diane feinstein's return to capitol hill, bringing democrats to the majority in the chamber in the case of the shingles that left her hospitalized at one point. qatar and san francisco. last votive brewery. with absence holding up judicial nominees. tonight, senate majority leader chuck schumer says feinstein is quote, ready to roll perceives and to work. earlier this year she announced she would not announce reelection in 2024. that is it, versus cnn news primetime dana bash starts right now. >> thanks anderson, good, evening i'm dana bash. another unprecedented day in u.s. history, the first former president to be criminally indicted is now also the first 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 who new york, infamous for his cascade of lies was charged by the justice in a federal probe. that news broke right here on cnn today.

with my colleagues mark morale us enough impresarios. we have new details on what may have been the most important meeting in the world today. one to prevent global financial meltdown and economic doom here at home, as america stares down the possibility of its first ever debt default. was any progress made? president biden addressed americans tonight and the key congressional players who met with him or talking. but first the verdict in manhattan. the federal jury finding donald trump liable for sexually abusing e. jean carroll in a manhattan department store dressing room in the mid 90s. he owes carol $5 million for battery and defamation. carol reacted in a statement, saying, quote, they the world finally knows the truth. trump's response, quote, i have absolutely no idea who this woman is. this verdict is a distant race, continuation of the greatest witch hunt of all-time. today's development follows the ex presidents criminal indictment on 34 felony counts in a hush money case. he could potentially face more charges soon in georgia, an election interference probe

here and remains in a great legal jeopardy with the special counsel's ongoing january 6th unclassified documents investigation. we are joined now by trump attorney alina how about. thank you so much for joining me. if donald trump didn't sexually assault e. jean carroll, why did he not testify and tell the jury that himself? >> he absolutely testified. what he didn't do was bird in the state of new york like he had to do for his arraignment and cost them 200 and $50 million by coming in. he testified in testified under oath. he testified under camera any dust divide with the same attorneys that were on trial. i was sitting there right nest of right next to him. he testified. >> what i'm talking about, of course, is during the actual trial in front of the jury. right. and what i am talking about is in front of the jury, what we did was we played his testimony under oath without burdening the journey and if you look at the docket, the judge didn't want that burden any also made clear that

he said that it would be a burden if he came to the court. we made a decision that his testimony as it stood was fine and you have to remember when you don't do anything wrong with testimonies going to be very limiting and we don't know the day or the year. so i didn't have much to ask him and i think that was very clear. we did not know what to say if someone told me -- what they are wet year, we will say, okay? did you? no. and the jury said he didn't do that. >> but the jury also found him 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 would you be found not guilty of rape but then you defame someone when you said you didn't wrap them. that in itself just doesn't make sense. so we have a law that was put in place that has a one-year opening for anybody and everybody and probably e. jean carroll specifically to bring a claim against donald trump. we will appeal a lot of things. the constitutionality in the jury that failed to find a rape verdict but then somehow said he was defaming her when he said he didn't do it and she is not my type. all the sudden that is a crime in this country and that is sick. meanwhile we have hunter biden doing god knows what and we are waiting tomorrow to see what happens. i doubt anything will happen because that is the world we are living in. well this is not hunter biden. we will focus on this case. >> yes. but this is political so it is. absolutely. it is political and if you can't see that then you have blinders on you truly do. >>

you mentioned that there is a new law in new york that allow this case to come forward and that is absolutely true new york extended the statute of limitations to 20 years for adults filing civil lawsuits and select numbers of sex crimes. the point of that law that's an accurate. they didn't extend it 20 years it is a one year -- that's a misstatement. it's the adult survivors act. it's a one-year opening for anyone who's ever been raped to bring a rape case. >> but when you are raped you have a year to bring it up until a certain point -- endlessly. there is one year >> the point of changing the law was to allow people who don't immediately feel comfortable, for whatever reason, after being assaulted, to still have due process. just in theory. >> let me ask you a question then. why has that law change often permanent? why is it one year? when he is the leading presidential candidate. in theory, it is -- >> in

theory, is this the kind of law that you think should be changed? separate from this case. for women to have more time to process things that happen to them? assaults. >> no. because it is indefensible. you know, there are things called justice. and people have the right to go to courts and the two prisons and go to police officers and say, i was raped, i was assaulted. that's your right and you should take that right if you were assaulted, if you were raped. but what you are not allowed to do is say, i don't have the year or the day, i am not sure whether it happened and guess what, i was in bergdorf goodman but he lived across the street nobody saw it. now you are 30 years deep and we actually can't tell you when it was because we can't give your daughter any details in there were no witnesses but hey i will say you be raped me and in 2019, hold on, when she first set in 2019 she didn't like him as a candidate, and now she will say it again went in 2024

he is the leading candidate. you're not allowed to do that that is an american. so this isn't about rape dickey dumbs, this is about politics and shame on anybody because the rate victims, it is a sad day. >> you've been suggesting, 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 democratic causes paying for some of the accusers, some of the legal fee is and 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 receive last year from the save

america pact. those are -- donations? >> yeah. let me ask sir that question. my political, my payments are not political, they are from a fund, donors know what they are funding for. we often have not hit. and they have hit. there was also testimony where this was 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 upfront about it. know what is not okay? funding anybody that you don't like politically and paying them to sue people and then having people like george conway convince someone or persuade them to file suit. that's the difference. >> i'm 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, and you believe that that is different from a donation that is given

political donor on the other side of the aisle? >> a political operative. let me ask you this question. i'm glad you brought him up. greg hoffman, that's what you're talking about. how did you not cover that he was on epstein's island? or -- let's talk about it. >> no. no. i didn't raise it. you raised a. you raised his name when you wrote the letter to the judge. >> i am not going down a rabbit hole with you. i am not. i'm focused on the trial. so it's a day focused on the trial. >> let's focus on the trial. but what i'm most proud of his that -- >> is your position that all the witnesses in this trial testified on behalf of e. jean carroll, those who were contemporaneous, those who said she told her friends about it in realtime, and others who said that they

also had experiences donald trump assaulting them? is it your belief that they are all not telling the truth, they're all lying? e >> i really don't care what they say. that is not what i was here for. so i didn't try the case, as you know, but i will tell you this. i have lived this case for the first case that she brought, which was reversed. and i have lived with this case and i can tell you that those people have been brought it came against donald trump. they don't have a claim against him. they came him here to again, with 2024 around the corner, try to show something that wasn't true. so i don't know what to tell you. but they were not the people that had a claim. joe tacopina did a great job, you -- took the stand and he said to her,

and i have any questions other than one. are you here to bring a claim against donald trump? or answer was no. that's it. we are here to deal with the case against miss carroll. and you are talking to me as if he was convicted of rape, which wasn't. he was cleared of it. so, i don't really -- that's not what i was -- okay. >> i'm not talking to you about it, he isn't convicted of anything, he's this is a civil trial. and this was specifically about a sexual assault today and defamation. before i let you go -- >> right. it was money. >> my final question to you is, i mentioned that there are 15 women altogether who have alleged that trump sexually harassed or assaulted them. are you concerned that - - >> are we talking about 2016? well don. well don. i have not and gotten a complete from 15 women. >> all told. that have become public. -- >> are you talking about 2016? is that the -- >> are you concerned that the case that we saw today, that it is maybe 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 2016 things,

because you have nothing to bring up. that is what i think you are concerned about. and you should be concerned. he is leading in the polls. >> okay. i am a journalist, i'm not concerned about anything. i am asking you as one of his attorneys, about things that are out there, and in addition to -- >> since 2016? is that what you are here to talking about? -- 2016, when he was running in almost ran ended when? >> it is not relevant what you are talking about. >> it is relevant. >> no it's not. >> you asked me about 15 women. i don't have 15 women that have come forth a claim. where they? i don't have the. >> i didn't say that they came forward with the claim, except they have made a public statement, i said they made public statements that -- >> okay. thank you for your time. i very much appreciate it. and i hope to

talk soon. because there's a lot more to discuss, as you go on with your appeal. i >> am sure there will be when he went. thank you. let's >> open it up to new our panel here for conversation. laura coats, let me start with you because there is a lot to digest their basically. number one on the question that i think i am most interested in now, not the politics but the legal case, on the appeal. given what you know but the case, do you believe that there are grounds for appeal? >> i want to first say that you have been consistent in your inquiries based on your journalistic integrity, as to why you asking questions. that is why won't 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's a plethora of information there. but a jury can only hear in decide upon what comes in into evidence. the most fundamental aspect of the potential appeal would be testimony given about what is called prior bad acts, how collection of cut testimony this suggests, look, this is not about the specific allegations of e. jean carroll, or trying to buttress because you are not a witness. but because you are saying, listen, here is my experience with this person, it is part of an overall ammo. so it is modus operandi. this is this person's doing. what they do, is, the allegations from their testimony was that he engages in behavior and in the semi public places and then will later to fame by calling you a liar. that was the actual impetus behind getting more testimony in. but it is also the really right area where appeals can be actually viable. this suggests that, hold on,

and you have to always engage in this -- meaning it will help -- issue, and what is in dually prejudicial. that is the part of this that i think will be most consequential in an appeal. >> i want to bring you in, patrice sultan, you are also an attorney here. what did you make of what you heard? and more importantly, the impact of what we saw today in new york. >> well, think laura frame the legal issues very well. those are the rules of evidence that i think will be most relevant to the court of appeals determination. but the impact of what i saw today is in part informed by what else we have seen in this same news cycle. i can't remember a time that a witness erosion of public trust in all three branches of public government, in all at one time and it's consequential to see rules violations by some of us served in the congress and the white house in someone who was serving on the supreme court all the same time. while criminal prosecution and

litigation doesn't always have -- such a public and suction abuse of power by all three branches in the same week. >> congressman ro khanna, what is your reaction to what we saw today? >> i was saddened by the exchange you had. because the message that is sending the girls across america? you know, you and i, it takes extraordinary courage to come forward when someone has been sexually assaulted. most people who have been sexually assaulted never got through it, precisely because they don't want the spectacle. and then to have someone attacked the jury system, the hallmark of our democracy because it didn't come out their way, it sends a chilling effect to the girls watching. i hope people recognize the courage of jean carroll in coming forward with her story and recognize that in this country we believe in the process. if you disagree, appeal. don't attack the democratic process. >> yeah.

who are politicians so you took the high road. i was grossed out by the whole thing. miss hava, one of the things we know about him is that he has been searching for his -- for a long time. he wants pugnacious, obnoxious lawyers who will fight dirty and it seems like he has got one in this lady. i, what i think is striking -- she is right. she was right that this is unavoidably political. there was a front runner for the republican nomination. >> of course. >> what's interesting to me is illegal matters that they want to have it both ways. you want to say that look, the jury cleared him of his rape charge. at the same time they want to say this was a runaway, ideological-y obsessed, irrational, mark rubio said, that jury is ridiculous. whatever. but, to me, sounds like they are actually pre rational and discriminating in discerning about what they were going to say. there was evidence for and what there wasn't. if they were simply rabid anti trump people, why wouldn't they just throw the rape charge in their? i

think that it will hurt them on appeal when they are trying to overturn the jury verdict on fact. when you can't actually clean that the jury where the rabid irrational people, like you are trying to claim. because they're actually not doing things that are -- >> that's a really interesting point. >> i was curious what you thought about this too. on the one hand, first of all, she mentioned 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 when it was in the deposition. and he did not counter it in a live testimony for the jury to actually hear. number one. but number two, perhaps even more importantly when you think about how all of this goes down, they keep talking about that he

was cleared of rape. well, if you actually read the complaint, there were two charges. battery, which is an umbrella term for an offensive touching, which included, actually outlined that it included charges of rape in different degrees, it included sexual abuse and a lesser crime, solace misconduct. and he had a defamation to hit against him as well. the idea that he was solely charged with rape is actually just a misinterpretation and a misstatement of what happened. to say that, as a defense counselor, you have been one as well in the civil and criminal context, i know that it is kind of a talking point to suggest that there was clearance but that is actually what the complaint actually set. >> there's no question these are serious allegations. we have many people serving in prison for much less serious allegations than the ones in this civil lawsuit. that's something that should be taken seriously. to your point about testifying live 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 the front of most travelers minds as we work our way through this pandemic and don't have the ability to have people there in person. >> we have so much news today. we have a lot more to talk about. everybody stay with us. you also stay with us now in the audience. because ahead, we are going to talk to a psychologist who testified at the civil trial but her interactions with e. jean carroll. she is going to be here. plus, congressman george santos. he has been charged by the justice department. he is the gop lawmaker who has been under intense public scrutiny for a

litany of lies about his past. we'll talk about that next. your best defense against erosion and cavities is strong enamel- nothing beats it. new pronamel active shield actively shields the enamel to defend against erosion and cavities. i think that this product is a gamechanger for my patients- it really works. your record label is taking off. but so is your sound engineer. you need to hire. i need indeed. indeed you do. indeed instant match instantly delivers quality candidates

matching your job description. visit indeed.com/hire ♪ at morgan stanley, old school hard work meets bold new thinking. ♪ at 87 years old,

we still see the world with the wonder of new eyes, helping you discover untapped possibilities and relentlessly working with you to make them real. old school grit. new world ideas. morgan stanley. eva's about to learn her fear of missing out leads to overeating. i totally eat stuff to not miss out. and that's just a bit of psychology eva learned from noom weight.

sign up now at noom.com >> federal prosecutors filing criminal charges against george santos, the republican lawmaker. numerous investigations, spreading arab lies. it started off with fabrications in his own biography, falsely claiming his

mother died on 9/11, that he was the grandson of holocaust survivors. we also learned he lied about where he went to school, where he worked. and that he was not, in fact, a college volleyball star. but the realistic revelation soon took a potential criminal turn. sentences been accused of breaking campaign filed nantz and conflict of interest laws dealing -- dying dog and masterminding a credit card fraud scheme. let's go back to the table. we just say that our reporting is that justice department acted. we don't know exactly what. we don't know exactly what he is specifically 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? >> for. but he should have been asked to resign a long time ago from his own party. you know, he's the most famous member of congress. that should be a shameful fact for all of us. >> no. not like george santos. he has become a punchline. in a

body that had a brimley can -- we know have george santos, we can't say he doesn't belong? what are we doing to the body? forget republican or democrat. why do you have someone like that saline the name of the institution you serve than. >> we know why. because there is a four vote majority that republicans have. it is a seat that could very well, and a special election, go to the democrats and make it a three fort mudge already, right? >> yeah. there's the other aspect which is that shamelessness is a superpower, right? i mean, if santos had a sense of integrity, whatever, he would resign. but what you are talking about is why he has not being expelled. he is not going to get expelled because mccarthy's margin is razor-thin. that is a flip-able seat for democrats to move. so

it doesn't speak well of the institution, there's a long list of things that don't speak while the institution these days. >> again, we are not sure exactly what the justice department is zeroing in on, but let me just bring back the legal accusations breaking campaign finance laws, violating the contract flicked of interest laws, again, that is the one that is the most heartbreaking and her son all, stealing cash meant for an iraq for veterans dying dog and then a credit card fraud scheme. these are allegations. your thoughts. >> you know, when we are thinking about our democracy overall we are thinking about the types of crimes, i think, that we would be most interested in. those are the ones that would remove some level of transparency and accountability for -- there's a reason we have these laws and we really encourage, i use that term loosely, encourage transparency that reese. and we want to know who might be paying you, who is your, are you wouldn't marionette or otherwise, are you a credible member of congress? that is all very important. without -- you

don't know everything. but what we do know is that the substance surrounding the lack of credibility and while there is a political reason why he just wants to remain there, in your point about the attention economy is very well taken, jonah, you know, there is something that will be -- partisanship of this, about the selective prosecution of a republican. but let's be very clear, take a step back, this is about more transparency and accountability. and like the campaign finance, and those are a non partisan issue. >> no matter what the charges are, one thing that the court will have to assess early on is the risk of danger to public safety, and the risk that someone will flee and evade prosecution. we have to expand or thinking about what dangerousness means. beyond street level crime, when we have someone who is engaging in conduct over and over and over again that, the propensity to continuing gauging is that something that the court should weigh. >> everybody, stay with us. up next, president biden addressing the nation tonight after a crucial meeting with congressional leaders on the debt ceiling. so, where do things stand right now? there is still, i know this is going to shock you all, there is a

lot of pickering here in washington. but will there be a deal to keep the nation from defaulting a few weeks from now? stay with us. >> tonight the nation is closer - double check that. eh, pretty good! (whistles) yeek. not cryin', are ya? let's tighten that. (fabric ripping) ooh. - wait, wh- wh- what was that? - huh? what, that?

no, don't worry about that. here we go. - asking the right question can greatly impact your future. - are, are you qualified to do this? - what? - especially when it comes to your finances. - yeehaw! - do you have a question? - are you a certified financial planner™? - yes. i'm a cfp® professional. - cfp® professionals are committed to acting in your best interest. that's why it's gotta be a cfp®. find your cfp® professional at letsmakeaplan.org. ♪ (electronic music) ♪ the profound power of light. ♪ ♪ (engine revs) ♪ the energy of light... everywhere. ♪ it just has a lot of control over me. ♪ i dream what i wish existed... and then i install my dream. the new 2023 lincoln corsair with available lincoln bluecruise.

>> tonight the nation is closer to its first to fall in american history. why? because three weeks ago, or three weeks to go, excuse me, 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 in the white house this

afternoon. republicans want deep spending cuts to raise the debt ceiling. biden says that's not negotiable. >> i made it clear during our meeting that default is not an option. >> everybody in this meeting reiterated the positions they had. and in see any new movement. >> the united states is not going to default. and never has and it never will. however, elections have consequences. >> there is one group in washington, d. c., the extreme maga republicans, who have indicated that 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. so, 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 there as they came back? >> yeah. great beyond, dana. look, this is pretty much what we expected. i didn't think there was going to be the proverbial white smoke rising

up from the white house with some grand deal that would be struck this afternoon. but it is nice that the president is finally acknowledging that he needs to sit down on the table with house republicans. but unfortunately, he didn't 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 set over a debt ceiling increase that that has spending cuts that we think put us on a path to fiscal responsibility. you can debate dishes -- good faith effort. but the president is just sitting back saying, i'm not going to do everything. that is not responsible for acceptable. at least 46 republican said they are not going to support closure and agree with us. i think the president needs to move. >> yeah. to be specific, what 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, you have already passed a bill that calls for 4. 5 trillion dollars in spending cuts over a decade. how much running room are you willing to give speaker mccarthy to give a deal? >> look. the speaker speaks for all of us, we passed legislation that is responsible for, like i said before, and i'm getting him all the rope he needs to go over there and get a deal got done for us. but all within the structures of what we passed that we've agreed upon. again, we are the ones who sent something over. he shouldn't be negotiating against us, the president needs to come down and sit at the table with a counter. look the president wants to extend this two years into 2025. if the president wants that he has to come we could offer, both of. we go, our path to hope for speaker mccarthy, it works for us in broad section of the conference, and we's prized a lot of people in this town and centered over or not a senate in the white house need to act. >> yeah. we often utley have your line in the sand when it comes to negotiating. i remember the last time that

this kind of debate, part of the reason why the event speaker, john boehner, had trouble, is because he didn't have a lot of running room. he needed a much bigger majority than speaker mccarthy does now. people in the freedom caucus, like you, you are, 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 would do in good faith. but again, starting position is what we have sent. and the president has to respond. speaker mccarthy has not, and should, not start trading off of what we have already done. i mean, look, we sat down with the tape when we said what we are going to do is what we have never done. the vast majority have not voted to raise the debt ceiling. our constituents didn't send us to washington to raise the debt ceiling. we sent over cuts that are in this year, mostly in washington, they usually -- five trillion over ten years, a trillion on your one. and sure,

we can debate some of them. but it is something that would put us on the path to fiscal responsibility. to say that it should be part of the debt ceiling fight conflicts with everything the president has ever stood, for he said it as a senator and 84, he said it as a senator 94, in 2011 he negotiated the deal with the vice president of the united states. history in the past. he has got to stop listening to his hard left advisers in the white house and get back to the joe biden that recognizes that you have to sit down with people who just won the election in the republican house of representatives. >> i want to ask you a couple of questions outside of the debt ceiling. what should happen to your colleague george santos, in light of the fact that he is

now apparently facing charges about the doj? >> well, look, i haven't looked at those. i've been spending -- i'm in the rules committee and we're also dealing with the title 42 expiration on thursday which is a major impact -- i am a former federal prosecutor, so i want to see what they say. but also, i get a lot of -- people who elected a member for the body to step in. i think it has got to be pretty significant and we have to see what it is. we will have a conversation here in the body. obviously it is always concerning, when there is something going around with some of those investigations. also know that the department of justice is a politicized entity. i wanna look at the stuff pretty carefully. i like to trust the american people, typically they are making the decisions about who are representing them. >> finally, former president trump was found liable for defamation and sexual assault today. do you, someone who i should say, endorses rhonda sent us, wasn't formally announced yet, do you believe that this is something that is inherently disqualifying when it comes to his candidacy, donald trump's? >> well, look, i mean, not to punch, i am not looked at any of the -- all day on the border bell. i hope we will get there in the next 48 hours. this is really important to the pure pool of texas. i've not been

able to see exactly what happened. i saw quick snap it on twitter. but, you know, i endorse governor desantis because i'm looking forward, i want to carry this country forward in a positive direction. you can serve for eight years, he, 1,500,000 votes, that was his margin of victory. he won 50% of single female voters, 62% of -- corporate establishment, he is taking 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's a strong leader. i think the american people will make their own decisions about this, there's a lot of politicization about all this indictment and proceeding, bragg was highly politicized. but i haven't studied this in the slightest bit. congressman chip roy, appreciate it. >> take care. see you, dana. >> up next, reaction from one of the reminisces at the civil trial, clinical second top colleges who testified on behalf of trump's accuser, e. jean carroll. we're talking about cashbackin. not a game. not a game! we're talking about cashbackin. we're talking about cashbackin.

we're not talking about practice? we're talking about cashbackin. we're talking about cashbackin. we're talking about cashbackin. not a game! we've been talking about practice for too long. -word. -no practice. we're talking about cashbackin. we're talking about cashbackin. i mean, we're not talking about a game! cashback like a pro with chase freedom unlimited. how do you cashback? chase. make more of what's yours. julian's about to learn that free food is a personal eating trigger. no, it isn't. (sigh) yes, it is. and that's just a bit of psychology julian learned from noom weight. sign up now at noom.com.

can we even afford this house? maybe jacob can finally get a job. the house whisperer! this house says use realtor.com to see homes in your budget. you're staying in school, jacob! realtor.com. to each their home. introducing astepro allergy. now available without a prescription. astepro is the first and only 24-hour steroid-free spray. while flonase takes hours, astepro starts working in 30 minutes. so you can [ spray, spray ] astepro and go. if you're looking for a medicare supplement insurance plan that's smart now... i'm 65. and really smart later i'm 70-ish. consider an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan from unitedhealthcare. with this type of plan, you'll know upfront about how much your care costs. which makes planning your financial future easier. so call unitedhealthcare today to learn more about the only plans of their kind

with the aarp name. and set yourself and your future self up with an aarp medicare supplement plan from unitedhealthcare. when that car hit my motorcycle, insurance wasn't fair. so i called the barnes firm, it was the best call i could've made. call the barnes firm now, and find out what your case could be worth. ♪ call one eight hundred, eight million

and fini was hit by a carse could band needed help. ♪ call one eight hundred, i called the barnes firm.n that was the best call i could've made. i'm rich barnes. it's hard for people to know how much their accident case is let our injury attorneys know he how much their accident cget the best result possible. tonight, former president trump and his supporters are doubling down that today's damning verdict finding him liable for sexual abuse and defamation is yet another witch hunt. writer e. jean carroll, however, is calling this 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

who provided an expert testimony for e. jean carroll on this very matter, doctor leslie lebowitz is a trauma secretary specialists who testified on her behalf. thank you for joining me this evening. first, your reaction to the verdict. >> it's a fabulous verdict. i think we're all the world. if it is like not only a verdict for e. jean but thousands and thousands of other women, who have had their experiences and wished that they could be invalidated in this way. >> as i mentioned, you are brought in by carroll's team to help explain her pain, her trauma, wide that manifested years later. tell us more about your evaluation and what you found. >> so, my evaluation is based on a very lengthy interview, series of interviews that i did. her pain did not just surfaced years later. there were aspects of her

awareness that surfaced years later, but the pain study soon after the event and was consistent for many years. >> i want to read some of what e. jean carroll heard was pressed on at the trial. some of these are quotes from trump attorney asking her about the alleged rape. why didn't you scream? so you didn't scream all getting violently raped because then you want to make a scene? did you go back the next day to ask for video, camera footage? what did you make of that line of questioning? >> 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 don't scream, don't report, they don't go

back the next day to see if there is video footage. that is typically not what people do in general. i think it's important to note that when people are terrorized and rendered helpless and stunned by a sudden assault as she was, we often don't do what we imagine we might do. we often don't scream or run or do any other things in our fantasies that we thought we might do. instead, we fall back on things that are habitual often. for e. jean, that was fighting. she fought physically hard but screaming was not a habit for her, and is not for most women. >> i know that you're 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 her evaluation or that our trauma could have been a result of another incident. >> yeah, the idea that it was the result of another incident did not line up with the data that we had. she default certain, very specific symptoms only after the rape. she did not have those symptoms previously 40 years in her life.

that was not very compelling. they did spent a fair amount of time trying to attack my methods. there were a lot of questions about why did i not use certain kinds of standardized screening devices? the answer to the, there were a lot of answers to. the more straightforward on is if you want to understand something about a human being and how something as affected them, you need to talk with them, and if you want to talk and understand them a complete level, you have to talk for a long time. i spoke to e. jean for 22 hours. i was not a quick interview. it was a lengthy interview in which i had the opportunity to circle around her life and dig deeper and circle back on things. >> dr. leslie lebowitz, thank you for your time tonight, i really appreciate it. >> thank you for having me. >> two weeks after foxfarm, right wing host tucker carlson announced's next move, setting

up a big legal or with his former network. that is next. t daily for non-drowsy, long lasting relief in a scent-free, gentle mist. (psst psst) flonase. all good.

you founded your kayak company because you love the ocean- not spreadsheets. you need to hire. i need indeed. indeed you do. indeed instant match instantly delivers quality candidates matching your job description. visit indeed.com/hire the morgan stanley client experience? listening more than talking, and a personalized plan ♪ to guide you through a changing world. ♪

as someone living with type 2 diabetes, i want to keep it real and talk about some risks. with type 2 diabetes you have up to 4 times greater risk of stroke, heart attack, or death. even at your a1c goal, you're still at risk ...which if ignored could bring you here... ...may put you in one of those... ...or even worse. too much? that's the point. get real about your risks and do something about it. talk to your health care provider about ways to lower your risk of stroke, heart attack, or death. learn more at getrealaboutdiabetes.com (water splashing) hey, dad... hum... what's the ocean like? ♪ are there animals living underwater? ♪ is the ocean warm? yeah, it can be very warm. ♪ you were made to remember some days forever. we were made to help you find the best way there. ♪

♪ ♪ start your day with nature made. the #1 pharmacist recommended vitamin and supplement brand. >> amazingly, as of tonight, there aren't many platforms left to allow free speech. the last big one remaining in

the world, the only one's 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 to allow free speech. you are watching one of them. that was tougher carlson back on the air, in a matter of speaking, weeks after he and fox parted ways. he will use the 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, axios senior media reporter, sara fischer. you have new reporting on the legal battle brewing. >> yes, lawyers representing tucker carlson sent a letter to fox executives today saying that they had reached his employment contract, which that matters because it ups him to wiggle out of that on compete so that you can start a competitive adventure, and they also said that essentially, they made promises to carlson that would ensure that he would be protected.

they say that they promised dockers correspondents would not be leaked, like his text messages. there are -- lawyers are reporting two reporting and news outlets about reductive matches that have 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 is arguing that he has promised that that would not be the case. fox is denying that is the case. so, we'll see what the legal battle turns out. it will ultimately go to court. >> jonah, you left fox, in part, because of antics of tucker carlson and others. what's your take on what you have just heard and's announcement today? >> yeah, there are different silos, right? i am a little bit henry kissinger on the iran iraq war. first of all, as a business proposition, launching a tv show on twitter is cuckoo for cocoa puffs. the whole model of twitter is the pick constantly scrolling and could not have your attention grabbed. the whole idea of a tv show is to hold the attention for an hour. i don't see a fit there.

i think that the negotiations, the air or stuff between them, which is interesting, feels very much all like positioning for some sort of negotiated settlement because doctors got a lot of money, but he does not want to leave $25 million on the table either. you're trying to get some leverage over fox and figure it way out of this. >> there's the legal question and then the social responsibility question of this. jonathan greenblatt, the head of the adl, tweeted that tucker carlson used his primetime show to spread and f up -- antisemitic, xenophobic and anti lgbtq aid to millions. now, he has a new platform to promote a safe abuse. you're actually a democrat, a proud progressive democrat, who goes on fox, to reach the audience. how do you square all of this trying to come back and competing ideas?

>> i do, and i am a strong supporter of the first amendment. here's the thing, you should be limited on social media where you can do here. i can't go on the show and defame someone. i can say things that would incite violence, but would section 2:30, which is so broad on social media, you can do some dustings. that's why we need a reform of section 2:30. doctor crossing want to go on twitter ended by the same rules that he will not incite amid violence, that he will not defame people, then that is fine. the problem is that the internet is totally unregulated. >> you think there is a chance that congress is actually going to get that done? meaning regulating the internet or -- >> first, they have to understand it. that would have to be a good first step. >> you say they, you are in congress. you're one of the few who understands it. talk about it from a legal perspective. >> i'll be looking to see a

twitter will use community guidance, because you have the same twitter regulatory behavior within the corpus base that does not go through the first amendment, and there's not been a government entity. looking at what they may be able to honor, accused them of sensory, what they will remove and keep their, that will be the next horizon in this particular battle. there is the duty to not compete which, i am sure that fox has solved the invested into its contracts. but in terms of putting all x into the basket of a corporate entity that does not to abide by the first amendment purely and as terms of used to try to remove somebody, including a former president of the u.s., i'll be curious about what they ultimately do. >> i think elon musk responded to the by saying that tucker carlson is going to be subject to the same rules as everybody else. by the way, tucker carlson goes on and gets a huge endorsement of twitter, and elon musk responses that you're subject to the rules as everybody else. >> what are the rules? --

>> that's a another question, but he is not exactly coming out with a huge endorsement of tucker here. that makes me wonder if tucker is overplaying his hand thinking that he will get a free pass on twitter, whereas elon musk and use it as an opportunity to say, hey, we actually regulate this. >> that's a teaser, or a cliff-hanger, as they say. thanks, everybody, good discussion, great to be with you tonight. ahead on cnn, after richard dreyfuss is slamming new diversity rules for the oscars, saying the requirements make him, quote, bomb it. alison camerota takes up that controversy and much more next. let me be direct. some people are paying more than double for teeth straightening with invisalign. and then there's smiledirectclub. you get a smile you love, directed by one of their doctors, with aligners sent directly to you.

so the savings go directly to you sixty percent less than- invisalign and smiledirectclub guarantees your smile for life. your life. choose smile. choose direct. ♪ smiledirectclub ♪ ♪ smiledirectclub ♪ love that song. ♪ ♪ make your dream car...a reality. mercedes-benz certified pre-owned vehicles are rigorously inspected to live up to the highest of expectations.

your best defense against erosion and cavities is strong enamel- nothing beats it. new pronamel active shield actively shields the enamel to defend against erosion and cavities. i think that this product is a gamechanger for my patients- it really works. this is how tosin lost 33 pounds on noom weight. i'm tosin. noom gave her a psychological approach to weight loss. noom has taught me how you think about food has such a... huge impact on your relationship with it. visit noom.com and start your trial today. old school hard work meets bold, new thinking, ♪ to help you see untapped possibilities and relentlessly work with you to make them real.

♪

thanks for joining, us the news continues here on cnn. hello and welcome to our viewer