump, no one in the courtroom because this is just about damages. and so when donald trump just in court minutes ago said i don't know who this woman s never met this woman. that's a defamatory statement found to be knowingly false at the last trial. he's not allowed to make that statement in front of the jury and he just made it before the jury entered so i have no confidence that he is going to actually follow the judge's ruling. as a lawyer, you have to tell your client to follow what the judge says. i agree with vaughn, i think he wants to get up there. i don't think he cares about the damages because i don't think he thinks he's going to pay them. his end game is to win the presidency and all of this is going to go away. which is not how it works, but

that's in his mind what he thinks, and this is about campaigning for him. he's looking at this as an opportunity to make another campaign speech. if the judge does shut him down if he makes statements like that. i expect the judge will. then it allows him to go out and say that the judge is wrong: this is another way i'm being persecuted and can't tell my story. >> the defense calls president donald trump after the jury came in and the judge thanked the jurors for bearing with us ladies and gentlemen. given the interruption, paul, by donald trump, given the fact that the judge seemed unconvinced as you are about the questions she wanted to ask, are you surprised he's allowing this testimony? >> i'm not surprised that the judge is allowing it again with trump. when he loses, there's always an appeal. the judge wants to protect the record. the judge will also be extremely vigilant about what trump says.

it is not like trump can get on the stand and start spouting off. he's got to answer questions and before he answers the question, the plaintiff's lawyer will have the opportunity to object if she thinks that it's not relevant. and, chris, i won't say if trump crosses the line, i'll say when trump crosses the line, judge kaplan can strike his testimony. judge kaplan can order him to step down from the witness stand, and that's actually the nicest thing that judge kaplan could do. judge kaplan could fine trump, bring trump up on criminal contempt of court. charges. >> already, and we're only about a minute into him taking the stand she says do you deny the

allegations. >> he says, i consider it a false accusation, and it's stricken. let's be clear at what's happening in this courtroom at 2:16 on a thursday afternoon, the former president of the united states, the current front runner for the republican nomination for president of the united states is sitting on the witness stand after already being found liable by one jury for $5 million, liable for battery and sexually abusing e. jean carroll. and defaming her. this is about continuing that defamation. the former president of the united states getting on the witness stand and in a matter of a minute, being admonished by the judge. did you ever instruct anyone to hurt ms. carroll is the question been alina habba. >> i just wanted to defend myself, my family, and frankly, the presidency. robert kaplan now has an -- i'm

sorry, roberta kaplan now has an opportunity to cross. asking about the deposition in october of 2022. a month after that, at the trial between you and ms. carroll took place in this courtroom, there was an objection that was sustained. sitting here today, objection sustained. explain, if you can, what that exchange is about, paul. >> this is high drama. this is why kids go to law school. as a law professor, let me say to my student, alina habba is a bad lawyer. don't try this in a courtroom. again, she asks one question, and then it goes to cross, and roberta kaplan, ladies and gentlemen, is a first rate lawyer, and the reason why trump's got to be concerned about images is she's asking for $10 million for the plaintiff,

e. jean carroll, but trump might want to remember what happened to his friend rudy giuliani. in that case where he was being sued by shaye moss and ruby freeman, they asked for a certain amount of money in punitive damages, the jury came back with literally tens of millions of dollars more than the plaintiffs were asking for. trump could be liable for way more than the 10 million in punitive damages and, again, even in this brief moment on the stand, if he comes across as not only unrepentant but defiant, the jury is going to take that into account. >> in total, according to our producer on the scene, the former president of the united states took the stand for just three minutes. again, what do jurors make of this. let me go back to yasmin vossoughian. remind us about this jury, and i should say, the judge said the evidence in this case is

concluded. >> reporter: yeah. >> so who are the jurors that are going to be considering this? >> reporter: all of that anticipation, and three minutes of testimony from the former president. we didn't hear a lot from him. resuming court, by the way, tomorrow morning at 9:30 in the morning for closing arguments, and then the jury will go in for their decision there. one of the things i thought was most important when we were looking at jury selection last week is the way in which they asked questions about the makeup of the jury, what news outlets they listened to: how invested they were in the news, who they voted for in 2016, who they voted for in 2020. how familiar they were with e. jean carroll. how familiar they were with the former president of the united states, if they had an opinion on it. the folks that were more deliberate about their answers, i get my news from msnbc, from "new york times," "washington post," i'm very invested, this is who i voted for. those were the folks that were, for the most part, excused from

this jury pool. the folks that were more vague were the folks that remained within this jury makeup. some folks saying they hadn't been invested in the news in the last year plus. i think that's important when we think about the deliberations this jury will have to go through and making this decision, and why it is these attorneys wanted this jury to be making this decision as well, and so we'll just have to wait. tomorrow, we could have an answer on this, chris tomorrow afternoon, and by the way, i keep saying this, but i think it's important, as we talk about the money factor theory, e. jean carroll looking for $10 million in damages and who knows how much more in punitive damages. just down the road we have the civil fraud case as well, by letitia james, asking for $370 million. if we get a decision on that from judge engoron plus this

from the jury here, the former president could be looking at a payout of 380 million plus dollars if it goes in the wrong direction for him. >> i want to bring in former congressman, david jolly. it occurs to me, so much of what donald trump does, as we have often said, under any other circumstances with any other politician would have been a front page story for days. sometimes there are two and three and four and five of those instances in a single day. vaughn earlier brought up he's having a campaign rally and the lawyer for the trial he is about to go to is standing on the stage, a reminder in a way to all the folks out there who love him, about this kind of grievance he has, that they're out to get him, and then today just that moment, i don't want to act like it's normal.

that moment when a former president of the united states who is being called again to answer for accusations that he has again defamed someone who a jury has already decided he assaulted her. he sexually abused her. that he defamed her, can we just talk about that moment for a minute, david? >> one of great gravity. we're talking about a former president, and someone who could return to the white house. as a nation, how do we distill what we are seeing on a very critical matter of sexual assault. i think politically donald trump has miscalculated this one. it is a very narrow impact politically, but a very important one. and it's this. the entire presidential election in move, should it be donald trump and joe biden will be decided by about 6 to 8% of the country, and it's those 6 or 8% of the country that swayed the

last election against donald trump, the persuadable voters, either soft republicans, independents, democrats, whatever their registration. they are the ones that are persuadable, and something that informs which way that they move is too much trump, too much trumpism, the brashness, e reverence, is a matter of civility and lack of decorum or the misunderstanding of the gravity of a sexual assault case. if donald trump wants to do this in the jack smith case, sure, he might face criminal contempt in that case if he were to do it, but that is one that lands differently with the persuadable voters. that is critical matter that could inform voters simply because it reminds them that donald trump is somebody they don't actually like. and so i think we're seeing, you know, pomposity, the arrogance, a miscalculation by the former

president politically. >> you know, vaughn hillyard is there any, just to talk about the politics of this because he has turned every courtroom appearance that he has made into the media, talk about what he sees as the accusations that are unfairly lobbed against him. is there any indication inside his campaign they're worried about that group that david just talked about, the group that he needs to win a general election. >> not a huge amount of concern. i'll use a reference point is marjorie taylor greene who i talked to in new hampshire, the night before the primary and i asked her about nikki haley and what future she had in the republican party, and she told me that anybody that does not get in line with trump policies

and essentially the maga policies should be eradicating from the party, and she did not see nikki haley having a future in the republican party, and that is based on the premise that they believe there is such a share of the american electorate that is maga or bust, donald trump or bust, and we have proof, especially in several key states over in 2016, but then especially in 2020, where donald trump brought in record numbers of folks. he did receive the largest number of votes of any presidential candidate in history. they are of the belief that a great number of those would sit on the sidelines if it was somebody not named donald trump, and that, yes, he narrowly lost key battleground states in 2020. but this only further invigorates folks that didn't even take part in the process in 2020. the voter turnout nationally was 60 something percent. there are more folks invigorated by unfair political persecution,

the federal election case, whether it be in fulton county, the new york civil fraud trial, they believe they can galvanize such a great number of folks to come to the defense of what donald trump says the final battle for america here in 2024, that they feel they can alienate some of these independents and nikki haley republicans because they have a bastian of support of loyalists that are only growing. that is their belief, and that is why you see donald trump not running away from talking about e. jean carroll. he doesn't run away from talking about the civil fraud trial, and said he makes campaign talking points, talks about them on the stage. he believes they can be used to galvanize greater support, even if they do alienate a segment of republicans or independents. >> let me go back to the jury if i can for a moment, and kristy and paul, i would like your takes on this. first of all, there always is, when there is someone famous, and there are few people,

frankly, as famous as donald trump, and no matter how much news you watch or don't watch, people in the room sitting in the jury box know donald trump. there's always that part of it. they may look at someone famous differently than they may look at an every day person. there's a very fast back and forth. there are objections, there are objections sustained, there's a quick cross-examination. is that just confusing? how does a jury look at what we just saw conclude this trial? >> it looks like alina habba asked two questions, do you deny the questions. donald trump's answer is stricken to that, because he said it was false and he's not allowed to do that. the second question i find interest she asked his answer, did you ever instruct anyone to hurt ms. carroll. he doesn't say yes and he doesn't say no.

he says i just wanted to defend myself, my family, and frankly this presidency. that's the delta. he knows when he makes these statements about e. jean carroll, he knows the influence that he has over his followers. it's similar to january 6th, when he's putting out various messages about let's be wild. the idea that he would have no idea the influence he would have and what would happen, i mean, that's why jack smith has charged him with exploiting those messages, and exploiting the violence that he knew would come. it's very similar here. there are messages to ms. carroll about raping her, he knows the effect of his words. he knows when he keeps saying she's a liar that he's never met her and she's this terrible person, he knows what will follow, and in fact, intends it. that was the argument from e. jean carroll's attorneys at the

opening. he intended for this violence to happen. once it became clear that these tweets were happening, at no point did donald trump say, hey, cut it out. don't threaten her life. don't threaten to rape this woman. he never told his supporters not to do it. like january 6th, didn't tell anybody to stop for hours. so the parallels are similar, and the fact that he did not answer that question, did you ever instruct anyone to hurt her, yes or no, just tells you that he really doesn't want to disclaim his influence from his supporters, because they're actually doing what he wants them to do. >> i want to go back to msnbc legal analyst, lisa rubin, we have been reading from this document. we have been trying to follow what happened inside court but you were actually inside court. tell us what those three minutes were like. >> reporter: the three minutes, i want to take you before the

three minutes because what happened outside the presence of the jury in some respects was just as important as what happened when they got in the room. judge kaplan asked alina habba to make a proffer, an offer by the attorney of what the questions and answers are going to be for the witness. one of things he asked her to do was go through the questions and answers. trump was not satisfied with kaplan's confines on questions and answers. he said very loudly, i never met the woman, i don't know who the woman is. at that point, kaplan admonished him and said, mr. trump, you're interrupting these proceedings and that is not permitted. i'm sorry, chris, i'm looking at my handwritten notes, everyone on our air knows i'm a lefty because i was writing furiously as i can. in terms of the examination itself -- >> can i stop you there for just a second, if i can, because the idea that obviously he's being

told he needs to bring it down a notch, what was the level of tension in the room, what was the energy between donald trump and the judge, help us understand what the scene was like since we didn't see it? >> reporter: incredibly tense and disbelief. i and oer journalists upon whom you and i frequently depend, none of us thought this day would come. the most shock part of it at 2:15 when alina habba stood up and said the defense calls donald john trump. you could have cut the air with a knife because even though the judge only said alina habba could ask three specific questions, none of us knew if trump was going to answer them or whether he was going to go on a diatribe as he has done in prior depositions or in press

conferences or in other opportunities to be interviewed, and in the presence of the jury, donald trump was disciplined for donald trump. but only because lou kaplan did not give him any room. this is where i say to you and our viewers, what a difference a judge makes. the difference between how counsel and donald trump were allowed to behave down the street at 60 summer street and how they comported themselves at pearl, where kristy and i have practiced extensively was dramatic. he knew that lou kaplan would not hesitate to drop the hammer on him. he didn't know what the penalties would be. kaplan left that vague. i can eject you. even though truck driver's people say they're not afraid of this case, there's no question they were on better behavior

because the quantity of punitive damages is extensive and they were invited to consider that by the deposition testimony, especially from the attorney general's case where donald trump is boasting about how many billions of dollars he has. they are rightly scared about the dollar amount, chris. >> one of the questions i get a lot, and i'm sure you do too, and your description about what happened before the jury came in raises that question. and the question i get is this, why doesn't the judge do something? will the judge do something if he does what the judge told him not to do, if he is disruptive. he was disruptive. he did say things that the judge told him not to say, and yet on the other hand, you're saying what a difference a judge makes. for people not used to being in the courtroom -- >> reporter: he didn't get very far. yeah, going. >> for people who aren't used to being in a courtroom, and ask, why didn't the judge do

something, how would you explain that? >> i would say the judge did do something. it's a misunderstanding of these procedures to say the judge did nothing. the judge took a proffer in advance of testimony to go through with donald trump's counsel, very carefully, which questions she could ask. what testimony she intended to, and expected to elicit, and made it very clear if trump deviated from those plans, questions and answers, he was going to shut it down immediately. he did. he instructed the jury, trump's further answers were to be stricken. and trump didn't get more than several words, if not a sentence fragment in. the plaintiffs counsel was immediately on their feet, and i should say it went on both sides. neither side got much in the way of testimony from donald trump. did the jury learn anything they didn't know? if you're watching donald trump every week or paying attention to our political discourse, you know that donald trump is continuing to deny that he ever

met e. jean carroll, that he sexually assaulted her, that he had ever been aware of her at all. you done need to come to this trial to see that. you just need to have been watching the news for some portion of the last four years to be aware of that. overall, i don't think either side accomplished much but the president did get to testify. he walked out and loudly said this is not america, this is not america, this is not america with great passion, almost as if putting on a show for the press that he's not really otherwise allowed to put on. but in front of the jury, none of that was allowed and that is a highly different situation than the speech making and eye rolling and like that he and his team got away with in the new york civil fraud trial that i sat in on. >> let me ask you final apply, obviously if donald trump were your client, you would have vociferously tried to convince him not to take the stand. having said that, if he were

your client, how would you assess the impact of him having taken the stand? >> reporter: i think the jurors were riveted, chris. and i think they saw he's ungovernable, unwilling to stick to the laws of the case and decide it. now, to the extent that anybody doubts e. jean carroll's credibility already issue will donald trump's testimony give them a further hook to hang their hat on. possibly. i don't think if anything it will lead them further in e. jean carroll's direction. they saw this guy can't be tamed. they saw a variety of deposition testimony already where he mistook e. jean carroll for his second wife, marla maples, even though he repeatedly said she wasn't his type. they saw him say a number of things they know to be untrue. judge kaplan told him a jury of

their peers and his found it to be untrue. a member of the trump team told me they think the deposition testimony was helpful because it continues to show that the president is insistent that this never happened and he has a good faith belief in his story. i'm not buying that. whether the jurors do remains to be seen. i want to bring in defamation lawyer, chris matty who successfully argued a case against alex jones. you know what it's like to stand in front of a jury. talk to me about what you think we'll hear in the closing arguments tomorrow. what's the best case either side can make? >> hi, and thanks to lisa for that incredible reporting. i think for ms. carroll's lawyers, their job is to convince the jury that when the most powerful man in the world uses his platform to lie against

and about someone else, the damage is catastrophic and endless. they can't put a stop to it. mr. trump unleashed a lie that continues to this day, and anybody regardless of their status or appetite for publicity would have their life ire revocably changed because of it. after all, that is case about damages, not whether he did it or not. i think for mr. trump's lawyers, what they're likely to do is kind of beat the drum they have been beating all trial, that merchandise carroll likes this, that she likes the attention, that any harm she suffered pales in comparison to the benefit she's received being in the public eye. that argument, depending on who's on the jury may fall very flat, and may be very offensive because it has echoes of blaming the victim of the sexual assault

to begin with. and i feel like although trump's lawyers feel like they have to go down swinging, they may signal despite the judge's instructions that the assault itself didn't take place. i don't think the young is going to have patience for that. they have kind of tried to signal that throughout, and perhaps they're hoping there's somebody on the jury who isn't going to follow the instructions that they're to conclude and assume that it did happen. that's how i see these arguments breaking town. >> in your experience, if they decide that this occurred, and trump once again defamed her, how do juries generally make a decision on a dollar amount? >> it's really hard. they get limited instructions for how to do that. they're essentially supposed to award damages that they believe are fair, just and reasonable.

what does that maintain in any particular case. the plaintiffs have presented one metric to consider and that is the cost that it would take to repair her reputationfter mr. trump had sullied it and they put that number around $12 million,nd that's what they are likely to argue should be the economic damages or the compensatory damages. on punitive damages, it's a much different argument and that's not so much about how do we value what ms. carol has suffered. how do we prevent trump from continuing to do this in the future. what financial penalty is going to be such to deter him, and there the argument that ms. carroll's lawyers are going to make is this guy is completely incorrigible. no matter what he's going to continue to defame her unless you do something so infant, so punitive, that he thinks twice before doing it again.

and that's where i think you could see a number very high. that's i suppose what ms. carroll's lawyers and in truth, what can deter trump. >> lisa rubin, the last thing the judge said to the lawyers, we will resume at 9:30 with closing arguments, and i will instruct you with the law and you will probably have the case after lunch tomorrow. any indication at all whether or not donald trump will be there. >> reporter: no indication at all. i want to bring something else to your attention. earlier this week, judge kaplan amended an order that he had made earlier, a very administrative order about making provisions for the juror's transportation and for their lunches. when he amended that order earlier this week, he changed a single word. i know because i compared them side by side last night. he changed lunches to meals. and that signals judge kaplan knew we might be face ago schedule we're currently up

against, the jury will be instructed before lunch or slightly after lunch tomorrow and will go to deliberate on a friday afternoon. there's nothing that jurors hate more than having to come back on a monday to deliberate where they have been deliberating on a friday. judge kaplan was anticipating the deliberations could go late into the evening as they're doing the math about damages. i expect we should be here or could be here late tomorrow evening. if we are, i will be here for you and our viewers but that's when i'm expecting to happen with or without donald trump. >> it is absolutely true. the weekend is something jurors don't want to give up. having said that, maybe we'll hear later today whether or not donald trump decides, lisa, whether or not he will go tomorrow for closing arguments, would you think -- he may think that he wants to be there to show jury, but what's the likelihood that might have any

impact on the jury if he's in the courtroom, lisa? >> reporter: you know, it's hard to say what kind of impact it is. on one hand, it shows how important it is to him, and might also indicate he's fearful of their verdict. it's hard to know how the jury is reading this. in addition to the fact that the jurors are inscrutable, we have a situation currently where five of the nine jurors by any count were wearing masks today. that's because two of them, as we understood, either were exposed to covid, or had covid. they were socially distanced, seated in the last row, each of them at polar opposite ends of the row, and among the remaining jurors, three of them were wearing masks, all of which is to say it's hard to know what is in the jury's head until the tell you. >> let me show everybody the legal and political calendar as we know it. this is one part of a very complex of legal cases that

are facing donald trump, andow they intersect with the political calendar. today the trial is resuming and will go at least through, we think, tomorrow, and then the nevada caucuses are happening, and then youave the arguments in the supreme court on the colorado ballot case, whether or not he can be kept off the ballot. bruary 24th as we know, just about a mth from now, the south carolina primary. then it moves on toaucuses in idaho, an, missouri, north dakota. 'r moving into march now. then, again, schedules can change. you have the federal ele interference trial scheduled to start the day before super tuesday and then t new york hush mon trial i might mention that the attorys representing trump at the upcoming hush money trial were actually in court watching today. we can talk about that coming

up. david jolly, let me go back to you. there are people who looked at what happened in iowa, which had a very low turnout at the caucuses there. certainly much lower than four years ago, and they said it's a sign of the exhaustion with donald trump. the polls don't suggest, certainly with his base that there's any exhaustion. the polls that are out there in some of the upcoming states, and i'm thinking about south carolina in particular show him ahead by large double digits, but what do you make as you look at of the caution factor that even people who may support him, that the idea of this grievance candidacy might grow old? >> well, i think that's exactly it. you kind of have to look around the edge of the numbers pause to vaughn's earlier point, this is a motivator, the grievance, the victim hood, they're coming after me in court, the judges and the prosecutors are evil. this is a motivator. this is fuel for the base, fuel

for republicans, and even for soft republicans or people who have not voted before. i think the question is what about the 25% of republicans in new hampshire that voted for nikki haley, right? we know that donald trump won about three out of every four republican registered voters. where does the nikki haley voter go? do they all fold back in under donald trump or are some of those voters, republican voters, even the ones that would say, i just can't go this far. here's what i would tell you. anasis on that entire legal calendar is this, i'm not sure any of the legal challenges that he's under inform or affect the vote in november unless there's a criminal conviction. i don't think anything changes the narrative unless there's a criminal conviction. how donald trump plays this can impact him a little bit, his brand. for instance, even for donald trump, shaming a victim of sexual assault is off message in a campaign.

i promise you it is. it is better to just not talk about it. he should have written the $5 million check and shut his mouth. the interesting thing, though, is to see other republican leaders following his narrative. elise stefanik calling e. jean carroll a liar. nikki haley saying she doesn't know about the case. does the republican party want to go into november, denying that a court found donald trump liable and attacking the integrity of a victim of sexual assault. it is really off message, even for donald trump's grievance victim hood brand. >> a couple of news organizations did an analysis of the new hampshire primary. this one's from fox news, 35% of gop primary voters in new hampshire say they will not vote for trump if he is the party's nominee in november. another analysis, now, these are to your point, where would nikki haley's voters go, say by 83%.

83% of nikki haley voters say they would consider trump unfit for office if he is convicted of a crime by election day. what does that tell you? >> so, chris, this is really important. when i said earlier the impact is narrow but an important one, it really is on those persuadable voters whether they are republican registered voters, independents or democrats. now, we have to set aside a moment, the electoral map, you could have a tight popular vote if donald trump wins in the big electoral map. broad brush at h elections work. any major party candidate needs to hold 90% of their candidate. if you start to lose double digits among your own party's voters, you're in a lot of trouble. that's where this comes down. if donald trump and republicans are on message, victim shaming e. jean carroll, what happens to the haley voters and republicans, may i gave him a shot in '16, in '20, i don't

want the guy to come back. the real persuadable 6 to 8% of voters they're just reminded, i don't like this guy, and i don't want him back in the white house. i want to go back to krist y and paul, reminds folks who may be joining us that donald j. trump, former president of the united states, took the stand at the defamation trial against him by e. jean carroll, i'll start with you since you're sitting here, what are you looking for tomorrow, closing statements, closing arguments? >> i think you're going to have trump make a number of points, three points, one is play the victim card himself, say he's just defending himself here and how could you hold him accountable in massive punitive damages for defending himself. that's one argument he'll make. of course he's been attacking her viciously the entire time and the attacks that he is making are what's already been determined to be false and

defamatory. that's one point he'll make. the second point is he will blame the victim. the closing arguments are all going to be about, well, she craves the spotlight, she craves the attention. never mind the fact that he's the one doing all the press conferences. she hasn't done any press during this trial. he's the one bmp the cameras. he's going to say she wasn't harmed. she liked the attention. the third argument is to minimize the harm on her, an argument they made in opening statements, these were mean tweets. they were vile tweets. a number were shown throughout the trial, seeking her to be raped, murdered, really scary stuff, and i don't think this idea that alina habba had about they are mean tweets and the internet can be mean is going to land with the jury. these were vicious tweets. those are the three points i think they will be making on the trump side, and then e. jean

carroll's side, i think they're going to stick to the fact that this is damages. how much would it take to compensate her. they put out an expert to say anywhere between 7 to $12 million to compensate her for the harm to her reputation, and then there's this real question about the punitive damages. they did not say what the amount is that they're seeking. they just said significant. but then they followed that with, this is a guy who claims to be a billionaire. this is a guy who claims to have all of these assets, and they play deposition testimony from mr. trump, saying that in the civil trial. understand that they have the jury knowing that this is really, you know, false defamatory statements he made again and again and again throughout the trial. he did it throughout the trial. >> let me give paul butler, we have a minute left before we have to close, paul, what are you watching for tomorrow? >> this is a time to lament the fact that cameras aren't allowed in federal courtrooms because

representing ms. carroll, one of the best litigators in the country. she's going to give a riveting closing statement, focusing on damages. we talk about gag orders, he has a big megaphone as the former president. he had the biggest megaphone in the world and basically said ms. carroll was lying about being a victim of sexual assault. so imagine the damages if the biggest, most powerful person in the world with the biggest megaphone calls you a liar, and especially says that you're lying about being a victim of a sexual assault. i think the jury is going to hear that, and i think the jury is going to come back with a verdict that might even shock donald trump. >> extremely high drama in a courtroom today, and it will continue tomorrow. i want to thank all of the reporters and expert analysts

joined us for this hour with breaking news coverage. our coverage will continue with "katy tur reports" after the break. he break. by migraine, nurtec odt may help. it's the only medication that can treat a migraine when it strikes and prevent migraine attacks. treat and prevent, all in one. don't take if allergic to nurtec. allergic reactions can occur, even days after using. most common side effects were nausea, indigestion, and stomach pain. relief is possible. talk to a doctor about nurtec odt. power e*trade's easy to-use tools make complex trading less complicated. custom scans help you find new trading opportunities, while an earnings tool helps you plan your trades and stay on top of the market. e*trade from morgan stanley. here's to getting better with age. here's to beating these two every thursday. help fuel today with boost high protein, complete nutrition you need...

...without the stuff you don't. so, here's to now. boost. there's nothing better than a subway series footlong. except when you add on an all new footlong sidekick. we're talking a $2 footlong churro. $3 footlong pretzel and a five dollar footlong cookie. every epic footlong deserves the perfect sidekick. order one with your favorite subway series sub today. (tony hawk) skating for over 45 years has taken a toll on my body. i take qunol turmeric ordbecause it helps favorite with healthy joints and inflammation support. why qunol? it has superior absorption compared to regular turmeric. qunol. the brand i trust.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

here's why you should switch fo to duckduckgo on all your devie duckduckgo comes with a built-n engine like google, but it's pi and doesn't spy on your searchs and duckduckgo lets you browse like chrome, but it blocks cooi and creepy ads that follow youa from google and other companie. and there's no catch. it's fre. we make money from ads, but they don't follow you aroud join the millions of people taking back their privacy by downloading duckduckgo on all your devices today. good to be with you, i'm katy tur. it only took one minute for donald trump to break judge kaplan's rules on what he could and couldn't say on the stand for the e. jean carroll that