DAN ABRAMS (00:00):
Nine jurors made up of three women and six men expected to get the case on Tuesday only if the jury unanimously believes Eugene Carroll's account can they find Trump liable and award damages. Joining me now, Katie Smith, civil attorney who worked for the special federal litigation Division for the City of New York. She's litigated cases before Judge Kaplan and Jesse Weber, attorney and host on the law and Crime network, also a news nation legal contributor. He has been following the case closely. Alright, let's first talk about the fact that Donald Trump is not testifying it seems, but the judge is leaving open the possibility that he could come back and change his mind. Unusual.

KATIE SMITH (00:39):
It is unusual, but again, I would be shocked if he actually came back. I mean, if he did, it would certainly be against the advice of his attorney at this stage in the game. It would be a mistake.

DAN ABRAMS (00:52):
Yeah, but in a civil case, Jesse, we've talked about this before. You can use it against the client, right? In a criminal case, we always say, ah, don't testify. Make them challenge the evidence. It's proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Here it's a much lower standard, which is more likely than not preponderance of the evidence. And the attorneys for Eugene Carroll can get up there and say, he didn't testify. Why do you

(01:13):
Think he didn't testify?

(01:14):
And they can use it against

JESSE WEBER (01:15):
Him. And I think that they will in a closing argument and say, he is not taking this seriously. He doesn't have a defense. Otherwise he would've come here and said his side of the story. No, he was afraid to take the stand because he was afraid of the hard questions. I think they have a legitimate argument to make. But what you're going to hear from Mr. Taina, who's Donald Trump's attorney, is in a closing argument, say, he didn't need to testify because he's not going to justify this account. We showed you very clearly all the inconsistencies in her story, all the weaknesses in her evidence, and her witnesses. My client doesn't need to come to New York and justify himself.

DAN ABRAMS (01:48):
Let me ask you. So one of the things, number two, during the deposition, he said about E and Carol, I think she's sick, mentally sick. She said that I did something to her that never took place. There was no anything. I know nothing about this nut job. That's not the right thing. I apologize. They keep wanting to put that one up. It's been the second time that's been up, we're not talking about that. But when he says, I knew nothing about this nut job, on the one hand you would say, look, Trump's trying to make it clear. This is unambiguous, this is clear. On the other hand, does that have the potential to backfire?

KATIE SMITH (02:21):
Of course. But I think that this is very consistent. He is from the beginning trying to paint this like a kangaroo court, a political assassination. He's been trying to discredit this entire process since the minute he passed through the deposition.

DAN ABRAMS (02:35):
And my understanding, you think that this might all actually be a political effort by him to lose

KATIE SMITH (02:42):
Listen, he creates a win-win situation for him historically because I think that his attorneys, when they did the cross-examination, violated every rule in the playbook. They went after her hard. They spent too much time. And I asked myself, why would they do that? And the bottom line is his is being galvanized if he loses, it's a political win.

JESSE WEBER (03:03):
Yeah. Unless it's like an Alex Jones type damages award. He's going to brush this off. But I'll tell you just to put it out there, I think his team did a really good job with what they had. So you mentioned Ms. Martin before this corroborating witness. Well, what did they present her with today? Messages where she was criticizing Jean Carroll's lawsuit and basically in a private message, she said, this quest has become her lifestyle. Now you look in that and you say, well, what does that mean? Are they saying, is she saying she doesn't believe what she actually said about Trump? Or is she taking this too far? I told her at the time not to report it to the police. She should have moved on. She's made her whole life about Donald Trump. That's up to the jury. And I think at least Taina has given the jury pause to think about this.

DAN ABRAMS (03:48):
Well, and I have to say that I think that one of the most significant I get, I've been getting a lot of heat for mentioning this as we've covered this case a lot, and this is both a Facebook post that she posted in 2012. Also some emails that she responded to. And this is the exchange of the Facebook post. Joe Taina shows the jury a Facebook post from 2012. She wrote, would you have sex with Donald Trump for $17,000? Even if you could A, give the money to charity B closed your eyes and he's not allowed to speak. So you joked around about having sex with Donald Trump for money, right? Eugene Carroll said, right.

(04:30):
I think

(04:31):
That that's a big deal that, no,

KATIE SMITH (04:35):
I believe that the next response she had given about that was, it's better to joke than

DAN ABRAMS (04:40):
Its to crime. Yes. Yeah, that is exactly what she said. And

KATIE SMITH (04:42):
So there is a sense of survivors trying to wrap their minds around this, trying to even at opportunities make light so that they can move forward.

DAN ABRAMS (04:50):
But will the jury recognize that? I mean, that's the question, right?

JESSE WEBER (04:53):
So maybe

DAN ABRAMS (04:54):
Thank you for watching. Go to News nation now.com to find News Nation on your cable provider. And don't forget to click the red subscribe button below to get more of news unbiased coverage.