We had predicted in the wake of the E Jean Carroll verdict against Donald Trump where
he had to pay $5 million.
That were he to reassert the same claims about E Jean Carroll,
about the details of the alleged sexual assault that happened.
That that would be dangerous for him because now there's a precedent that that
sort of speech is monetarily damaging to him.
Well, it didn't take long for him to test that theory.
We know that he immediately went on CNN's Town Hall to mock and insult her.
So that was gonna be a huge test of this.
In case you didn't see that and you probably shouldn't have,
here's a little bit of what we're gonna be talking about.
>> This woman, I don't know her.
I never met her.
I have no idea who she is.
I had a picture taken years ago with her and her husband.
Nice guy, John Johnson, he was a newscaster, very nice man.
She called him an ape.
Happens to be African American.
Called him an ape.
The judge wouldn't allow us to put that in.
Her dog or her cat was named Vagina.
The judge wouldn't allow to put that in, all of these things.
But with her, they could put in anything.
Access Hollywood-.
>> This was a jury of nine people who found you liable of sexual abuse,
do you think that that will deter women from voting for you?
>> No, I don't think so because I think the whole thing, just so
you understand, ready?
I never met this woman.
I never saw this woman.
This woman said, I met her at the front door of Bergdorf Goodwin which
I rarely go into other than for a couple of charities.
I met her in the front door.
She was about 60 years old.
And this is 22, 23 years ago.
I met her in the front door of Bergdorf Goodman.
I was immediately attracted to her and she was immediately attracted to me.
And we had this great chemistry.
We're walking into a crowded department store.
We had this great chemistry and a few minutes later, we end up in a room,
a dressing room at Bergdorf Goodman right near the cash register.
And then she found out there are locks on the door.
So she said, I found one that was open.
She found one.
She learned this at trial.
She found one that was open.
What kind of a woman meets somebody and brings them up and
within minutes you're playing hanky-panky in a dressing room, okay?
I don't know if she was married then or not.
John Johnson, I feel sorry for you, John.
>> Mr. President.
>> Okay, so that's a major test of the theory that we laid out because that
was absolutely, viciously attacking and defaming her.
I was gonna say exact same way as the stuff that got him fined $5 million,
but he added new ones.
The thing about the cat,
I can only imagine if the jurors had known that the cat was named Vagina, then that
would have changed everything in a way that he's never defined and never will.
Viciously attacking her, saying, what kind of a woman would do this?
Absolutely disgusting stuff and we're gonna see if it costs him.
Because E Jean Carroll is now amending the first of her two defamation lawsuits,
she is demanding an additional $10 million citing the comments that he made on CNN.
They say that Trump's defamatory statements post-verdict show the depth of
his malice towards Caroll since it is hard to imagine defamatory conduct that
could possibly be more motivated by hatred, ill will or spite.
This conduct supports a very substantial punitive damages award.
And I hope that they are awake and
caffeinated because they're gonna have to amend it again,
because as of this morning, he's back to attack here on Truth Social.
His Truth Social posts were involved in his first decision.
Well, now he's got this.
I don't know E Jean Caroll.
I never met her or touched her.
He does the thing about her husband.
He does the thing about the book.
It's a scam.
It's unfair.
It never happened.
This is the exact sort of defamation that got him fined the $5 million.
So that again, does not mean that in America, which is a failed state,
that he will again be found guilty or at least liable, I should say, for the money.
But he is certainly testing that, Sabrina and the lawyers, they've already pounced.
What do you think?
>> I'm very confused because he keeps saying that he doesn't know her,
he never met her.
And yet in that video that you just played, he just went and
described it in detail, saying there was immediate chemistry and
he was recounting it as if it was from his memory.
I don't understand why he would go back and forth on that anyway.
It just shows how not credible he is.
Good for E Jean Carroll for amending it to get an extra 10 million as she should.
It's the least she can get.
Cuz also, it's not even just a matter of whether she's gonna win this or not.
I know she's kind of happier right now because it is going well for her, but
it's not real justice.
It still happened.
And because Trump does still have a lot of online influence, I'm sure that she and
her family members and supporters are getting harassed online as a result.
So it's not a real form of justice but it's something.
So I look forward to her amendment.
Good for her.
Get your money.
>> Yeah, yeah, 100%.
It's designed to, the way that these sorts of decisions are used in the modern era
is it's an approximation for justice when we can't get justice, but
it's designed to change the behavior going forward.
The idea is supposed to be that he'll stop doing it.
That was an interesting theory.
It didn't work.
The $5 million is not enough to change his behavior.
And so it only makes sense, if the idea is to change his behavior,
that obviously you gotta jack up the amount of money.
I would say doubling it doesn't seem like enough.
I don't see why that would change his behavior.
I would say it should be multiplied by at least a factor of ten.
And if that doesn't work, then do it again.
He is repeatedly doing the exact same thing.
He is not only spitting in the face of E Jean Carroll,
he's spitting in the face of the judicial system.
Of that judge, of that court, of that jury repeatedly, day after day.
The question is gonna be on the judge, on them, what are they gonna do about it?
As of right now, Trump has not responded to requests for comment on this.
So finally, I guess he's had enough to say about this for a little bit.
Final point goes to you.
>> Yes, can I just say, cuz I watched other men go on conservative shows after
this was announced to see their reactions and a lot of men were just so happy.
They called it a win for Donald Trump because it was only labeled sexual
abuse and they didn't call him a rapist necessarily.
A lot of men walked away from that just absolutely delusional, saying, yeah,
that's the win.
What is that teaching men?
That's teaching men that, hey, he got away with it.
I can get away with it too.
I won't be called a rapist.
So just more negative influence is coming from this.
It's only so much justice.
[MUSIC]