the jury. what it did is basically bolstered the allegation carroll was making against him. so given how quickly this verdict has come back, you know, i think 51% of me says that it probably is going to go carroll's way and the other thing that's really important is the burden of proof here. it's a civil case. so all carroll and her lawyers have to persuade the jury of is that 51% of the evidence, it's more likely than not. it's a preponderance of the evidence that her claim should be the one that they decide in favor of and not trump. >> i have to let that be the last word because we're expecting the verdict to be read any second now. thank you. katy tur continues our coverage now. >> good to be with you.

there's a verdict. the jury in donald trump's civil rape case deliberated for just about three hours. the judge announced he will read the verdict at 3:00 p.m. it is 3:00 p.m. the lawyers are in the room. the judge is in the room. the jury is in the room. so any moment now we will hear from they decided. six men and three women were charged with that deciding. one, did donald trump rape carroll and did he defame her when he said she was lying. if so, how much money does carroll deserve to be fairly and adequately compensated for her injuries? in closing arguments, her attorney told the jury donald trump didn't show up because he knew he did it. trump's attorney said trump didn't testify because there was nothing to testify to. he said the whole story was an unbelievable work of fiction. kaplin said carroll was exactly donald trump's type and she played the video deposition where trump mistook carroll for

his ex-wife, marla maples. he said she couldn't give a date to when the rape occurred. he said how do you prove a negative? kaplin said put two things together. one, carroll, exactly trump's type, and two, trump told you what his m.o. is on the access hollywood tape. she said the evidence shows overwhelmingly trump followed this playbook and in the dressing room grabbed carroll by the genitals. he said carroll's team wants you to hate him. hate trump. hate him enough to ignore the facts to focus on anything but the story. joining me now from outside the courthouse is ron allen and lisa ruben. also with me is vaughn hillyard. i keep looking down because i've got this note from one of our producers in the room and he's going to be populating that note with the verdict. lisa, you've been inside this

courthouse, listened to the testimony. which was a fast return of a verdict. >> totally a fast return. if you had asked me to project how long i thought this jury would take, it would have been significantly longer than around the three hours that it has taken them to get to a verdict and that suggests to me that the jury was swift and unanimous because in a federal court, a verdict has to be unanimous. if i had to guess are they unanimous in favor of donald trump or carroll, i'm going to say in favor of carroll. i always thought there would be a number of jurors who would find her story compelling and there might be a couple persuaded by tacopena. and more importantly, that the ten other witnesses that she offered for her case were similarly either malingering or persuaded to testify on her behalf as to expertise that

wasn't applicable to her circumstances. i'm expecting a verdict for carroll today. we'll see what happens. >> the jury has just been called to order. the verdict is being read. we're going to get it any moment now. lisa, when we're considering what donald trump is being accused of here and what he could be found liable for, we're talking about battery, defamation and damages. how much the jury thinks that e. jean carroll should be awarded if they find carroll did these things to compensate her. that number, do we have an estimate of how high that number of could go? >> i do and i don't. carroll's lawyers put on an expert who's a professor of markets and social media and she estimated to repair carroll's reputation, it would cost somewhere between $350,000 and

$2.7 million. of course, that's not the entire quantum of damages that might be appropriate here. in addition to the loss of her reputation, she suffered mental anguish, fear, distress and those are proper considerations for the jury. her team never put a dollar figure on that and in their closing arguments, they told the jury we're not going to put a price on that because this has never been about money for miss carroll. this is about regaining her good name and we're not going to insult you by trying to put a dollar figure on that. it's really anyone's guess how high the high could go although the component of it that has to do with reputational damage could be as high as $2.7 million. >> donald trump never showed up to testify. carroll's lawyer said that's because he knew that he did what he did. he knew that he raped carroll as she alleged. tacopena said no, he can't prove a negative. they never gave a date.

he has no alibi because they can't give you a date for when this allegedly occurred. i should tell you everybody is standing up for the jury right now. now the jury is entering. sorry, getting all these updates from adam reece who's inside the room. once we get a verdict, i'll tell you. but donald trump not testifying, lisa, good thing or bad thing for the defense? >> i think it was a bad thing for the defense. they said multiple times this is not a criminal trial therefore the burden of proof in a criminal case beyond a reasonable doubt isn't applicable. that had real reverberations for trump on the flip side, too. that meant because it wasn't a criminal trial, the plaintiff's lawyers could make a big deal out of the fact donald trump didn't show up. not only did kaplin tell the jury he didn't show up because he knew he did it, but the colleague said you've heard a lot about respect for the rule of law in your rule as jury ors

and our justice system. donald trump didn't even have enough respect to show up, look you in the eye and deny an assault he knows happened just as you do. i thought that was extremely powerful. they exploited the heck out of the fact that donald trump, even despite his promises to the irish media, never came to confront carroll by sitting in the courtroom. >> so the jury is in the room. the judge has asked the jury if they've reached a verdict. they said yes. he says please pass the envelope. the clerk will publish the verdict. and we're going to get it any moment now. i see the cursor moving to the verdict form. once i have it, i'm going to tell you. i'll keep looking down. but just talk about, lisa, one more time. hold on. number one, did donald trump rape e. jean carroll, the answer

is no. this is the verdict. yes to number two. did donald trump sexually abuse miss carroll. the answer from the jury is yes. so no on rape. yes on sexually abuse. down to number four. on the jury form. miss carroll was injured as a result of mr. trump's conduct. the answer to that is yes. and they have awarded her $2 million. $2 million. the answer to was she injured as a result of mr. trump's conduct, yes. no on rape, yes on sexual assault. sexually abused. excuse me. now we are looking at question number five. this is mr. trump's conduct was willfully negligent, reckless or done with a conscious disregard, the answer from the jury is yes. the award in damages is $20,000.

that's for number five. number six. was mr. trump's statement defamatory. that's what the jury is answering now. the answer to that is yes. it was defamatory. next was mr. trump's statement false. did miss carroll prove by clear and convincing evidence that mr. trump's statement was false. the answer is yes. now on to number eight. mr. trump made the statement with actual malice. the answer to that is also yes. on to number nine. miss carroll was injured as a result of mr. trump's publication of the october 12, 2022 statement. did she prove this by a preponderance of the evidence? the answer to that is number nine, yes. other than reputation repair, the dollar amount there, going to wait on that. $1 million. so far, we are at $3 million.

20,000. so far that the jury has awarded to e. jean carroll. also, for reputation repair, $1.7 million. so we're getting up there in the dollar amount. we're on to number ten. in making the statement, mr. trump acted maliciously after hatred, ill will, spite or willful disregard of the rights of a number, of another, excuse me. 10. that is yes. yes, he did so according to the jury. how much if any should mr. trump pay to miss carroll in punitive damages. 280,000 it appears. 280,000 in punitive damages. that is the entirety of the verdict form. no on rape, yes on sexual assault.

$2 million for that. yes on defamatory statement. $20,000 for that. other reputation repair. $1 million. and $1.7 million as well and making the statement mr. trump acted maliciously out of willful disregard of another. yes and the damages for that were $1.7 million. that's for the defamatory statement. lisa, what do you make of this? >> i'm really, i'm floored in a way because there were a number of jurors that all throughout the trial were making me nervous and i would venture to guess were making e. jean carroll's lawyers extremely nervous. there was one in particular for example who smirked all throughout the trial and one of the reasons i told you and many of our colleague on the network that projecting juror outcomes is an art not a science and one that you really can't predict.

precisely because of this. i am astonished they awarded carroll a total of $5 million. one of the things i think is really interesting here is they didn't find there was intercourse between mr. trump and carroll. that's the difference between the rape and sexual abuse components of battery, but they did find that he touched her in an unwanted way in either her sexual or intimate parts for the purposes of gratifying himself and that is a meaningful, meaningful finding. i can't imagine what carroll's face looks like reegt now and i wish i were there to see it. >> lisa, thank you very much. stick with us because we're going to go over this more. ron allen, you were also covering this trial from the start. at one point, there was a note about a couple of the jurors appears falling asleep during roberta kaplin's closing remarks.

the lawyer for carroll. two men, one according to the notes, appeared to have his head on his chest. then again, the jury brought back a majority yes verdict and no on the rape, but yes on the sexual assault. yes on the defamation and quite a large number of damages. what do you make of that as you've been covering this for so long? >> well, perhaps the jury had made up his or her mind early on and was not engaged in the rest of it or who knows. but i think carroll's attorneys really made a point about the access hollywood tape being donald trump's confession. they used that word. we all know what he says in that. and that, they played it five times and they were trying to resist, defense was trying to resist the tape being played so many times in court but that may have been one of the nails in the coffin because he basically

says as a star, he's a star, you can go out and grope women and it's, this is the way it's always been. so there's that. the other thing i think is striking about this. remember, this case is only possible because of a new new york state law. survivors act. that just passed the legislature and opened up a year window for victims, survivors, to file cases. there have been hundreds filed and e. jean carroll fought for that law, advocated for that law and is one of the first cases to actually get to court. so without that law, this case is covered by the statute of limitations and she cannot file a claim. also in a federal proceeding as is the case in state courts, but here, it's crucial there were two other women allowed to testify in state courts. they called them prior bad actors. prior bad acts. we saw this in the cosby and

harvey weinstein case. where donald trump was not charged in connection with these cases yet these women were allowed to come in, tell their story and establish there was a pattern there. the other key witnesses, her two friends. they were not just friends. they were respects, they are, respected, prominent journalists, author, writers in new york city. carol martin, one of the first female african american anchors on tv here in the '70s and '80s and lisa burnwell, a very well-known, legitimate writer. so in order, it wasn't just friends of hers saying yeah, she told me this. these were people who had some credibility. a lot of credibility. who the jury in case of carol martin, probably knew because they had seen her on tv growing

up. i saw her growing up on tv. so they awarded those things. there were those aspects to this case that make it somewhat unique and allowed the plaintiff, carroll, to bring in witnesses and bring in witnesses and testimony that really helped push the ball down the, over the goal line if you will. again, it wasn't just he said she said. it was she said and there are 11 witnesses. those four others also said and they so they backed up her story and she was on the witness stand just a very compelling witness. she stuck to her story. there was the moment where joe challenged why didn't you scream and she pushed back hard and said sometimes women scream. sometimes they don't. it doesn't matter.

he still raped me. that sort of encapsulated the back and forth of that whole cross-examination. she didn't back down. she cried. she was emotional. she remembered details. sixth floor, lingerie department. the jury again based on the preponderance of evidence not beyond a reasonable doubt found her more credible and on the other hand, you have former president trump coming to testify may or may not have made a difference but he did testify in that deposition. in the access hollywood tape. they heard his side of the story. they saw him. they were able to assess his demeanor. in that deposition. they know him although they were told to put their political allegiances to the side. but he was there. they took a measure of him and they found him essentially liable for just about everything here. >> we have that deposition. we'll play it in a moment. just to bring you back into that

room one more time. donald trump's lawyer also one of his lawyers in the alvin bragg case. he asked for a poll of the jury to see if it was unanimous and every one said yes, it was unanimous. yes, this is what they decided. each and every one of them. any reason this verdict should not be filed, the answer is no. any reason the jury should not be discharged. no. lisa, this jury was anonymous. their names have not been released. their identities should not ever be discovered according to the judge because of the risk that they could find themselves in because of donald trump's supporters who have, who there was worry that they could be threatened. they could be hurt. the idea of a judge making a jury anonymous in a case like this, it's pretty astounding,

no? >> it is although i will note that he didn't go the final step of sequestering this jury. he provided them with transportation to and from the courtroom for example so there where abouts wouldn't be known, but he had an open questioning of the jurors. we knew things about them including their ages, their occupations, what counties they lived in and their media. i want to go back to something. when you asked if i was surprised by this verdict, one of the reasons i was surprised is because of some reporting at "the daily beast." jose paid careful attention to the vor deer and noticed one of the people eventually seated on this jury is a devoted listener of tim pool. a far right maga podcaster. he said he was his primary media diet. no with standing that, that juror must have been one of the one who on his request for a poll, stood up, looked at the

judge and said, yes, this was his verdict, too. so there is some astonishment on my part about that. we will see whether any of these jurors notwithstanding the fact we don't know their names, will be allowed to be contacted by media and will reach out. i hope we'll get insight into their thinking as the days go on. >> what do you think of the first charge here that donald trump raped carroll? the jury finding he did not. they're saying no to rape, but yes to sexual assault. where do you think the disconnect is there? >> i'm going to ask for your pardon because i'm about to get graphic. she said she couldn't really see whether donald trump was penetrating her with his genitalia. she knew he had first inserted his fingers into her vagina. she felt him do that. then she thought she was

penetrated by his penis but couldn't say for sure in part because she couldn't see it. so that uncertainty may have been part of what motivated the jury's verdict on the rape count. that notwithstanding, she was to ambiguous at the sexual abuse and the corroborating evidence that ron pointed to. not only that she calledly sa from the sidewalk, talked to carol martin two days later, but the testimony of jessica and natasha, whose own experiences with donald trump not only echoed carroll's, but were basically a you know, come to life version of the donald trump playbook and access hollywood tape. i think that's partially what helped get this jury over the line on the sexual abuse count. >> all right. you're talking about jessica, natasha. jessica i believe said donald

trump was like an octopus. she was seated next to him on a plane. she couldn't keep his hands off of her. he had 40 zillion hands, she said. vaughn hillyard, we haven't explicitly said this, but let's say it now. this is a former president of the united states being found liable not just for defamation, but for sexually assaulting a woman. and part of what makes this so monumental is that there were so many allegations in 2016 and beyond that donald trump did just that to a lot of different women. he always denied each and every one. sometimes he would say i've never met the person. sometimes he would say they're not my type. he said that about jessica and also carroll. that's the where kaplin replayed that video deposition where he

mistook her for his ex-wife arguing carroll was exactly his type. but going back, he has been accused of this a lot over the years, especially since he started running for president. he always denied it. he can no longer undeny it with the same credibility because a jury has found him liable for doing that. it's not a criminal conviction. it's a civil conviction so it's a preponderance of the evidence. it's a lower bar but still. a jury has found him liable for sexual assault. >> exactly what you just said. over the last eight years, the number of conversations that you and i have had with voters who have justified voting for donald trump despite these allegations of sexual harassment or sexual assault by more than a dozen women. they've pushed them aside because donald trump consistently denied them. donald trump suggested consistently this was part of a political hoax to undermine not

only him, but a greater political movement. ultimately, e. jean carroll took him to trial on that. claiming that she was defamed because of that october post in which he said this was part of a hoax and just like her allegations, all the others in his words, were also false and now what you have and if i may, what the other republican candidates running for president of the united states has is a jury. here today answering the very specific question, mr. trump sexually abused miss carroll, a jury answered unanimously yes. now the question here is when we're talking in political terms, morning consult polling released, showed donald trump who are in this 2024 primary with his largest lead yet. 60% to 19% against ron desantis. we have seen no republican come attack donald trump over the e. jean carroll case here. we had seen them over the last

eight years come to his defense on these multiple allegations. you saw in october, i remember being in indianapolis, indiana with mike pence when he was questioning whether to stick on the ticket or not. ultimately, about 36 hours later, he was back on that campaign trial and what is notable about this is that you have in that deposition, donald trump on camera here yet again suggesting in a separate incident other than access hollywood tape, suggesting that quote in which he said in that deposition, upon being asked whether the comments in that access hollywood case were true, he said well, that's what if you look over the last million years, i guess that's been largely true. not always, but largely true. unfortunately or fortunately. in terms of the question of whether stars are able to do whatever they want to women. unfortunately or fortunately. now a jury has made this determination and the question here is what does this politically impact him or does it not? >> let's talk about that.

but let's play that deposition you were just mentioning where donald trump is asked about the access hollywood tape and here is his answer. >> and you say it again this is become very famous in this video. i just start kissing them. it's like a magnet. just kiss. i don't even wait. and when you're a star, they let you do it. you can do anything, grab them by the [ bleep ]. you can do anything. that's what you said, correct? >> historically, that's true with stars. >> that they can grab women by the [ bleep ]? >> if you look over the last million years, i guess that's been largely true, not always, but largely true. unfortunately or fortunately. >> you can consider yourself to be a star? >> i think you can say that, yeah. >> unfortunately or fortunately. that's what he said. and vaughn, i remember being on the campaign trial in 2016 when that access hollywood tape came

out. i saw it here in this building. before we went to air with it and i went to the campaign and didn't get a response. the response we got later was that this was all locker room talk. he never acted on it. just the way guys ta you can to one another when they're in private. this takes it a step further. it seems like he's endorsing it and i wonder if we're past the moment of outrage. within the republican party or even among republican voters because in the moment that the tape came out in 2016, there was a giant backlash. speaker ryan et cetera said i can't support this guy. he is unsupportable. i can't imagine supporting somebody who would talk like this. i have a mother. a daughter. this is foul. mike lee, the senator from utah

was crying on camera. about these words. and about this as the gop nominee. there was a crisis. a crisis. who are we going to get to run? we've got to get donald trump out of there. donald trump did not go anywhere. he stayed and used his survivability of the access hollywood tape, used the survival as a bludgeon for republican lawmakers after to make them closer to him. they stood by him through thick and thin. during his time in office because they knew that he could survive what appeared to be the unsurvivable. voters agreed with him. it was just locker room talk. they didn't think it was that big of a deal and i wonder, vaughn, now, you've interacted with a lot of voters. i don't know about a general election, but a primary, these voters in the gop primary have stood by so much with donald

trump and won't, what will they see this verdict as? a new york city jury coming to this verdict and donald trump maybe going out there and saying listen, clearly, the jury was confused because they said i didn't rape her. >> i think that's the heart of the question here going forward. i was talking to some young republican voters here who were standing by donald trump. i asked them about january 6th and each grimaced saying they didn't agree with it but want him back in the white house for a myriad of other reasons. took away from that was a conversation i had with an all lie of liz cheney. he went up in the air waves in new hampshire today with an attack ad warning about what is to come if donald trump is back in the oval office again because when you're talking about donald trump's character, for eight years, republican voters have answered the question. they have pushed aside these cases. whether it be january 6th or

sexual assault allegations. she said the attention shouldn't be about the past, but it's about what risk he poses to the american democracy and to our institutions going forward and now you have a clear cut example based off a jury's conclusion that he in fact sexually abused a woman. so for donald trump, tomorrow night, he's going to be here in a televised town hall, hour long. he is going to be taking questions from republican and independent voters and the question is how does he respond. earlier today, he put on a social media post that he was forced to be silent. that he wasn't given the opportunity to defend himself and the carroll case, his defense attorney made the decision not to bring him to the stand here. but the question is does he even attempt to answer these questions and how does he try to somehow turn a very difficult

and, let's be frank. talking about a woman the jury just found was sexually abused. how do you turn that on his head despite his past denying. >> so we're looking at the doors. the doors of the courthouse. we're waiting for e. jean carroll to come out, for the lawyers. here is e. jean carroll right now. let's see if she approaches the microphones and speaks to reporters. >> just one statement please. >> does not appear she's going to approach the microphones but we are going to keep watching. it appears like she's just going to get in her car and leave. yeah. we'll see if she says anything in that scrum of reporters there if she's mentioning anything about the verdict. again, this is a civil case. no it's not a conviction. it is a verdict. he's not guilty. he's liable for sexual abuse.

liable for that. liable for defamation. the burden here for donald trump to be found liable is lower than in a criminal case. it's not without a doubt, it's a preponderance of evidence and that is what carroll's lawyers were able to do. prove a preponderance of evidence show he was liable for sexual abuse and defamation and they have awarded carroll about $5 million for all that. i want to go back to lisa ruben. any chance that donald trump's team appeal this is? >> i think it's possible that they will. but i don't expect joe to be part of that appeal. i think it was clear to those of us watching that as the end of the trial neared, he was getting increasingly exasperated with

his own client. at one point telling the judge your honor, i know you know what i'm dealing with. that's language the judge even mimicked back to the parties today when they brought the truth social post this his attention. he said we're dealing with what we're dealing with. there's sort of a generalized understanding that trump was an ungovernable client who wasn't listening and given that trump has sustained the loss, i would not be surprised if they part ways. >> what about in the bragg case as well and the hush money case? >> well, you know, he had some problems in the bragg case. you'll recall that stormy daniels has informed the court she believes he has a conflict of interest based on the fact he consulted with her when she needed an attorney. the judge of the new york criminal court has asked him to turn over his communications with daniels to the court so he

can make a more informed decision as to whether he in fact has a conflict of interest. between his verdict, the impatience with his own client and whether he can represent mr. trump fairly in that case, i would not be surprised if he exits stage left and we see todd blanch and susan necklace handle that trial on their own. of course, i can always been wrong. i often am, but those are my predictions. >> donald trump has responded. what's he saying. >> i'll read from his social media account. quote, i have absolutely no idea who this woman is. this verdict is a disgrace. a continuation of the greatest witch hunt of all time. that is donald trump's statement here in the last two minutes. of course, donald trump consistently denied knowing carroll and denied this ever happened, but of course, the jury here today unanimously

disagreed. >> he's going to deny it. he's used witch hunt since the beginning to describe all the allegations against him. all the criticism against him. it's all a big conspiracy against him. it's a witch hunt. they're trying to keep me from office. used it to this his advantage and kwinlsed voters that people out to get him were out to get him because he was out to protect them. it worked in 2016. it did not work in 2020. will it work in 2024? that's a political conversation that is worth having. the polling out there is all over the place, but still a year and a half out from the next election. there's a lot that can happen. no sure thing that donald trump is even going to remain the nominee. there's this case, which we have a verdict in. still the alvin bragg case. the georgia case. the mar-a-lago documents case. the january 6th case.

there's a lot of legal trouble still hanging over donald trump's head and therefore over the party's head. the republican party's head. does donald trump survive this. that's the question. why don't we ask former adviser to house speaker paul ryan and nbc analyst, brendan buck, because he's just joined us. what does this mean for 2024? can you make a prediction in may of 2023? >> yeah, i think it's fair to note in 2015 at this time, donald trump was in single debts so a lot can change. if we're expecting this to dethrone donald trump, we're going to have to see a lot of evidence of change of how republican voters think and i don't know we can really bank on that. the first thing to look for is we know donald trump is going to deny what's going on here. but are any of his opponents going to say anything about this? this should be the type of disqualifying event for the highest office in the land. you would think.

in any normal circumstances. obviously we're in a different place. this is an opening perhaps for somebody running against donald trump to raise this question. i'm very skeptical that any of them are going to do that. a lot of them are frankly afraid of donald trump. >> chris christie? >> chris christie certainly may. i'll be interested to see if he does. somebody somewhere needs to not just let this be a blip because otherwise, it will be. especially among republican primary voters. we often fool ourselves into thinking this type of information floods through to republican primary voters and it's all they're seeing. it's probably not something they're going to see a lot of unless somebody running against donald trump forces him to con front it. they can't do it during the bragg indictment. they rushed to his defense. is this going to be another situation where they rush to his defense? that's the first thing we need to keep an eye on.

>> so roberta kaplin has spoken to reporters. she said all of we're very happy. carroll did not say anything. she might have said something as she was trying to get into the car. i want to ask you about the access hollywood tape. were you still with speaker ryan when that came out? >> i was. >> what was it like? >> i think we saw the same blowback that it seems to be what we understand likely happened here. the speaker said we didn't defend this person anymore and realized quickly that's not where the party was. that was seen as giving into the left somehow. as you articulated very well, he tends to use these things to his advantage. >> add a bludgeon, i think i said. >> he play it is victim very well and people go along with

it. it's, i think we need to be skeptical that presenting this information to republican voters is going to create a backlash to him or rather as you said, more evidence that they're out to get him. it's this cycle that keeps him afloat. >> can i ask you to be introspective and figure out why republican voters are so warm to that feeling that donald trump is the grieved and representing them as the aggrieved. so any allegation against him, any criticism against him is thereby a criticism of them. why were they so, why did they embrace donald trump and not someone else in the republican party? and why do they still? >> i think he was the first to give voice to something that's been in the party for a long time. maybe not the first person to give voice to it as a candidate. there has long been on conservative talk radio, the internet, places where there was this elites versus regular people.

and the republican party for a long time sort of played into that notion of the establishment, the rich folks. and donald trump as flaws as a candidate as he was, really gave voice to those people who felt like there were these elites, washington out to change their way of life and he made it more of a cultural thing. i think something people need to appreciate. there's this sense that if only people understood how bad a guy donald trump was, they would change their view. lots of trump supporters understand he is morally flawed. that he's not a good guy, but he's their bad guy. he's their guy fighting for them and that's really all that matters. when you think this is a matter of your way of life. if it's cultural, it really doesn't matter all that other stuff. that's why they're willing to stand with him time and time again because he makes the right enemies. he'll say whatever it takes to get the job done and they admire that. it's been a factor of the republican party for a long time. he saw it and took advantage of it and continues to today.

>> we're covering what is just a monumental development in this country's history. a former president has been found liable sexual abuse and defamation. that's never happened before. it's a big deal. it's also a big deal that a former republican member of congress, a former or daughter of a former vice president is out there on the air waves in new hampshire telling voters up there that donald trump isn't someone that can be trusted. should never be allowed to get into the oval office again. that he's dangerous. in another era, that would be a major story. it's not as big a story now because everything we've experienced, but how much weight do you think liz cheney still has among voters? could she be a difference maker going forward? >> i don't think she alone can be a difference maker. i think her work with the january 6th committee just to be

honest has diminished her among republican voters. i think that's unfortunate. if she and people like chris christie and maybe nikki haley decides maybe this is something we should be talking about. and you show a little courage that more and more people say this is not the right guy to nominate. you are probably going to turn off republican voters if you just sound like a democrat. if you just sound like a lot of people who have been attacking him over and over again. however, if you can come out and make a principaled case that this is not the right person, whether it's moral or political or that he can't beat joe biden. someone who's got a brand name that you said, that is helpful. so i encourage her to keep doing it. i don't think she alone can change the direction but someone's got to start somewhere. >> all right, we've heard from kaplin, we are very happy.

we have not heard directly from carroll, but we've seen her leave. we're still looking at the doors to see if donald trump's lawyer comes out and says anything to reporters. not so sure he will, but again, we'll see. laura jarrett has joined me. we've had a lot of conversations about this case, that video deposition where he says unfortunately or fortunately stars have been sexually assaulting women for millions of years. was that as big of a deal as it plaeed to us do you think? >> i think the number that we have seen today sort of answers that question. i think $5 million including punitive damages is meant to send a message. we won't know unless we sit down and talk to this jury about what was going on in the deliberations. they came back though in less than three hours. that's astonishing given they had all to work through. given all the sort of legal machinations that were in front of them. they had to work through all the

standards of proof. the evidence. but presumably, they were persuaded quite powerfully by the testimony they heard from carroll over the course of two days. they heard from two other women. they actually heard from two other women that testified that he assaulted them as well. claims he denied to be sure but the point of those stories was to show he has a playbook. he has a pattern. >> jessica, who says he assaulted her on a plane many years ago and natasha who said he assaulted her when she was writing a "people" magazine article about him down at mar-a-lago, i believe while melania was pregnant. it was a big story at the time. the message this sends, is it dear former presidents, you can't get away with it forever? doesn't matter who you are, you can't get away with it forever. >> that was certainly the core of the closing argument yesterday from carroll's

attorney. she literally said no one is above the law. he didn't even bother to show up in person. you get the impression again with this number that the jury might have been bothered by that or perhaps they just found her so persuasive they said look, here's what we're going to give you. but it shows you the strategic call by not asking for a certain dollar amount. now whatever she gets, it looks like an enormous victory, which it is to be sure, but if they asked for $5 million and they gave her 3, or, she fell short. i think that was a real move by her attorneys. >> and they were trying to prove she wasn't doing this for money. >> it would have been a heavy one. >> she wants this one much. this is why she's doing this. let's bring in our nbc news legal analyst. this is your wheel house. these cases. i think it's interesting because she couldn't come up with a date for when this happened. nobody saw it. the definition of a he said she said. but she did have some witnesses

telling the jury that they heard her in the moments after the incident say that donald trump attacked her. she had a couple of witnesses who said donald trump attacked them as well. and she also had that access hollywood tape. so the burden i understand here is less than a criminal case but in order to overcome a he said she said with no witnesses and no direct evidence backing her up from that moment, i mean, you've got to be, tell me how compelled you need to be by the supporting information that was given to the jury. >> i've handled both criminal and civil cases where the date of the even is unknown and that creates a real problem for both sides. and it's for that reason that when this case had this case been a purely he said she said case, it would have been a lot closer. e. jean carroll had to explain

some weird and unusual behavior. those are not my words. those are the words of carroll's own attorney in her closing argument. she had to address that because even she realized that carroll had some conduct she had to explain that might have seemed unusual to the jury. that plus the fact they couldn't articulate a date of the assault, but the plaintiff's case only got better from there because they had corroborating evidence. not in the form of an eyewitness. it's in the likely the case in sexual assault cases because assailants isolate their victims. but she had corroboration in the form of people she contacted about this around the time of the assault. then you had scientific evidence. a psychologist explaining this is why people behave the way they do after they're attacked. that helped the laintiff, too, but far and away, the evidence that most helped the plaintiff was generated by the defendant

himself, donald trump. not his defense team. trump himself in what they call in baseball, completely unforced errors. by that, i mean for example at his deposition, he could have stuck to the script, which is i don't remember this because it didn't happen. and for most of it, he did. but then he veered away into trump land when he said things like, well, this person is not even my type. and oh, by the way, you plaintiff's attorney, are not my type either. there you see a video. i've said this before. that's why i videotape every one of my depositions and defendants because the power of the video here was so much greater than if they had taken a transcript and simply read aloud what trump said. it didn't look good for trump. so saying that carroll was not his type i think buried him and the fact that trump doubled down on the access hollywood tape. in 2016, he denied, he

essentially said that's locker room talk. i don't mean that. but now here in present day in the deposition, he appears to have said yeah, that's what i said and it's true. you better believe he handed the plaintiff gold. gold that the plaintiff used in her closing argument. kaplin knew what she had been handed and she used it in her case and it may have made the case for the plaintiff. which is pretty amazing considering that evidence came. it was unnecessary. and it came from one source. donald trump himself. >> when you're a star, they let you do it, he said on that access hollywood tape then in the video deposition, he said that stars have been doing it for a million years. unfortunately or fortunately. there was also as you mentioned, him mistaking e. jean carroll for marla maples, his ex-wife, which carroll's attorney said showed she was actually his type. there was also the moment in the

video deposition where he told e. jean carroll's lawyer that she was not his type. that she wasn't the type of person that he would want to i guess sexually abuse was the, or would get involved with. that's what he says in the video deposition when asked about the allegation of rape by e. jean carroll. the trump campaign team has released a statement. trump 2024 spokesman. he says the democratic party's never ending witch hunt of president trump hit a new low today. in jurisdictions controlled by the democratic party, our nation's justice system is now totally made up claims from troubled individuals to interfere with our elections. doing great damage. so saying this verdict is an interference with the 2024 election. make no mistake this entire bogus case is a political endeavor targeting president trump because he's an

overwhelming front-runner to be once again elected president of the united states. she brought this case before donald trump announced he was running. the continued abuse for political ends is disgusting and cannot be tolerated. our nation is in serious trouble when claims lacking any evidence or proof or eyewitnesses can invade our courts to score political points. sadlies for the enemy of democracy and american freedom president trump will never stop fighting for the american people. this kill will be appealed and we'll ultimately win. they're saying it's going to be appealed. let's see if that paperwork is filed. this is steve chung linking this election to 2024 and what they're saying an attack on the former president and trying to make it an attack on his voters. we're going to sneak in a very quick break. we'll talk about the other cases against trump and where they currently stand. also the latest on the e. jean carroll verdict. again, donald trump found liable

for sexual abuse and defamation. don't go anywhere. r sexual abus. don't go anywhere. freshness b. it has long-lasting light scent, no heavy perfumes, and no dyes. finally, a light scent that lasts all day. downy light! (bobby) my store and my design business? we're exploding. finally, a light scent that lasts all day. but my old internet, was not letting me run the show. so, we switched to verizon business internet. they have business grade internet, nationwide. (vo) make the switch. it's your business. it's your verizon. type 2 diabetes? discover the power of 3 in the ozempic® tri-zone. ♪ (oh, oh, oh, ozempic®!) ♪ in my ozempic® tri-zone, i lowered my a1c, cv risk, and lost some weight. ozempic® provides powerful a1c reduction. in studies, the majority of people reached an a1c under 7 and maintained it. ozempic® lowers the risk of major cardiovascular events such as stroke, heart attack, or death in adults also with known heart disease. and you may lose weight. adults lost up to 14 pounds.

ozempic® isn't for people with type 1 diabetes. don't share needles or pens, or reuse needles. don't take ozempic® if you or your family ever had medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if allergic to it. stop ozempic® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, or an allergic reaction. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. gallbladder problems may occur. tell your provider about vision problems or changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase low blood sugar risk. side effects like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. join the millions already taking ozempic®. ask your health care provider about the ozempic® tri-zone. you may pay as little as $25 for a 3-month prescription. >> woman: why did we choose safelite? >> vo: for us, driving around is the only way we can get our baby to sleep, so when our windshield cracked, we needed it fixed right. we went to safelite.com. there's no one else we'd trust.

their experts replaced our windshield, and recalibrated our car's advanced safety system. they focus on our safety... so we can focus on this little guy. >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪ i think i'm ready for this. heck ya! with e*trade you're ready for anything. marriage. kids. college. kids moving back in after college. ♪ here's to getting financially ready for anything! and here's to being single and ready to mingle. who's ready to cha-cha?! (bobby) my store and my design business? we're exploding. but my old internet, was not letting me run the show. so, we switched to verizon business internet. they have business grade internet, nationwide. (vo) make the switch. it's your business. it's your verizon. hey bud. wow. what's all this? hawaii was too expensive so i brought it here. you know with priceline you could actually take that trip for less than all this. i made a horrible mistake. ♪ go to your happy price ♪ ♪ priceline ♪

back with the breaking news, donald trump has been found liable for sexual abuse and defamation. and e. jean carroll has been awarded $5 million in damages for both of those things. we saw e. jean carroll leave the courthouse a few minutes ago. she -- as you can see right there walked out holding the hands of her lawyers smiling, did not speak to reporters unless she spoke to the giant gaggle she had to pass through to get into her car, but she did not approach the microphones. joe tacopina has not said anything to the gathered press. we'll wait and see if he does. let's talk about, though, the other cases donald trump is currently facing because this is just one of many. and let's bring in the once again senior legal correspondent laura jarrett and nbc legal analyst joyce vance.

so we have a verdict today on the e. jean carroll case. i'm not sure if she was on anyone's bingo card even a few months ago as a case we might see or that we were anticipating in the early parts of this year. but we still have the georgia case. we still have the alvin bragg case. we still have the classified documents case at mar-a-lago, and the january 6th case. so what is your expectation for how the next few months and the rest of this year is going to go, joyce? >> right. so this will be a litigation heavy year for donald trump. and unlike this case, katie, which was a civil case, the cases you're identifying are all criminal cases. and the difference obviously is at the end of those cases that trump is held accountable, he faces a prison sentence not just a significant fine like the $5 million in damages that were awarded to carroll in this case. but also that litigation becomes cumulative.

we know already that the judge in manhattan has tentatively set a trial date for trump early next year in the middle of the primary season, and he has cautioned him explicitly that he may not set any dates that would conflict with that trial. he can't arrange for speaking or rallies. the judge will hold him accountable. you don't have the option of not being present in a criminal trial like you do in a civil case. this gets only more serious for trump from this point on out. >> charles, what do you think? >> i think joyce is right. i think even as this has been the first verdict to go against donald trump it is the least of his concerns in the broader scope of things because the criminal penalties that could result from a conviction in any of the pending investigations up to and including alvin bragg's currently pending prosecution for the hush money scandal, all carry with them the threat of jail time. and that's something that's very

different than what we're talking ubwith this civil trial. i think the civil trial is resounding verdict but i've appreciated your commentary, katey, as well as the commentary of other contributors who have repeatedly stressed the fact this is not normal. this is not a normal space for us to be in where we're watching a former president of the united states being held liable not only for sexual assault, number one, but then also defaming another person. and so i think that the effects of this will reverberate in a number of different capacities. but by far the remaining and outstanding criminal investigations that donald trump is facing are far more of a serious concern for him moving forward. >> laura, he's got a point there. this is civil trial. it's a pretty big fine, $5 million. trump's campaign team says they're going to appeal. we'll see if they actually file the paperwork. but the stuff outstanding is criminal. and if you're looking at the justice department and what jack smith is doing it appears he is coming to a conclusion at least in the january 6th case. he's interviewed the former vice president who's a key witness in

that. and when it comes to the classified documents case from the reporting from "the new york times" they say he's interviewed almost everybody at mar-a-lago but he's got somebody from the inside. what can you tell us about -- i mean we have 10 seconds left -- your explanation for jack smith. >> we interest do have a unanimous verdict from nine men and women who decided he was liable. and i think that speaks volumes, even though it's not criminal, it's not a deprivation of his civil liberty. >> remember she did not ask for any damages at the top of this. that's what they decided to reward her. breaking news donald trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation. e. jean carroll awarded $5 million. don't go anywhere. "deadline white house" starts right now and nicolle will no doubt be talking about this.