The Daily Beast Podcast - E. Jean Carroll: My $83m Victory Over Smelly Trump

Episode Date: October 28, 2025

Writer E. Jean Carroll, who triumphed over Donald Trump with an $83 million defamation verdict after accusing him of rape in the mid-1990s, is joined by her attorney Roberta Kaplan and Joanna Coles to unpack their historic courtroom victories. From tense depositions to a landmark judgment, they reveal how strategy, resolve, and fearlessness dismantled Trump’s aura of invincibility. Carroll discusses how she’ll use her winnings to support women’s rights, while Kaplan explains why Trump’s appeals are likely doomed. Can Trump honestly be held accountable, and what does their win mean for justice and women across America? Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

I don't understand how people can be afraid of a fat, elderly man who wears apricot makeup, his hair done up like tippy hedron in the birds and sits in a courtroom and moans and groans and complains and snorts. He belittled Alina Haba Esquire, his own attorney. He would spit as he was talking. He didn't smell so good. And the high point of Donald Trump in court was the moment he stood up because Robbie Kaplan was giving the final argument and she was asking the jury how much it would take to make him stop. And she drove him so crazy.

Joanna, he stood up in the courtroom and left. He stormed out. When a man is innocent, he doesn't storm out of a courtroom. He stays in fights. He turned tail, turn tail and starved out of the courtroom. He lost right at that second. He couldn't have looked more guilty. I'm Joanna Coles.

This is the Daily Beast podcast. We've been talking over the last few days about my Wolf suing the First Lady. Well, here are two women who took on Donald Trump, one kept on winning, and now are almost at the end of their epic legal battle. I'm talking, of course, about E. Jean Carroll and her formidable lawyer, Robbie Kaplan. No time to waste. They're going to bring us up to speed with exactly where their cases are and how tantalizingly close they are to that very large financial judgment against the president that they were awarded by a New York court. Robbie Kaplan and E. Jean Carroll, let's get into it.

And I guess the first question I should ask really is, where do your cases stand now, E. Jean? Can you give us an up some? Because there's been so much news about them. And obviously, Trump has been fighting them every step of the way. You keep winning. where does it stand at the moment? Well, Joanna, I'm going to turn this over to Robbie, but I will just say, we've had a clean sweep. He has done nothing but lose, lose, lose. We won in two federal courts.

We won a clean sweep in the appeals court. That's where we are. And Robbie will tell you what our situation is. Okay, tell us what your situation is. And then, Robbie, will you add what your strategy for winning has been? The easier question is where we are, and then I'll try to figure out what my strategy is. In terms of where we are, as people may or may not know, there were two trials, pretty close in time to each other. The first trial was for sexual assault and for defamation.

In that case, we got a $5 million verdict. And the second trial, which was about three months later or so, was for Donald Trump's original defamation to be gene. that he made when he was president in the summer of 2019. And that was what I like to call the big Gahuna verdict. That was $83 plus million. On the first $5 million verdict, we are all the way through the appellate process, except for one step,

which is Donald Trump gets an opportunity to ask the Supreme Court to take his case, that he is due to file his petition for that, I think on November 13th. We will respond in Congress. And I am quite confident that the Supreme Court will not take that case for reasons I can explain. But there's nothing in that case that's SCOTUS worthy. I feel like I'm talking sidefell.

But there really is it. Anything that merits the Supreme Court's attention. Right. The second case is always behind. It's almost a year behind. We won that case in the Second Circuit. He has filed, as he did with the earlier verdict, to ask the entire Second Circuit bench, or at least all the active judges on the bench to hear the case again as a whole.

They are, we typically don't respond to that. They denied that last time. They expect them to deny that this time. But it took quite some time last time. It took about six or seven months. So we expect them to turn that down. Sometime, I think, in the summer is my guess, if that schedule stays the same. And then we are virtually certain that he will then again try to go to the Supreme Court on that verdict.

And that will take probably, oh, and another six. We're probably about a year behind. Good Lord. It goes on and on and on, doesn't it? Will you explain to us? Why do you think the Supreme Court is not going to add this to its docket? So on the first verdict, the first trial, the issue, the only issues that they have are evidentiary issues. So first of all, and the main evidentiary issue is whether the district court judge, the trial judge, was correct in admitting the testimony of,

a woman Donald Trump accosted and assaulted on an airplane in 1979. There's most times in court you're not allowed to put on what are called prior bad acts as evidence in a case. But in the circumstances of sexual assault, the federal rules were specifically amended to allow for this kind of testimony. So I could go into all kinds of kind of ridiculously minute detail on it. But suffice it to say the Supreme Court typically does not take those kinds of evidentiary questions, particularly in civil cases. And here, the Second Circuit concluded that even if the court had been incorrect in admitting her testimony, it was what's called harmless error because we had another 10 or 11 witnesses and they had zero. So there's

no way that that would have changed the result. Right. That's why I'm pretty confident they want me. So does that mean if they turn it down? That's the end of the particular process. for that case and you finally get some money. Admittedly, not the big money, but the $5 million. Correct. The $5 million, believe it or not, has been sitting in an account held by the court. It's been earning interest. In the meantime, and EG, in the minute we reach the bitter end,

Eugen will receive that money plus interest. Eugen, do you have any plans for that money yet? Well, I have plans for the money. I want to give it to everything Donald Trump hates. Well, that's a lot of things. I know. I particularly want to give it to women and getting our reproductive rights back. I mean, we've been set back for 50 years.

Now it looks like the voting rights are being taken away from us, so that's also very important. And, of course, Joanna, it changes second by second where that money should go. and frankly, by the way, I may take a million of that and spend it on myself. Well, I think you should go back to Bergdorf-Gudman. Yeah, back. Hello, here I am. Yes. There I am. No, I will enjoy about a million bucks of that. But I can't enjoy the money when I know the rest of the country is suffering. It is not fun to look at the headline.

Well, I hope the two of you managed to get a holiday out of it too, because this has been a grueling case. And I wanted to ask you something. I know when you set off on this case, it was before Trump 2. And obviously Trump 2, we're seeing him even more power crazed than Trump 1. Everybody says how frightened people are of Donald Trump and how frightening he is. The two of you have won against him. How did you manage to acknowledge to acknowledge.

ignore the anxiety and the fear of taking on someone as powerful as Donald Trump and stick to a winning strategy. See, I don't understand how people can be afraid of a fat, elderly man who wears apricot makeup, his hair done up like tippy hedron in the birds, and sits in a courtroom and moaned. and moans and groans and groans and complains and snorts when the, Joanna, when the jury got a load of him, they were mesmerized. You have never seen anything like it. He never sat still and he talked the entire time

with an earshot of the jury. He belittled Alina Haba Esquire, his own attorney. He would spit as he was talking. He didn't smell so good. And the high point of Donald Trump in court was the moment he stood up with steam coming off his back and hot air blowing out his ears because Robbie Kaplan was giving the final argument and she was asking the jury how much it would take to make him. stop and she drove him. Do you think Robbie Kaplan's afraid of Trump? No, she turned it around.

She drove him so crazy, Joanna. He stood up in the courtroom and left. He stormed out. When a man is innocent, he doesn't storm out of a courtroom. He stays in fights. He turned tail, turn tail and starved out of the courtroom. I mean, he lost right at that second. I mean, he couldn't have looked more guilty.

But that's how frightened Robbie Kaplan is of him. And there's really, there's a theory out there. Mary Trump's theory is he's a myth now. He's a myth. And it's the people around him who believe in this myth, who are giving him the power. I'm not so sure. I just think he's an old fat guy

and he's doing a lot of... He's the most powerful man on the planet. There's no question. No question. Nobody is more powerful. And he's super smart. Nobody has been elected president twice like Trump.

You can't be dumb and do that. So we are contending, yes, with an enormous intelligence and an enormous amount of power, but we are not frightened of it. We're not frightened of it. I've known you both for a long time. And Robbie, it's hard to imagine that you are frightened of anybody. And especially in the

courtroom, you are fearless in the courtroom. You are like a machine in the courtroom. Yes. Yes. So what was your strategy dealing with someone who, as E. Jean says in the courtroom, is mesmerizing. And he's deliberately concocted himself like this. And E. Gene, I think your observation of him as a myth is brilliant, actually, because people respond to the myth. And he's myth as opposed to the actual 79-year-old frail old man. Robbie, when you're a lawyer, what is the psychology you're adopting to go after someone like this? So the whole difference, you put your finger on, Joanna.

The whole difference here is the courtroom versus everything else. So in the courtroom, we had a very, very experienced, very stern judge, Judge Lewis Kaplan, not my relation, not my mentor, but a very highly respected judge who you don't want to mess with in short. We had rules that apply. People can only say certain things if they're consistent with the rules of evidence. There's things that you can't say or do. You have to wait for a question in order to answer the question, et cetera. And we had a jury, frankly, in the first case, that wasn't a New York City jury at all.

We had no one from New York City on that jury. There were all people from north of Westchester County, I think one from Westchester County, and we had to convince them unanimously, nine jurors each time. And so I believe that what made the difference is only the facts could come out. In court, we have ways of making sure the facts come out. There's no AI. There's no fake movies. There's no fake documents.

Everything has to be authenticated. and when the jury heard the evidence, it wasn't very hard. And I just do what I always do. I just kept my head down and tried the case the way I've always learned how to try a case and try to keep the noise out as much as possible. I should say that in my closing argument, the second trial, he was sitting probably about seven feet to my left. And I just made sure I didn't look his way.

I only knew he left the courtroom when the judge announced it. I was looking very much at the jury. And why didn't you look his way? He didn't want to provoke him. I didn't want there to be any kind of unnecessary noise in the courtroom. I wanted the jury. The jury was very, I think, really understood the importance of the dignity of a courtroom and the respect that must be accorded to the courts and to the proceedings in a courtroom.

And I didn't want him to be able to use any of his tricks, for lack of a better word, any of his strategies to mess with that. How fascinating. He did a few times, and the jury definitely didn't like it. What kind of things did he do? So I'll give you one example. Gene Pelley has better ones because I know they're in her book. But I remember during jury selection, Judge Kaplan kind of conducts jury selection

a little bit like speed dating. So you have all these people on a courtroom, and they're asked a series of questions, and they're supposed to kind of raise their hands, et cetera. And one of the questions was, does anyone believe that the 220, 2020 election, 2020 election was stolen and no one in the courtroom raised their hand to suffer Donald Trump sitting in what's called the well of the courtroom. So, I mean, that was kind of an easy example, but I'm sure the jury took note. There's no question they did.

So E Gene, what for you were the most memorable moments of an arduous process in court, in both cases? Some of them didn't happen in the courtroom that happened after trial when Donald Trump would hold press conference and then give his version of everything that went on in the courtroom that day, two different worlds. And he would tell the world, I'm the one who suffer. I'm the one who should get the damages. It was a high comedy of his world. against the world of truth and facts. Well, the most memorable was when the jury came back during the second trial.

We had no idea. Trump was not in the courtroom. He could feel it was not going to be good. He was playing golf, correct? This is the second trial. He left in a motor cage, speeded away from the courtroom, as the jury was being called back. And the judge,

when everybody came back into the courtroom into the courtroom and Judge Kaplan had read the riot act to people in the courtroom, the decorum will be maintained at all times. There will be no jumping up. There will be no shouting. There will be no running for the door.

He had all sorts of rules. So everybody was, you know, pretty tense waiting because the jury was there. He said, four woman, have you reached a verdict? And she said, yes, she had reached a verdict. And Joanna, when she stood up and we saw that she was the four woman, she was very attractive, blonde, wearing a rose-colored sweater. She had paid such intense attention to every word. Robbie and I were holding hands, and we squeezed each other hands a minute she said, yes, Your Honor, we have reached a journey.

he said, you will hand it to Andy the clerk. She handed the decision to Andy the clerk. Andy the clerk opens it up, reads it, frowns, shakes his head, folds it back up, and then hands it to Judge Kaplan. And Judge Kaplan opens it up. And his eyebrows rise up towards his headline, and he frowns. And he says, Madam Frundt. woman, what does the M stand for? Wow. Guys, hold on one second. We're taking a quick

outbreak. And we're talking to E. Jean Carroll and her formidable lawyer, Robbie Kaplan. Wow. And the M obviously stood for... And she said, million, Your Honor. And that was a moment. I mean, And I left my body. As I say, I felt like Peter Pan who flies around the ceilings. And quite frankly, I've never come down from that, Joanna. That win was so enormous and so powerful. Not for me, not for Robbie, but for everybody in the country who had sort of lost hope that he could ever be beaten. And Robbie decimated it.

just decimated him. And so, and we're still feeling the good, the good victory of that. It's happened. And we've proved, Robbie proved, and I prove, that Trump can be beaten. He can be beaten. And that number was 83 million, correct? 83.3.3.83. So.

I have it sitting behind my computer. I was so nervous at the time I did the bath wrong. I thought I'd cross it out and fix it. And I'm sure you, I hope you think about it last thing at night just as you're falling asleep and you think about it first thing in the morning as you wake up. E. Jean, I wanted to ask you, I mean, one of the reasons that people are very frightened about taking him on is that he's vindictive. He comes after people. He's certainly done that to the two of you. And certainly people have lost their livelihoods over. People who work for the government in the DOJ have lost their jobs over it. You also lost your job over this. And when I was talking to people about what questions to ask you, one former model came up with a question which I thought was very good.

What was worse? Being sexually assaulted by Donald Trump in a changing room at Bergdorf Goodman or losing your job at a woman's magazine for having the bravery to take him on? Key question. But Joanna, may I imagine? just say, I'm not the only one who lost my job. We're not the only ones who should have been afraid. Every single person in this country should be afraid of losing their job. Every single one. Think of how many people are out of work right now. You've flown lately, right? Did you see the TSA people

are coming? They all have families at home. They have no money. I don't know how they're feeding their kids. there they are at the air parent being pleasant saying, you know, put your bag here, and the air traffic control people, they're working day and night, and they're not getting any money. And think of everybody who's lost their job. Think what the tariffs are doing. Everybody should be just as frightened. As for L Magazine, firing a woman with a popular advice column,

firing that woman for accusing a powerful man of sexual abuse is it was so astonishing that when they called to tell me, Joanna, I thought they were inviting me to the Christmas party. I'm thinking, oh boy, what am I going to wear? You know, that's how I was thinking. So it was devastating to lose a job. I didn't know who I was or what I stood for or anything. I was depleted. It takes away, you know, it takes away, well, it takes away, took away everything. And they claimed it was for sort of business reasons, right?

But in fact, your column was one of the most read, regular features in the magazine. And also it was supposed to be a magazine that, not only was about fashion and beauty, but also empowering women. Yeah, yeah. It was great on art and politics and, you know, leading an adventurous life. Elle was a thinking woman's fashion magazine. You talk about the devastation of losing your job. What was the timing?

How soon were you fired after you had brought the case against Donald Trump? That was the tipping point. I believe, and of course I can't see into the mind, of L. Magazine. But I believe they were okay with the accusation. But when Robbie and I brought suit, it was, what, November 7th or November 8th, Robbie first week, I got the call, which I thought for the Christmas party, was December 12th. So about four weeks after the lawsuit, the lawsuit caused an upheaval in the press. and here's how prescient L was.

They were the first, Joanna, to bend the knee to Trump. Let's put it in context. You know, before everybody, before the Ivy League started to bend the knee, before the big corporations started to bend the knee, L Magazine takes first prize for being the first to bend the knee, I hope it was wearing a very nice panty hose when it was bent, but they bent their knee big time, big time. And then, of course, they said it was because, here's what they said.

They didn't have the pages for Aske Jean. It's a nothing excuse. You know, what does that mean? It means nothing, right? They literally said they didn't have the pages for your column. That's what she said. Wow. They changed.

A trial didn't they say that they were. mad that the book was first excerpted in New York Magazine. That was the reason. They changed their story. I think that was aggravating to them. But Joanna, as you know, Elle Magazine never would have run that excerpts that New York magazine ran. They would never have run it.

I worked for the parent company, Hearst, though in fact I had left, I think 18 months before this actually happened. But it does seem doubly ironic that you're working for a magazine that's, It's about empowering women and they let you go the minute you file suit for a sexual assault case against the president. But everybody's now bending the knee to him. It's not unusual. They were just a canary in the cave. Well, you guys have not bent the knee. You've got a strategy that's won. And the case is proceeding very slowly, it seems like, to those of us watching on the outside. So, Eugen, you've now done a documentary. Ask E. Gene. When are we likely to see that? I know it premiered at the Telluride Film Festival. Where

will we get to see it? And just one best documentary at the Little Rock Film Festival. Congratulations. It'll debut in spring. So I'm looking forward to seeing that. And obviously, you wrote a book about your experiences too. Oh, boy, did I write a book? And what was fabulous, well, first of all, Robbie Kaplan is, you know, is dedicated to Robbie. But if you notice Joanna, he did not say a peep for the last five months since that book has been out. It immediately hit the New York Times bestseller list. It was an instant bestseller across the country and not a peep from Donald Trump. So he's finally learned his lesson that every time he defames you, that's another $5 million.

$1. Kaching. Thank you, Robbie Capua. So, Robbie, I wanted to ask you as a very experienced and successful long-practicing lawyer, what do you think when you look at the Department of Justice now, headed by Pam Bondi is the number one, Todd Blanche is the number two, and now Lindsay Halligan put in in Virginia as the U.S. attorney. you've got Alina Haba that you guys were opposite during your case, who's now practicing, I think, as the U.S. attorney in New Jersey. Have you come across anything like this in your lifetime where the DOJ is basically staffed up with the president's former personal lawyers? So the short answer is no. And the reason the answer is no, Joanna, is because it's never happened in American history.

it's not uncommon for the president to appoint to high positions in the Department of Justice people who he knows and likes, respects, but they all in the past have had incredibly good qualifications for the job. And to have someone as the U.S. attorney in D.C. who only practiced insurance law or Ms. Haba as the acting,

I'm not even sure if she's acting, I think they gave it another word, U.S. Attorney in New Jersey, who has zero experience, again, in doing criminal cases or trying criminal cases or anything like that, I think it's fair to say most lawyers like me are pretty shocked by it all. I'd say most, I'd say almost every lawyer is pretty shocked by it on. And what do you think it portends for the Department of Justice? Nothing good.

I'm hopeful that there will be at some point of realization that we have to go, back to the old ways. The idea, for example, that the president could bring complaints against the two indictments that were handed down against him and then have the people he picked decide to give him $230 million in compensation, which, by the way, he is what, four times more than your verdict, is astounding. No one, there's not anyone in the first day of the first year of law school who would think that was a proper thing or an OK thing to do.

A lot of the rules, this is true in England, too. A lot of the rules in our system are unwritten. It's actually surprising how much of it is unwritten. It's just the custom and the principles and kind of the rules that we live by. And so we're going to have to, similar to what happened after Nixon, we're going to have to put him down in writing from now on, because no one would have thought that any president would even dare to do this. And we now have one who has.

And do you think it's likely that he will get the go-ahead to receive that basically quarter of a billion dollars in compensation? I almost don't know how to answer because based on everything I've learned, everything I've read, everything I've done in my career, everything I teach my students at law school, the answer would be no. But I can't in good face here to tell you the answer is absolutely no. A lot of things where I would have told you never would have happened have already happened. Every time I hear a siren outside, which I apologize for, outside my window here,

I keep expecting to see ice trucks coming down the road. Todd Blanche famously went down to interview Gillen Maxwell, who as we know was Jeffrey Epstein's partner in crime, got sentenced to 20 years for sex trafficking and was then immediately moved to a much lower security prison in Texas where she has a sister living in Texas. What did you think of that decision? and we're stopping for a quick break from our sponsors. And I'm back with E. Jean Carroll and Robbie Kaplan. Putting aside the switch in prisons, which itself is pretty shocking, the idea that the Deputy Attorney General, often called DAG, which is the second highest physician in Department of Justice,

went down after a conviction to interview a person who had been convicted of sex. trafficking is astounding. There would be no reason for the deputy attorney general to do that. And even if there had been a reason for someone to speak to her, it surely wouldn't have been the deputy attorney general who was really acting more in the capacity as Trump's personal attorney rather than a member of the Department of Justice. Again, it's just another example. If you told me five, seven years ago that any of this would have happened, I would have told you you were nuts. So what do you think that people can do about it? Is there a sort of professional association of lawyers who can actually have an impact here? How do people respond?

So the one thing that's already happened, at least among lawyers, is, you know, Trump went after a bunch of law firms. And a bunch of the law firms who he threatened actually sued him or who issued orders against suit him. And all the, they want all those cases. They're now on appeal. I'd be shocked. This I can say. I'd be shocked if any of those decisions were reversed. And I'd be shocked that the Supreme Court took them because I think the Supreme Court understands this is like basic stuff. And you can't interfere with a lawyer's ability to practice law. So I think the lawyers have generally stood up. The bars have stood up.

The district court judges, God bless them. They have all stood up. You had a Trump judge saying about Cortland, the facts were inconsistent with what Trump was saying the facts were. The legal system is holding up. The problem that we have is we have a Supreme Court that takes these cases on what's called the shadow docket and issues rulings overturning stays that the lower courts are put in place without any reasoning. And that's creating a lot of, shall we say, consternation among the judges. E. Jean, I wanted to ask you, Virginia Dufre's book has come out this week. She

sadly committed suicide earlier this year. Have you spent any time with the victims from the Jeffrey Epstein case? I spent a great deal of time with the women who have accused Donald Trump. There are, let me remind your listeners and viewers, two dozen women. Two dozen women, credible women who have accused Donald Trump of sexual abuse, sexual assault, you know, name calling, et cetera, et cetera. Two dozen. Nobody in the GOP believes it. Now, they love to believe the victims of Jeffrey Epstein and Galang. They love that. Why? Because they are young. They were young.

And they were not career women. And they were virginal. And they were silent. And so they are believed. Virginia Joufrey's life is so heartbreaking and so overwhelmingly horrible. I mean, her own father trafficked her to his best friend. It is so appalling. And of course, when she shows up at Marilago, who do Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump get into a snitabout? that cute girl, Jeffrey Epstein, stole her from Trump.

It is despicable. And that this man was elected president of the United States makes me sick. I can't. It's very hard to think about who we elected president. When everybody's in such a, such a, you know, fuss about Epstein, Look who is in the White House. You know, Epstein's gone and dead. And by the way, he may be the one who brings Trump down.

It may be Epstein. Do you think that the moment where women were gaining traction has just vanished at this point? Dude, that's not vanished. It's gone backwards. It's really the undertone has pulled us up right out to sea again. Really. We have it. It's no equality anymore at work.

for black women and women of color. It's even worse. And for poor women who are trying to educate their children, educate themselves, it is so now difficult to put food on the table or to get an education. It's like way back before the 1950s, we're back in the 17 and 1600s. It's appalling. But listen. three of us know serious women have the ability to get it all back and we're not going to sit

still for this the three of us know how much power a woman and many of your listeners and many of your viewers know the power of a serious woman and so I think you better vote bitches that's all I got to say well it's also very interesting the It takes two determined middle-aged women to take on Donald Trump, completely unafraid, and to win, to win your cases and to keep on winning your cases. I'm 82, for God's sake. I'm an old lady, and I beat Donald Trump. If I can beat him, anybody can beat him with Robbie Kaplan at her side, of course.

So, no, yeah, he can be beaten. We have to leave our houses, get off our lazy asses, and go outside. You may be 82, Eugen, but in dog years, you're way younger now. Well, I'm also thinking, you know, you had another, I mean, I was being middle age, okay, senior woman in E.D. Windsor, when you won the right for gays to finally get married, Robbie, do you think if you were bringing that case now with this current Supreme Court, would pass? No. If we were to bring that challenge today to what was so-called defensive marriage acts, I do not think we could win five votes before this court. The more important question,

though, the more pressing question is whether there are five votes on this court to overturn Windsor and Orggefell. On that, I'm more optimistic. I don't think they have five votes to do. They for sure have two. They have Alito and Thomas. They pretty much said it. But I don't think they have I think it's very hard to overturn the reasonable expectations of millions of Americans and kids and families. Maybe I'm being naive, but I don't think I am. I don't think they will overturn marriage equality. Well, there's clearly a lot of anxiety in the gay community about that being a possibility. So that's a note of optimism from the EU that you don't think they will do that.

Yeah, I think they're going to chip away at it. They've done already in terms of religious freedoms. to not treat LGBT families the same as straight families. That they will do through religious free exercise clause of the First Amendment. But I don't think they will say no more marriage equality or no more in the United States. I just don't think they have the stomach to do that. Or let me put it this way. Five of them had the stomach to do that.

Okay. So Eugen, final question to you because I think of you as, well, as do lots of people who write to you on your substack, because you took Askey Gene from L and rehabilitated it on Substack, where I know it's very popular. And anybody listening to this or watching this should definitely check it out. If we are going to get off our arses, as you say, and get out there and join protests or whatever, important question, what should we wear? Oh, thank you for asking, Joanna. dude, see what I got here? Look what I'm wearing. The paper clip. Here's what the paper. The paper clip holds things together. It can pick locks. It can open up handcuffs. You straighten it out as a lethal weapon. The paper clip was a sign of resistance to Nazi occupation in the Second World War. And guess who won the Second World War? So the paper clip is a signal, Joanna, to people.

people who resist Trump. It's a signal to one another. As soon as we all can see how many people there are resisting Trump, that's where the courage comes from. And that's where we say, oh, I'm not alone. So I want everybody to put on your paper clip, show where you stand. You don't have to do anything. You don't even have to make a sign.

just do the one simple act of putting on a paperclip. I saw one at a stoplight outside of Hackenshtack on a young man. And we're both as a stoplight. And he looks over at me and he goes like this. I looked. It's a young man wearing a paperclip. So I knew right then he's a fellow resistor. So if you can do one thing, it's cheap.

It's everywhere. You've got 400 of them. your desk drawer or in the bottom of your, put on a paperclip. And I think it bodes well for the country. I think we've had a tipping point. I think more people don't like Trump now than like Trump. So if we can signal to each other, we will grow in numbers. And then we'll just throw the GOP out of the House and the Senate in the midterms.

Thank you very much. Okay. So you've got it. You've heard it here first. Falls It accessory is the person. paper clip. E. Jean Carroll and Robbie Kaplan, thank you very much for your work defending women against men of violence. And please come back on the podcast the minute you hear that the Supreme Court isn't going to take the case on the docket and you get your first check.

We want to know exactly what you're going to be spending it on. We want to see the receipts. Joanna, you will go off for cocktails and we'll decide. Excellent. Excellent. All right, guys, thank you very much for joining us, for joining us. And for anybody, reminder, who wants to read Eugen and has questions for her, go to her substack. Ask E. Jean. Well, I hope I have E. Jean Carroll's energy when I'm 83. She looks like a rock star. She sounds like a rock star. She acts like a rock star. And I very much hope that she finally gets after all these years, some money both to enjoy herself and I hope take her lawyer on holiday, but also to fund all those causes that she wants to fund and to grab back some of the rights that women incredibly in 2025 have lost. Thank you for joining us if you have been. Don't forget we're independent media so we appreciate your support. Please subscribe, press our subscribe button. Join the Daily Beast

community. It's really fun. We have extra content for you and you have access to me and Michael Wolf and various other members of our Daily Beast staff. I wanted to give a belated also thank you to Hugh Docherty for holding fort while I was off for a few podcasts. He did an epic job despite his Scottish accent, which many of you were very flattering about. I know he sometimes feels a bit self-conscious about it. I don't know why. But many of you jotted to notes and comments down to say how much you enjoyed hearing from him. He's an epic member of our team. So don't forget, if you haven't yet been this week, as our first lady would order you be beast. And a shout out to our top tier B Beast members, Karen White, Heidi Riley, Connie Rutherford,

Sharon Shipley, Andrea Hodle, and Free DC. And thank you to our production team, Devin Roderino, Anna von Erson and Jesse Millwood. Want more great listens? Check out our comedy podcast, The Last Laugh, and our star-studded The Daily Beast podcast at the Daily Beast.com slash podcasts. If you enjoyed this episode, consider becoming a Daily Beast subscriber. Subscribing is the best way to feed the beast and support all of your podcasts as we cover what might become the darkest timeline.

Head to the DailyBeast.com slash membership slash podcast and sign up today.