Hey everybody and welcome back to Cash's Corner. It has been an explosive news week with a verdict in the E. Jean Carroll case in New York, and also with Chairman Comer's presentation of evidence

and more information from Mike Morel through the House Oversight Committee and Judiciary Committees

on the extent of the involvement of the Biden campaign in producing the 51 Intel letter, as we call it.

Jan, where do you want to kick things off?

We already covered E. Jean Carroll, your initial reactions in some detail on our new show,

American Thought Leaders Now, that's the Epoch Times show that's going to be coming out

throughout the week, very short American

Thought Leaders' style episodes.

But give me your kind of quick summary on the E.J. and Carroll case, please.

Absolutely. Jan, congrats on your new show, and I encourage our entire audience and everybody

to watch the new show that Yon has over there. It's going to be fun.

So on the E. Jean Carroll case, it was a New York case that

President Trump was found civilly liable for a purported assault that occurred sometime in the 90s,

even though the alleged victim in the case, E. Jean Carroll, can't recall the year in which the

incident took place. I want to just highlight a few inconsistencies with both the law

and the facts and then we'll move on. The verdict found President Trump rivaled not for sexual

battery or sexual assault, but for simple battery and for defamation. Legally speaking from a

perspective of a former federal prosecutor and public defender, that's not

factually consistent. How can the jury find someone who's accused of sexual assault guilty

of battery but not the assault itself? And then is there any legal deficiencies there?

And this is what we call jury nullification, Yon. It's basically a jury

disregards the facts on the law and bases a decision on a motion alone. We've talked about the

...