thanks, ari. thank you. we re tracking these two big legal breaking news stories. we have just learned the controversial new york republican congressman george santos has been indicted by the justice department. that s a federal indictment. we re tracking the story, as you heard nicolle just say in the handoff. this is as breaking as it gets. we don t have exact details, don t have the paper, but we do have reporting that that very controversial member of congress known, if nothing else, for his many lies that he was busted for, is now indicted. indeed, this is a fast moving story because he s expected to appear in court as soon as tomorrow. we re tracking that story as well as the other big legal development a jury finding donald trump liable for sexual abuse and lies the defamation this jury says he found he committed against e. jean carroll. that s a huge story, an important one. we have been covering that trial continuously, and i have two essential experts to lea
hi there, everyone, it s 4:00 in new york. in a few minutes president biden will address the community of lewiston, maine, the community still reeling from a mass shooting just over one week ago. 18 people were killed in that shooting. the victims range in age from 14 years old to 76. the story of what this community has been forced to endure is one that has become all too familiar to all of us. 18 people some of whom were out playing corn hole at the local bar, others were bowling with their families at youth night. new dads, sign language interpreters, honor students, youth bowling coaches. some of the latest victims in america s gun violence crisis epidemic. the new york times reports this,that, quote, the vit will most likely also be an opportunity for president biden to repeat his call far ban on assault weapons and tougher gun control and mental health measures that have been blocked on capitol hill. with me at the table, former top official at the department of justi
did not find donald trump liable for his accusation of rape. this new judgment that broke late today and our top story, includes a hefty penalty. it s the kind of daniels judgment that would actually bankrupt most people, about $5 million totalled up. it s a sum that s not likely to impact donald trump financially as much as this new precedent today that he has now been found to be a sexual abuser by a jury of his peers under the civil standard. that s the legal outcome. carroll sought that exact outcome through this process. they did not speak publicly when leaving court with her lawyer. she did release a statement. what does this mean beyond the person who won the case, carroll that s one piece of this but what does it mean for trump or american society? there s no single answer to that large question amidst this
i didn t until i watched closing arguments. i thought this was a slam dunk for the defense. her testimony was compelling. she made a mistake and owned it. she was remorseful. but i have to say this and i don t say it proudly. i thought about it. her defense lawyer in closing arguments failed her and failed her miserably. he didn t argue the number 1 argument i would make if i was a defense lawyer. while her behavior was negligent, it wasn t culpable negligence. that takes it from a civil standard. did you something wrong. to you committed a criminal offense. he did not make that point to the jury. some of the other arguments he made were offensive. sandra: do you think she did
property. we re not going to throw this man in jail. it is not due process as we know it in the legal system is not on the line here. it is a job interview and everybody needs to think about what standard they want it to be. i think it should be more akin to a civil standard, a preponderance of the evidence. do you think it is more likely than not this incident did occur. but there are no hard and fast rules in this situation and everybody is just kind of flying by the seat of their pants. is there a danger in going with the basis that caroline suggested, which is just a preponderance of the evidence when you are looking at something from 36 years ago, when you are talking about a lifetime appointment to the high court? should the standard be higher? so when the fbi conducts these background investigation, they do them for people that want to become fbi agents, people with top security clearances, and they look at judicial nominees. should there be a different standard? i have hear