Supreme Court ABANDONS Trump with SHOCK emergency docket ruling
64.1K viewsWe have started off this week with some. crushing news and shockingly it happened. at the hands of Donald Trump's own 6-3. conservative Supreme Court. Glenn, can. you explain what just happened at the. hands of SCOTUS? >> Yeah, the Supreme Court just told Donald. Trump no once and for all, final word. It had to do with Donald Trump's. desperate last ditch attempt to get them. to overturn the $5. sexual assault and defamation verdict. that a jury handed down against him in. the first E. Jean Carroll trial. So,
this was his last gasp at trying to wipe. that off the record books. So, let's. emphasize this, Brian. The Supreme Court. just put a final stamp of approval by. refusing to hear the case on the fact. that Donald Trump is an adjudicated. sexual assaulter and defamer of the. victim, the person he sexually. assaulted. I don't know, Brian, call me. crazy. Feels disqualifying. for somebody to hold the highest office.
in the land, but of course not in this. day and age. So, we can kind of take our. viewers back a little bit. Um there were. two defamation trials that E. Jean. Carroll brought against Donald Trump. In. one, the one we're discussing now, a. jury unanimously concluded that he. sexually assaulted and defamed E. Jean. Carroll. It went all the way through the. appellate courts, landed at the Supreme. Court, and just a couple of weeks ago. now, the Supreme Court said, "No, we are. not going to grant review in your.
determination to undo that jury. verdict." So, he then used what is an. available procedural vehicle. He. petitioned the Supreme Court for what's. called a motion to reconsider. What. people should know is a motion to. reconsider has not been granted by the. Supreme Court since the 1960s. And it's pretty clear the Supreme Court. unanimously. The reason I say. unanimously, it was just a one-line.
denial, but there were no noted dissents. to the denial. So, there wasn't a single. justice, even the one that he often. calls his Supreme Court justices, who. departed from the conclusion that Donald. Trump's adjudicated. defamation trial will not be disturbed. by the Supreme Court. So, next up, and. I'm sure we'll talk about this in a few. minutes, is the second jury verdict that. was entered against Donald Trump, again.
for defaming E. Jean Carroll. That one, the jury ordered him to pay $83.3. million in damages. >> And we'll get to that in just a quick. moment. But as far as this $5 million is. concerned, does this mean this is the. end of the line? There is no other. avenues, no other appeals, no other. loopholes that Trump can try to exploit? He has to pay E. Jean Carroll the $5. million, plus if I'm not mistaken, the interest that was accrued over the. massive amount of time that he's been.
trying to further litigate this process. Is that correct? >> This is the end of the road for Donald. Trump's determination to try to run. roughshod over a jury's finding. There. is no court in the land, not the Supreme. Court, cuz there are no more procedural. vehicles left, and not any of the lower. courts, because they are trumped, no pun. intended, by this Supreme Court. resolution of the matter. No court of. appeals, no trial court, no court will. be able to now revisit and potentially.
undo this jury verdict. But there's a. little bit of extra good news here, because when it comes to payment, well, E. Jean Carroll's lawyers confirmed that. about a week or so ago, she'd already. been paid. People might say, "Well, how. can that be?" Because, you know, Donald. Trump finally just got the definitive. word from from Supreme Court that he's. done trying to fight this jury verdict. Well, in order to there's a term of art called. perfecting your right to appeal. And in. a civil case, particularly when there's.
a massive money judgment entered against. you like $5 million, not as massive as. $83 million, but $5 million ain't chump. change. What you have to do to perfect. your right to appeal is pay into an. escrow account that is controlled by the. court, the court in which your your case. was tried. And not only does the court. hold [snorts] it to satisfy a money. judgment once the legal process has run. its course as it has today, but interest.
accrues on that. So, we got word we got. confirmation from E. Jean Carroll's. legal team that about a week or so ago. she received, I believe it was an excess. of $5.6 million. I think it was $5.66. million. That represented the interest. that accrued on that $5 million. judgment. Another $600,000. plus, which is why E. Jean Carroll's. lawyers I think made the smart decision.
and they didn't contest or try to assert. that they should be paid out sooner. They could have made a motion to do. that. They just let the interest accrue. So, this is kind of the final way that. E. Jean Carroll's lawyers outplayed. Donald Trump. >> Now, with that said, let's go to the. $83.3 million case. Um if I'm not. mistaken, this is not exactly analogous. because of the time at which Trump made. the defamatory comments, which is to say.
when he made the defamatory comment that. cost him $5 million, he was a private citizen. Can you talk. about the difference here in those two. in those two instances that might that. might kind of muddy the waters in terms. of whether it's exactly. uh, similar case? >> Yeah, Brian, great question because this. would make for a perfect legal. breakdown, uh, law school exam question. Because there are some real similarities. between the two cases, but also some. important legal distinctions. So, let's.
take those on. First of all, the case. that just concluded, the case where the, you know, the the book is now closed and. it will be in the history books and. Donald Trump will forever be. adjudicated, uh, defamer of a woman that he sexually. assaulted. Um, so, in the other case, let's talk about that one, the $83.3. million judgment that a jury unanimously. entered against him. That was for. defamatory comments that Donald Trump. made while he was president. The $5. million defamatory judgments were made.
after he had left the presidency. The. difference is, um, when you're. president, you can say a lot of stuff, you can get away with a lot of. questionable statements, frankly, including statements that are proven to. be false if you are acting within the. scope of your official presidential. duties. And Brian, I know people are. going to ask, well, how can it be within. the official scope of presidential. duties to lie about somebody that you,
you know, were ultimately found liable. of doing these things to? And here is. how Donald Trump's lawyers have tried to. portray this sort of through the. appellate process. They said, well, it's. certainly the president's official. duties and responsibilities to answer. questions at press conferences and fair. point. However, you can't lie about. something that you did to somebody and. defame them claiming, "She's lying. It. never happened. I never met her, etc.,
etc." And he he told those lies while. president, yes, in the context of a. presidential press conference, but that. is still beyond the scope of a. president's official duties. So, that is. what the court held kind of at the trial. court and through the court of appeals. And what Donald Trump is trying to do. now, now that the $5 million case is in. the books, he's he's saying, "You know, I think the trial court got it wrong. when the judge decided that I didn't.
have a defense that this enjoyed some. level of presidential immunity because. it was part of my official duties as. president." Now, Brian, the way the. cases are quite similar. Same judge, Judge Kaplan, presided over. both. Same legal issues were raised and. resolved in both. Most specifically, one. of the important legal issues is how. many of the other victims who alleged. they that Donald Trump had done.
something to them, how many of them. should be permitted to testify in the E. Jean Carroll case. And Judge Kaplan. resolved that issue the same way in both. trials. So, logic would lead us to. conclude if the Supreme Court had no. problem with those rulings in one case, they should have no problems with those. rulings in the next case. Um so, really. it will all come down to kind of the. scope of official presidential duties. rulings. And here's my concern. I am. largely optimistic that the Supreme.
Court will not undo, will not even take. for review, Donald Trump's attempt to. get them to rehear and reverse the $83. million verdict. But my concern is we. know that the Supreme Court, Brian, is. forever sort of itching to expand. presidential powers and presidential. protections, like immunity for a. criminal president, which is an insane. ruling that the Supreme Court handed. down not too long ago. So, my concern is.
that they're going to say, "You know, we. know that, you know, telling lies about. somebody who you were alleged to have. sexually abused is probably not within. the scope of the official duties of a. president, but we want to give him the. widest possible birth such that, you. know, if a president makes a mistake or. even tells an intentional lie, we're. going to pull that under the umbrella of. within the scope of presidential uh. responsibilities, and we are going to.
re-hear the $83 million case. We're. going to drill down on that precise. legal issue, and then we'll decide. whether we want to expand, not only. expand presidential protection beyond. all common sense, not to mention. constitutional sense, but see if we want. to go ahead and re-victimize any number. of victims who might either formerly or. in the future, you know, suffer harm at.
the hands of a president who tells a. whole bunch of lies, not just about. them, but what he did to them. So, let's. hope, let's keep our fingers crossed. that the Supreme Court does the right. thing. In my opinion, the right thing. would be the same thing they just did in. the $5 million case and say, "Trump, no, you're done.". >> Glenn, I'm going to be my usual wet. blanket here and say, you know, the the. initial question that I was going to ask. you was, do you think that the Supreme.
Court's ruling in this $5 million case. informs in some way how they might rule. in the $83 million case, but is there a. world where, you know, it it's almost. like. you know, they know that there is no. claim to to to be able to review the $5. million case because Trump was a private. citizen. He wasn't president, so he has. no claim to to to presidential immunity. But that in this ruling, because he was. president, they have, you know, the. complete authority and probably. willingness to rule in his favor.
uh regardless of how they ruled in the. $5 million case. >> Yeah, and Brian, I am going to at least. in part crawl under that wet blanket. that you just kind of threw over both of. us because, you know, my grave concern, and I'm not just a concern, it's a grave. concern, is that what really informs my. view of what they might do is not so. much the similarity between the two. trials, but the similarity between the. presidential immunity case of Trump. versus the United States and the E. Jean.
Carroll case where the president made. these statements while president rather. than after he left the presidency. And. the reason I have grave concern is. because, you know, particularly the the. right-wing ideologues on the Supreme. Court, you know, they were forever. trying to convince the American people, trying to convince the Senate in their. confirmation hearings that they're. textualists and they're originalists, and they will faithfully apply the text.
of the Constitution anytime there is a. legal question that requires them to. look at the exact words in the. Constitution. And, you know, they duped. us into believing that. And what did. they do when Donald Trump sought. absolute presidential immunity for. committing crimes? Now, defamation is a. civil matter. But, what they said was, "Even though the Constitution says a. president shall take care to faithfully. execute the laws of the nation, they.
said, 'No, we're going to decide that. the Constitution stands for the exact. opposite proposition, and we're going to. rule that a president can violate all of. the laws of the nation, victimizing wide. swaths of the American population in the. process, and he has absolute immunity. against prosecution.' They set out a. three-part test, and I'm not going to go. through that now. But, you know, I often. quote somebody who is way smarter than. me on the history of the Constitution, a.
claimed constitutional professor from. Yale, Akhil Reed Amar, who said in that. opinion from the Supreme Court, Trump. versus United States, the Supreme Court. ruled that the Constitution is. unconstitutional, and they cannot do that legitimately. Of. course, we have no right to appeal it. because they are the last stop. So, my. grave fear is even though the evidence. at trial was remarkably similar, right. down to the Access Hollywood tape being.
permitted by the judge to be introduced. at both trials. Why? Because Donald. Trump announced what his habit, his. practice, his MO, modus operandi, method. of operating was, right? I just start. kissing them. I don't even ask them. And. then you can just grab them. I'm not. going to continue the quote there, but. you get the picture. That was relevant. evidence, the judge ruled, in the E. Jean Carroll case, and it was introduced. at both trials. So, the similarity of. the trials leads the old prosecutor in. me to to believe the Supreme Court.
shouldn't touch this case, but that but. that presidential immunity and just how. broad the scope should be regarding. statements made during the presidency, you know, the presidential immunity. ruling by the Supreme Court, which is. horrific and which is not supported by. the text of the Constitution, gives me. that grave concern that they may want to. take this one up for review and try to. potentially wrestle with and, hopefully. not, undo the $83 million verdict.
>> Well, look, we will stay on top of this. as it goes through this process. For. those who enjoy our legal analysis and. breaking these issues down, and you want. to see more of them, whether it's on. other issues or continuing to follow. along with this one, the best way to do. so is to subscribe to both of our. channels. I'm going to put those links. right here on the screen and also in the. post description. So, if you're not yet. subscribed and you want to follow along, please make sure to subscribe. I'm Brian. Tyler Cohen. >> And I'm Glenn Kirschner. >> You're watching the legal breakdown. >> [music].