so many people are overweight now, and asking themselves, "why can't i lose weight?" for most, the reason is insulin resistance, and they don't even know they have it. conventional starvation diets don't address insulin resistance. that's why they don't work. now there's release from golo. it naturally helps reverse insulin resistance, stops sugar cravings, and releases stubborn fat all while controlling stress and emotional eating. at last, a diet pill that actually works. go to golo.com to get yours. i'm kristen welker in for hallie jackson this hour. we come on the air, big breaking news. we're expecting a verdict at any moment in the closely watched defamation suit involving johnny depp and his former wife amber heard. the seven person jury reached a verdict after deliberating for

approximately 13 hours. depp is suing heard for $50 million in damages over a 2018 op-ed published in "the washington post" in which heard claims she was a "public figure representing domestic abuse." it's important to know that never mentions johnny depp by name. depp's attorney say that piece indirectly referred to claims heard made against depp during their divorce. depp claims it cost him movie roles. she is counter suing and sought to prove he did physically abuse her. she claims she was only ever violent with depp in self-defense or defense of her younger sisters. jurors have heard 100 hours of testimony. >> you see everyone seated as they prepare to hear the verdict. some of the big names who testified include kate moss, depp's former girlfriend. now a source close to johnny depp says he'll not be in the courtroom.

he had previously scheduled work commitment. joining me now to discuss this and to track this coverage live, nbc's ron allen and we're going to go to the courtroom. they're going to read the verdict any moment now. and as we await the reading of the verdict, we're staring at amber heard looking very serious, very somber there. i do want to bring in ron allen. i also have a legal team here with me. as we try to digest what we are about to hear. so, ron, set the scene. obviously, throngs of fans outside of the courthouse.

a lot of them fans of johnny depp. fans of johnny depp as well. so let's go back into the courtroom. >> whether you find for a defamiliar torre statement, you need to feel out the compensatory damages. it has to be at least a dollar for compensatory damages and up to whatever you feel the damages should be. and for punitive, can you put a zero there or fill that out as well. i need those lines filled out. okay? all right. so if i can have you retire back to the deliberation room and do that for me. okay? >> all right. so we'll be in recess until we hear back from them. don't go too far. >> thank you, your honor. >> all rise.

>> all right. ron allen, it seems like they are still working through reading the verdict. as we wait for the verdict to be read, ron, set the scene outside the courthouse. >> well, there is a problem with the verdict form. it's very, very complicated. this is a case about abuse, about domestic violence allegations and so forth. but it's ultimately about defamation. and to prove defamation, there are very strict and very specific things that you have to prove about the allegations. and, of course, this case also boils down to three statements that amber heard made in a "washington post" op-ed and whether the statements constitute defamation. similarly, depp's attorney constitute defamation.

so all told, there are dozens of decisions, dozens of questions that the jury had to answer, yes or no. is this defamation? is the statement false? also they have to decide whether it is malice. was one party lying about something and knew they were lying about something? and so that complicated the case. and then, of course, there is this question of money. one side asking for $50 million. the other side asking for $100 million. so the jury has a lot of leeway to decide who if either gets what amount of money. so there is a lot of detail. but they decided this case essentially in about 13 hours is what the deliberations lasted. so is that soon? we really don't know. but this point, what is happening is that we can see that there is some security building outside the courthouse. there are a couple of streets are being blocked off. there are some supporters of depp and heard arriving here.

all day there were not that many people around the courthouse because, frankly, johnny depp has not been here for the last number of days. he's been playing concerts over in england. and he hasn't been here. and the crowd has been attracted by him. he's been the one who's been playing to the crowd and that's why so many people have come here. amber heard, of course, we saw her in the courtroom. she is here. she released a statement sort of slapping at depp saying that people go to the place where the things are happening and are most important to them. that's here. she said. so there was that swipe just before the proceedings started. they deliberated for 13 hours. they had a lot of decisions to make. it feels like this is happening relatively quickly. i think most people looking at this feel that the jury has to decide, has to side with one or the other. because essentially if you're saying that you were defamed,

the other person lied. the and you can't believe that both of them were domestic violence abusers, victims of abuse and abusers. so it's almost a do you believe depp or heard? we'll find out what the jury thinks shortly. kristen? >> we certainly will, ron. stay with us as we continue to track this. i want to bring in our other guests now. former federal prosecutor paul butler is here with me on set. the founding partner of pop news, and former federal and white collar criminal defense attorney is also with us. thanks to all of you for being here. i want to start with you, paul. first, just help us understand this technical issue with the jury form. ron just laid it out. but basically what do they need to complete and how long do we expect it to take? >> so on the form is a list where you list damages. how much money a party deserve it's the jury finds that there was in fact defamation.

they apparently didn't fill in that blank. what's really interesting is that they could find entirely for mr. depp, that is, that he was defamed and that he did not get defamed the other party, miss heard or find the same for miss heard or find that neither was defamed or could find that both were defamed. >> what happens if that happens? if the jury determines that both were defamed? >> then they each get damages. but what we do know is that we can eliminate the possibility that neither was defamed. the judge certainly implied that one party at least was found libel and that's the party whose damages are missing. >> what do you make of the fact that they deliberated for 13 hours? less than two days? >> it was a 14-week trial. actually, a six week trial, 13

to 14 hours of jury deliberations. it is short. there were really two trials going on at the same time. there was the suit and the counter suit. and each party took the stand twice. there are no rules when it comes to juries. juries do what they want to do. and it does sound like this jury carefully considered the evidence. they have the holiday break. they didn't deliberate them. but certainly the case was in their mind. it is a little piece. so sometimes juror will will just deliberation room. who do you believe? that sends to be a shorter deliberations. >> i want to delve into the details of the case. let me bring you into this and just get your reaction to what we just heard from paul which is significant. that based on what we just heard from the judge, we can determine that at least one party was deemed to essentially have hurt

the other party. what do you make of that? i believe everyone standing. the judge -- this is not live. this is not live what we're looking at. what do you make of what we heard that at least one side did defame the other side? this in and of itself was a bombshell. we got a lot of information just in that short soliloquy that the judge delivered to the jurors. as paul noted, you know, they wouldn't have to fill out the damages portion of this extremely long and laborous verdict form if they found one of the four options that he reported if they found that they're calling it a wash that neither side was defamed. they found defamation in this trial which in and of itself tells you that, you know, they found -- that's a pretty high standard that one party or the other was lying. and whether or not the question

is that was amber heard that she was perpetrating a hoax that, there was absolutely no violence perpetrated against her in this relationship and that she published this op-ed. that's what it would take. and then on the flip side as well, you know, the allegations against johnny depp come from his lawyers saying that this whole thing was a hoax on amber heard's side. i think that is very interesting information. frankly, you know, not one that i had initially expected. i thought there was a chance there was no defamation at all. >> i want to follow up with you on something you just said which is the standard to meet that bar of defamation. the help us to understand what it would look like. as paul just laid out, i think very clearly and very well, this case was a lot of he said-she

said. there wasn't a lot of hard evidence presented throughout the course of the case. >> absolutely. and to your other point about whether or not this was a long or short deliberation, it actually is quite short. 13 hours given the complex nature of getting lay people to understand the difference and burden of proof. it's difficult for lawyers to understand it. we have two actual dueling burdens in this case. it's a preponderance of the evidence standard. we're all used in the media to talking about criminal cases where the standard is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. it's a lower burden here. preponderance of the evidence, it just means 51%. it is more likely or not that you believe that this happened? there is a heightened standard in defamation of the nature that there has to be clear and convincing evidence. that's yet a different standard that is sort of embedded in in the underlying preponderance of the evidence standard.

and the jurors have to go through each one of those, you know, there are six statements at issue here. and they have to go through the standards with respect to each statement. so i think this is a very quick verdict. and i wouldn't be surprised if, you know, again, going back to what are the options here? i don't think they're going to find defamation on both sides. i think it's clearly one or the other at this point. >> and, paul, given that before i bring in matthew, because i do want to get his take, let me just follow up on this idea of just 13 hours. we don't think it will be defamation on both sides. do you have a sense who have it may have benefited? >> you know, there was another trial with many of the same allegations were aired in 2020, johnny depp sued a london tabloid for basically saying that he was abuser. he lost that case based on the same evidence. there were over 14 allegations of abuse by mr. depp that were

presented. this was a judge trial in london. not a jury. the judge found by a similar standard that the jury here is using that mr. depp was, in fact, an abuser. the jury in this case heard some of the evidence from the london trial. they didn't know about the verdict. >> matthew, let me bring you in. you have been tracking some of the reaction on social media. what is your say away been watch people respond to this? the very visceral reaction. these are two hollywood stars, what is your take away? >> it's been fascinating. brf the trial, the overwhelming sentiment on social media is anti-amber heard. not just pro johnny depp, anti-amber heard and sometimes just brutal about her. people have been cutting up clips on tiktok. people are creating youtube videos.

there is an entire economy now around content that is anti-amber heard. it will be interesting to see if this jury was influenced by any of that. because as we know, it's very difficult in this modern age to avoid social media even if you are trying to. the judge has been very clear admonishing the jury not to dpo do any outside research f you go on instagram to look at pictures of your kid or you go on tiktok before bed to see some funny videos, you may not think you're interacting with the news media, but you're going to be exposed to some johnny depp amber heard material. >> we live in an era where social media becomes another component as we track these trials. i'm going to ask you all to stick around. we're going to go to a quick break and reset. ron allen, paul butler and caroline policy. thank you, we're keeping an eye on that courthouse and bring you details from the courtroom as soon as they come back.

we'll take a quick break. s soon as they combae ck soon as they combae ck we'll take a quick break uh, how come we don't call ourselves bikers anymore? i mean, "riders" is cool, but "bikers"...is really cool. -seriously? -denied. can we go bameeting at the rec center? the commute here is brutal. denied. how do we feel about getting a quote to see if we can save with america's number one motorcycle insurer? should flo stop asking the same question every time? -approved! -[ altered voice ] denied! [ normal voice ] whoa. when it comes to pain medicine, less is more. aleve gives long-lasting freedom from pain, with fewer pills than tylenol. instead of taking pills every 4-6 hours, aleve works up to 12-hours so you can focus on what matters. aleve. less pills. more relief nothing like a weekend in the woods. it's a good choice all around, like screening for colon cancer... when caught in early stages it's more treatable. i'm cologuard. i'm noninvasive... and i detect altered dna in your stool to find 92% of colon cancers...

even in early stages. early stages. yep. it's for people 45 plus at average risk for colon cancer, not high risk. false positive and negative results may occur. ask your provider if cologuard is right for you. we're in.

miss allen over there isn't checking lesson plans. she's getting graded on her green investments with merrill. a-plus. still got it. (whistle blows) your money never stops working for you with merrill, a bank of america company. as a business owner, your bottom line your money never stops working for you with merrill, is always top of mind. so start saving by switching to the mobile service designed for small business: comcast business mobile. flexible data plans mean you can get unlimited data or pay by the gig. all on the most reliable 5g network.

with no line activation fees or term contracts... saving you up to $500 a year. and it's only available to comcast business internet customers. so boost your bottom line by switching today. comcast business. powering possibilities.™ . we're awaiting the verdict in the amber heard-johnny depp defamation trial. the jury took a pause to fill out the jury forms. let's go back to the courtroom. >> -- 2911. mr. depp's claim against miss

heard. one, as to the statement appearing in the online op-ed entitled "amber heard: i spoke up against sexual violence and faced our cultures wrath, that has to change" in the "washington post" online edition. quote, "i spoke up against sexual violence and faced our culture's wrath. that has to change." do you find that mr. depp has proven all the elements of defamation? answer, yes. as mr. depp proven by a greater weight of the evidence that question, the statement was made or published by miss heard? answer? yes. the question, the statement was about mr. depp? answer? yes. question, the statement was false. answer, yes. >> question. . the statement has a defamiliar torre implication about mr. depp? answer?

yes. question, the defamiliar torre implication was designed and ind intended by miss heard. answer? yes. question, due to circumstances surrounding the publication of the statement, it conveyed a implication to someone who saw it other than mr. depp? answer? yes. do you find that mr. depp has proven by clear and convincing evidence that ms. heard acted with actual malice? answer, yes? two, as to the statement appearing in the op-ed entitle a transformtive moment for women in "the washington post" print edition and the online op-ed, amber heard, i spoke up against sexual violence and faced our culture's wrath that has to change. and "the washington post" online edition. quote, then two years ago i

became a public figure representing domestic abuse and i felt the full force of our culture's wrath for women who speak out." do you find that mr. depp has proven all the elements of defamation? answer? yes. as mr. depp proven by a greater weight of the evidence that question, the statement was made or published by miss heard? answer, yes. the question, the statement was about mr. de p pp? answer, yes. question, the statement was false. answer, yes. question, the statement has a defamiliar torre implication about mr. depp? answer, yes. question, the defamatory implication was designed and intended by miss heard? answer, yes. question, due to circumstances surrounding the publication of the statement, it conveyed an

implication to someone who saw it other than mr. depp? answer, yes. do you find that mr. depp has proven by clear and convincing evidence that miss heard acting with actual malice? answer, yes. three. as to the statement appearing in the op-ed entitled a transformtive moment for women in "the washington post" print edition and the online op-ed amber heard, i spoke up against sexual violence and faced our culture's wrath. that has to change, in "the washington post" online edition ", had the rare vantage point of seeing in real time how institutions protect men accused of abuse." do you find that mr. depp has proven all the elements of defamation? answer, yes. has mr. depp proven by a greater

weight of the evidence that question, the statement was made or published by miss heard? answer, yes. question, the statement was about mr. depp? answer, yes. question, the statement was false? answer, yes. question, the statement has a defamatory implication about mr. depp? answer, yes. question, the defamatory implication was designed and continueded by miss heard? answer, yes. question, due to circumstances surrounding the publication of the statement, it conveyed depp? answer, yes. do you find that mr. depp has proven that miss heard acted with actual malice?

answer, yes. as against amber heard, we, the jury, award compensatory damages in the amount of $10 million. as against amber heard, we the jury award punitive damages in the amount of $5 million. in civil case number cl 2019, 2911, miss heard's claim against mr. depp. one, as to the statement appearing in the april 8, 2020 online edition of the daily mail, "amber heard and her friends in the media used fake sexual violence allegations as both a sword and shield depending on their needs. they have selected some of they are sexual violence hoax facts as the sword and inflicting them on the public and mr. depp. do you find that miss heard has

proven all the elements of defamation? answer, no. two in the online edition of the daily mail, quite simply, this was an ambush. a hoax. they set mr. depp up by calling the cops. but the first attempt did not do the trick. the officers came to the pent houses, thoroughly searched and interviewed and left after seeing no damage to face or property. so amber and her friends spilled a little wine and roughed the place up. got their stories straight and under the direction of a lawyer and publicist and then placed a second call to 911." do you find that miss heard has proven all of the elements of defamation? answer, yes. has miss heard proven by a greater weight of the evidence that, question, mr. waldman

acting as an agent for mr. depp made or published the statement? answer, yes. question, the statement was about miss heard. answer, yes. question, the statement was seen by someone other than miss heard? answer, yes. of question, the statement was false? answer, yes. do you find that miss heard has proven by clear and convincing evidence that the statement by waldman was made with actual malice? ? answer, yes. three, as to this statement appearing in the april 27th, 2020, online edition of "the daily mail," "we reached the beginning of the end of miss heard's abuse hoax against johnny depp." do you find that miss heard has proven all the elements of defamation? answer, no.

as against john c.depp, we the jury award compensatory damages in the amount of $2 million. as against john c.dpp, we award damages in the amount of $0. >> does either side wish to have the jury pooled? >> yes, your honor. >> members of the jury, if this is your verdict, please answer yes. if this is not your verdict, please answer no. juror number six? >> yes. >> juror number ten. >> yes. >> juror number 15? >> yes. >> juror number 16? >> yes. >> juror number 22? >> yes. juror number 27? >> yes. >> juror number 29? >> yes. >> okay. i do find that the jury's verdict is unanimous. ladies and gentlemen, this concludes your service in this case. i want to thank you again for your dedication and your hard work during this trial.

i know i speak for everybody here. when i appreciate -- tell you we appreciate your sacrifices and your time and your public service in this matter. okay? so i'm going to you have go back to the jury deliberation room for one more time and then we'll release you from there. okay? all right. thank you. >> and there you just heard the jury finds amber heard libel for defamation against johnny depp. according to the jury, she now owes had him $15. they also found, however, that johnny depp -- here's the judge, let's go back. >> okay. i will set this down for entry of an order. and can we do it on june 24th at 10:00 a.m. if that is available? all right. can you prepare that order. and then circulate it to the

attorneys and we'll have all the objections noted on it. all right. >> thank you very much. >> all right. and if i get brit that date, i'll take it off the docket. okay. again, thank you to all the attorneys for your professionalism and you're welcome to come to my courtroom any time. give me a few weeks. then can you come any time. okay? all right. >> thank you, your honor. >> court is adjourned. >> thank you, you're honor. >> all rise. >> okay, so let's recap what we just heard. a virginia judge just presided over the court proceedings in which a jury determined on wednesday ruled in favor of johnny depp in his libel lawsuit against his ex-wife amber heard. saying that amber heard owes him $15 million in damages. the same jury found that johnny depp did not defame his former wife amber heard in her counter defamation suit. i want to bring in paul butler

into this conversation to help us break down exactly what we just heard. it was complicated. >> it was a complicated trial and now a complicated verdict. sounds like the jury split the baby. so each side was found to have defamed the other. and they each have to pay damages, that is money that the other side didn't make because of this defamation. but, only miss heard has to pay punitive damages, meaning that jury believes that they were both wrong but she was more wrong. >> okay. caroline, help us understand this. what areway hearing? bottom line, the jury determined that amber heard owes johnny depp $15 million in defamation. but that he was not without guilty here as well. how did they split this line here? >> yeah.

bottom line, i'm sort of in shock. it was going pretty smoothly there, landslide johnny depp with frankly he had an uphill battle in this case from the start. and just it seemed like it was going to go all his way. and then the curve ball there right at the end. remember, we're talking about six statements, three from each side. and the jurors found that one of the statements that was issued by johnny depp's lawyer regarding amber heard sort of taking a picture of spilling wine and calling 911 and creating this ruse about what transpired that evening that was false and defamation. you're right. the numbers were such that amber heard is the only one that will be paying johnny depp. however, i have to wonder about the logic of, you know, i just -- as a lawyer, i see appeals coming. the question is the logic here.

how can it be that the jurors unanimously found for johnny depp with respect to the defamation that amber heard claims but then also somehow believe that depp defamed her with respect to this one allegation. so that does give me room for pause. i have to say. but, you know, the overarching theme is in a johnny depp's lawyers just eviscerated amber heard's credibility. and the jury bought it hook, line, and sinker. >> and let's just stay in the courtroom for a moment. mean you saw a very somber amber heard there. she didn't have much much reaction. ron, what is the reaction outside of the courtroom? >> on the outside the courtroom,

outside the courthouse, as the verdicts were read, as each time amber heard was accused, found guilty, essentially of defaming johnny depp, he has been winning this case in the court of public opinion. you can say. on social media and here in the courthouse. there were people with each decision just cheering and let down, deflated when amber heard got a measure of victory in all of this. and that's the way this has gone throughout. we have no idea yet how depp is reacting to. this again, he is in england. he is been doing concerts. his legal team said he is trying to work. these were previous commitments. that's why you couldn't be here. he needs to work. so we haven't heard from him as of yet. here the reaction has been, people are siding for johnny depp. and not for amber heard. and there are a lot of people

who are advocates for victims of domestic violence who are going to be concerned about that. that a number of folks have said how surprising that is in this era of me too in how she didn't get much sympathy at all in social media throughout this thing and whether that will send a chilling message to other victims of domestic violence. who what be hesitant to come forward. there is that to see. but the bottom line is here that people outside the courthouse are satisfied that johnny depp won in their eyes even if amber heard did get some measure of victory in one of they are three claims. >> we're just getting a statement from amber heard. let me read this in real time. the disappointment i feel is beyond words. i'm heart broken that the amount of evidence was not enough to

stand up to the power, influence and sway of my ex-husband. i'm even more disappointed with what this verdict means for other women. it is a setback. it sets back the clock to a time when a whom spoke up and spoke out could be publicly shamed and humiliated. it sets back the idea that violence against women is to be taken seriously. i believe johnny's attorney succeeded in getting the jury to overlook the key issue of freedom of speech and ignore evidence that was so conclusive that we won in the uk. i'm sad i lost this case. but i'm sadder still that i seem to have lost a right i thought i had as an american to speak freely and openly. carolyn, let me bring you into this. your reaction? and ron was making this very point. will this set back the broader me too movement and women who do want to speak out against abuse? >> oh, absolutely. look at this in the broader context, each trial is supposed to be, you know, not knowing

about the larger cultural context that it sits in but without a doubt this will have a massive chilling effect on the me too movement on women speaking out. regardless of who you believe, her statement is true. she points out quite well that he did have an uphill battle. all that he really had to prove in this case was that one instance of potential physical violence of heard throughout the duration of her relationship with johnny depp. and so what his lawyers were able to prove by as they noted eviscerating her credibility on other issues as of note, they were able to convince the jurors that she was lying with respect to every single allegation.

without a doubt this will have reprecushions on cultural moment we are in today. >> just to reset. this jury ruled in favor of johnny depp,warding him $15 million in damages. they also found that on one count that he defamed amber heard as well. and that she should receive $2 million from johnny depp. but, again, johnny depp, as you pointed out, caroline in, this instance seems to have won the bigger ruling. matthew, weigh in here on this broader discussion that we're having about the implications that this could have moving forward. >> i think they will be key. one of the key things here was the fact that the camera was allowed in the courtroom. not just one camera, but multiple cameras which captured reaction shots, testimony, looks around the courtroom, and i think a lot of victims' rights

advocates are going to be upset by that precedent now. that if you make a claim of domestic violence and there is a court proceeding like this, you're not going to have to only testify in public, but you have to do so potentially on camera around the world. on the other side of things, johnny depp brought this case in his words to clear his name. he said it was not about money. he said all he wanted was for children and people around him to know he deposit do these things. and in that case, it's a big vindication for him. he got the money, yes. but he also got a jury to say that she defamed him on three separate counts. >> paul butler, let me give you the final word here and, again, we're getting reaction from amber heard. we're still waiting for reaction from johnny depp. but undoubtedly, you saw his legal team there in the room. they seem to be cheering this verdict, this decision. >> he's going to claim victory.

he's going to say that jury mainly believed him. and, in fact, the evidence was that the jury heard a recording and miss heard admitted to hitting johnny depp. she mocked him. she called him baby. then she wrote a letter saying i'm sorry i hurt you. i can get wicked when i'm hurt. so the reality is that each side had some baggage. she blamed some of her discrepancies on post traumatic stress syndrome from what she said was the result of being hurt by mr. depp. he said it was due to her underlying mental issues. we don't know who the jury believes. again, a compromise verdict. but the fact is that the me too movement never embraced miss heard in the same way that they've embraced some other people who have been survivors of domestic violence. >> is that because this was a he said-she said instance? >> no. there have been other cases. and, again, strong evidence on both sides. i'm not sure what the politics

was. mr. depp is a huge celebrity and parentally popular opinion in the twitter verse supported him. hopefully that didn't make a difference to the jury. >> yeah. the. >> that is a point that ammal better heard makes as well. appreciate you all helping us to break down this verdict that we heard of this trial that has really captured much of the country's attention. thank you so much, ron allen, paul butler, matthew bologna, caroline policy. thank you. really appreciate your insites and analysis. and coming up, the major concession from the treasury secretary. what she admits she got wrong about rising prices and how long they would last. we'll talk about it with her deputy live from the white house. that's next. deputy live from the white house. that's next.

nice and quiet. hey, look! it's your mom! hot dog? ♪ sweet ♪ ♪ emotion ♪ ♪ sweet emotion ♪ ♪♪ ♪ i pulled into town in a police car ♪ ♪♪ ♪your daddy said i took it just a little too far♪ now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood. moderate to severe eczema still disrupts my skin. despite treatment it disrupts my skin with itch. it disrupts my skin with rash. but now, i can disrupt eczema with rinvoq. rinvoq is not a steroid, topical, or injection. it's one pill, once a day,

that's effective without topical steroids. many taking rinvoq saw clear or almost-clear skin while some saw up to 100% clear skin. plus, they felt fast itch relief some as early as 1 week. that's rinvoq relief. rinvoq can lower your ability to fight infections, including tb. serious infections and blood clots, some fatal, cancers including lymphoma and skin cancer, death, heart attack, stroke, and tears in the stomach or intestines occurred. people 50 and older with at least one heart disease risk factor have higher risks. don't take if allergic to rinvoq, as serious reactions can occur. tell your doctor if you are or may become pregnant. disrupt the itch and rash of eczema. talk to your eczema specialist about rinvoq. learn how abbvie can help you save. miss allen over there isn't checking lesson plans. she's getting graded on her green investments with merrill. a-plus. still got it. (whistle blows) your money never stops working for you with merrill, a bank of america company. age-related macular degeneration may lead to severe vision loss.

and if you're taking a multivitamin alone, you may be missing a critical piece. preservision. preservision areds 2 contains the only clinically proven nutrient formula recommended by the national eye institute to help reduce the risk of moderate to advanced amd progression. "preservision is backed by 20 years of clinical studies" "and its from the eye experts at bausch and lomb" so, ask your doctor about adding preservision. and fill in a missing piece of your plan. like i did with preservision" mamá, growing up... you were so good to me. you worked hard to save for my future. so now... i want to thank you. i started investing with vanguard to help take care of you, like you took care of me. te quiero, mamá. only at vanguard you're more than just an investor you're an owner. helping you take care of the ones you love. that's the value of ownership. the census tells you

a lot about people. you could tell on the census records that at very, very young ages, they were cooks, they were farm hands, they were servants. there's auralia, 4-years old. i have learned a lot about the rest of the family, it was really finding gold. one of my grandfathers, didn't even know his birthdate. i figured out the exact year he was born. the census records fill in gaps, it helped me push the door open. we're hearing from johnny depp after a jury in virginia just ruled in favor of his defamation lawsuit against his ex-wife amber heard. they did rule in favor of heard

on one count. but they awarded depp $15 million over $2 million for heard. this is a big victory for johnny depp. here's his statement. he writes, six years ago my life, the life of my children, the lives of those closest to me and also the lives the of the people who for many, many years have supported and believed in me were forever changed. false, very serious and criminal allegations were levied at me via the media which triggered an endless barrage of hateful content although no charges were ever brought against me. it had already traveled around the world twice. and it had a seismic impact on my life and my career. and six years later the jury gave me my life back. i'm truly humbled. my decision to pursue this case knowing very well the height of the legal heard lz i would be facing and theivestable worldwide spectacle into my life was only made after considerable thought from the very beginning the goal of bringing this case

was to reveal the truth regardless of the outcome. speaking the truth was something that i owed to my children and to all those who have remained steadfast in their support of me. i feel at peace knowing i have finally accomplished that. i am am and have been overwlel -- overwhelmed by the outpouring of love from around the world. i hope my quest that the truth be told will have helped others, men or women, who have found themselves in my situation and that those supporting them never give up. i also hope that the position will now return to innocent until proven guilty. both within the courts and in the media. i wish to acknowledge the noble work of the judge, jurors, court staff, and the sheriff who's have sacrificed their own time to get to this point and to my diligent and unwaivering legal team who did an extraordinary job in helping me to share the truth. the best is yet to come and the new chapter has finally begun. truth never perishes. paul, your reaction to this? >> so she pays $15 million.

he pays $2 million. so you can say that he won by $13 million. but his reputation mr. de p. depp's reputation took a hit in two ways, the malicious statement that's the jury found miss heard made against mr. depp. they found were not true. but second, mr. depp's own testimony and other evidence presented at trial reflected very unfavorably on him. there was evidence of a text message where he called her a worthless hooker. his struggle with addiction was documented. other personal issues came out. so this is one of those trials. i think the jurors go home and they take a hot shower. they want to cleanse themselves of this sortedness. i don't see anybody really being vindicated in this trial. >> okay. paul butler, thank you for being with us as we have digested this

verdict. we really appreciate it now. we do want to take a turn now and talk about new concerns about a slowing economy and even the r word, recession, of course, moving markets lower in this final hour of trading on wall street. right now take a look. you can see down across the board, dow jones industrial average, nasdaq. it has really been a roller coaster ride on wall street as of late. adding to the anxiety, fresh comments from jamie diamond, he says that the nation should brace for an economic hurricane caused by the federal reserve and ukraine war. his warning comes a day after a stunning admission from treasury be secretary janet yellen that she was slow to recognize the threat posed by inflation. take a listen. >> i think i was wrong then about the path that inflation would take. >> joining me now to discuss this from the white house is deputy treasury secretary wally

adeyema. thank you for joining me. i really appreciate it. >> great to be here with you. >> your boss, janet yellen, said she made a mistake. she was wrong about inflation. i guess the question is why didn't treasury see this am coulding? what see this coming? what went wrong? >> so it's great to be here with you, and i think that what the secretary said in her answer yesterday was to talk about the fact that there were challenges created like the ones that jamie spoke of, for example, russia's invasion of ukraine that has led it higher gas prices and also the higher food prices. in addition to that, you've seen challenges like supply chain challenges out of covid zero created by china, but you've also seen historic growth in the united states. historic job growth here as well as economic growth faster than any other country in the world and what we have to remember is where we started from. when the president came into office 20 million americans were on unemployment.

almost none of us had gotten vaccines and because of the president's commitment to making the right policy calls today we have historic levels of employment and every adult in america who wants to be vaccinated wants to be vaccinated and he'll bring that same policy for the economy. >> some people did see inflationary pressures including former clinton secretary larry summers. he warned that the american rescue plan, and i'll read this from a washington post-op ed, that can, quote, set off inflationary pressures of a kind that we have not seen in a generation. if he knew that this was possible, should the biden administration, should the president, should you and the treasury secretary have known? >> it's important for us to step back and to think about what's driving inflation today in our economy. >> but to that question -- but before we talk about that, to that question, should you all and should the president have seen this coming? >> i think i mentioned a number

of things that are driving inflation and i don't think anyone saw the invasion, russia's invasion of ukraine coming which has driven the high energy prices that we've seen today. >> but larry summers doesn't talk about that. larry summers writes at a time before the russian invasion of ukraine, he was talking merely about injecting $2 trillion into the economy. >> yeah, and i think the best way to compare what's happening in the united states is to look around the world because the inflation isn't only happening here in the united states, but it's happening around the globe. in the uk and europe they're also facing challenges and what i'm trying to make clear is the challenges are being driven by global phenomenon and not just the president of the united states and what we're doing with the united states to deal with the challenges which include giving the fed the room to did what they need to. the president releasing a historic amount of petroleum and working with congress to reduce drug prices as well as reducing our deficits. we know that we need american solutions to these challenges

and that's what the president has outlined and the last thing i'll mention is because of the historic growth and job creation we've had in the united states america is better positioned to deal with the challenge of high inflation than any other country that faces us today. >> and everything that the president laid out in that wall street journal op ed, everything that you just mentioned. the president's policies are potentially long term solutions if you consider trying to get those things passed through congress, lowering the cost of prescription drugs, working on affordable housing. are there more things you can do in the short term. i know that there are steps that the president's taken, that the administration has taken and are there new steps that you're considering taking to alleviate the pressure of the high gas prices and record inflation? >> i think the best example of the things we're willing to do in the future is what we've already done including releasing the strategic reserve. the president used the defense production act to be able to get

food for instants who needed it from outside the country including on calling on countries from around the world to produce more energy to ensure that we can bring down prices in this country. so we're open to do everything the president can on his own and as we said in his op ed, the primary responsibility for dealing with inflation belongs to the fed. he's re-appointed chairman power and the incredible people at the federal reserve and he'll respect their independence. >> as you know, a number of economists have said that a recession is all but inevitable at this point. do you believe a recession can be averted? >> i do because part of my job is talking to business leaders around the country and in talking to ceos they made clear to me that demands for their products and goods remain strong and that's what they're telling

me as well and the reason that demand remains strong is the investments the president has made and things like through the american rescue plan and through the infrastructure package that we put together that will continue to put demand into our economy as we deal with these high costs and help americans deal with these challenges in the same way we've dealt with the challenge of covid-19. >> all right. deputy treasury secretary wally adeyemo, thank you very much for joining us and thank you for your patience as we worked through the depp-heard verdict. really appreciate it. just in the last hour president biden holding an urgent virtual meetings with the heads of baby formula manufacturers. those expects are expected to give an update to increase the desperately needed supply and the president announced two more overseas shipments of baby formula will soon be on their way from europe and australia will be enough to make more than 8 million bottles. i'm joined now by the co-founder of one of the firm's delivering that much-needed formula. will mcmahon, thank you so much for joining us. i really appreciate it.

>> hi, kristen. >> can you guarantee your formula has been approved by the fda and can you walk us through what that process looks like? >> thank you so much for having me. the first thing i want to say is that the fda, we have worked with their teechl for over three years now and we have med them in maryland and we've been preparing to enter the u.s. and the formula market for that entire period of time and that's what made working with them through this enforcement discretion period so efficient. we're a very known quantity to the fda, but the fda do apply a very vigorous process, quite different to other markets so despite the fact that ken demille is sold in 40 countries and has been for 60 years, and we have to prove that the product is safe.

that's where the fda got comfort from us in terms of our experience and our approach to formulation and recipes and our close relationship with our farmers and the regular audits our factory go through which was really able to make us the first new manufacturer approved for the u.s. >> as we look forward, you have committed to shipping baby formula to the u.s. for at least the next six months. do you anticipate that could go wrong? kendamils committed to supplying u.s. parents with over 2 million pounds of product that would equate to almost 60 million bottle feeds over the period from june to november what i

want to stress is that we will bring an fda-compliant formula to the market in november and we are investing several million in england to double our capacity to continue to meet that demand and to continue to serve parents across the u.s. >> when parents see the shortage currently that so many families are dealing with across this country, i think there's just disbelief about how we got here and think, there were a series of things that got us here, but there is a sense that there need to be different formula companies in the u.s. and i know you're working to have your product sold here. can we talk about what the time line of that might look like and basically, i hear you saying that you anticipate your relationship with the u.s. will continue even beyond this crisis. >> that's certainly our hope, kristen. we've been receiving terns of

thousands of inquiries from u.s. customers not even just during this crisis, but long before desperately trying to get kendamil, reading what it's done for children online and wanting to experience that with their child so this has been a really long term plan for us. we've been working with the fda very proactively and now we're in the final stages of that clinical trial process that will give the fda that assurance that they need as part of any new infant formula submission that our product is fully safe, but what i can also say, kristen is today for u.s. parents receiving kendamil formula in the united states is that our recipe is entirely fda nutritionally compliant which is rather unique for a product in europe and going back to our long term commitment to this market and to parents. >> all right. will mcmahon, thank you so much for joining us to talk about what is really just a critical issue for this entire country and families across this country. appreciate it. >> thanks, kristen.

and thank you for watching this hour of msnbc. "deadline white house" starts right now. "deadline white house" starts right now. aloha and namaste, everyone. i'm in for nicole wallace, and news worth piece in politico that could throw the 2024 election into chaos with roots deep in trump world and fueled by the big lie with the last election stolen by joe biden, the democrats from the supposed rightful victor donald trump. the reporting comes from our old friend and for politico and she says this, quote, video recordings of republican operatives meeting with grassroots activists provide an inside look at a multi-pronged strategy to overturn votes in