July 23, 2026
Trump Demands His Money Back, 2 Weeks After Paying Accuser $5.6 Million
Apple Podcasts 
Spotify 
Castro 
RSS Feed Two weeks ago, a federal judge ordered President Trump to pay E. Jean Carrol the money a jury unanimously awarded her for Trump’s alleged 1991 sexual assault, and so he finally did. But this week, Trump wants it all back. His legal team has filed an emergency injunction to force Carrol to return the money to the escrow account it had been in for the past three years, as they continue to fight the verdict. The Supreme Court has already declined to hear Trump’s appeal, so it is unclear how or where his legal team plans to take this fight next, but Carol’s attorneys had a lot to say about Trump’s latest move.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
00:00:02
Speaker 1: Hey there, folks. It is Thursday, July twenty third, and three years ago she won after suing Donald Trump in civil court over a sexual abuse claim and defamation. She won millions of dollars. That was three years ago, and after appeal after appeal, after appeal, she finally got her money just recently. Well, guess what the president just did this week And with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ. The money is in her account. He wants it back.
00:00:35
Speaker 2: That's as plainly as you can put it. That's right.
00:00:38
Speaker 3: It was actually as of this recording, exactly two weeks ago today that Trump officially paid e Gene Carroll five point six million dollars. The money was dispersed from an escro account that was being held by the court on July ninth.
00:00:56
Speaker 2: So that was two thursdays ago.
00:00:58
Speaker 3: And this week, yes, he has filed an emergency injunction to reclaim said five point six million dollars.
00:01:07
Speaker 1: Now, the reason she got this money is because he was out of appeals. He appealed to everybody who has a black robont He's essentially gone through every appeal. He's exhausted them. And the last one, of course, is the Supreme Court, which they have said here recently, we're not even gonna look at your case. They didn't explain why they didn't do anything except ignore it. So they've gone on. He has nowhere else to go. So where, then, robes, is this president planning to go if even the Supreme Court has said we don't want to hear it.
00:01:40
Speaker 2: That is unclear.
00:01:41
Speaker 3: And we haven't gotten any specificity from Trump's legal team about that exact question, which is a fair one and a big one and a glaring one. Where and who do you turn to if everyone else has said no in this appeals process? And so look, if we go back to the judge on July eighth that basically ordered Trump like he'd had enough, he said you have to pay Carol now.
00:02:11
Speaker 2: And the following day those that money was dispersed.
00:02:13
Speaker 3: But here is what the judge said to President Trump and to his legal team, which is probably a fair statement to ask of them today. Defendant meaning Trump, has been stalling this case for years. A jury unanimously concluded that he's sexually abused and defamed plaintiff and awarded her damages. Accordingly, the judgment on that verdict has been upheld on appeal, and yes, the judge noted that the Supreme Court, including the three justices appointed by Trump, refused to review the case without dissent, So it is unclear where Trump's legal team can turn to. But they have still filed this emergency in junction.
00:03:00
Speaker 1: It's a weird I wasn't familiar. But they're asking for a rehearing by the Supreme Court. They're essentially asking them to go back and rehere quite literally a case and a decision that they've essentially already made. His argument, rose is because of this eighty three million dollar judgment that's still floating around out there. Yes, Egene Carroll's actually one two judgments against the president. One was for five million, one was for eighty three million. It was for two different defamations, if you will. The eighty three million still floating out there. It's going through and doing its thing in court. His argument, now, and I don't I'm no legal scholar, these guys are impressive, is that he's about to make a defense in that case about presidential immunity. He said, the outcome of that and the argument there should now be applied to the argument in a case that's already been adjudicated the five million dollar one, and that is his basis for now saying, y'all should hear it again. He's going to argue that he has presidential immunity in the statements that he was making and shouldn't have to pay her this five million dollars presidential immunity, we should say, if we haven't already. He's always denied any wrongdoing, but a jury unanimously said he sexually assaulted this woman in a damned department store addressing room in ninety six.
00:04:22
Speaker 3: Yes, and that, by the way, that eighty three million dollar lawsuit was also that award was made by a separate jury, so we aren't even talking about the same jury. So two separate juries unanimously awarded this woman large sums of money.
00:04:38
Speaker 1: The second one was just it wasn't the sexualuation. She didn't have to decide, but the way he talked about it. And this one was specifically I believe or statements he made during a campaign twenty nineteen. Yeah, so yeah, he went out, he was on the campaign trail hooton and holler and denying and at one point even said he didn't even know who the lady was and never met her and all this, so, yeah, eighty three million is there's no small chunk of change. He's trying to get out of that too, But one is already settled. So even after things get settled, the Trump administration isn't Oh excuse me, President Trump isn't done fighting, still trying to win.
00:05:12
Speaker 3: Yes, and speaking to that, Carroll's attorneys came out swinging and they said as much. They basically said, yeah, the July eighth ruling and the fact that you handed over this money the next day, that should stand. And they wrote that should have been the end of this case. But defendant now demands another unprecedented remedy and injunction pending appeal requiring Carroll to return the funds awarded to her. This extraordinary request is procedurally improper, substantively meritless, and yet another example of the defendants pattern of slow rolling his defenses, asserting or inventing a new one each time his prior effort to delay the case fails. They're claiming this is his seventh request like tactic over the course of the last several years, and so far none of them. Well, I guess the delay has worked, but the outcome so far has remained the same. Curious to think why he believes the Supreme Court will listen to him this time.
00:06:16
Speaker 1: Are you.
00:06:19
Speaker 2: Well?
00:06:19
Speaker 3: He did put out on true social right after Scotis didn't or declined to consider his appeal, He said, surprisingly, the Supreme Court declined to review a fake case brought against me by a woman I never met.
00:06:34
Speaker 2: There he goes again.
00:06:35
Speaker 3: He went on to say, I will continue the fight against this weaponization and law fair case against me, including the ridiculous claim of defamation, with all my power and strength. This injustice cannot be allowed to stand. So I guess he told us on June twenty ninth, he wasn't going to back down, even when a judge ordered him to pay up.
00:06:54
Speaker 1: Fighting him for the eighty three million in delaying. Understand that case is still ongoing. This one's over I mean, it's over all the appeals. There's nothing else to do or nobody else to talk to, and they're still finding another way. Look, they've got all kinds of Look these are brilliant minds. Is the Supreme Court now going to get in line on the same case that they already said we're not going to look at Is he making some semblance of a significant argument having to do with presidential immunity that should have been applied to this case. Can't tell you that, but I know one case is over and it's not for him. It's the twenty election all over again. He's never going to admit that he lost. A woman said you sexually abuse me, and a jury agreed with me unanimously and gave me money. You appealed and appealed, and now I got my money. The case is over. That is a huge loss. The votes were counted, Biden had more electoral votes. Won't let it go. This is just you will not take a loss anywhere.
00:08:06
Speaker 3: And you know what, you would think he would want to on this case at least because now in every single yes, and when we come back, we're gonna tell you about what began this whole thing and why it makes no sense that he wouldn't want this just to yes go away, as you just said, babe, because now we're gonna talk about these allegations and the story that e Jean Carroll told a jury that that jury unanimously believed, and.
00:08:46
Speaker 2: Welcome back, everybody.
00:08:48
Speaker 3: We're talking about Trump wanting e Jen Carroll, the woman who has made sexual abuse allegations against him, and a jury believed her.
00:08:57
Speaker 2: He wants the money back.
00:08:58
Speaker 3: He just was ordered to pay her the five point six million dollars that's been sitting in escrow for three years. It happened, she got the money. End of story. Right, You can move on, right, you can have this story not be constantly in the headlines. Nope, because this week, yes, Trump's attorneys are asking for an emergency injunction.
00:09:19
Speaker 2: They want the Supreme Court.
00:09:20
Speaker 3: To now get involved, even though they said they weren't involved, because yeah, there's a separate lawsuit with a lot more money at stake that he's still trying to appeal. But let's go back to the original allegations. These are pretty heinous allegations, and they go all the way back to nineteen ninety six, I believe, was the date that she claims this happened to her in a Manhattan department store.
00:09:45
Speaker 1: You remember it was it Burgdorf.
00:09:47
Speaker 2: Was Burgdorf, exactly nice store, very nice store.
00:09:52
Speaker 1: On the fifth next to the Plaza.
00:09:54
Speaker 3: Right, absolutely, it's probably it is in the most prestigious prominent shopping street in all of Manhattan, Fifth Avenue, Bergdorf, Goodman's in the heart of Manhattan, and she claims that he came into her dressing room at a Bergdorf Goodman's, pinned her against the wall with his shoulder, and raped her. And she did not publicly come out with these allegations.
00:10:24
Speaker 2: Until her twenty nineteen memoir.
00:10:27
Speaker 3: That is of course significant because yes, that is the year President Trump. Well, I guess was he was running for re election and he was still president at that point, Yes, running for reelection, so it was ill timed for him.
00:10:42
Speaker 2: But he came out swinging.
00:10:44
Speaker 1: He was. I mean, you're a fresh my memory, but I remember him. There's a bunch of rallies. He is a NonStop, relentless, tireless and even impressive campaigner out there. But a lot of these rallies and whatnot he held. I remember him standing in front of micro phones and any chance he got, heyn you. I remember it so well. I don't know how many times it ha sure felt like a lot he.
00:11:07
Speaker 3: Did, and so much so that, yes, there was a separate defamation suit based solely on his reaction to her memoir that then created this eighty three million dollar verdict that a jury awarded her based on all of the horrific, awful things he was saying about her, and among them, yeah, says he never met the lady, never knew her, never saw, never knew her named in his life. And look, it's puzzling to me that he doesn't want this story to go away. The money's been paid. And yes, I can understand trying to defend yourself against an eighty three million dollar verdict, but that might be an easier case to specifically try to appeal because it's about defamation. And I don't understand why he wants this out.
00:12:00
Speaker 1: Maybe he believes, maybe he truly believes he did nothing wrong and that this is an injustice. What if, let's see, that's just a scenario. Maybe you roll your eyes at it, but is there a scenario that you can relate to in some way when somebody has been accused of something they did not do, or at least believed they did not do. And to think he's gone on through all this, if he is still sitting there like this is wrong for me to give a woman five million dollars who has just been lying about me. I could understand.
00:12:32
Speaker 4: That that is the other side, That is a side that's the only way to explain or if you feel if he feels this serves him in some way positively with his base or some supporters who see him continuing to fight against the system that has been after him.
00:12:53
Speaker 1: That is one of his big selling points, the weaponization of the justice system again in particular.
00:13:01
Speaker 3: Him, even though obviously those exact same claims have been hurled at him for using the Justice Department as his own way of exacting revenge against political enemies or people who speak up or out or against him. But you queued up perfectly. I think you summed it up really, really well. Because a spokesperson for Trump's legal team said this, this is why, this is why he is asking for this money back. This is why he is not going to stop fighting.
00:13:30
Speaker 2: Quote.
00:13:30
Speaker 3: The American people stand with President Trump as they demand an immediate end to all of the witch hunts, including the Democrat funded travesty of the Carol hoaxes.
00:13:44
Speaker 2: That is how they put it.
00:13:46
Speaker 1: You have to stick to that messaging in that brain. I just don't know when he If the Supreme Court says no to this, we'll be fine. Then maybe finally, is this a last ditch throw something against the wall. Yeah, go for it. I don't know how much longer to wait, how much she has the money? I mean what, she should go buy a house right now, just a for how much she gets five point she should.
00:14:07
Speaker 2: Go buy a five point six million dollars.
00:14:09
Speaker 1: She should buy a five point six million dollar house. And just just what are we doing? Who can force her to get it's done? How can she be forced to give this money back? So? What is eg and Carroll?
00:14:20
Speaker 2: She's eighty now, isn't She's eighty years old? They're the same age. He's eighty, she's eighty.
00:14:25
Speaker 3: And they're still fighting back and forth for years now at this point.
00:14:29
Speaker 2: But look, I am.
00:14:30
Speaker 3: Fascinated by this idea of presidential immunity. How the American people are really going to feel about that. He likes to say that Americans are behind him and standing with him and fighting injustice. And I do think Americans for the most part, do want to fight injustice. But how would they feel about presidential immunity that that seems like that isn't something the American public would wholly be behind.
00:14:58
Speaker 1: I don't know this what this legal argument will be. He's immune from what he said because he was president at the time, and he's immune from his language. Is he immune from I thought some types of prosecution? Is he? I mean from a civil judgment? Are you immune from a civil case being brought against you if you're president? I don't use some complicated legal matters, but immunity. I'm allowed to say what I want to say, or I'm allowed to do what I want to do. It's about what he said.
00:15:27
Speaker 3: Yes, and look, former presidents, I think immunity is about, as you pointed out, being immune from criminal actions in official acts.
00:15:39
Speaker 2: Correct in unofficial acts.
00:15:41
Speaker 3: Is running for president an official act as president? That's an official act as a candidate. So look, it'll be interesting to see at this point if you, as you point out, the Supreme Court even considers listening to this case. But this would certainly be I would think his last effort to try and stop Egen Carrol.
00:16:01
Speaker 1: I thought the last one was his last ever.
00:16:03
Speaker 2: I did too.
00:16:04
Speaker 1: I don't think he's ever going to let this go. But she has the money. She has the money, like she's waiting. Are they're going to order? Yeah? Okay, yeah, go go spend it, Egen go, Please have a good time.
00:16:13
Speaker 2: I agree.
00:16:14
Speaker 1: Please take you to get rid of that money. Do whatever you want to do.
00:16:18
Speaker 3: Life is short and she doesn't have a lot left, so she should go ahead and spend the hell out of that and enjoy that money.
00:16:23
Speaker 1: But sounded short, But I know what you meant. She's eighty years old. Is the woman like, enjoy the rest of your days in some way instead of fighting with this guy.
00:16:30
Speaker 3: Because I can't imagine picking a fight with him. But she's experienced it for quite some time now. But she's got the money in the bank account. End of story, at least ninety six.
00:16:41
Speaker 1: Yes, if I said, take a moment and think about his mindset, if he really thinks he is he didn't do this and he wants to fight it. Now take the other side. You got raped in nineteen ninety six, and the guy who rapes you lost and is still was it forty years?
00:16:57
Speaker 3: Like?
00:16:57
Speaker 1: How many years we talking about?
00:16:58
Speaker 2: That's six forty years ago?
00:17:02
Speaker 1: She got raped forty years ago, and the guy who did it still after you got paid finally for it, still refuses to pay for it. Is it thirty?
00:17:12
Speaker 2: It's thirty? Terrible? At math, I was like, still trying to forget thirty?
00:17:16
Speaker 1: A rape? How traumatic is a rape? A rithmatic is a rape? And then the sea you're a rapist being the most famous person in the world. No, okay, that's just the other side of it. This is an eighty year old lady. I don't know anything about Eugene Carroll. But if I'm supposed to believe a survivor, and a jury told me to believe this survivor to the point that they awarded her money for her story, just some toy. I just you're exhausted for her.
00:17:43
Speaker 2: That's a really good way to put it. That's a really good way to put it. Well, we got raped thirty years thirty years ago.
00:17:49
Speaker 1: So I guess if you're a supportive is you say no way, she's just after him? And okay, I guess, But damn. A jury spoke.
00:17:55
Speaker 3: A jury spoke, and several judges have spoken. We will continue you to follow what happens next, but it is possibly and perhaps likely that nothing much will you know?
00:18:07
Speaker 1: For clarity, and this is a George Stephanopolis clarity, right, she has always claimed that he raped her. The jury result said he was responsible for sexual assault.
00:18:19
Speaker 2: Correct, that's true.
00:18:20
Speaker 1: So I just had a flash.
00:18:22
Speaker 2: That's a really, really good saying.
00:18:25
Speaker 1: A jury found him, A jury found him guilty of rape and rape that was not the case. The jury didn't say.
00:18:29
Speaker 2: It wasn't criminal.
00:18:30
Speaker 1: It wasn't criminal at all. But this jury certainly said she was that he was responsible for this sexual assault. You need to make sure that's clear after they cost them sixteen million dollars. We do not have cloting around in our iHeart account.
00:18:44
Speaker 3: That is a very very very important legal distinction that yes, ABC News learned the hard way and with that, everyone, we always appreciate you listening to us.
00:18:54
Speaker 2: I made me rovank alongside TJ.
00:18:56
Speaker 3: Holmes.
00:18:56
Speaker 2: We'll talk to you soon.
00:19:01
Speaker 3: Think
Speaker 1: Hey there, folks. It is Thursday, July twenty third, and three years ago she won after suing Donald Trump in civil court over a sexual abuse claim and defamation. She won millions of dollars. That was three years ago, and after appeal after appeal, after appeal, she finally got her money just recently. Well, guess what the president just did this week And with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ. The money is in her account. He wants it back.
00:00:35
Speaker 2: That's as plainly as you can put it. That's right.
00:00:38
Speaker 3: It was actually as of this recording, exactly two weeks ago today that Trump officially paid e Gene Carroll five point six million dollars. The money was dispersed from an escro account that was being held by the court on July ninth.
00:00:56
Speaker 2: So that was two thursdays ago.
00:00:58
Speaker 3: And this week, yes, he has filed an emergency injunction to reclaim said five point six million dollars.
00:01:07
Speaker 1: Now, the reason she got this money is because he was out of appeals. He appealed to everybody who has a black robont He's essentially gone through every appeal. He's exhausted them. And the last one, of course, is the Supreme Court, which they have said here recently, we're not even gonna look at your case. They didn't explain why they didn't do anything except ignore it. So they've gone on. He has nowhere else to go. So where, then, robes, is this president planning to go if even the Supreme Court has said we don't want to hear it.
00:01:40
Speaker 2: That is unclear.
00:01:41
Speaker 3: And we haven't gotten any specificity from Trump's legal team about that exact question, which is a fair one and a big one and a glaring one. Where and who do you turn to if everyone else has said no in this appeals process? And so look, if we go back to the judge on July eighth that basically ordered Trump like he'd had enough, he said you have to pay Carol now.
00:02:11
Speaker 2: And the following day those that money was dispersed.
00:02:13
Speaker 3: But here is what the judge said to President Trump and to his legal team, which is probably a fair statement to ask of them today. Defendant meaning Trump, has been stalling this case for years. A jury unanimously concluded that he's sexually abused and defamed plaintiff and awarded her damages. Accordingly, the judgment on that verdict has been upheld on appeal, and yes, the judge noted that the Supreme Court, including the three justices appointed by Trump, refused to review the case without dissent, So it is unclear where Trump's legal team can turn to. But they have still filed this emergency in junction.
00:03:00
Speaker 1: It's a weird I wasn't familiar. But they're asking for a rehearing by the Supreme Court. They're essentially asking them to go back and rehere quite literally a case and a decision that they've essentially already made. His argument, rose is because of this eighty three million dollar judgment that's still floating around out there. Yes, Egene Carroll's actually one two judgments against the president. One was for five million, one was for eighty three million. It was for two different defamations, if you will. The eighty three million still floating out there. It's going through and doing its thing in court. His argument, now, and I don't I'm no legal scholar, these guys are impressive, is that he's about to make a defense in that case about presidential immunity. He said, the outcome of that and the argument there should now be applied to the argument in a case that's already been adjudicated the five million dollar one, and that is his basis for now saying, y'all should hear it again. He's going to argue that he has presidential immunity in the statements that he was making and shouldn't have to pay her this five million dollars presidential immunity, we should say, if we haven't already. He's always denied any wrongdoing, but a jury unanimously said he sexually assaulted this woman in a damned department store addressing room in ninety six.
00:04:22
Speaker 3: Yes, and that, by the way, that eighty three million dollar lawsuit was also that award was made by a separate jury, so we aren't even talking about the same jury. So two separate juries unanimously awarded this woman large sums of money.
00:04:38
Speaker 1: The second one was just it wasn't the sexualuation. She didn't have to decide, but the way he talked about it. And this one was specifically I believe or statements he made during a campaign twenty nineteen. Yeah, so yeah, he went out, he was on the campaign trail hooton and holler and denying and at one point even said he didn't even know who the lady was and never met her and all this, so, yeah, eighty three million is there's no small chunk of change. He's trying to get out of that too, But one is already settled. So even after things get settled, the Trump administration isn't Oh excuse me, President Trump isn't done fighting, still trying to win.
00:05:12
Speaker 3: Yes, and speaking to that, Carroll's attorneys came out swinging and they said as much. They basically said, yeah, the July eighth ruling and the fact that you handed over this money the next day, that should stand. And they wrote that should have been the end of this case. But defendant now demands another unprecedented remedy and injunction pending appeal requiring Carroll to return the funds awarded to her. This extraordinary request is procedurally improper, substantively meritless, and yet another example of the defendants pattern of slow rolling his defenses, asserting or inventing a new one each time his prior effort to delay the case fails. They're claiming this is his seventh request like tactic over the course of the last several years, and so far none of them. Well, I guess the delay has worked, but the outcome so far has remained the same. Curious to think why he believes the Supreme Court will listen to him this time.
00:06:16
Speaker 1: Are you.
00:06:19
Speaker 2: Well?
00:06:19
Speaker 3: He did put out on true social right after Scotis didn't or declined to consider his appeal, He said, surprisingly, the Supreme Court declined to review a fake case brought against me by a woman I never met.
00:06:34
Speaker 2: There he goes again.
00:06:35
Speaker 3: He went on to say, I will continue the fight against this weaponization and law fair case against me, including the ridiculous claim of defamation, with all my power and strength. This injustice cannot be allowed to stand. So I guess he told us on June twenty ninth, he wasn't going to back down, even when a judge ordered him to pay up.
00:06:54
Speaker 1: Fighting him for the eighty three million in delaying. Understand that case is still ongoing. This one's over I mean, it's over all the appeals. There's nothing else to do or nobody else to talk to, and they're still finding another way. Look, they've got all kinds of Look these are brilliant minds. Is the Supreme Court now going to get in line on the same case that they already said we're not going to look at Is he making some semblance of a significant argument having to do with presidential immunity that should have been applied to this case. Can't tell you that, but I know one case is over and it's not for him. It's the twenty election all over again. He's never going to admit that he lost. A woman said you sexually abuse me, and a jury agreed with me unanimously and gave me money. You appealed and appealed, and now I got my money. The case is over. That is a huge loss. The votes were counted, Biden had more electoral votes. Won't let it go. This is just you will not take a loss anywhere.
00:08:06
Speaker 3: And you know what, you would think he would want to on this case at least because now in every single yes, and when we come back, we're gonna tell you about what began this whole thing and why it makes no sense that he wouldn't want this just to yes go away, as you just said, babe, because now we're gonna talk about these allegations and the story that e Jean Carroll told a jury that that jury unanimously believed, and.
00:08:46
Speaker 2: Welcome back, everybody.
00:08:48
Speaker 3: We're talking about Trump wanting e Jen Carroll, the woman who has made sexual abuse allegations against him, and a jury believed her.
00:08:57
Speaker 2: He wants the money back.
00:08:58
Speaker 3: He just was ordered to pay her the five point six million dollars that's been sitting in escrow for three years. It happened, she got the money. End of story. Right, You can move on, right, you can have this story not be constantly in the headlines. Nope, because this week, yes, Trump's attorneys are asking for an emergency injunction.
00:09:19
Speaker 2: They want the Supreme Court.
00:09:20
Speaker 3: To now get involved, even though they said they weren't involved, because yeah, there's a separate lawsuit with a lot more money at stake that he's still trying to appeal. But let's go back to the original allegations. These are pretty heinous allegations, and they go all the way back to nineteen ninety six, I believe, was the date that she claims this happened to her in a Manhattan department store.
00:09:45
Speaker 1: You remember it was it Burgdorf.
00:09:47
Speaker 2: Was Burgdorf, exactly nice store, very nice store.
00:09:52
Speaker 1: On the fifth next to the Plaza.
00:09:54
Speaker 3: Right, absolutely, it's probably it is in the most prestigious prominent shopping street in all of Manhattan, Fifth Avenue, Bergdorf, Goodman's in the heart of Manhattan, and she claims that he came into her dressing room at a Bergdorf Goodman's, pinned her against the wall with his shoulder, and raped her. And she did not publicly come out with these allegations.
00:10:24
Speaker 2: Until her twenty nineteen memoir.
00:10:27
Speaker 3: That is of course significant because yes, that is the year President Trump. Well, I guess was he was running for re election and he was still president at that point, Yes, running for reelection, so it was ill timed for him.
00:10:42
Speaker 2: But he came out swinging.
00:10:44
Speaker 1: He was. I mean, you're a fresh my memory, but I remember him. There's a bunch of rallies. He is a NonStop, relentless, tireless and even impressive campaigner out there. But a lot of these rallies and whatnot he held. I remember him standing in front of micro phones and any chance he got, heyn you. I remember it so well. I don't know how many times it ha sure felt like a lot he.
00:11:07
Speaker 3: Did, and so much so that, yes, there was a separate defamation suit based solely on his reaction to her memoir that then created this eighty three million dollar verdict that a jury awarded her based on all of the horrific, awful things he was saying about her, and among them, yeah, says he never met the lady, never knew her, never saw, never knew her named in his life. And look, it's puzzling to me that he doesn't want this story to go away. The money's been paid. And yes, I can understand trying to defend yourself against an eighty three million dollar verdict, but that might be an easier case to specifically try to appeal because it's about defamation. And I don't understand why he wants this out.
00:12:00
Speaker 1: Maybe he believes, maybe he truly believes he did nothing wrong and that this is an injustice. What if, let's see, that's just a scenario. Maybe you roll your eyes at it, but is there a scenario that you can relate to in some way when somebody has been accused of something they did not do, or at least believed they did not do. And to think he's gone on through all this, if he is still sitting there like this is wrong for me to give a woman five million dollars who has just been lying about me. I could understand.
00:12:32
Speaker 4: That that is the other side, That is a side that's the only way to explain or if you feel if he feels this serves him in some way positively with his base or some supporters who see him continuing to fight against the system that has been after him.
00:12:53
Speaker 1: That is one of his big selling points, the weaponization of the justice system again in particular.
00:13:01
Speaker 3: Him, even though obviously those exact same claims have been hurled at him for using the Justice Department as his own way of exacting revenge against political enemies or people who speak up or out or against him. But you queued up perfectly. I think you summed it up really, really well. Because a spokesperson for Trump's legal team said this, this is why, this is why he is asking for this money back. This is why he is not going to stop fighting.
00:13:30
Speaker 2: Quote.
00:13:30
Speaker 3: The American people stand with President Trump as they demand an immediate end to all of the witch hunts, including the Democrat funded travesty of the Carol hoaxes.
00:13:44
Speaker 2: That is how they put it.
00:13:46
Speaker 1: You have to stick to that messaging in that brain. I just don't know when he If the Supreme Court says no to this, we'll be fine. Then maybe finally, is this a last ditch throw something against the wall. Yeah, go for it. I don't know how much longer to wait, how much she has the money? I mean what, she should go buy a house right now, just a for how much she gets five point she should.
00:14:07
Speaker 2: Go buy a five point six million dollars.
00:14:09
Speaker 1: She should buy a five point six million dollar house. And just just what are we doing? Who can force her to get it's done? How can she be forced to give this money back? So? What is eg and Carroll?
00:14:20
Speaker 2: She's eighty now, isn't She's eighty years old? They're the same age. He's eighty, she's eighty.
00:14:25
Speaker 3: And they're still fighting back and forth for years now at this point.
00:14:29
Speaker 2: But look, I am.
00:14:30
Speaker 3: Fascinated by this idea of presidential immunity. How the American people are really going to feel about that. He likes to say that Americans are behind him and standing with him and fighting injustice. And I do think Americans for the most part, do want to fight injustice. But how would they feel about presidential immunity that that seems like that isn't something the American public would wholly be behind.
00:14:58
Speaker 1: I don't know this what this legal argument will be. He's immune from what he said because he was president at the time, and he's immune from his language. Is he immune from I thought some types of prosecution? Is he? I mean from a civil judgment? Are you immune from a civil case being brought against you if you're president? I don't use some complicated legal matters, but immunity. I'm allowed to say what I want to say, or I'm allowed to do what I want to do. It's about what he said.
00:15:27
Speaker 3: Yes, and look, former presidents, I think immunity is about, as you pointed out, being immune from criminal actions in official acts.
00:15:39
Speaker 2: Correct in unofficial acts.
00:15:41
Speaker 3: Is running for president an official act as president? That's an official act as a candidate. So look, it'll be interesting to see at this point if you, as you point out, the Supreme Court even considers listening to this case. But this would certainly be I would think his last effort to try and stop Egen Carrol.
00:16:01
Speaker 1: I thought the last one was his last ever.
00:16:03
Speaker 2: I did too.
00:16:04
Speaker 1: I don't think he's ever going to let this go. But she has the money. She has the money, like she's waiting. Are they're going to order? Yeah? Okay, yeah, go go spend it, Egen go, Please have a good time.
00:16:13
Speaker 2: I agree.
00:16:14
Speaker 1: Please take you to get rid of that money. Do whatever you want to do.
00:16:18
Speaker 3: Life is short and she doesn't have a lot left, so she should go ahead and spend the hell out of that and enjoy that money.
00:16:23
Speaker 1: But sounded short, But I know what you meant. She's eighty years old. Is the woman like, enjoy the rest of your days in some way instead of fighting with this guy.
00:16:30
Speaker 3: Because I can't imagine picking a fight with him. But she's experienced it for quite some time now. But she's got the money in the bank account. End of story, at least ninety six.
00:16:41
Speaker 1: Yes, if I said, take a moment and think about his mindset, if he really thinks he is he didn't do this and he wants to fight it. Now take the other side. You got raped in nineteen ninety six, and the guy who rapes you lost and is still was it forty years?
00:16:57
Speaker 3: Like?
00:16:57
Speaker 1: How many years we talking about?
00:16:58
Speaker 2: That's six forty years ago?
00:17:02
Speaker 1: She got raped forty years ago, and the guy who did it still after you got paid finally for it, still refuses to pay for it. Is it thirty?
00:17:12
Speaker 2: It's thirty? Terrible? At math, I was like, still trying to forget thirty?
00:17:16
Speaker 1: A rape? How traumatic is a rape? A rithmatic is a rape? And then the sea you're a rapist being the most famous person in the world. No, okay, that's just the other side of it. This is an eighty year old lady. I don't know anything about Eugene Carroll. But if I'm supposed to believe a survivor, and a jury told me to believe this survivor to the point that they awarded her money for her story, just some toy. I just you're exhausted for her.
00:17:43
Speaker 2: That's a really good way to put it. That's a really good way to put it. Well, we got raped thirty years thirty years ago.
00:17:49
Speaker 1: So I guess if you're a supportive is you say no way, she's just after him? And okay, I guess, But damn. A jury spoke.
00:17:55
Speaker 3: A jury spoke, and several judges have spoken. We will continue you to follow what happens next, but it is possibly and perhaps likely that nothing much will you know?
00:18:07
Speaker 1: For clarity, and this is a George Stephanopolis clarity, right, she has always claimed that he raped her. The jury result said he was responsible for sexual assault.
00:18:19
Speaker 2: Correct, that's true.
00:18:20
Speaker 1: So I just had a flash.
00:18:22
Speaker 2: That's a really, really good saying.
00:18:25
Speaker 1: A jury found him, A jury found him guilty of rape and rape that was not the case. The jury didn't say.
00:18:29
Speaker 2: It wasn't criminal.
00:18:30
Speaker 1: It wasn't criminal at all. But this jury certainly said she was that he was responsible for this sexual assault. You need to make sure that's clear after they cost them sixteen million dollars. We do not have cloting around in our iHeart account.
00:18:44
Speaker 3: That is a very very very important legal distinction that yes, ABC News learned the hard way and with that, everyone, we always appreciate you listening to us.
00:18:54
Speaker 2: I made me rovank alongside TJ.
00:18:56
Speaker 3: Holmes.
00:18:56
Speaker 2: We'll talk to you soon.
00:19:01
Speaker 3: Think