Andy McCarthy

And for what it's worth, the Second Circuit, when this case went up on appeal, this issue came in front of the Second Circuit and they said it could easily have been just a failure of recollection.

And in terms of the trial itself...

it's ancillary to the issues in the trial.

Like, who's paying for her legal help

is something that has no bearing on whether Trump committed the thing he was accused of or whether he defamed her.

There absolutely is that argument to be made.

Here's the problem.

Trump had a complete opportunity to make that argument, but he decided not to show up for the first trial.

Now, he had political—that was a political calculation on his part.

I think what he decided was, this was a federal jury trial in Manhattan presided over by a Clinton-appointed judge.

There was a very high probability that he could lose the case.

I think actually if he had participated and made his case to the jury, there's a very good chance that he would have won the case.

But the thing is, in a civil trial as opposed to a criminal trial, if a defendant doesn't testify,

The judge instructs the jury that they can infer from his failure to testify that he doesn't have an innocent explanation for what he's been accused of.

That doesn't happen in a criminal trial where the jury gets told they can't take it out against the defendant that he decides not to testify.

I mean, Carol had so many holes in her story that she couldn't even remember exactly when

the sexual assault she claimed had supposedly happened.

She couldn't even put a date on it.

But it was at least 25 years before she first disclosed it.

I think that if it turns out that she's got a black-and-white statement that the Trump Justice Department can...