senator dianne feinstein had returned to capitol hill, bringing immigrants back to a full majority in the chamber. a case of shingles left her hospitalized at one point, and kept her in sentences go for nearly three months. the 89-year-old senator last -- in february, and led house democrats to call for her resignation, with her absence holding up judicial nominees. tonight, senate majority leader, chuck schumer, said feinstein is ready to roll up her sleeves and get to work. earlier this year, she announced she would not seek re- election in 2024 but that is it for us. the news continues at prime time with dana bash, starting now. thanks, anderson. good evening, i am dana bash. another unprecedented day in u.s. history. the first of former president to be criminally indicted is now also the first of former president and current presidential candidate to be found liable for sexual abuse and defamation in a civil trial. also tonight, freshman congressman george santos, the

republican from new york infamous for his cascade of lies , was charged by the justice department in a federal program. that news broke right here, on cnn today, by my colleagues, evan perez and mark morale is. we also have new details on what may have been the most important meeting in the world today, to prevent a global financial meltdown and economic doom here at home, as america stairs down the possibility of it first ever debt default. was any progress made? president biden addressed american tonight and we keep congressional players who met with him are talking. but first, the verdict in manhattan, a federal jury found donald trump liable for sexually abusing e. jean carroll in a manhattan department store dressing room in the mid-90s. he owes carroll $5 million for battery and defamation. carroll reacted in a statement saying "today, the world finally knows the truth." trump's response "i have absolutely no idea who this

woman i was photographed with is . this verdict is a disgrace, a continuation of the greatest witchhunt of all time." today's development follows the ex-president's criminal indictment on 34 felony counts in a hush money case. he could potentially face more charges soon in georgia, an election interference probe there still remains in great legal jeopardy with the special counsel ongoing january 6 and pacified document investigations. we are joined now by trump attorney alina happa thanks for joining me. if trump did not sexually assault e. jean carroll, why didn't he testify and tell the journey -- jerry that himself? >> he absolutely testified. what he did not do was burden the state of new york, like he had to do for his arraignment, and cost them $250 million by coming in. he testified under oath, on camera, with the same attorneys that were in the trial, and i was sitting there right next to

him. he "testified" a deposition. what i am taught >> what i'm talking about, of course, is during the actual trial, in front of the jury. back right, and what i am talking about was in front of the jury. will be he played his testimony under oath without earning the jury. as you look at the docket, the judge did not want that burden. he also made clear that he said it would be a burden if he came to the court. we made a decision that his testimony as it stood was fine. you have to remember, when you don't do anything wrong, the testimony will be limited. we don't know the day or the year. so, i did not have much to ask him, frankly. i think it was very clear, we did not know what to say. if someone says you still scissors from me, but you can't say what they are year, we will say, did you sexually assault her? no. the jury said he did not do that. >> the jury also found liable for sexual assault and also for

defaming her. you have said that you were going to appeal this case. what, specifically, do you plan to appeal? >> i did not make that statement. i am sure you are referring to the trial attorney who said that. but as far as the appeal, i think you have to understand something. only in the state of new york could you be found not guilty of tran08 but that you defame to someone when you said you did not rape them. that, in itself, just does not make sense. so, we have a law that was put in place that has a one-year opening for anybody and everybody, and probably for e. jean carroll specifically, to bring a claim against donald trump. so, we are going to appeal a lot of things, the constitutionality, the jury that failed to find a rape verdict but somehow said he was defending her when he said he did not do it, and she is not

his type. suddenly, that is a crime in this country, that is sick. meanwhile, we have hunter biden doing stuff we can't describe. we will see what happens, that anything will, because this is the will be living in. this is not about hunter biden. focus on this case. let's stay focused. this is political, absolute, it is political. if you cannot see that, then you have blinders on, you truly do. >> you mentioned that there is a new law in new york that allowed this case to come forward. that is absolutely true. new york extended the statute of limitations for 20 years for adults filing civil lawsuits and select number of crimes. the point of that law -- and that is inaccurate. they do not offend it 20 years, it is a one-year opening. sorry, that was a misstatement. it is the adult survivors act, a one-year opening for anybody who has ever been rape, to bring a case, no matter what, you have a year to bring it up until a certain point . it is not 20 years -- >> the point -- this law was to allow people who do not

immediately feel comfortable for whatever reason after being assaulted to still have due process. just in theory -- that let me ask you a question, then. back why is that law not change privately? why is it one year, when he is the leading presidential candidate? back in theory -- but one year to do this. back in theory, is this the kind of law that you think should be changed 2 separate from this case for women to have more time to process things that happen to them, assault? >> no! because it is indefensible. you know, there are things called justice. and people have the right to go to courts and go to prisons, and go to, allege, police -- if you were assaulted, if you were raped.

but what you are not allowed to do is say i don't have a year or edit, not sure when it happened, but guess what? i was in bergdorf goodman, but he lived across the street and nobody saw it but now you are 30 years. we can actually tell you when you are because we cannot give you a date or any details, and there were no witnesses. but, hey, i am going to say you raped me. and in 2016 and 19 -- hold on. when she first started in 2019, she did not like him as a candidate. now she will say again, when it 2024 he is the leading candidate. you are not allowed to do that, that is un-american. this is not about rape because, this is about politics. with rape active, it is a sad thing. you have been suggesting , and a big part of the defense, of course, is that this is about politics. to that point, in the trial, you raised concerns of a billionaire who donated to democrats and democratic causes paying for some of the accuser legal fees. my question for you is, how is that different from millions of

political dollars being used to fund donald trump's various lawyers, including more than 2 million, we believe, that you received last year from the save america pack? those are substantial donations. >> yeah, let me answer that. my payments are "not political" they are from a fund donors know what they are funning for. -- hit it, and not only that, there was testimony where this was not brought up, and then it was brought up when i pressed on it. so, the difference is that reporting for how much i make, as you know, and how much i am paid is every quarter, we are up front about it. no, it is not okay. funding anybody that you do not like politically, paying them to sue people, and then having people like george conway convince somebody or persuade them to file a suit, that is the difference. i am glad you asked that question. >> so, you feel completely comfortable with the fact that the money, some of the money

that president trump has used in his defense comes from political donations? you believe that is different from a donation that is given by a political operative or donor on the other side of the aisle? >> a political operative, let me ask you this question. i am glad you brought reid hoffman up. how come you did not cover that he was at jeffrey estes island? was it because he covered it, and that he was trying to raise money for children in the school? >> this has nothing -- you raised -- but no, i did not raise it, you raise his name when you wrote the letter to the judge. i am not going down that rabbit hole with you on this issue. i am to that you are right, i am open focused on the trail", so let's stay focused on the trial. the position i am most proud of that we revealed two -- >> is it your position that all the witnesses in this trial testified on behalf of of e. jean carroll, those who were contemporaneous, those who said

that she told her friends about it in real time, and others who said that they also had experiences with donald trump assaulting them? is it your belief that they are all lying? >> i really do not care what they say, that is not what i was here for. i did not try the case, as you know -- case that she brought, which was reversed. i have lived and breathed this case. i can tell you those people have not brought a claim against donald trump, they "don't have a claim" against donald trump. they came here, again, with 24 around the corner, to try and show something that was true. i don't know what to tell you about that, but they were not the people who had a claim. joe tacopina did a "great " job. mr. not to present, yet i don't have any questions other than one. are you to bring a claim against donald trump?

her answer was no. that is it. we are here to deal with a case against ms. carroll, and you are talking to me as if donald trump was convicted of , when he was actually cleared of it. >> i am not talking -- >> okay, i am not talking to you and if he was convicted of anything. this was a civil trial. this was specifically about a sexual assault today and defamation. before i let you go -- >> right, it was money. back my final question to you is i mentioned that there are 15 women altogether who have alleged that donald trump sexually harassed or assaulted them. are you concerned that more of this -- >>:, are we talking about 2015? >> all told, all told, not that you have received complaints, that have become public. are you concerned that this case -- >> are you talking about 2016? is that the situation we are at right now? >> are you concerned that the

case we saw today, that it may be just the beginning, that other criminal action could be in the future? >> no. no, i think you are concerned that he is going to win, which is why you are bringing up things on the 2016 campaign, because you have "nothing goes with the bring up, and you should be concerned. he is leading in the polls. >> i am a journalist, not concerned about anything, i am asking you, as one of his attorneys, about things that are out there. in addition to what you -- practice 2016, is that we are talking about? >> give me a year. these 15 women, are we talking about 2016, when he was running and did win? >> it is not relevant what you are talking about. beckett is relevant! >> it is relevant. you just asked me -- them? >> i did not say they came from

forward with the claim. i said they have made public statements. i said they have made public space back in 2016! you have nothing for 2024. thank you for your time. i appreciate it. i hope to talk soon, because there will be a lot more to discuss as you go on with your appeal. >> i am sure there will when he wins. thank you. >> let's open it up to our panel, here, for a conversation. laura coates, let me start with you. there is a lot to digest, there. >> yes. number one on the question i am most interested in now, not the politics but the legal case, on the appeal. given what you know about the case. do you believe that there are grounds for appeal? >> i want to first say you have been consistent in your inquiries, based on your journalistic integrity as to why you're asking the question, so i will answer that. i will tell you, when you are talking about the appeals process, one of the most

fundamental things to look at is about what the jury actually received. it is not about what is in the court of public opinion. there is a plethora of information there. but a jury can only hear and decide from what comes in through evidence. the most fundamental aspect of a potential appeal would be testimony given about what is called "prior bad acts" a collection of testimony that suggests, look, this is not about these specific allegations by e. jean carroll, we are trying to buttress because you're an eyewitness, you are saying listen, here, in my experience with this person, it is part of an overall mo, their modus operandi, what they do. what they do is, the allegations their testimony were that he engages in behavior in some of public places and then will later defame by calling you a liar. that was the actual impetus behind getting more testimony in. it is also a really right area where appeals can be actually viable. they suggest, hold on, you have to always engage with the

balancing test meaning it is probative, meaning illuminate an issue, and what is unduly prejudicial. that is a part of this, i think, will be most consequential in appeal. >> i want to bring you in, patrice sultan, you're also an attorney. what do you make of what you heard? and more importantly, what you make of the impact we saw in the new york? >> i think laura framed the legal issues well, those are the rules of evidence that i think will be most relevant to the court of appeals' determination. the impact of what i saw today is in part informed by what else we have seen in this same news cycle. i cannot remember a time we have witnessed the erosion of public trust in all three branches of american government at one time. that is a significant and consequential, to the rules violations by someone who has served in the white house, someone who is serving u.s. congress, and someone who is serving on the u.s. supreme court, all at the same time.

and while criminal prosecution and litigation does not always have a deterrent effect, i think there is an exception when we are talking about such a public abuse of power by all three branches in the same week. >> congressman rowe,? what is your reaction to what we saw? >> i was saddened by the exchange you just had, because what message is that sending to girls across this country? >> everyone here knows it takes extraordinary courage to come forward when someone has been sexually assaulted. most people who have been sexually assaulted never go through it, recently because they do not want the spectacle. then, to have someone attack the jury system, the hallmark of our democracy because it did not come out their way? it sends a chilling effect to girls watching. i hope people recognize the courage of e. jean carroll in coming forward with her story, and recognize that, in this country, we believe in the process. if you disagree, appeal. do not attack the democratic process. >> you are a politician, so you

took the high road and said saddened. i was kind of grossed out by the entire thing. habba, one of the things we know about donald trump, is he has been searching for his roy cohn for a long time. he wants pugnacious, obnoxious lawyers. he got one in this lady. what i think is sort of striking in this -- she was right that this is unavoidably political. you have got the front liner for the republican nomination in all this. but what is interesting to me as a legal matter is that they want to have it both ways. they want to say, look, the jury cleared him of his rape charge. at the same time, they want to say this was a runaway, ideologically obsessed , irrational, and marco rubio said, that jury is ridiculous or whatever. to me, it sort of sounds like they are actually pretty rational and discriminating in

discerning what they were going to say there was evidence for and what there was not worried if they were simply rabid anti- trump people, why wouldn't they throw the rape charge in there? i think that will hurt them on appeal, when they try to overturn the jury verdict on fact , when you cannot actually claim the jury were these rabid, irrational people like they are claiming in the public opinion, because they are not actually doing the worst thing possible for trump. >> i was curious what you thought about this, too. on one hand, first she mentioned that he did "testify". he did not testify in open court in front of the jury, period. he did not. his testimony became all the more important from the deposition, and he did not counter it in a live testimony for the jury to actually here. that's number one. number two, perhaps more importantly, when you think about how all this goes down, they keep talking about how he was cleared of rape. if you actually read the complaint, there were two charges, battery, which is

physical assault. you find it included charges of rape in different degrees, it included sexual abuse, and a lesser crime as well , of misconduct. and he had a defamation suit against him as well. so, the idea that he was solely charged with rape is actually a misinterpretation and a misstatement of what happened. to say that as his defense counsel, i know you have been one, miscible, and criminal context, i know it is a talking point suggest that there was clearance, but that is not what the complaint actually said. that there is no question that these are serious allegations. we have many people serving time in prison for much less serious allegations than the ones in this civil lawsuit. it is something that should be taken seriously. and to your point about testifying light in front of a jury, that is something that is

really important. we want juries to be able to assess the credibility of witnesses, to see them cross- examined live. that has been at the front of the minds of most trial lawyers as we work through this pandemic, and don't have the ability to bring people there in person. >> we have so much new today. there is a lot more to talk about. everybody stay with us. you also stay with us, out in the audience, because ahead, we will talk to a psychologist who testified at the civil trial about her interactions with e. jean carroll. she will be here, plus congressman george santos has been charged by the justice department. he is the gop lawmaker who has been under intense public scrutiny for a litany of prorov lies about his past. we will talk about that next. ♪ things are looking up ♪ ♪ i've got symptom relief ♪ ♪ control of my crohn's means erything to me. ♪ ♪ control ieverything to me. ♪ feel significant symptom relief with skyrizi, including less abdominal pain and fewer bowel movements at 4 weeks. skyrizi is the first and only il-23 inhibitor

for crohn's that can deliver both clinical remission and endoscopic improvement. the majority of people on skyrizi achieved long lasting remission at 1 year. serious allergic reactions and an increased risk of infections or a lower ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms, had a vaccine or plan to. liver problems may occur in crohn's disease. ask your gastroenterologist how you can take control of your crohn's with skyrizi. ♪ ♪ control is everything to me. ♪ learn how abbvie could help you save. asking the right question can greatly impact your future. - are, are you qualified to do this? - what? - especially when it comes to your finances. - are you a certified financial planner™?

- i'm a cfp® professional. - cfp® professionals are committed to acting in your best interest. that's why it's gotta be a cfp®. trying vapes to quit smoking might feel like progress, but with 3x more nicotine than a pack of cigarettes - vapes increase cravings - trapping you in an endless craving loop. nicorette reduces cravings until they're gone for good. directv is a leader in sports. but jeff doesn't have directv, so he's watching baseball at his weird neighbor's house. he's alright...

i love watching the game with you. call 1-800-directv to get a $200 reward card. ♪inspiring music♪ ♪ start your day with nature made. the #1 pharmacist recommended vitamin and supplement brand.

federal prosecutors filing criminal charges against new york congressman george santos, a republican lawmaker who has been the target of numerous investigations for spinning a web of lies. remember, it's that with fabrications within his own biography, falsely claiming that his mother died on 9/11, that he was the grandson of holocaust survivors. we also learned that he lied about where he went to school, where he worked, and that he was not in fact a college volleyball star. but the revolutions soon took a potentially criminal turn. santos has been accused of breaking campaign finance and conflict of interest laws, stealing cash meant for a veterans dying dog, and masterminding a credit card fraud scheme. let's go back to the table. we should say that our reporting is that the justice department acted. we don't know exactly how, we don't know exactly what he is in trouble for, here.

you are his colleague in the house of representatives. at this point, is it just about letting the justice department do its thing? >> sure, but he should have been asked to resign a long time ago by his own party. he is the most famous member of congress, and that should be a shameful fact for all of us in congress. >> you are famous. >> not like george santos, he has become a punchline. in a body that abraham was in, john f. kennedy, george herbert walker bush, we have george santos, and we cannot say he doesn't belong? what are we doing to the body? forget republican or democrat, why do you have someone like that sullying the name of the institution you serve in? >> we know why. because there is a four foot majority that republicans have, and it is a seat that could very well, in a special election, go to democrats, and make it a three vote majority. back there is that aspect, that shamelessness is a superpower. if santos had a sense of

integrity, he would resign. but what you are talking about is why he is not getting expelled. he is not getting expelled because mccarthy's margin is razor thin, and that is a full double seat for democrats to boot. so, it does not speak well of the institution, but there is a long list of things that don't speak well of the institution these days. >> again, we are not sure exactly what the justice department is zeroing in on. but let me bring back the legal accusations, breaking campaign finance laws, violating federal conflict of interest laws. again, this is the one that is most heartbreaking and personal, stealing cash meant for an iraq war veterans dying dog, and the credit card fraud scheme. these are all allegations. your thoughts? >> you know, when we are thinking about our democracy overall, we think about the types of crimes i think the feds would be most interested in. i think those are the ones that would remove some level of

transparency and accountability from one's finance reporting. there is a reason we have these long -- we want to know who might be paying you, are you a marionette, or are you a notable member of congress? that is all very important did not getting ahead of our skis of course, we cannot know everything, but what we do know is the substance surrounding the lack of credibility. and while there are political reasons why he wants to remain there, and your point about the attention economy is well taken, jonah, there is something that will be made about the partisanship of this, about a selective prosecution of a republican, but let's be very clear. taking a step back, this is about our transparency and accountability and likely campaign-finance. those are a nonpartisan issue. >> no matter what the charges are, one thing the court will have to assess early is the risk of danger to public safety

and the risk that someone will flee and evade prosecution. we have to expand our thinking about what dangerousness means, beyond street-level crime, when we have someone who engages in conduct over and over and over again, the propensity to continue engaging in that is something that the court should certainly way. >> stay with us. up! president biden addressed the nation tonight after a crucial meeting with congressional leaders on the debt ceiling. where do things stand now? i know this is going to shock you, but there is a lot of bickering here, in washington. but will there be a deal to keep the nation from defaulting a few weweeks from now? stay with us. at morgan stanley, old school hard work meets bold, new thinking,

♪ to help you see untapped possibilities and relentlessly work with you to make them real. ♪ harry and david makes mother's day easy. share a gift made with love with a mom in your life. choose from hundreds of stunning baskets and towers. it's the perfect way to say thank you for everything. harry and david. life is a gift. share more. [ applause ] the day you get your clearchoice dental implants changes your struggle with missing teeth forever. it changes how you eat, how you feel, and how you enjoy life. it changes your smile and how others smile at you. clearchoice network doctors have changed over 100,000 lives with dental implants, and they can change yours, too. because a clearchoice day changes every day. schedule a free consultation.

tonight, the nation is closer to its first default in

american history. why? because three weeks ago -- he skews me, three weeks ago, before the treasury department's deadline to raise the debt ceiling, there is no progress, it seems, in talks between the president and republicans. now, joe biden and congressional leaders met at the white house this afternoon. republicans want deep spending cuts to raise the debt ceiling. biden says that is not negotiable. >> made it clear during our meeting, default is not an option. smack everybody in this meeting reiterated the positions they are at. i did not see any new movement. >> the united states is not going to default, it never has and it never will. however, elections have consequences. >> there is one group in washington, d.c., extreme maga republicans who have indicated they are willing to take us down the path of default. that is reckless, irresponsible,

and extreme. >> joining me now is republican congressman chip roy of texas, a member of the house freedom caucus. thank you so much for joining me this evening. the first question is your reaction to what you are hearing from the president, from congressional leaders, and maybe even what you heard in the halls as they came back. >> great to be on, dana. this is pretty much what we expected. i did not think there would be the proverbial white smoke rising from the white house, that some grand deal would be struck this afternoon. but it is nice that the president has finally acknowledged he needs to sit down at the table with house republicans. unfortunately, he did not do that for three months, and it took us calling his bluff and sending over what the washington post even described as a responsible effort on our part to send over a debt ceiling increase that has spending cuts that we think put us on a path to fiscal responsibility.

you can debate different provisions in those. we think they are a good faith effort. but the president is sitting back, saying he will not do anything. that is not responsible or acceptable. at least 46 senate republicans have said they will not support cloture and agree with this, so i think the president needs to move. >> to be specific, but the president has said is that he is not going to do anything as it relates to connecting it to raising the debt ceiling. he has said he is willing to discuss spending cuts. you and your fellow house republicans, as you mentioned, have already passed a bill that calls for $4.5 trillion in spending cuts over a decade. how much running room are you willing to give speaker mccarthy to make a deal? >> look, the speaker speaks for all of us. we passed legislation that i think is a responsible effort, like i said before. i am giving him all the rope he needs to go over there, and figure out how to get a deal done for us. but all within the structure that we have passed, that we

have agreed upon. again, we are the ones that have sent something over. we should not be negotiating against ourselves, the president needs to come and sit at the table with a counteroffer. the present clearly wants to send us two years in the 2025. the president wants that, then he has got to make an offer, as they say. we have done our part of the job. i think speaker mccarthy worked with us in a broad cross- section of the conference. we surprised a lot of people in this town and send it over, now the senate and white house need to act. >> and you definitely have your sort of line in the sand when it comes to negotiating. i remember the last time there was this kind of debate, part of the reason why the defense speaker, john weiner, had trouble is he did not have a lot of running room, and he had a bigger majority than speaker mccarthy does now. people in the freedom caucus, like you, your predecessors, i guess, did not want much negotiation. but you are saying that you are okay with him negotiating?

>> of course he can negotiate, right? that is what you do in good faith. but again, your starting position is what we have sent. the president has to respond. speaker mccarthy has not and should not start trading off of what we have already done. we set down at the table, said we would do it we have never really done. the vast majority of us have not voted to raise the debt ceiling. our constituents did not send us to washington to raise the debt ceiling. we sent over cuts that are of this year, mostly in washington. they usually put cuts in future years. it saves 5 trillion over 10 years, 1 trillion in the first year. sure, you can debate some of them, but it is something to put us on the path toward fiscal responsibility. to say that should not be part of the debt ceiling fight conflict with everything the president has ever stood for. he said that as a senator in '84, he said it as a senator in '94. in 2011, he negotiated a deal with the vice president of the united states. he has done in the past. he has got to stop listening to his followed advisers in the white house, and get back to a

joe biden that recognizes you have to sit down with the people who just won the election in the house of representatives. tobacco was asked a couple questions outside the debt ceiling. what should happen to your colleague, george santos, in light of the fact that he is now apparently facing charges from the doj? >> look, i have not looked at those. as you know, i am in the rules committee, and we are also dealing with title 42 expiration on thursday, which will have major impact to the state of texas. i am not posting, i just mean i have literally not looked at the charges, and i'm a former federal prosecutor. also, i give a lot of deference to the people who elected a member, for the body to step in. i think it has got to be significant, we have got to see what it is. we will converse about that here, in the body. obviously, it is always concerning when there is something going on with those kind of investigations, but i also know department of justice is a pretty politicized entity, so i want to look at all the stuff carefully. i want to trust the american people making decisions about who represents them unless they elect democrats. >> finally, present troubles found liable for defamation and sexual assault today.

do you, as someone who endorsed ron desantis, who had not formally announced yet, do you believe that this is something that is inherently disqualifying when it comes to his candidacy, donald trump's? >> look, not to punt, but i have not looked at any of the details. i have been immersed in negotiations all day on the border bill. i hope to get it there within the next 48 hours, it is really important for the people of texas. i was unable to see exactly what happened, just a quick snippet on twitter. i endorsed governor desantis because i am looking forward, i want to carry this country forward in a positive direction he has served for eight years, he won 1,500,000 votes, that was his margin of victory, he won 50% of single female voters, 62% of hispanic voters, he has taken on a corporate establishment, he has taken on the education establishment.

he is a friend, a great family man, a veteran. i am a big fan of governor desantis, i think he is a strong leader. i think the american people will make their own decisions about this. there is a lot of politicization of all of these indictments and proceedings. browne was highly politicized, i have not studied this in the slightest. >> august in chipley, thank you for your time. i appreciate it. >> thank you. >> up next, reaction from one of the witnesses at the civil trial, a clinical psychohologis who testified on behalf of of trump's accuser, e. jean carroll. d go. avoiding triggers, but still get migraine attacks? qulipta™ can help prevent migraine attacks. qulipta gets right to work. keeps attacks away over time. qulipta is a preventive treatme for epodic migraine. most common side effects are nausea, constipation, and tiredness. ask your doctor about qupta.

active psoriatic arthritis can slow me down. now, skyrizi helps me get going. along with clearer skin, skyrizi helps with less joint pain, stiffness, swelling, and fatigue in just four doses a year after two starter doses. serious allergic reactions and an increased risk of infections or a lower ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms had a vaccine, or plan to. ask your doctor about skyrizi to treat your skin and joint symptoms - so you can get going. learn how abbvie could help you save.

the morgan stanley client experience? listening more than talking, and a personalized plan ♪ to guide you through a changing world. ♪

night, for president trump and his supporters are doubling down that today's damning verdict finding him liable for sexual assault and defamation is yet another witchhunt. writer e. jean carroll, however, is calling it a victory, not just for herself , but she says for every woman who has suffered because she was not believed. joining me now is a key witness to provided expert testimony for e. jean carroll on this very matter , dr. leslie level it's, a trauma specialist in and clinical psychologist who evaluated carroll for the case, and testified on her behalf. thank you for joining me this evening. first, your reaction to the verdict. >> it is a fabulous verdict. i think we are all thrilled, it feels like a verdict not only for e jean, but for thousands of other women who have had this experience and wish that they could be validated in this way. >> as i mentioned, you were brought in by carroll 's team to help explain her pain, her

trauma, and why that manifested years later. tell us more about your evaluation and what you found. >> yeah, so, my evaluation was based on a very lengthy interview, a series of interviews that i did. and her pain did not just surface years later. there were aspects of her awareness that surfaced years later, but the pain started soon after the event and was consistent for many years. >> i want to read some of what e. jean carroll was pressed on at the trial, some direct quotes from trump attorney joe tacopina, asking her about the alleged . he said "why didn't you scream? " he said "oh you did not scream while you are being violently raped , because he didn't want to make a scene?" "did you go back the next day to ask for a video, camera

footage?" what did you make of that line of questioning? >> you know, that line of questioning is predicated on some of the oldest sexist myths and misunderstandings that we have. first of all, the overwhelming majority of women do not scream. the overwhelming majority do not report, they do not go back the next day to see if there is video footage, that is simply not what people do, generally. i think it is important to know that when people are terrorized and rendered helpless and stunned by a sudden assault as she was, we often do not do what we imagine we might do. we often do not scream or run or any of the things that, in our fantasies, we thought we might do. instead, we fall back on things that are habitual. for jean, that was fighting, she fought physically hard, but screaming was not a habit for her, and it is not for most women.

>> i know you are aware that trump's defense team tried to question the credibility of your findings, raising the idea that she could have presented symptoms in a certain way to impact your evaluation, or that her trauma could have been the result of another incident. >> yeah, the idea that it was a result of another incident simply did not line up with the data we had. she developed a certain very specific symptoms only after the rape. she did not have those symptoms in the previous 40 years of her life. so, that was not very compelling. they did spend a fair amount of time trying to attack my methods. there were a lot of questions about why didn't i use a certain kind of standardized screening devices. and -- if you really want to understand something about a human being and how something has affected them, you need to talk with them. if you want to understand them at a pretty complete level, you

have to talk to them for a long time. i spoke to e.jean for 22 hours. it was not a quick interview, it was a lengthy interview in which i had the opportunity to circle around her life and dig a little deeper and circle back to things. >> dr. leslie level which, thank you for your time tonight. i really appreciate it. >> thank you for having me. two weeks after fox fired him, right wing haut tucker carlson announced his next move: setting up a big legal war with his former network, that is next .

>> amazingly, as of tonight, there are not many platforms left that allow free speech. the last big one remaining in the world, the only one, is twitter, where we are now. starting soon, we will be bringing a new version of the show we've been doing for the last six and a half years to twitter. >> there are lots of networks that allow free speech. you are watching one of them. that was tucker carlson though, back on the air, in a matter of speaking, just weeks after he and fox parted ways. but he will use a new venture to push his ideals. the question is, what is his legal battle going to look like with his former employer? joining us at the table is axios senior media reporter

sarah fischer. you have some new reporting on the legal battle brewing. >> yes, so, lawyers representing tucker carlson sent a letter to fox executives today saying they have breached his employee contract. and that helps him, because it helps him wiggle out of that noncompete so we could start a competitive venture. and they also said that essentially they broke promises to carlson that they made to him, that would ensure he would be protected. so, they say that they promised that tucker's correspondence when the leaks like his text messages. well, the lawyers are pointing to reporting in a bunch of news outlets about redacted messages that have now been seen by media outlets. he argues that he had been told by a fox sports member, this is carlson, that he was fired as a result of the settlement with dominion. he's arguing that he was promised that would not be the case. fox is denying that is the case. so, we'll see what the legal battle turns out. it's ultimately going to hit on the court. >> jonah, you left fox in part

because of antics of tucker carlson and others. what is your take on what you just heard in his announcement today? >> yeah, i'm also, just different silos, right? i'm a little bit henry kissinger on this, the iran iraq war, -- didn't want to lose. but i think, first of all, i think just as a business proposition, launching a tv show on twitter is cuckoo for cocoa puffs. the whole morrow -- model of twitter is to constantly be scrolling, not have your attention grabbed. and the whole idea of a tv shows to hold their attention for an hour. i just don't see a fit there. i think the negotiations for sort of the air war stuff between them, which is very interesting, feels very much all like positioning for some sort of negotiated settlement. because, i mean, tucker's got a lot of money, i don't want to leave $25 million on the table either. so, they're trying to get some leverage over fox to free in

the way out of this. >> so, there's the legal question, and it is just the social responsibility question of this. jonathan greenblatt, the head of the adl tweeted tucker carlson used his primetime show to spread antisemitic, racist, xenophobic, and anti-lgbtq plus hate to millions. now, he has a new platform to promote his hateful views. you are actually a democrat, a proud progressive democrat, who goes on fox to try to reach that audience. how do you square all of these sort of combatting and competing ideas? >> i do, and i'm a very strong supporter of the first amendment. but here's the thing. you shouldn't be able to do on social media what you can't do here. i can't go and defame someone on the show. you can't defame someone. i can't say things that are going to incite them into violence. it was section 2:30, which is so broad on social media, you can do some those things. and that's why we need a reform of section 2:30. so, if tucker carlson wants to go on twitter and live by the

same rules, that he's not going to incite imminent violence it is not going to defame people, and that's fine. but the problem is the internet is totally unregulated. >> you think there's a chance that congress is actually going to get that done? meaning, regulating the internet, or regulating -- >> pressley, they have to understand it. that would be the first step. >> you say they, you are in congress. but you are one of the few who understand it, who understands it. talk about it from the legal perspective. >> i will be looking to see how twitter will look through in terms of youth and community guidelines. because they are gonna have the same sort of regulatory behavior within the corporate space, that doesn't have to go through the first amendment in terms of not being a government entity. so, looking to see what they will actually be able to honor, what they, may they will accuse them of censoring, what they will remove or allowed to keep their. that's gonna be the next horizon of this particular battle. there's of course the duty not to compete, which i'm sure fox has pretty solely invested in its contracts. but in terms of putting all eggs into the basket of a

corporate entity that does not have to abide by the first amendment purely, and has terms of used to try to remove somebody, including the former president of the united states, i will be curious what they ultimately do. that will work. >> i think elon musk kind of responded to that by saying that tucker carlson is gonna be subject to the same rules as everybody else. and by the way, tucker carlson goes on and gives a huge endorsement of twitter, and elon musk's response is, while, you are subject to the rules as everybody else, and oh, this is an informal agreement. i mean, that's another question. but he's not exactly coming out with a huge endorsement of tucker here. so, that makes me want to hear if tucker is overplaying his hand, think he's gonna get a free pass on twitter. whereas elon musk can use this as an opportunity to say, hey, we actually regulate this thing. >> that's a teaser, or a cliff-hanger, as i say. thanks everybody, great discussion, great to be with you tonight. and ahead on cnn, doctor richard dreyfuss is slamming new diversity rules for the oscars, saying the requirements make him, quote, vomit. alisyn camerota takes up that controversy in much, much more,

next. trying vapes to quit smoking might feel like progress,

but with 3x more nicotine than a pack of cigarettes - vapes increase cravings - trapping you in an endless craving loop. nicorette reduces cravings until they're gone for good. asking the right question can greatly impact your future. - are, are you qualified to do this? - what? - especially when it comes to your finances. - are you a certified financial planner™? - i'm a cfp® professional. - cfp® professionals are committed to acting in your best interest. that's why it's gotta be a cfp®.

>> just in, donald trump says he will appeal the decision from the manhattan federal jury that he sexually abused e. jean carroll in the mid 90s. you can hear more from the former president, right here, tomorrow night, at a cnn republican presidential town hall, anchored by my colleague kaitlan collins, that's 8 pm eastern. thank you so much for joining us. cnn tonight with alisyn camerota starts right now. hey alisyn. >> a, dana, great to see. you thanks so much. great to see you, i'm alisyn camerota. welcome to cnn tonight on a busy and unprecedented news night. a jury in new york found former president donald trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation in that e. jean carroll case. carroll allege that in the spring of 1996, donald trump raped her in a department store dressing room, then defamed her when he denied her