I want to get perspective now from an attorney who formerly represented former President Donald Trump, Tim Parletori. Tim, thanks for being here back on The Source. I mean, this is the second jury to find Trump's blame for defaming Eugene Carroll. Do you believe he accepts this?

I don't. I mean, obviously, by standing up and walking out in the middle of it, I think he was making his opinion known. But both of these trials, they came to results that he certainly doesn't like. I think that they probably could have turned out differently, perhaps. But no, I don't think he's going to accept it.

I mean, You represented him. How do you think he is reacting tonight to an $83.3 million verdict from a jury, not from a judge or Democrats or President Biden, whatever he says. This is from a jury.

It It is. And the crazy thing that he's probably thinking about is they awarded five million for the actual alleged assault or when they found the assault, and then several magnitudes more for talking about it. So I think that that's probably something that's probably going through his head right now is the disparity between the first verdict and the second verdict. And when you listen to some of the things Elaina Hobbes says about how they were stripped the defenses. I mean, that's right, because of the first trial. Had they had a different verdict in the first trial, they might have had a different set of circumstances for the second trial. But once you've tried a case, you're stuck with that conclusion.

She said outside court that she didn't regret representing Trump. But you know both of them. Do you think it's the other their way on that he regrets having her having represented him in this? I'm glad you asked me that question.

I don't know. Certainly, from my perspective, I would regret having her represent him. I do think that In both of these trials, he was essentially undefended, and I think that it could have turned out differently. In the second trial, unfortunately, because of the way the first trial went, I don't think anybody could have won the second trial. I think that once the issues were set up from the first trial, second trial was a loser from the beginning. The question is how big of a loser? And this goes back to a jury is going to come up with a number, and you have to put on the best presentation to them to get them to come to a lower number. And so all of these things that she did throughout the process, I don't think helps at all.

What about him?

And that's also a matter of in the courtroom, the attorney is the one who should be telling the client how to act, what to be doing, and everything else. And one thing I always tell my clients is in the courtroom, there's only twelve opinions that matter, and yours is not one of them. Everything we do has to be guided by what are those people in that box going to see? What are they going to hear? What are they going to think? How is it going to affect their state of mind? And I don't know whether she properly prepared him and possibly he ignored it or if she didn't. I don't know.

You know how he is with finances. I mean, do you think he ultimately ends up... He's going to appeal this, but do you think he ultimately ends up paying $83.3 million to E. G. And Carroll?

I think that the appeal on this, if done correctly, is going to be one that attacks the amount, not the fact that there was a verdict, but rather was the verdict excessive? And I think that that's where they're going to try and just knock down the number. And so I think that between that, obviously, he's going to have to pose some a bond. It's not going to be the full amount. But if they can put forth somewhat of a decent appeal on the amount of the number, and at the same time, if they do have appellate issues on the first case, that can also affect the second case. And quite frankly, if I were still there, I would be looking for a way to try and figure out how do we work out a resolution on this, a settlement, to just put this to bed and move on.

Should he reconsider having Elina Haba or his current legal team? Should he reconsider having them represent him in that appeal?

Oh, yes. I mean, definitely, you shouldn't have the same lawyer that did the case do your appeal. That's generally unavisable because the attorney who tried the case is going to have a lot of personal biases on how they tried the case. And so you really want to have a fresh set of eyes in on it. You want to have somebody who is actually an appellate expert on it, which I do not believe Elina Ahaba is an appellate expert.

Tim Parletori. Thanks for joining us.