Support The Bulwark and subscribe today.
  Join Now

George Conway Explains: How Trump Lost $83M (with Roberta Kaplan!)

February 2, 2024
Notes
Transcript
In this exclusive interview, attorney Roberta Kaplan discusses her recent victory in a defamation case against former President Donald Trump, where a verdict of $83 million was awarded to her client, E. Jean Carroll. Join George Conway, Sarah Longwell, Roberta Kaplan and Matthew Craig!

Love the show but hate the ads? Bulwark+ members get access to an exclusive, ad-free version of George Conway Explains It All (To Sarah Longwell). Sign up today! https://plus.thebulwark.com/subscribe

This transcript was generated automatically and may contain errors and omissions. Ironically, the transcription service has particular problems with the word “bulwark,” so you may see it mangled as “Bullard,” “Boulart,” or even “bull word.” Enjoy!
  • Speaker 1

    In the first definition, I had all the evidence. I had him saying these wise on video, and he realized as the case went on that kinda we have the goods on him. And he got increasingly unhappy as the deposition went on. So I said, sir, we have I just have one more topic I wanna cover and then we’ll break for lunch if that’s okay with you. And he looked at me and said, why do we have to break for lunch?
  • Speaker 1
    0:00:22

    Let’s just go straight through. This is a waste of my time. And then you could kind of see the wheel spinning in his brain. And he said, well, you’re here at Mar a lago. What is he gonna do for lunch?
  • Speaker 1
    0:00:33

    And so I said to him, well, you know, I I raised this question with your attorneys yesterday, sir, and they graciously offered to provide us with lunch. At which point there was a huge pile of documents exhibits sitting in front of him, and he took the pile and he just threw it across the table. Because he was
  • Speaker 2
    0:00:51

    mad you were gonna eat lunch?
  • Speaker 1
    0:00:52

    Because they’d offered us a free lunch at Marlago. Yeah.
  • Speaker 3
    0:00:55

    Right.
  • Speaker 2
    0:01:00

    How everyone, and welcome to George Conway explains it all. I’m Sarah Longwell, publisher of the Bulwark. And because I am not a lawyer, I have asked my good friend George Conway from the Society for the rule of law to explain the legal news to me every week, but on today’s show, We are gonna talk to super lawyers, Robbie Kaplan and Matt Craig who just won the eighty three million dollar verdict against Trump
  • Speaker 3
    0:01:23

    Eighty three point three. Eighty three point three.
  • Speaker 2
    0:01:26

    Eighty point. Yeah. Don’t forget the point three, please.
  • Speaker 3
    0:01:28

    Yeah. Yeah. We’ll just leave it out. Well, you do a lot for three hundred thousand dollars.
  • Speaker 2
    0:01:31

    Strudel. But the, you know what, in this verdict, it’s so big that three hundred thousand dollars is a grounding error. Amazing. My producer didn’t even put it on the sheet. And so she won this verdict in the e g and Carol defamation case.
  • Speaker 2
    0:01:43

    Now, I know a lot of you are watching us on YouTube, which is great, but I want you to all take out your phone but whatever podcast app you use, search George Conway explains it all and then hit subscribe and give us a five star review.
  • Speaker 3
    0:01:56

    Yeah. By the way, this isn’t George Conway explains this all. Today’s episode is gonna be Robbie explains it all, and I am gonna basically just sit back like the, you know, the old guys, the muppet guys in the in the in the balcony. Yeah.
  • Speaker 2
    0:02:08

    Yeah.
  • Speaker 3
    0:02:08

    Yeah. In making jokes. It’s gonna be here for just gonna be here for comic relief, and then that that’s that’s he’s gonna be ask ask Robbie Kaplan, who’s who’s gonna explain it all. That’s that’s what this show is gonna be. Yeah.
  • Speaker 2
    0:02:21

    You guys gonna wanna miss it. I tell you, we, we laugh, we cry. There are incredible anecdotes, break some news. We’re gonna get right to our episode with Robbie Kaplan and her colleague, Mack Craig, who are two of Eugene’s Carol’s lawyers. I hope you guys enjoy this.
  • Speaker 2
    0:02:35

    Robbie and Matt. Welcome to our podcast. Such an honor to have you. For folks who don’t know, Robbie Kaplan is a renowned litigator who is probably most famous for representing Edie Windsor at the Supreme Court, a case that struck down the defensive marriage act and paved the way for marriage equality. And as somebody who got one of those gay marriages, I just wanna say thank you personally.
  • Speaker 2
    0:02:57

    And my my kids thank you. And, so that’s just a huge thing.
  • Speaker 3
    0:03:01

    What do I get?
  • Speaker 2
    0:03:02

    You you just hold on. Okay. I don’t wanna talk about Matt. So Matt Craig has worked alongside Robbie representing Eugene Carroll since twenty nineteen and was the trial council in both trials. So congratulations.
  • Speaker 4
    0:03:14

    Thank you.
  • Speaker 2
    0:03:15

    Okay. Now, Robbie.
  • Speaker 3
    0:03:16

    So much winning. So much winning on on our screen here. It’s just amazing.
  • Speaker 2
    0:03:21

    Now, Robbie, George likes to take credit for your representation of Eugene Carol.
  • Speaker 3
    0:03:27

    It’s not overdue it. I just was like at the right place at the right time in that spot in the universe that just happened to matter that one instant.
  • Speaker 2
    0:03:36

    Okay. Why don’t you just just tell us, so how do you know each other and how did it come to be that you introduced Robbie and Eugene Care.
  • Speaker 3
    0:03:43

    Well, this is actually a a a a good story because it allows us to talk about yet another case that Robbie has against the Donald which is a case called ACN and I’ll have her describe that. But basically I was sitting in my office in New York. I was before I retired and I I read about this case that someone had brought involving this scam called ACN. That was something that Donald Trump and his kids were pushing on the apprentice. And I read the complaint and I said, Wow.
  • Speaker 3
    0:04:16

    This is a really well done document and then I saw it was done by Robbie and I knew who Robbie was by reputation and I I direct messaged her, I think, on Twitter and said, this is an you defuse doing an amazing job here. This is a great document, and then we had lunch, and then we became friends. And lived happily ever after at the end of the podcast.
  • Speaker 2
    0:04:36

    Yeah. We’re done. Did you, Robbie, did you did you, I mean, obviously, maybe other side of the file politically from George. Were you equally impressed with his litigating ability? Oh, stop.
  • Speaker 1
    0:04:48

    I was so much more impressed with his litigating ability, Sarah, than was with mine. I didn’t know where to get it.
  • Speaker 3
    0:04:53

    That is not true. That is not true. I I worshiped you from the very beginning. And then when we had that first sushi lunch,
  • Speaker 2
    0:05:00

    And so And if I don’t think
  • Speaker 1
    0:05:01

    we were ever in cases together,
  • Speaker 2
    0:05:02

    I was trying to remember that.
  • Speaker 1
    0:05:04

    We didn’t have that many cases of a cocktail at Paul ice
  • Speaker 3
    0:05:07

    No. That’s true. I mean, we have had some, but no, yeah, I have some with Brad Carpenter and some other people, you know.
  • Speaker 2
    0:05:12

    And so you’re at a party and you meet Eugene Carroll and you’re a Molly John ass out.
  • Speaker 3
    0:05:16

    Yeah. What happened was yeah. No. We’ll we’ll tell that story next. Yeah.
  • Speaker 3
    0:05:19

    So we became friends and and, you know, Robbie was is doing the Lord’s work in many ways. And one day, this story comes out. New York magazine. It was like a Thursday afternoon or something and and in June of twenty nineteen, and I read this story, and I’m thinking to myself, wow. You know, there’s a real pattern here of what this guy has done.
  • Speaker 3
    0:05:40

    And I really focused on the whole pattern and I tweeted some stuff out about the pattern of his behavior. And then I thought about the fact that The Trump campaign had brought out Juanita Broderick and trotted her out after the access Hollywood tape and said, you know, Bill Clinton raped this woman and she told her story again. And I realized as I was studying through this, the the the in the next week, I’ve I realized jeans case was much Jean’s case was much much stronger because she actually had contemporaneous witnesses who she told immediately after the fact and and there there are a bunch of other reasons so I wrote a piece an op ed in the Washington post in June of twenty nineteen saying, Hey, Republicans, don’t be Hippocrats if you think that Juanita Broderick was brave, well, then you should be standing up for Eugene Carroll, which of course they did not. And then it just so happened that a few weeks later and I think it was in it was June, what? Fifteen?
  • Speaker 3
    0:06:38

    I think it was twenty nineteen. And I I go to this party at at at Molly Jong Fast’s apartment on the in Manhattan and
  • Speaker 1
    0:06:48

    It had to be a little later than that George because the statements were made June twenty one.
  • Speaker 3
    0:06:52

    No. No. July. July. I meant July.
  • Speaker 3
    0:06:54

    Right? It was July fifteenth. I’m sorry. Yeah. There’s right.
  • Speaker 3
    0:06:56

    It was June was when the statements happened. It was July fifteen, and I think July sixteen was when I put up, something like that was the email I sent to you guys. And I see there’s there’s Beene Carroll. And I say, Ma’am, glad to meet you. She’s elegant tall woman.
  • Speaker 3
    0:07:09

    I I thought, you know, I had no idea she was pushing eighty crazy, but she’s, you know, and she was She was very nice and you could see there was a lot. She was kinda you could see the weight on her shoulders. I mean, she’s a very very exuberant woman. And she was very friendly and and and, you know, she’s just that’s she and Carol, but you could just feel the weight on her shoulders and she told me she knew who I was. She thanked me for the piece I think that I written in the post.
  • Speaker 3
    0:07:37

    I think that that she did that. And I said, you know, I I I praise her for her courage. And she said, you know, some people are saying I might I should sue. What do you think? In essence, that’s I don’t remember the exact conversation.
  • Speaker 3
    0:07:48

    And I thought for about a millisecond. Mean, literally within two seconds, I say, you have a claim because, you know, my thinking was this happened. I’m sure he’s lying. I’m sure she’s telling the truth and he’s lying publicly about her calling her a whack job and a liar. That’s defamation.
  • Speaker 3
    0:08:04

    Period.
  • Speaker 2
    0:08:05

    Yeah. Although I Robbie, did you think it was a a case? Like, so George introduces Eugene Carroll. And when you Well,
  • Speaker 3
    0:08:12

    let me know when you finish the story. This is this is a two minute conversation and and I explained to Robbie. I mean, I mean, not Rob’s to e Jean. Like, okay, this would be a civil case for defamation. The, a criminal case for sexual saw that the statute would have run, although, you know, the criminal statute would have run.
  • Speaker 3
    0:08:32

    And then and then I thought, oh, I know who can represent her. And I don’t think I told EGN at that time who I was thinking of, but I said, I have an idea. And give me your email address, and I’ll get back to you in the next morning. I I think I I emailed or emailed or called Robbie and asked her if she’d be interested in talking to Jean e Jean Carroll, and then I sent this email, which I know, which was, I think, January, eight forty seven AM on on the sixteenth of July twenty nineteen. And that’s, you know, and then I went on Do
  • Speaker 2
    0:09:03

    you remember the date and time Robbie? Was it that Was it that important to you that you’ve got it’s No.
  • Speaker 3
    0:09:07

    No. No. I found the email.
  • Speaker 2
    0:09:09

    Oh, okay. Oh, yeah. You went back and looked at it. But tell me, did the the question I was asking is, did it feel to you when you looked at it like, yes. This is a case.
  • Speaker 2
    0:09:18

    No doubt about it. Or because when I think for a lot of people, it seemed like it had been such a long time ago. That there was no way that this was something that could come back and really be meaningful. I think people are shocked at how this is gone. So,
  • Speaker 1
    0:09:34

    you know, upon seeing the email, I’m not sure I thought anything one way or the other, other than I’d be certainly willing to talk to her. And then Man, I don’t know if you remember. Did she because was she in the city and came by that day or the next day?
  • Speaker 4
    0:09:47

    I remember a time in around that time when she came into the office. I remember seeing her there and and being intrigued. I actually wasn’t sort of involved at at that in those first couple days, but I think it was soon after that that she showed up in our empire state building offices.
  • Speaker 1
    0:10:02

    Yeah. So she came to our office and we just start to talk And like George, the fact that she had two contemporaneous outcry witnesses, neither of whom seem to me would have been even though they’re close friends would have been willing to lie for her. And and kind of how charming she was, how there was no preexisting or continuing relationship with Trump in other words. She wouldn’t have been interested in Donald Trump, really. She didn’t wanna do business with him.
  • Speaker 1
    0:10:33

    She wanna be on his shows. She lived in a very different world than he did and and kind of was at the pinnacle of her success then. So it just felt to me like a very credible story. And when you thought about what he was saying, which is it didn’t happen at all, you have to think back that either E Jean and her two friends In nineteen ninety six, came up with a lie to be able to tell about Donald Trump later when he got elected to be president. I mean, that’s just insane because no one would have thought that.
  • Speaker 1
    0:11:05

    Or when he was elected president, they came up with this slide, but then they waited three years to Eugene’s mother died to tell, like, none of it made any sense.
  • Speaker 3
    0:11:14

    Right.
  • Speaker 1
    0:11:15

    So I thought it was a pretty strong case from driven and we certainly knew as we later learned that there were gonna be major complications with the fact that he made the statements while president. I mean, we weren’t completely dumb about that. We knew that was gonna be a problem. But on its facts, I thought it was a pretty decent case.
  • Speaker 3
    0:11:34

    Yeah. And I I remember the thing that that really struck me was I think the New York Times didn’t play the play the story up that weekend of the first the first weekend and then people said, well, this is a major story, guys, and they kinda made up for it by doing a recorded interview with Carole Martin and Lisa Bernbach. And I listened to that and I’m that was what convinced me. And I said, okay. This this this happened.
  • Speaker 3
    0:12:04

    This absolutely freaking happened. And that’s what what that was my mindset when I met Eugene at that party. That that just that’s what sold me. Absolutely.
  • Speaker 1
    0:12:16

    The story itself, Sarah is just so bizarre. Like who would make up a story like that? Like you’re in Bergdorf, you’re coming out of Bergdorf’s. You run into him. She remembers very significant details, which ends up matching what the people, the two witnesses we had who worked at BergDorf at the time said about the layout of the store, about how they walked around, about how it was pretty empty on it in the evening.
  • Speaker 1
    0:12:41

    The one night of the week was open in the evenings then was Thursday. It was just like if you’re gonna make up a story that trump raped you. It wouldn’t be, a, it would be so weird. And b, you wouldn’t make the concessions eugene made. Like she testified on the stand that while I hate to get gruesome about this, but while she absolutely remembered the pain and the feeling of him invading her.
  • Speaker 1
    0:13:05

    I hate to, you know, I hate to I’m we’re really very prude, so I hate to talk about the details. But with her fingers, she wasn’t you know, she and she felt his penis, she didn’t think it was that long and she managed to push him off. If you’re gonna make a belay, that’s not what you’d say.
  • Speaker 3
    0:13:19

    Yeah.
  • Speaker 1
    0:13:20

    Right? And then and then the other thing for me that I always thought was our ace in the hole was Carol Martin. I had grown up in New York City in law school with Carol Martin being a TV newscaster and everyone knew she was. She’s an African American woman who really worked her way up through the ranks in TV news. And to me, the idea Carol Martin would lie for Eva as close as they were.
  • Speaker 1
    0:13:40

    Would lie for each and Carol was just preposterous.
  • Speaker 3
    0:13:43

    Yeah. I mean, this is sort of the problem Trump has all around is He lies about everything and he tells whoppers that he doesn’t necessarily need to tell. I mean, the whoppers here was I never I never met her. And that you know, and and the New York magazine article that came out that revealed this story had a photograph of them together. Okay.
  • Speaker 3
    0:14:04

    And he, you know, and he watches television obsessively. Okay. And and Jean Carroll, Eugene Carroll was on TV. Okay.
  • Speaker 1
    0:14:11

    I got to watch the show. I got to watch the show. Yeah.
  • Speaker 3
    0:14:14

    And and and the other thing and the other lie was, I mean, She’s not my type. Okay. What? You didn’t so the woman accuses you of rape and you say No. I didn’t rape her because she’s not my type.
  • Speaker 3
    0:14:26

    I mean, it’s just classic Trumpy crazy. It doesn’t make any sense. I mean, as as as Eugene put it, I think she testified. She says she thought the lie that he would tell would be. It was consensual.
  • Speaker 3
    0:14:39

    Right? And that’s what, you know, he he just he can’t help himself and it’s just craziness and it just it just you realize he’s lying and she’s telling the truth when you when you factor in the two you know, the two the two outcry witnesses. That’s I mean.
  • Speaker 2
    0:14:55

    So Robbie in that, I do focus groups every week. And for lots of the people that we talk to the cases against Trump early.
  • Speaker 1
    0:15:02

    We did our own version of those, Sarah. Prepared for the trial.
  • Speaker 2
    0:15:05

    Yeah. That’s interesting. I would love to talk about that sometime. What’s what’s interesting is is how the cases are for these voters, which is they’re like white noise. They can’t tell them apart.
  • Speaker 2
    0:15:16

    From each other. And one of the reasons George and I started this podcast was to help me as a non lawyer and other folks like me for make sense of what was going on. So if you could distill this case down, like what are the one or two things that you think are important for people to understand about this case?
  • Speaker 1
    0:15:34

    So I think the case that it said that this this morning, I think the case has two primary elements One is the bravery of someone like Eugene Carroll. Who was in my view completely National in nineteen ninety six deciding not to report this to police, the police, not to do anything about it. It would have been horrible for her if she’d done that. But who lived with this pain for many years and who frankly since she’s so kind of always have a smile on your face. I can face anything.
  • Speaker 1
    0:16:06

    I’m a god’s journalist and I can be as tough as the guys, really for many years refused to acknowledge the ways that it hurt her, which I found kind of extraordinary. Ron DeSantis a real story I think for a lot of women and her generation and others who just endured this in silence. I think that’s a huge piece of this case. And then the other piece of the case is the unbelievable I know John would call I mean, I know George would call it pathological narcissism of Donald Trump. And the idea that he just can’t.
  • Speaker 1
    0:16:44

    He just doesn’t think the rules apply to him in any way
  • Speaker 3
    0:16:46

    to perform.
  • Speaker 1
    0:16:47

    Whether it’s sexual assault or it’s lying in court, or it’s defaming someone or it’s not respecting the judge, the pattern is so is just so blatant. And that’s why the verdict was so much bigger. I think the second time, and there’s other reasons for it under the law, but it’s because he showed up the second time.
  • Speaker 2
    0:17:07

    And when you say
  • Speaker 3
    0:17:08

    There’s actually a lesson for the election here. The re he’s he’s not gonna do as well in the polls as he’s been doing when people start seeing him again behaving the way he behaves. And one of the things I think that politically that has to be done is for people to point out when he’s not behaving the way a normal human being is behaving. It drives him nuts and it’s a cycle and and and what happened to the in front of this jury, I think is gonna happen again in in in public.
  • Speaker 2
    0:17:36

    Matt, I know you wanted to say something. Go ahead.
  • Speaker 4
    0:17:39

    And and this is actually built on what George was saying, but I think in what Robbie said last, which is sort of his behavior, is a so out of step from what I think we expected from or what one might expect from a typical litigant, but I think if you understand it as not having to do with the case at all, but fit it into a broader picture, you can really understand everything he does as trying to appeal to sort of a slice of the electorate. It it explains all his behavior in court why he was doing things that he thought would help in Hampshire. But we also saw that a jury of of nine New Yorkers last May and a jury of nine New Yorkers here sort of rejected that. And I think there was a lot lot of other people that rejected that. So I think it could be, hopefully, a preview of what’s to come.
  • Speaker 4
    0:18:25

    One once once he has to speak or try to speak to a broader audience, but I I think he showed for this trial that he’s not not fully able to.
  • Speaker 1
    0:18:33

    The other thing for your purposes, Sarah, is the first jury we had a very different complexion than the most recent jury. The first jury were mostly people. I think we had one person from New York City. And everyone else is from Westchester in Putnam and Orange counties. Putnam and orange counties are pretty red.
  • Speaker 1
    0:18:52

    They’re pretty trumpy, and we managed to even convince those including some guy who listens to Tim Pool Yeah. To my everlasting horror when we realized. But even he voted, you know, he voted with the jury to say that he did it.
  • Speaker 3
    0:19:04

    Like in an hour too, right? I mean, it was and that guy, the Tim Pool guy I mean in his voir dire, didn’t he didn’t in in on the transcript? I think it said that he got all his news from that podcast or something like that. Right? I
  • Speaker 1
    0:19:18

    mean Yeah. And the initial contest. We thought he said temple. So I’m so stupid. I thought he might have been an orthodox jew.
  • Speaker 1
    0:19:25

    And I was like, no
  • Speaker 2
    0:19:26

    big deal. And you heard temple?
  • Speaker 1
    0:19:28

    What added part
  • Speaker 4
    0:19:30

    of it too. It’s on the transcript. It was
  • Speaker 3
    0:19:32

    incorrect, but then some journalists picked up on it, right? And said, oh, I know what that is. And that’s how people sort of found out about it.
  • Speaker 1
    0:19:39

    That’s chaplain does this very fast era. So it’s like boom boom boom you can barely hear what the people are saying.
  • Speaker 2
    0:19:45

    That is a great little note, but when you guys are talking about Trump’s behavior in the trial, actually I think a lot of people listening, don’t know. What was Trump doing that you think the jury was reacting so strongly to?
  • Speaker 1
    0:19:59

    Well, where do we begin? That you started, and I’ll I’ll I’ll finish.
  • Speaker 3
    0:20:03

    I mean, this will be we can make this a second episode.
  • Speaker 1
    0:20:06

    Yeah. Because it’s a lot enough.
  • Speaker 4
    0:20:09

    I I mean, A couple things. One from the get go, including in in opening statements, he was sort of audibly reacting to things that our side would say that continued to when eugene was on the stand, and it felt
  • Speaker 1
    0:20:24

    Well, let me let me get before that. We were doing jury select one of the questions was do you believe that the twenty twenty election was stolen and he raised his hand?
  • Speaker 3
    0:20:36

    Well, whose opinion matters after all?
  • Speaker 1
    0:20:39

    It’s like in June. Something like someone, you know, I’m like, somebody drunk raised
  • Speaker 2
    0:20:43

    his hand when Yes. Yes. Yes. The jury.
  • Speaker 3
    0:20:46

    Of course, he would. He he absolutely would do that. I I don’t think that’s for effect. I just think he can’t help him off. I just I just I think I think Judge Kaplan when he said, and you can tell the story about.
  • Speaker 3
    0:20:58

    I mean, I don’t think the guy can help himself.
  • Speaker 2
    0:21:00

    Okay. So that’s great. Keep keep going.
  • Speaker 4
    0:21:04

    So that that sort of sort of the reactions he had continued during openings in the eugene’s testimony I mean, that’s when it started, I think, we we started to to say things to the court because we would have his statements on the screen, and he would repeat them out loud so the jury could hear. He called her a whack job. He called her, a con artist, sort of in front of the jury. And and it seemed it’s a bit I think of not being able to help it, but he also I think is trying to slip in a backdoor defensive. Like, is actually true.
  • Speaker 4
    0:21:36

    I didn’t do it. I’m still sort of speaking my truth, which which was sort of out of bounds for this, this second trial. So I think after enough of that, We we said to judge Kaplan to sort of put on the record that he was doing these things. And this is what you’re referring to, George, where Judge Kaplan eventually said something to to Trump. And and Trump said, well, you know, sort of reacted strongly.
  • Speaker 4
    0:22:00

    Judge Kaplan said you can’t help yourself. Donfrom says, no, and he gets up throws his hands off walks away. And that’s that’s day two of trial. No. Oh, it it it picked up quite quickly.
  • Speaker 1
    0:22:11

    And then and then combined with it was like a two man show between him and Hobba. Like, so Hobba saved things in this courtroom, Sarah Longwell George and I only George and I can get this because we’re the same age when we both came from big firms. The idea that any lawyer City in front of judge Kaplan would say the kinds of things that she said, like, every time she said it, my, like, I think my blood pressure went up.
  • Speaker 2
    0:22:36

    Like, give me an example of what she would say.
  • Speaker 1
    0:22:38

    The very first taste, she said to him, I really don’t appreciate the way you’re talking to
  • Speaker 4
    0:22:42

    me, to
  • Speaker 2
    0:22:42

    the judge,
  • Speaker 1
    0:22:43

    to the judge, but I and not even in that nice, to turn a boy. She was kind of yelling at him. And I literally thought I was gonna have a heart attack, not that I said it, but the stress of never knowing what she was gonna say and how judge Kaplan was gonna react. He’s not known as being like the sweetest judge out there. It was unbelievable.
  • Speaker 1
    0:23:04

    Yeah. Well, because she say, man, I can’t even remember.
  • Speaker 3
    0:23:07

    It, you know, it’s like when you’re a kid, right? And you’re and and I I never had but I’ll bet you it’s like when your sibling acts out, you’re terrified for them because of what your parents are gonna do. Yeah. Right? Even though you are the angel and you’re just sitting there and it’s like, oh my god, you get you you get sick.
  • Speaker 3
    0:23:25

    And I’ve had that feeling in court, not like Not like this. I’m sure.
  • Speaker 4
    0:23:30

    And I think what she did I mean, there was I think a lot of the media picked up on some of the the ineffectiveness and introducing evidence and asking questions. And that, you know, at some point during trial didn’t become quite a surprising, but what remains rising is when there’d be a ruling from judge Kaplan, and he said this multiple times that she treated it like the opening of a conversation and tried to push back after he had ruled asked a question that he had just said she couldn’t ask for with a slightly different way.
  • Speaker 3
    0:23:57

    I’ve seen lawyers do that. They they will do that, you know, particularly criminal defense lawyer They will do that because you gotta keep sometimes you gotta keep pushing a judge, but you have to be respectful when you’re doing it. And when you’re pushing back on a judge, you have to do it respectful, respectfully. And and her disrespect for Judge Kaplan. I read the, you know, I read large chunks of this transcript was palpable when the when the court would say you need to do this correctly on whatever that was, she’d say, okay, sure judge or sure.
  • Speaker 3
    0:24:33

    Like, you know, like She’s talking to some
  • Speaker 1
    0:24:35

    I thought you would say that.
  • Speaker 3
    0:24:37

    Yep. And and what you say is, yes, your honor. Thank you, your honor is what you say. And then you you you you follow the instruction of the judge. Right?
  • Speaker 3
    0:24:45

    I mean, that’s that’s what I was always trained.
  • Speaker 1
    0:24:47

    I see you said, so I did another case in front of judge caplet where I was arguing, and I basically gonna say to him, look, if you rule the way the other side wants, you you should just admit that there won’t be any pleading standard under this body of law. And he looked at me, looked out at me, and I said, oh, I immediately would I was like, I withdraw that, your honor. I never should have said it. All I said is it. Make there’s no pleading standard.
  • Speaker 1
    0:25:13

    She said, three dozen times a day things so much more disrespectful than that in such a more disrespectful tone of voice. It was nuts. And when he was when Trump was there, it was worse because he was clearly Performing her out and egging her on.
  • Speaker 2
    0:25:27

    Well, this was my question. Is if Trump In the courtroom was playing for New Hampshire voters. Who was she playing for? Was she doing this because she thought that’s what kind of representation Trump wanted?
  • Speaker 1
    0:25:40

    I think so. What do you think, Matt? Yeah. It’s gotta be.
  • Speaker 4
    0:25:43

    Yeah. It and and as Robbie said, the tone change, whether it depends whether or not she was in the room. Or Trump was in the room. Also, many of the objections she made came from Trump notes that Trump pastor taps on the shoulder that Trump gave her. It wasn’t it wasn’t driven by sort of a deep legal strategy.
  • Speaker 4
    0:26:00

    I think it was driven by the one man.
  • Speaker 3
    0:26:02

    Let me bring it back to the first trial because the first trial He actually had a competent extremely experienced a well known criminal defense lawyer and he’s a bit of a flashy guy and he may not be my type or your type, but he he was pretty good at what he did And by the end of the trial, it seemed like just from looking at the transcript that he was kind of throwing up his hands when the judge would call him out for something his client had done and his client wasn’t even in the jurisdiction. I mean, could you tell us about a little of that dynamic.
  • Speaker 1
    0:26:42

    So it was much to a much lesser extent because he wasn’t there but Trump was live tweeting During the first trial in ways that were obviously in violation of of stuff that the judge had said was off limits. And it happened, what, three or four times, man, at least. And every time it would happen, shows how the world has changed, because he just did it throughout this trial. But every time what happened, we raise it with with the judge. The judge would call Tachapina in and Tachapina would, like, kind of agree that it was an appropriate and just say, look, Judge, I’m doing my best.
  • Speaker 1
    0:27:15

    And I actually think judge Kaplan was sympathetic to him.
  • Speaker 3
    0:27:18

    Yeah. He knew that he that that Tatapina had a client that was out of control. Anyway.
  • Speaker 1
    0:27:25

    Even here, remember when when judge what did she say? Judge Kathlyn? So in the second trial, there there was a discussion about what Trump could say on the stand right before he took the stand. And and judge Kaplan asked Alina Okay. What are you gonna say and what are gonna whose answer is gonna be?
  • Speaker 1
    0:27:44

    And she kind of said, as I recall something like, I can’t really tell I can’t predict. I bet she said, I don’t have a crystal ball. So I can’t really tell you what his answers are gonna be.
  • Speaker 3
    0:27:53

    That’s actually very honest of her because, you know, you never know what’s gonna come out of that got man’s brain and then therefore out of his mouth. I mean
  • Speaker 2
    0:28:01

    But then if if he was the
  • Speaker 1
    0:28:02

    one hugging, I mean, it
  • Speaker 2
    0:28:03

    seems like once again, we’re firing people via tweet knockoffs. But so, you know, he kind of it seems like he is parting ways with her that she will no longer be his counsel So like how can he be mad at her if she kind of did what he wanted in terms of like that performance?
  • Speaker 1
    0:28:21

    Because it’s all about money, my friend. For him, it’s all about the money.
  • Speaker 3
    0:28:25

    And it’s never his fault. Nothing. It’s ever his fault. Right? He’s asked anybody who worked for him in the Trump administration, right?
  • Speaker 3
    0:28:33

    It’s never lost for him. Matter with
  • Speaker 2
    0:28:34

    him. It has not escaped me. So, like, because this podcast is about me asking lawyers to explain things. Practically speaking, how does a jury decide damages in a case like this? And It’s as as I’m listening to you guys, I’m thinking, did they did he cost himself eighty three million dollars by just being such a jerk?
  • Speaker 2
    0:28:52

    Like, is it How much of it actually had to do with her case and how much of it had to do with the fact that they just decided, and this goes to your political point, man, I really hate this jerk.
  • Speaker 1
    0:29:03

    Sixty five million of the eighty three was he’s being the jerk.
  • Speaker 3
    0:29:08

    Yeah. And I’m he actually got off easy, I think, in some ways. I mean, I don’t I mean, the eighty eight point three is just a remarkable achievement, but, you know, you can award they could’ve they could’ve made it a lot worse and it would still have been sustained on appeal for this guy. Because I think, you know, you really don’t get into appellate courts cutting back punitive damages award unless you get to like eight or nine or ten times the tories. And here are the compensatories where I think understandably on the order of twenty million dollars get and and it compared to the three million in the first case because this was the these were the first lies that he told and he told them, he used the bully pulpit, to tell these He was president at the time.
  • Speaker 3
    0:29:54

    Those amplified the effect of his lie. So this guy could have easily I mean, you could if you had they could have gone five times. I think this inverted couldn’t he he actually is lucky that this verdict wasn’t a hundred or a hundred and twenty million.
  • Speaker 2
    0:30:06

    Do you guys agree with that, dude? Were you not surprised to see such an unbelievable sum of money awarded.
  • Speaker 1
    0:30:14

    Go ahead, Matt.
  • Speaker 4
    0:30:15

    I can say for myself a thing. I think we would never have said a number that high out loud. But I think we believe strongly that that punitive in this case had a lot more work to do than perhaps in the typical case. And and given sort of the ramp up of lies and defamation that occurred from the first trial through the second, I think we all felt very strongly that it should be a very high punitive award. It’s just tough to know exactly what a jury is gonna do, and we didn’t put a number on it
  • Speaker 3
    0:30:42

    for the hearing.
  • Speaker 4
    0:30:43

    We had given them sort of targets or ranges for the the two components of the compensatory damages, but didn’t say anything about punitive. And in the first case, The punitives that the jury awarded were much smaller than compensatory. And and so it was tough to expect anything. I think we’re very happy with We
  • Speaker 3
    0:31:00

    should be very happy. It should be very proud. It’s amazing, but let me say, I think, my friend, Shannon Wiu, who is a commentator a former justice department lawyer and a and a legal commentator for CNN. I think he wrote something for I think it was the daily beast and he made the point like, Trump is lucky this this case didn’t get, get to the jury on a Monday or Tuesday because he his theory was they could have gone higher. And they probably just sort of settled on sixty five because they they didn’t wanna come back on Monday.
  • Speaker 3
    0:31:31

    So it, you know, I I that’s that’s pure speculation. And but it’s just You know, this there is no but the point really is there’s no way that this verdict gets overturned as excessive. It’s just never gonna happen and I don’t know what there’s no reversible error anywhere. I could I can think of and, you know, he can go interview a hundred lawyers if he can find one who’ll work for him and I I I think this these verdicts are bulletproof.
  • Speaker 2
    0:31:56

    Can you explain to me because we get, we we put out a thing saying, ask George and us
  • Speaker 3
    0:32:02

    this is ask Robbie.
  • Speaker 2
    0:32:04

    And everybody sent in this question for you guys, which is is he going to have to pay these damages.
  • Speaker 3
    0:32:11

    Oh, great question.
  • Speaker 1
    0:32:14

    The the short answer is yes. The longer the more interesting question is what’s gonna happen in the near term. So within the next forty five to sixty days, if he wants us to be to not be able to collect Wavi’s appealing, which is standard in a civil case like this. He either has to post a bond, which would require him to put twenty percent down or he has to do what he did last time, which is the first time I’ve ever seen anyone do this, which is put the entire amount on deposit with the court.
  • Speaker 3
    0:32:47

    Which means it which means that eugene is guaranteed to get that money.
  • Speaker 1
    0:32:51

    Correct.
  • Speaker 3
    0:32:51

    Absolutely unless unless there’s the, you know, mean, if it’s affirmed, should they that that that money in the court account gets dispersed to her?
  • Speaker 2
    0:33:00

    He had he had that money?
  • Speaker 1
    0:33:03

    He had the five point five. Oh, that money.
  • Speaker 3
    0:33:06

    Yeah. Yeah. And I think they’re I don’t know where there’s some I think I read that it may might have come from this Trump corporation. I don’t know. I mean, there’s some issue with with that, but I’m not gonna elaborate because I I haven’t done the research I always do research first.
  • Speaker 2
    0:33:20

    Okay. So she gets that five, but what about the rest of it?
  • Speaker 1
    0:33:24

    So he’s gonna if he wants to appeal, he’s gonna have to do something similar where he’s gonna get the money from Sarah, I have no idea. But otherwise, he’s gonna have to allow us to start trying
  • Speaker 3
    0:33:33

    to collect money. We have so much money. It’s
  • Speaker 1
    0:33:36

    Right. It’s hard for him
  • Speaker 3
    0:33:37

    to say. This is
  • Speaker 1
    0:33:38

    He said in the in the AG deposition that they had four hundred million dollars in cash at the Trump board.
  • Speaker 3
    0:33:44

    And, you know, he’s always telling the truth.
  • Speaker 2
    0:33:48

    That is, well, that’s good news.
  • Speaker 3
    0:33:50

    Okay. Speaking of hundreds of millions of dollars. Can can are you still on when it’s I wanna talk talk about the about the other case that you have because people have not focused on this other case that you have. The case that as I mentioned before got me just cabeling over over Robbie. Tell us about that one.
  • Speaker 3
    0:34:09

    And when when is it gonna go to trial?
  • Speaker 2
    0:34:10

    It’s the ACN case.
  • Speaker 1
    0:34:12

    We’re on appeal now. Sadly it’s a ways off. Oh. Yeah. So this this case is really I mean, again, it’s kind of another classic example of the way he behaves.
  • Speaker 1
    0:34:22

    So at a certain point, Trump, as everyone knows, couldn’t really do real estate projects in New York because it requires banks to lend you a lot of money. And they weren’t willing to do that. And he had the brilliant truly brilliant. I have to say, idea that he could basically make money by marketing himself. And one of the first things he did in that regard was to promote this very scuzzy multi level marketing scheme called ACN or American communications Bulwark, which appealed to very kind of generally poor working class people They would this is where I think he got the the taste for the rallies.
  • Speaker 1
    0:35:02

    They would come to these big stadiums to hear him speak and he would say kind of a spectrum of lies ranging from I know investments I know real estate. This is a better investment than real estate. To, I did a lot of due diligence, and this company is great. To my all time favorite, which is people think I’m just doing this for the money, but I just really like the company.
  • Speaker 3
    0:35:28

    Oh god. What is a multi multi level marketing scheme for those of us not familiar, for those people out there, not familiar with with this, highly advanced form of fraudulent behavior.
  • Speaker 1
    0:35:40

    So it’s basically a pyramid scheme. Even among pyramid scheme experts, this one is considered to be among the worst. And he had these people on celebrity apprentice twice. We got the outtakes for both episodes. We also depose some of the celebrities who were on and suffice it to say it’s all quite eye opening to say the least.
  • Speaker 1
    0:36:05

    We’re on appeal now because the judge wouldn’t certify a class. And then she dismissed it without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. We’re just gonna appeal it and hopefully come back soon.
  • Speaker 3
    0:36:15

    Let me ask you. So you ended up taking his deposition in that case as well as the Carol case. And as I I think you ended up taking them almost back to back one week No, week apart. To the next. That must have I mean, you know, one of the things that litigators like to do and they will do it for the rest of their lives is tell war stories that must have been
  • Speaker 2
    0:36:42

    a trip. I wanna hear the deposition stories.
  • Speaker 1
    0:36:48

    By saying the first step they weren’t supposed to be a week apart. The first deposition was supposed to be earlier in this ACN case. But there was remember that big hurricane in Florida? Big hurricane was coming to Florida. We wrote them and said, look, maybe we should just do this at Bedminster, guys.
  • Speaker 1
    0:37:04

    Like, there’s a huge hurricane coming to Florida and they were like, no, no, no, And then as the hurricanes approaching, they shut down everything in Florida. They still insist that we have to come to Mar a Lago the day after the hurricane to do the deposition, we finally write a letter to the judge saying judge. I’m really sorry, but this is how the tornado looks. We got it like on a doppler have partner Chucklyn put a picture in the letter of the hurricane.
  • Speaker 3
    0:37:30

    Did you did you did you did you embellish it with a Sharpie?
  • Speaker 1
    0:37:34

    Yeah. We should have. And and so the judge said, obviously, you don’t have to fly the floor today. It was postponed. And and it was postponed until the week before the other one.
  • Speaker 1
    0:37:44

    The first one, first of all, was in a very different they were in different places. The first one was in that big ballroom. Maybe not be the biggest ballroom, but the ballroom where you see all the of of documents. That’s where it was.
  • Speaker 3
    0:37:57

    The famous book room.
  • Speaker 2
    0:37:58

    Oh my gosh. He they didn’t have any smaller rooms for a deposition.
  • Speaker 1
    0:38:03

    You need
  • Speaker 2
    0:38:03

    to be a ballroom?
  • Speaker 3
    0:38:05

    Wasn’t that also the room where he he physically assaulted one of your witnesses?
  • Speaker 1
    0:38:10

    No. I think that was the I don’t think so.
  • Speaker 3
    0:38:13

    Yeah. That was the other thing they had go for is the pattern of of, you know. My gosh. Hold on.
  • Speaker 2
    0:38:17

    You gotta tell all these. Good. Tell them all.
  • Speaker 1
    0:38:20

    So at the first deposition, and and he was really it was a very different style of deposition because in the first deposition, I had all the evidence. I had him sing these slides on video, I had him signing the documents. I had receipt of all these millions of dollars to him from his company. And so it’s just really confirming the evidence. And He realized as the case went on that kinda we had the goods on him and he got increasingly unhappy as the deposition went on.
  • Speaker 1
    0:38:45

    He kept saying as I recall that he was like Tom Cruise selling the car and then you’re in a car crash and you sue Tom Cruise. What I didn’t say back to him is that would be true if Tom Cruise had an advertisement to sell a car and he said it has the best airbags in the industry and then there was an accident. The airbags didn’t exist. That’s the kind of lie that trump told in which case you could sue Tom Cruz.
  • Speaker 3
    0:39:10

    Right.
  • Speaker 1
    0:39:10

    So He’s just getting increasingly irked during the deposition. We’re about mid mid ish morning, eleven thirty or so. And I say something like, I didn’t know what to call him. So I decided on sir. So I said sir, We have, I just have one more topic I wanna cover and then we’ll break for lunch if that’s okay with you.
  • Speaker 1
    0:39:32

    And he looked at me and said, why do we have to break for lunch? Let’s just goes straight through. This is a waste of my time. And I said, well, I’m sorry. I would do that, but we have a a court reporter.
  • Speaker 1
    0:39:41

    We have videographer. They’re entitled to a lunch break. We have to break for lunch. And then you could kinda see the the wheel spinning in his brain. You can really almost see it.
  • Speaker 1
    0:39:52

    And he said, well, you’re here in Mar a Lago. Do you think you’re gonna do for lunch? Where are you gonna get lunch? And so I said to him, well, you know, I raised this question with your attorneys yesterday, sir, and they graciously offered to provide us with lunch. At which point there was a huge pile of documents exhibits sitting in front of him, and he took the pile and he just threw it across the table.
  • Speaker 1
    0:40:14

    Because he was mad
  • Speaker 2
    0:40:15

    you were gonna eat lunch.
  • Speaker 1
    0:40:17

    Because he offered us a free lunch at Marlago. Yeah.
  • Speaker 3
    0:40:19

    Right. And and and this is something Sarah Longwell mean, I I don’t know if you’ve ever a deposition taken or attended one.
  • Speaker 2
    0:40:25

    I have no legal problems. Right.
  • Speaker 3
    0:40:26

    When you find
  • Speaker 1
    0:40:27

    that’s what happened.
  • Speaker 3
    0:40:29

    So when you host a deposition, whether it be your law or at your client’s offices or any place. It is customary to order lunch and get your adversaries a separate conference room where they can eat that lunch and do whatever they need to do during lunch and talk privately and then you have your own conference room where you eat lunch with your client and so on. It’s it is standard operating procedure.
  • Speaker 2
    0:40:55

    Very civil.
  • Speaker 3
    0:40:55

    Very civil. And he flipped out that his lawyers had done.
  • Speaker 1
    0:41:00

    A little lena for that. He was so mad at Runa.
  • Speaker 2
    0:41:03

    Yeah. Well, and I hope those weren’t nuclear secrets.
  • Speaker 3
    0:41:07

    Well, there was no catch up fortunately. The catch up had not yet been delivered, so it did not smear those scores apart.
  • Speaker 1
    0:41:13

    He came back in and he said, well, how’d you like the lunch? And I said, well, sir, I had a banana, you know, I’ve never really eat when I’m taking testimony. And he said, well, I told you. It’s kinda charming. He said, I told you, I told them to make you really bad sandwiches, but they can help themselves here.
  • Speaker 1
    0:41:29

    We have the best you have. You can be funny.
  • Speaker 3
    0:41:31

    There’s no question about it.
  • Speaker 2
    0:41:34

    Well, what, you know what, one part that I saw that I did not think was funny, was when he was asked, he was doing the whole, like, when they’re a star, they let you do it. Like, that was a wild thing to catch on.
  • Speaker 3
    0:41:48

    And and and the photograph story about the deposition that you played it at the at the first trial.
  • Speaker 1
    0:41:54

    That’s all. Let me let me get you there. So so I’m still at the the the the fraud deposition. We go through where we end about four o’clock in the afternoon. And, we come in the room and I say I’m done asking questions and immediate light here from the other side, off the record off the record off the record.
  • Speaker 1
    0:42:12

    So they must have planned it. And he looks at me from across the table and he says see you next Tuesday
  • Speaker 3
    0:42:19

    for the second deposition. Was the deposition on a Tuesday council?
  • Speaker 1
    0:42:23

    Yeah. Well, no. No. I don’t think it was. We’ll look it up, and I don’t think it was.
  • Speaker 1
    0:42:27

    And I think god had no idea what that meant. I said to him, what are you talking about? I’m coming back on Wednesday. It’s literally as an honest answer. I had no idea what he was talking about.
  • Speaker 1
    0:42:38

    Then we get into the car Did he respond? Wait.
  • Speaker 2
    0:42:41

    Did he did he laugh or something?
  • Speaker 3
    0:42:42

    They said see. They said it’s sort of like in a deliberate way, right? I mean.
  • Speaker 1
    0:42:45

    Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I thought you could tell it was like It was like a kind of a joke again like teenage boys would come up with.
  • Speaker 2
    0:42:53

    Yeah. That is a teenage boy level joke.
  • Speaker 1
    0:42:55

    Yeah. I wasn’t done on the joke, so I had no idea that we get into the car and my colleagues are like Robbie. Do you know what that means? And I’m like, no, what are you talking about? They tell me and I’m like, oh my god, thank god.
  • Speaker 1
    0:43:06

    I didn’t know because had I known I I for sure we’ve gotten angry. There’s no question I’ve gotten angry. And I didn’t because I didn’t know. So I was super polite and I looked like I was being above it all, which I wasn’t. I just didn’t understand.
  • Speaker 3
    0:43:21

    That’s just an amazing story.
  • Speaker 1
    0:43:23

    We come back the next Wednesday. For the deposition in Carol. And that looks very different. On that deposition, I really just wanted him to talk. I mean, I just knew that he was gonna say crazy things.
  • Speaker 1
    0:43:35

    And the only thing I needed to accomplish was I wanted him to confirm that his theory of the case was never met her, never happened. Right? I wanted to make sure that that’s what I was defending against, or that’s what I was prosecuting my case against the trial. We’re pretty early in the morning. And, Matt, you should say what you remember.
  • Speaker 1
    0:43:55

    And he starts to talk about I’m kind of getting him to confirm the defamatory statements he made. And he said, oh yeah, you know, they showed me a photo where we were together. And I I wasn’t really trying to be tricks during all. I said, well, I think I have a copy of that photo. Let me show you.
  • Speaker 1
    0:44:10

    We pull it out and I said, is this the photo? And he starts to look at it and he literally points Abby Jeanen says that’s Marla.
  • Speaker 3
    0:44:19

    I don’t even know who the woman. Let’s say, I don’t know who it’s Marla.
  • Speaker 1
    0:44:27

    You’re saying Marla’s in this photo?
  • Speaker 3
    0:44:29

    That’s Marla. Yeah. That’s that’s my wife.
  • Speaker 1
    0:44:31

    Which one woman are you pointing to?
  • Speaker 3
    0:44:33

    Here. Carol. Oh, set. The first
  • Speaker 4
    0:44:36

    thing you
  • Speaker 1
    0:44:36

    just pointed to was speaking
  • Speaker 3
    0:44:37

    to Carol.
  • Speaker 1
    0:44:37

    Oh, I see. And I I was so shocked. I said, what did you what did you just say? And he said, I said, that’s Marla. And I was like, sir, that’s Eugene Carroll.
  • Speaker 1
    0:44:46

    He just pointed at aging Carol. Then Haba took her a little bit, but she realized that that was a big problem pointed out to him that it was Eugene Carroll. He said, oh yeah yeah yeah. And then here’s the classic trump. Then he says, oh, yeah.
  • Speaker 1
    0:45:01

    Yeah. Yeah. The photo was blurry, which I used in both my jewelry closings because that photo was not blurry at all.
  • Speaker 3
    0:45:10

    And then remember, he’s he his test his statements to the public where she’s not my type.
  • Speaker 2
    0:45:15

    Yeah. Right.
  • Speaker 3
    0:45:16

    And he’s identifying this gorgeous woman in the photograph who happens to be E. Garryl as his wife.
  • Speaker 1
    0:45:23

    Later in the deposition. I said to him, I take it all your All your wives are your type. And he said, oh, yeah.
  • Speaker 3
    0:45:29

    That. She’s smart.
  • Speaker 4
    0:45:34

    That that was that was, I think, the hardest moment I’ve ever had in a deposition just to sort of
  • Speaker 1
    0:45:39

    kick out glass
  • Speaker 4
    0:45:40

    and not react, but you you sort of know what just happened. You can’t sort of show.
  • Speaker 3
    0:45:45

    And you can’t believe it just happened and you’re just like, you you have to do the poker face thing.
  • Speaker 1
    0:45:51

    In lunch right after that day they provided lunch. There were no complaints. And we were so happy at that lunch. Remember, Matt?
  • Speaker 3
    0:45:56

    Yeah. Hey, you must have been.
  • Speaker 4
    0:45:58

    But that was actually there was two moments during during the deposition where you we really had to, I think, play it cool. The first was the misidentification. But the second was when in the afternoon when we played the access Hollywood tape in his sort of response to the access Hollywood tape is fortunately or unfortunately that’s the way it is.
  • Speaker 1
    0:46:19

    And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab them by the you could do anything. That’s what you said. Correct?
  • Speaker 3
    0:46:26

    Well, historically, that’s true with stars?
  • Speaker 1
    0:46:29

    It’s true with stars that that they can grab women by the
  • Speaker 3
    0:46:31

    Well, that’s what that’s if you look over the last million I guess that’s been largely true, not always, but largely true, unfortunately or fortunately.
  • Speaker 1
    0:46:43

    And you consider your to be a star.
  • Speaker 3
    0:46:47

    I think you can say that. Yeah.
  • Speaker 4
    0:46:50

    And we when we heard that, fortunately, was
  • Speaker 1
    0:46:53

    Are they able to do for millions of years.
  • Speaker 2
    0:46:55

    Unfortunately, like, since time in memoriam, stars have done this. Since the caveman.
  • Speaker 3
    0:47:01

    That that did not help him before. Even even in you know, his virtual presence at the first trial via this deposition video. I mean, that that’s what that that helped lose him that first trial big time.
  • Speaker 1
    0:47:13

    I take it. You consider yourself to be a star, and he said, oh, yes. And then on top of that, he insulted eugene a million times. He told me I wasn’t his type either.
  • Speaker 2
    0:47:24

    Oh, that must have really depend.
  • Speaker 1
    0:47:26

    I was very upset about that. Yeah.
  • Speaker 2
    0:47:28

    He
  • Speaker 1
    0:47:29

    said he was gonna sue me very strongly.
  • Speaker 3
    0:47:31

    Very strongly. We’re gonna sue you so strongly. No one has ever been sued like the way we’re gonna sue you. Many people are saying, people say sir, you should sue this woman strongly.
  • Speaker 2
    0:47:42

    You know, you said this thing before though about how he is kind of funny. Like, yeah, what did you because I think this is an underappreciated point. I’m sort of constantly trying to explain this to reporters or even to Democrats who were like, but he’s so essentially repellent. Which can be true along with the fact that he is almost charming in his own way and is funny. Like when you said the thing about Who thinks the election was stolen at twenty twenty to raise his hand?
  • Speaker 2
    0:48:09

    I would have laughed out loud in court if he did that. And it’s like But he,
  • Speaker 3
    0:48:13

    you know, he he but the thing about him Is he he’s funny sometimes without really knowing that he’s being funny?
  • Speaker 2
    0:48:21

    Well, that’s sort of my question. It’s like, how how so where is he about how he’s being or is it is it like he’s funny in the way that he is a seventy eight year old man who acts like a fifteen year old boy And so that is just funny or is he very cognizant of how he’s engaging with people and has sort of a lizard brain understanding of how to play to people.
  • Speaker 1
    0:48:45

    I think it’s both. Yeah. I think it’s both.
  • Speaker 4
    0:48:49

    I do think that in certain ways, he has more control over himself than he’s sometimes given credit for. And I think it’s telling that from July or June twenty nineteen until October twenty twenty two. He didn’t say a single thing publicly about eugene while the case was going on. He then right right before his deposition after he had moved unsuccessfully for a stay it was denied. He reacted and lashed out in true social.
  • Speaker 4
    0:49:21

    And then was quiet again until the trial. And then since then, I think it’s been in his interest just to sort of ignore any sort of concept of preserving whatever you want to preserve for the court case and just go off. And so I think the fact that he stayed quiet for two and a half years, I think shows that he’s able to. Well, I’m I’m I’m gonna
  • Speaker 3
    0:49:42

    dissent a little from that view. I mean, I, you know, I you you actually sat in the room with them all that time. So, you know, that absolutely that’s worth a lot. But He he can’t help himself. He’s like a fire hose.
  • Speaker 3
    0:49:56

    Okay. And it just sort of goes in one direction and it goes off in another direction. And he’s very very impulsive Ron DeSantis you get on his radar screen enough or at a certain moment, it just comes out. You know, he just he’s got a fire, you know, he just sort of launches in in in in in a direction. And I think you know that when that when when the cases when these cases reach critical moments at certain times he gets he go he he obsesses about them and then he he he goes he goes wild.
  • Speaker 3
    0:50:30

    And usually sometimes it’s a two in the morning, but that’s what
  • Speaker 1
    0:50:33

    I think that separates.
  • Speaker 3
    0:50:34

    Yeah. I think that’s part of what what what what we saw here. I don’t think it’s I I actually I don’t think it’s calculated and I don’t think he’s showing restraint. He’s got so many things that he’s outraged about that, you know, he he does from time to time move on. And that’s what I think we’re seeing now as much as You know, I mean, obviously the eighty eight point three million dollars has had an impact, but, you know, I think he’s he’s he’s he’s he’s got other problem.
  • Speaker 3
    0:51:02

    He’s got other problem. He’s got ninety one problems as I like to say.
  • Speaker 2
    0:51:06

    And jail is one.
  • Speaker 1
    0:51:07

    At one point in the first definition, my partner John Quinn Not the famous John quinn. I call him the good John quinn. I’m huffed.
  • Speaker 3
    0:51:16

    Only New York lawyers will and and and Los Angeles will get
  • Speaker 2
    0:51:19

    that one.
  • Speaker 3
    0:51:20

    No. This is a this is a legal industry joke, but yeah.
  • Speaker 1
    0:51:24

    After the deposition, and Trump’s like, are you okay? Are you okay? Are you vaccinated? And and I was rummer trying to think like is is he pro vaccination? What’s he gonna want?
  • Speaker 1
    0:51:32

    And John’s like, yes, I’m vaccinated. I said, yes, we’re all vaccinated, sir. And then he was very proud. We had a whole little conversation about how proud he was. He kind of took credit for the vaccines.
  • Speaker 2
    0:51:43

    No. Operation Warp Speed. It’s the one It’s like the one good thing he did in his administration, and it’s the one thing Ron DeSantis spent the whole time.
  • Speaker 3
    0:51:49

    Yeah. No. It’s crazy. It’s crazy. I would give him credit for that too.
  • Speaker 3
    0:51:52

    I give him credit for that and I give him credit for getting us out of, you know, basically trying to get us out of Afghanistan, but anyway.
  • Speaker 2
    0:52:00

    Okay. Any other I don’t because I don’t know. Are there any other great war stories that you guys can tell about this?
  • Speaker 1
    0:52:07

    Yeah. What about the trial? What am I missing from the trials?
  • Speaker 4
    0:52:10

    I mean, we we didn’t actually get to it, I think, yet, but when I think the most sort of telling moment of his orientation toward the process and the trials when during Robbie’s closing, he just walked out. I’ve never seen before. I think most judges wouldn’t let someone walk out. But he stood up and walked up the door. Look at
  • Speaker 3
    0:52:29

    the feeling that Kaplan was kinda letting him hang himself on his own rope in that regard. Instead of any other civil defendant did that. He he would’ve the guy he would’ve been laying in leg irons, you know, he would have the marshals put them back in his seat or something. Just let him hang himself there. I I would imagine.
  • Speaker 2
    0:52:50

    How did the judge react? I mean, you guys have said judge Kaplan is stern and you know, kind of no nonsense, but you’ve got a former president in your courtroom and a jury trial. Like, was there any and and which I think could create sort of a weird power dynamic. The judge, it’s his space, but Trump is used to everything being his space. And so What was the vibe like between them?
  • Speaker 3
    0:53:16

    Preak.
  • Speaker 1
    0:53:16

    I think each each in contrast is very well. I think what really came across is trump looked very small in that courtroom. I mean, he was lower. He was physically lower than the judge because the judge is sitting up on the bench. Judge Kaplan is at least as big as as big a man as Trump is.
  • Speaker 1
    0:53:36

    Yep. He really maintained order in decorum in the court to the extent he could. And when people misbehave team made it very they didn’t do it for very long. I mean, on the one hand, Trump doesn’t follow the rules. On the other hand, He did follow the rules to the extent when Kaplan reprimanded him.
  • Speaker 1
    0:53:53

    He stopped at least for a time. And so what what became clear at Meijin says the emperor has no clothes.
  • Speaker 3
    0:54:00

    Oh, stop.
  • Speaker 1
    0:54:02

    I know. I know because I can’t imagine it, but it it did He did what he
  • Speaker 2
    0:54:06

    feels?
  • Speaker 1
    0:54:07

    He did look and feel small, I think. Yeah.
  • Speaker 4
    0:54:10

    I mean,
  • Speaker 1
    0:54:10

    it was not he thought he was gonna it was gonna be like a manga rally, and it was gonna be great for him being there. Think it was exactly the opposite.
  • Speaker 2
    0:54:17

    What did his face look like when the verdict came down?
  • Speaker 1
    0:54:21

    Oh, he had left. That’s the one time he left. He left about an hour before, I think.
  • Speaker 2
    0:54:25

    He just wasn’t there to hear the verdict get read?
  • Speaker 1
    0:54:27

    Correct.
  • Speaker 3
    0:54:29

    I vote. Makes sense.
  • Speaker 2
    0:54:30

    Oh, that’s the
  • Speaker 1
    0:54:31

    well, I
  • Speaker 2
    0:54:31

    didn’t know you could do that. Don’t I mean, I guess in I’ve, you know, my law and order brain. I’m like, doesn’t he have to stand there at the table while the judge That’s
  • Speaker 1
    0:54:38

    sort of
  • Speaker 3
    0:54:38

    like a criminal thing, but yeah. Yeah. You you you do this. Dude, you own? Normally, if you’re sitting there in the trial, you you come you that’s what you’re there for to see the verdict.
  • Speaker 3
    0:54:50

    I mean, how could you miss that? I guess if you’re about to get hammered.
  • Speaker 2
    0:54:54

    Alright. Well, fine. What about how about it?
  • Speaker 1
    0:54:56

    It wasn’t that long a wait. I mean, it was the journey. Yeah.
  • Speaker 3
    0:54:58

    It was that was really short. Yeah. I mean, it was they were rewarding. I mean
  • Speaker 2
    0:55:02

    What did your face look like then? Like how shocked were you?
  • Speaker 3
    0:55:06

    Let’s see your happy face.
  • Speaker 1
    0:55:07

    With the verdict?
  • Speaker 2
    0:55:09

    Yeah.
  • Speaker 1
    0:55:09

    Oh my god. We were like holding hands, with e Jean. It was unbelievable. I mean, I was I mean, on the one hand, I I agree with everything George has said that it’s it was could’ve been a much higher verdict and still been sustain an appeal. On the other hand, I always kind of expect the worst.
  • Speaker 1
    0:55:28

    So I wish I have to say, and then, oh, here, there’s this great moment where judge, the judge’s longtime deputy said, judge, do you mind if I ask a question about the verdict form and judge Capital was like fine. And so the the clerk said, his name is mister Mohan, said, to the foreperson, what does the m mean? The letter m mean on this verdict form, and the woman who was the four person who said it means million. She’s an awesome woman. Oh, wow.
  • Speaker 3
    0:55:59

    What a moment.
  • Speaker 2
    0:56:00

    You wrote a piece for the Atlantic that you said like, what would you say was, you you wrote that your tears rolled up in your eyes. I was watching in a recovery, but it hit you so hard.
  • Speaker 3
    0:56:11

    I was watching, you know, I all of a sudden, my I was in Florida for a field hockey tournament that my daughter was in and and we were done for the day and I was tired and I was sitting in my hotel room and wondering, like, ones is gonna come down. All of a sudden, it’s verdict time. I turn on the TV. And I’m watching I’m watching Lisa Rubin on MSNBC who was just like she was so just stressed out in the moments before the the verdict came out, like, because it was such a moment. And then when I saw the numbers on my phone or heard it on the TV.
  • Speaker 3
    0:56:48

    It was like, I I I was in tears. I was in tears. It was like, a big
  • Speaker 2
    0:56:53

    strong man with tears
  • Speaker 3
    0:56:54

    in cars. No, seriously. It was just like, wow. I mean, the the it really I’ve I found it quite emotional and I you know, this is a case where my involvement consisted of a single moment in time email and I was more emotionally invested in this case than any
  • Speaker 4
    0:57:12

    case including one I got took in this to the supreme court.
  • Speaker 3
    0:57:17

    In these business cases, it’s just not they just this was just this was about so special about something so much more than dollars Ron DeSantis. And and and it was about this brave woman. I I I who You know, who who’s who was willing to stand up to this guy? I I just can’t I can’t I’m, I can’t Okay. I I I lose I I can’t I lose the ability to speak when I think about it.
  • Speaker 2
    0:57:47

    You know, I think one of the reasons that stuff like this can feel profoundly good is because we have been living through now for seven years just a total absence of accountability. Absolutely. Right? There just like aren’t many moments when you get the chance to say, no. Somebody said, this was wrong.
  • Speaker 2
    0:58:05

    The behavior is bad and you were going to face a consequence for it. And I think the fact that you guys got to be part of one of the just absolute rarest moments of accountability. That’s gotta feel really, really good.
  • Speaker 1
    0:58:19

    Let’s just hope he has many more.
  • Speaker 3
    0:58:21

    Absolutely.
  • Speaker 2
    0:58:21

    Yeah. Let’s hope it’s the first.
  • Speaker 3
    0:58:23

    Let me I’m gonna change the subject to, you know, I’m gonna be Donald Trump for a second. I’m gonna changes subject back to me, me me me.
  • Speaker 4
    0:58:30

    Sure.
  • Speaker 3
    0:58:31

    What did you got? I mean, I got the impression, like, the first trial. Like, especially in the first trial, that they were kind of obsessed with me. And they kept bringing Totally
  • Speaker 1
    0:58:41

    obsessed with you.
  • Speaker 3
    0:58:42

    And and and and there was one point where they put up a slide They were gonna use a slide into summation and the judge was like, what the WTF? Get rid of that. I mean, what what was I can’t What was Kaplan? What was Kaplan thinking when he heard he kept this this weird drumbeat of of like how how Jean Carroll, Eugene Carroll got to got to bring this lawsuit.
  • Speaker 1
    0:59:06

    I mean, because their defense was kind of like a QAnon conspiracy theory, right? They’re they’re cents was you and me, George got together somehow with Lisa Bernadock and Carol Martin and Asian Carol, and we all decided to concoct this lie to get it Donald Trump. That was their theory. That’s all they had. Matt, is that how you see it?
  • Speaker 4
    0:59:30

    Yeah. And I think if you That makes you feel
  • Speaker 3
    0:59:33

    so good inside. I have to say.
  • Speaker 4
    0:59:35

    Terrible story to concoct as Robby said in just never made any sense, but I think as Rodney said, they were grasping a bit.
  • Speaker 3
    0:59:43

    Amazing. Just amazing. From beginning, you what you what you guys accomplished here. I mean, to to just sort of stick with it and to just just barrel through and and do what needed to be done and to do it so unbelievably skillfully I I can’t I can’t tell you how much I admire what you guys did.
  • Speaker 1
    1:00:09

    Well, thank you, George.
  • Speaker 4
    1:00:10

    Thank you.
  • Speaker 2
    1:00:11

    Which feels better winning this case against Trump or getting gay marriage for the entire country?
  • Speaker 1
    1:00:19

    People aren’t gonna like my answer and maybe just because we’re living in the here and now, this case against Donald Trump.
  • Speaker 2
    1:00:26

    Why?
  • Speaker 3
    1:00:26

    That’s fascinating.
  • Speaker 1
    1:00:28

    Because this case because I’ve spent my whole life, and George is gonna I’m gonna get for complex I tell this. I’ve spent my whole life devoted to the principle that we have a rule of law and we have a judicial system that works and that’s what makes us a constitutional democracy that’s, at least until recently was to be admired worldwide. And It was starting I mean, it is in times looking like that may not be true. And this case validated that at least as of now, We still have all that.
  • Speaker 3
    1:01:02

    Thank you. Now now I’m gonna get weepy again. I don’t know. Thank you. I mean, thank you so much.
  • Speaker 2
    1:01:13

    Well, this has been really amazing. An incredible conversation, incredible.
  • Speaker 1
    1:01:18

    Eedy Windsor was very important. I don’t offend anyone. It was super important. I’m married. It’s important to my family too.
  • Speaker 1
    1:01:25

    But you can’t, as I think I said somewhere else, you can’t have equal rights for gay people or for women if you don’t have a rule of law.
  • Speaker 3
    1:01:32

    That’s yeah. And that’s the I mean, that’s we can argue about all sorts of things. Right? You can argue about tax cuts and this and that. Everything that we have these processes in place to decide whether in Congress or the courts and and This one thing is everybody has an interest in this in a way that that that too few people I think understand.
  • Speaker 2
    1:02:01

    Yeah. I mean, even thinking about the question I just asked, the fact is, getting being able to get married and being able to raise my family is been essential to me but the world that my kids are gonna grow up in is also in the country they’re gonna grow up in matters a great deal and that’s a big part of why I think everybody is doing the things that they’re doing right now. Alright, guys. We’re gonna let you go. Thank you so much.