Trump's attorney, Joe
Tacopina, is talking right now.
Let's listen in. I'm down.
I don't need anyone to run over.
Yeah, I mean,
strange verdict.
This was a rape claim,
a rape case all along.
And the jury rejected that,
but made all the findings.
So will obviously be appealing.
Those are the findings.
But they rejected her rape claim
and she always claimed
this was a rape case.
So it's a little perplexing.
But, you know, we move forward
If you speak to Mr.
Trump and what did he tell you?
We've spoken
and we're ready to,
you know, proceed, go forward.
Obviously,
you know, he's affirming his belief
as many people are, that
he cannot get a fair
trial in New York City
based on the jury pool.
And I think one could argue that
that's probably an accurate assessment
based on what happened today.
And, you know, again,
it's something
that, you know,
we're very tough
on the appellate issues here.
The Access Hollywood tape
should not have come into this case.
Some other things
should have come into the case.
I mean, we made many
motions that we
thought would would create
issues for appeal.
And we're going to employ them now.
You know,
there were things that happened
in this case that were beyond the pale.
I mean, we made a mistake
almost to the child
because of some of the rulings.
And and we believe a bias
that was displayed by the court.
The judge has been overturned
already once by the Second Circuit
in reverse Trump.
And we think it's going
to be overturned a second time.
But in the meantime, we
you know, we march forward.
He was found not liable for the rape
and that's it.
You know, the fact that Reid Hoffman,
the Democratic financier,
financed this case
and that was not something
when Donald Trump was accused
of making statements
that this was a politically motivated
claim and judgment.
Let us go into that. And, you know, it's
it's there are plenty issues
for us to pursue
limited
by not only the judge,
but opposing counsel.
How do you feel about that?
I appreciate that.
I mean, look,
I have respect for
for the opposing counsel in this case.
Roberta Kaplan's a great lawyer.
Her team's great.
And I appreciate that they compliment me.
But, you know, for me, it's just about
the results.
And at the end of day, well, you know,
it was strange.
Barbie was obviously very happy that
Donald Trump was not branded a rapist.
I didn't think there should be
any liability finding.
So we'll pursue it, will pursue it
and try to fix it.
I was
that's what I just said about the appeal.
Right.
We're going to be appealing it.
But she claimed all along
that she had been raped by Donald Trump.
That's what this case is all about.
Can you talk about Trump's
trial or not?
Yeah.
This was a circus atmosphere.
And having him be here
would be more of a circus.
And again, what I said
in the summation yesterday,
you know, rings true holds true.
It's that,
you know, what more
can he say other than I didn't do it?
And he said it on the road here.
You know, it's hard to prove a negative.
Molly, I could say you stole my pen.
Prove it and do it.
How would you prove it?
So you didn't do it right?
I mean, it's
sort of Borat, so, you know, it's it's
it's very simplistic to say, oh,
he should have testified.
He had nothing to say
other than
what it's already said on the oath.
So we talked a little bit
about how perplexing the verdict.
Well, thank you.
We'll see you then. Good seeing you.
How does that play in the appeal
the fact that you get the case all along?
Yeah,
I think it's an inconsistent verdict.
Right.
And it's something that obviously
will be another issue for appeal.
But the issue for the appeals were late
really months ago
when when things like,
you know,
Donald Trump's
attempt to have the dress tested for DNA,
you have to send it into a lab
and didn't come up with semen
I think that's something
that was important.
The fact that the Reid Hoffman,
the Democratic financier,
you know,
who was
Carol, was not candid about
when she testified initially under oath
in her deposition,
you know, that she come
this case,
the Access Hollywood
tape should not have come into this case
as a federal role model.
Three, that balances out
inflammatory, prejudicial things.
And that certainly was one of them.
So but there's plenty of issues
to appeal.
And look, that's what happens, right?
You know,
we're we're in one sense gratified
and I know some people in this
camp are very happy
that, you know,
the rape claim was rejected.
But,
you know, I'm
not and I am happy about that, certainly.
But I'm not happy that he was found
liable for anything whatsoever
because on the seven side,
you should have been
in Korea.
You know, he's strong.
He's he's ready to to move forward.
He wants to fight this on appeal.
Again,
he was successful in one appeal before
the Second Circuit.
Judge Kaplan on Calvert Trump
and he thinks he's going to be successful
in the second one.
But he's planning
you know, he's got a
town hall tomorrow night
and he's just moving forward,
as he always does.
You know, thank him.
I think
the career for
the presidency is going to come
this case.
No, I don't think so.
You know, he seems to be a survivor
and move forward
and will continue to move forward.
Again, this case will be up on appeal.
And we'll see what happens. But
is there
no, I didn't actually you know, look,
there have been few cases
where there are anonymous stories,
but at least the lawyers
get to know who the jurors are here.
We didn't even know who they were.
And that's a case
where there's, you know, a very strong
a very strong reaction
people would have to
politicians, particularly Donald Trump,
one way or another.
We should have been able to tell
something about the background
of these people.
And unfortunately,
having an anonymous jury
even kept from the lawyers,
I don't think was fair or was right.
It sort of prevents a
thorough jury selection.
And we couldn't challenge
people who we didn't know,
you know, what their backgrounds were.
So we look at faces basically
you know,
you could say the final
judgment, pending appeals.
We will.
What did you say to those
when you said,
oh, no, listen, this is what I said
between MS.
Carroll and I. But, you know,
I don't make it personal with people.
And
we had a
we had a pretty good experience
as far as the parties in this case,
considering,
you know, what we went through.
This was not an easy case.
You think about how fast, you know
that was best.
I mean, I
you know, again,
it's hard to see behind a jury room door.
And I don't know what they were thinking
or what it
sort of indicates
is what, again,
what people have been saying
is that in New York,
you just can't get a fair trial.
And, you know, people have said
you lost the case
when they announced the names of
the litigants.
But again,
they they found in the not liable for
for the rape.
Well, we're talking years
ago, Suffolk, I think.
What do you make of the fact that
your three year old
because I mean,
what do you make of the fact
that the Suffolk,
you decided on sexual abuse
but didn't go as far as saying.
Yeah, well,
I said earlier,
which is a bit inconsistent. Right?
It's a bit inconsistent
because all along she claimed
this was a rape.
Not that she wasn't certain if was rape,
it was a rape.
And she said that
and they were jury rejected.
So it's hard to sort of
square that with the rest of the verdict.
That's a good question.
I just don't
I'm a little perplexed, guys,
honestly, in that regard.
Okay. I'm going to go now.
I have a fan
that once told me over there,
so I'm going to go address it then.
Things don't go that way.
Thank you. Go.
You'll keep it.
All right.
That's Donald
Trump's attorney, Joe Tacopina.
Speaking outside of
the Manhattan courthouse
where there are a lot
of reporters and at least one
individual decidedly not a fan of Mr.
Takapuna.
This is after the jury
found former
President Donald Trump,
his client, liable
for battery and for defamation
and ordered him
Trump to pay nearly $5 million to writer
Jean Carroll.
Let's bring back
CNN's chief legal analyst Laura Coates.
A lot a lot was said there by Mr.
Tacopina, and he expressed a
he agreed that it was a fast
jury verdict.
He was surprised that it seemed
that it was that fast.
He said he definitely indicated
that there's going to be an appeal
among the various grounds.
Well, let's let's
just do them one by one,
because I'm really interested
in your insights, Laura.
First of all, he said
Donald Trump can't get a fair
trial in New York City because of
of the jury pool.
New York
City is
where this incident allegedly happened.
And Bergdorf Goodman I.
Is that grounds for a successful appeal
to to say, look, New York,
you know, Manhattan specifically voted.
I don't even know what it was.
But you know, let's say
more than 90% of the vote people in that
in that borough
voted against Donald Trump
in the last two elections.
You can't have a fair trial.
Is that reasonable?
No.
I mean, the assumption
that by virtue of one's politics
that you are unable
to follow
the jury instructions
is something
that has been unsuccessful
for many a litigant across this country.
But more broadly,
there was a voir dire process.
They didn't just pull
names out of a hat and say,
here you go,
you will now said
they had to whittle it down to the nine.
I believe it's actually 12
who sat
because they had to have alternate
who might have been available
in case of any age
issue, giving rise
to suggest
that there was somehow no ability
to do a full background
check on the average
juror is a little absurd to me,
given that normally
into even a criminal context
where you're fighting
for your life
outside of bars,
that you would be able to know
whether the jurors
could follow the instructions,
whether they could be objective
and unbiased.
That's where the criteria not so much
whether you've had a chance
to do
a full background
check on one's voting habits and beyond.
But it's notable, of course,
that Donald Trump has routinely said
that by virtue of his name,
his position, his lack of fans,
that he will not have a fair
jury pool in New York.
But that is really a far cry
from what is required to prove on appeal.
He also brought up the idea
that the Access
Hollywood tape
should not have been admitted.
Again, I'm no legal expert.
It certainly is defamatory.
It certainly suggests
that Donald Trump
thinks that he can get away
with the kind of behavior
edging Carol accused him of doing.
Does he have a point
that that tape
should not have been admitted?
My understanding
and tell me if I'm wrong
was that
the way he brought it in was
he was talking to a woman
who also alleged that Donald Trump
had sexually assaulted her
in a similar way.
And she mentioned the Access
Hollywood tape
and thus provided an entree
for him to introduce it as evidence.
Well, the way you bring in anything,
that sort of is hearsay right through.
That's an out-of-court
statement made to prove what you're
trying to prove is true in the courtroom.
Essentially, as you have to show
that it's more probative,
that it is prejudice, meaning.
Is it going to help illuminate an issue
for the jury?
In a way
that's not going to unduly prejudice
the person who is accused
in this case
because it was about
this other prior bad act
that related to a direct claim
that was being made
by somebody on a witness stand.
The relevance
likely outweighed the actual
prejudicial value.