The Jury has reached a verdict in Johnny Depp's defamation case
against Amber Heard, let's watch.
>> As to the statement appearing in the online Op-ed entitled Amber Heard.
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.
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 intended by misheard.
Answer, yes.
Do you find that Mr. Depp has proven by clear and
convincing evidence that MS heard acted with actual malice?
Answer, yes.
>> So as you can see from that video,
the Jury did in fact find Amber Heard guilty of defamation.
So, Johnny Depp did win his defamation suit against Amber Heard.
Amber Heard also countersued, Johnny Depp and his attorney Adam Waldman.
And there was also a guilty verdict in regard to her countersuit.
Let's watch that.
>> As to this statement, appearing in the April 27th
2020 online edition of the daily mail quote.
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 penthouse is thoroughly searched and
interviewed and left after seeing no damage to face or property.
So Amber and her friends spilled a little wine and rough the place up.
Got their story straight under the direction of a lawyer and publicist.
And then placed a second call to 911 end quote.
Do you find that misheard has proven all the elements of defamation.
Answer, yes.
Was false?
Answer, yes.
Do you find that misheard has proven by clear and
convincing evidence that the statement by Mr. Waldman was made with actual malice.
Answer, yes.
>> So for those of you who have not been following this trial closely,
just to give you the background information,
the context necessary to really understand what these verdicts mean.
It all really started in December of 2018 when Amber Heard had published
an Op-ed with the Washington post, accusing her ex-husband, Johnny Depp.
And it of intimate partner violence in the peace heard had described
becoming a public figure representing domestic abuse and
seeing in real time how institutions protect men accused of abuse.
Now, Depp denied those allegations and blamed the publication for damaging his
reputation and career, causing him to sustain extensive financial losses.
And so, depth one in this defamation case, which let me just note,
winning a defamation case is incredibly difficult,
especially as a public figure, you have to prove actual malice.
And to be quite honest, depths attorneys did a fantastic job providing
the evidence necessary to find Amber Heard guilty of defamation.
Also, in some let's get to the financial component of all of this
Amber Heard was found liable for defaming Johnny Depp in an Op-ed,
published in the Washington post.
And death was found liable for a statement.
His attorney that's Adam Waldman made to the Daily Mail calling her claims a Hoax,
a jury decided Wednesday.
So, they awarded depth a total of $15 million $2 million.
Now, I wanna be clear about how the punitive
damages work because the trial was held in the state of Virginia.
And so the punitive damages for Depp were actually reduced to $350,000.
And that's because in the state of Virginia when it comes
to punitive damages, there is a cap and that cap is $350,000.
But that $350,000 is in addition to the other,
so it was a total of 15 million.
So I believe it was 5 million if I'm not mistaken in compensatory damages and
then 10 million in punitive damages.
The Virginia law that I'm referring to only applies to the punitive damages,
meaning that there's a $350,000 cap on the punitive damages.
Anyway, we're getting into the weeds,
which to be quite honest isn't that important.
Let's talk about what went down during the trial, because I do
think based on the evidence that was provided based on the witness testimony.
This was the correct verdict, okay?
So, Depp went on all three statements in his suit and
heard one on heard one on one of three in her counterclaim, okay?
So, in a statement in regard to the verdicts, Amber Heard wrote this.
The disappointment I feel today is beyond words.
I'm heartbroken, that the mountain of evidence still was not enough to stand
up to the disproportionate power, influence and sway of my ex-husband.
I'm even more disappointed with what this verdict means for
other women, she wrote, it's a setback.
It sets back the clock to a time when women who spoke up and
spoke out could be publicly shamed and humiliated.
Well, domestic violence goes both ways.
Women are not the only victims of domestic violence.
And if you paid close attention to the trial, if you looked at the evidence that
was provided by Johnny Depp's attorneys, by Johnny Depp side,
it was abundantly clear that there was domestic violence against him as well.
And she really went out of her way to minimize that.
In fact, we'll get to some of the witness testimony in just a moment.
But before we do, I think one of the most important pieces of evidence that was
provided by Johnny Depp side was the audio that you're about to hear.
He recorded her admitting that she had struck him first.
Let's watch.
>> I said to Travis, I said no, I said tell Travis what just happened?
>> You told me to do it.
He told me to go do that.
>> Tell them what you're saying, that you punched me and you said I didn't.
What are you talking about by the way.
>> I'm sorry that I didn't hit you across the face in a proper slot but
I was hitting you.
It was not punching you babe, you're not punched.
>> Don't tell me what it feels like to be punched.
>> Even a lot of fights have been around a long time.
You didn't get punched.
You got hit.
I'm sorry I hit you like this.
But I did not punch you.
I did not.
Thank you, hitting you.
I don't know what the motion of my actual hand was, but you're fine.
I did not hurt you, I did not punch you.
I was hitting you.
>> So there she is admitting that she's the one who struck in first.
That's a pretty important piece of evidence that I think helped to sway
the opinion of the jurors.
And remember, when it comes to this verdict,
there needs to be unanimous agreement.
And they all agreed that Amber Heard did in fact defame Johnny Depp.
But there was other evidence,
in the form of witness testimony that I thought was also important.
It also showed that there were inconsistencies to say the least possibly
deception in some of what Amber Heard had said during the trial.
So for instance, morgen night,
the owner of a trailer park in Joshua tree where both Amber Heard and
Johnny Depp had stayed in 2013, testified during this trial.
I found his testimony to be incredibly compelling.
Especially, because Amber Heard had testified that Johnny Depp was jealous,
controlling, possessive and his testimony actually countered or
contradicted what she had to say about a fight they had at the trailer park.
It based on her testimony, it seemed as though he Johnny Depp had started some
sort of fight with her because of how possessive he is.
But the witness here morgen night again,
the owner of the trailer park who witnessed their argument or
at least the very beginning of it, I said no, that's not how it went down.
Apparently, Amber Heard started yelling at him first because he allegedly
wasn't paying enough attention to her.
And he then said that depth coward and seemed afraid.
So that was compelling witness testimony.
Also during one night,
Depp alleged that Amber threw a wine bottle at him which severed his finger.
And the evidence of his finger being severed was also of course provided during
the trial.
It was gruesome, difficult to look at.
And there was a surgeon by the name of David Culbert who testified,
this is the surgeon who actually reconstructed Johnny Depp's finger.
And he had testified that the heavy cast that he had put on Johnny Depp's finger,
would make it impossible for him to make a fist or
to grab anyone in any type of violent way.
Also Jennifer Howell, the founder of the Art of Elysium and a former friend of her
sister testified, that heard was being dishonest about a donation that she had
made to this organization heard had previously testified that she had donated
a quarter million dollars to the Art of Elysium is children's art program.
But Howell had testified that the organization did receive an anonymous
donation of $250,000 not from heard but from Elon Musk.
And so, why am I bringing up all of this witness testimony that contradicted
what Amber Heard had said or what Amber Heard had testified?
Because depths attorneys did a really good job making the case
that Amber Heard is not honest, not an honest actor that she
said all sorts of things that turned out to be untrue.
Another example was Candy Davidson Gold Braun,
who also testified that herd did not in fact donate the millions she had
claimed to have donated to the Children's Hospital in Los Angeles.
Heard had said that she would donate about $3.5 million children's hospital,
had received a quarter million dollars directly from heard.
In addition to a $100,000 payment made by adepts accountant
Edward White on herds behalf as part of their divorce settlement.
And then there was a TMZ employee,
a former TMZ employee by the name of Morgen Tremaine.
Also gave compelling testimony on behalf of Johnny Depp's claims.
Because it does appear that Amber Heard had kind of staged
this whole media setup for when she showed up to the LA superior Court to get
a restraining order against Johnny Depp.
Tremaine had testified that they were tipped very likely from Amber Heard,
that she would be at the courthouse,
that she would turn her head to show a bruise on her face.
That was allegedly the result of Johnny Depp striking her.
And later, TMZ had received video that they had published
showing Johnny Depp basically banging and slamming cabinet doors and all of that.
Amber Heard said that he is, she's not the person who leaked the tape to TMZ but
based on Morgan's remains testimony, he did seem to imply that it was in fact
leaked to them by Amber Heard, although he did not say it that directly.
He just made it clear that listen, if someone is leaking us a video and
she's the only one who had access to that video was filmed on her phone,
how else would they have it?
But he does make a point about how if the source is unknown to TMZ,
then it could take weeks to ascertain the copyright before publishing the video.
They were able to publish it within minutes,
meaning they knew who the copyright belonged to.
And since Amber Heard is the only person who recorded the video,
the copyright clearly belonged to her and she's the only one who would give them
the ability to publish it without any legal ramifications.
And the list goes on and on.
There was another example, Kate Moss, a former girlfriend of Johnny Depp's.
Was later forced to testify because Amber Heard had mentioned her by name
during her own testimony, alleging that Kate Moss had been abused by Johnny Depp.
When Kate Moss testified, she made it clear that she was not in fact
in any way struck or abused by Johnny Depp.
Moss testified that Depp had never pushed, kicked or thrown her down any stairs.
She stated that she had accidentally slipped downstairs at a Jamaican resort
during a rainstorm and that Depp had helped and
got me medical attention afterwards.
And I know look, it was a six week case, there's so much more that I can get to,
but that would literally take up the entire show.
So, this is my long way of saying that, I agree with the verdict that was reached.
I think that depths side certainly did provide a compelling case.
They had mountains of evidence.
They did a decent job, proving that Amber Heard is not necessarily honest about
a lot of the claims that she makes.
Whether it be the money that she gives to charity.
Whether it's the claims she makes about various people including Kate Moss who
allegedly had been abused by Johnny Depp.
But I wanna also separate that, okay?
The reality the verdict, in my opinion was the right one.
From something else that I'm noticing attached to
this case that's worrying, okay?
So, There has been a lot of, in my opinion.
Pent up rage toward some of the dishonest actors involved.
Or some of the dishonest actors who exploited the Me Too movement.
And I'm gonna give you a specific example not related to Johnny Depp, okay?
I don't know if you guys remember the accusations made against Aziz Ansari.
I remember covering it with junk younger and
we found those allegations to be ridiculous.
And not an example of a woman being abused in this incredibly important Me Too era.
And so, all of a sudden all these accusations start coming out against
prominent men.
And I do think it's important to take accusations made by anyone,
whether it's a man or a woman seriously and investigated, right?
Take it seriously investigated.
Slogans like believe all women ended up being incredibly damaging because people,
in my opinion misinterpreted that as you should just find anyone who's been accused
guilty right off the bat without doing an investigation.
I think that's wrong.
And I think a lot of people felt that was wrong, but
also didn't feel comfortable speaking out against it.
Because in that era, speaking out against it made it seem as though you might
be making excuses for abusive behavior, whether it be in relationships or
in a workplace environment.
And so now I think the pendulum unfortunately is swinging to another
extreme mostly because this particular case has been exploited by
other bad faith actors as an example of how you shouldn't trust women.
No, it's not about trusting or not trusting.
It's about hearing accusations, taking them seriously and
doing a real investigation,
looking at all the facts before you come up with whatever decision, right?
And if we're talking about the court of public opinion, that's one thing.
Certainly if we're talking about a trial, if we're talking about
something that ends up in court, it will be investigated, it will be adjudicated.
But the court of public opinion is important as well.
And I do think that people were a little too quick to automatically assume,
that everyone who was accused of being a bad person was in fact a bad person.
Again, Aziz Ansari, I'm gonna give that as an example.
I don't think did anything wrong.
And I think the report that was written about him, was a hatchet job and
was just not okay.
And so, the reason why I think we're seeing a lot of bad faith right wing
actors take this Amber Heard trial and kind of run with it is because this is
their way of saying, no, don't trust women, a lot of them lie.
I don't think that's true either.
But I do think that we need to look at all the facts.
We need to look at all the evidence.
We should take accusations seriously.
But withhold our judgment until we know for sure whether or
not someone has actually carried out the abuse that they're being accused of.
So, with that said I do wanna show what
the House Judiciary GOP tweeted today, okay?
So this is the official Twitter account for the House Judiciary GOP.
And so, they post a gift of Johnny Depp because for
them this isn't just a victory for Johnny Depp.
This is a victory for them.
And it's their weird anti women dog whistle that really bothers me.
Because again, the verdict was right.
But I'm worried that they're using this trial and
will continue to use this trial as a way to make a blanket statement about any
accusation that's made against any prominent male by a woman.
And I want us to be careful about that,
because I don't want the pendulum to swing in one extreme or the other.
Like I've said before and I'll say it again.
We need to be able to look at the evidence,
take the accusations seriously whether they're made by a woman or a man.
And investigate them withhold judgment until you have as
much information as possible.
That's I think the best way to handle the situation moving forward.
But again, this was a difficult trial.
I think it captivated everyone's attention.
Yes, because of the salacious nature.
But also because of the incredibly important ramifications
associated with it.
You don't want people to be wrongfully accused of abuse.
You also want to kind of learn from the mistakes that have been made in the past,
both in the media and
in the court of public opinion when it comes to these types of accusations.