Given George Stephanopoulos' Carelessness, ABC's Defamation Settlement With Trump Seems Prudent
The host of This Week repeatedly and inaccurately asserted that Trump had been "found liable for rape."

In an interview with Rep. Nancy Mace (R–S.C.) on ABC's This Week last March, host George Stephanopoulos repeatedly and inaccurately asserted that Donald Trump, now the president-elect, had been "found liable for rape." A week later, Trump sued ABC and Stephanopoulos for defamation in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, noting that a jury had deemed Trump civilly liable for "sexual abuse," not "rape." Over the weekend, ABC News announced that it had reached a $15 million settlement with Trump in the form of a contribution to Trump's presidential library. ABC also agreed to cover $1 million in Trump's legal expenses.
The settlement is highly unusual in the annals of Trump's many lawsuits against news outlets, which typically feature claims with a much weaker legal and empirical basis. Some Trump critics explicitly or implicitly faulted ABC for folding, saying its decision is apt to have a chilling impact on journalism. But any such threat can be mitigated by applying normal standards of journalistic care—standards that Stephanopoulos conspicuously failed to uphold in this case.
In his interview with Mace, Stephanopoulos was talking about two cases involving the journalist E. Jean Carroll's allegation that Trump sexually assaulted her in a department store dressing room in the mid-1990s. In one case, a New York jury last year concluded that Carroll had proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Trump had "sexually abused" her. The jurors also agreed that Trump had defamed Carroll by calling her a liar and awarded her $5 million in damages. But they expressly concluded that Carroll had failed to prove Trump had "raped" her.
What's the difference? At the time of the verdict against Trump, New York defined "sexual abuse" as "sexual contact…by forcible compulsion." A rape charge, by contrast, required "sexual intercourse," which was limited to "vaginal penetration by a penis." A bill that New York Gov. Kathy Hochul signed into law last January broadened the definition of "rape" to include any "nonconsensual vaginal, oral and anal sexual contact." But when the jury issued its verdict in May 2023, the narrower definition of "rape" still applied.
In a related case, Carroll alleged that Trump's post-verdict comments had defamed her by continuing to portray her as a liar. Last January, a jury awarded Carroll $83.3 million in compensatory and punitive damages.
Neither verdict found Trump "liable for rape" as that term was legally defined at the time. And as Trump's defamation complaint notes, Stephanopoulos was aware of that point.
After the first verdict, Stephanopoulos interviewed Carroll on Good Morning America. "Yesterday in the courtroom," he said, "the first announcement was made, and it was that he was not found liable for rape. What were you thinking at that moment?" During the interview, Trump's lawsuit notes, the on-screen banner said (accurately), "Former President Found Liable for Sexual Abuse & Defamation." ABC later "posted a clip of the interview on its website" accompanied by the (accurate) summary, "Longtime advice columnist E. Jean Carroll said she feels 'fantastic' one day after a jury found former President Donald Trump liable for battery and defamation in her lawsuit against him."
On the February 4, 2024, edition of This Week, Stephanopoulos again accurately noted (twice) that "juries have found [Trump] liable for sexual assault and defamation." Yet five weeks later, when Stephanopoulos interviewed Mace, he claimed no fewer than 12 times that Trump had been deemed liable for "rape."
After the interview aired, according to Trump's complaint, his lawyers "contacted Defendants seeking a retraction of the false and defamatory statements made during the Interview as well as an apology for making the false and defamatory statements." But ABC "did not issue an apology, did not issue a retraction, and did not direct or request that that Stephanopoulos correct the various defamatory and false statements he made during his show."
ABC "instead modified the headline of a related article from 'Nancy Mace defends her support for Trump after he was found liable for rape' to 'Nancy Mace defends her support for Trump after he was found liable for sexual assault.'" The article itself, however, continued to quote "Stephanopoulos' false statements."
As a public figure, Trump would have had to prove that Stephanopoulos made those statements with "actual malice," meaning he knew they were false or made them with reckless disregard as to whether they were true. "Given Stephanopoulos' knowledge of the actual verdicts," the complaint argues, "and given his vast experience as a journalist, his repeated statements that Plaintiff was found liable for rape were false, intentional, malicious and designed to cause harm."
In its motion to dismiss the lawsuit last May, ABC argued that Stephanopoulos spoke truthfully, if roughly, when he said Trump had been "found liable for rape." When Trump sued Carroll for defamation, ABC noted, U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan ruled that her statements about his conduct "were at least 'substantially true'" because "the jury's finding that Mr. Trump 'sexually abused' Ms. Carroll implicitly determined that he forcibly penetrated her digitally—in other words, that Mr. Trump in fact did 'rape' Ms. Carroll as that term commonly is used and understood in contexts outside of the New York Penal Law."
In rejecting ABC's motion to dismiss last July, however, U.S. District Court Judge Cecilia Altonaga held that, notwithstanding Kaplan's view, "a reasonable jury could interpret Stephanopoulos's statements as defamatory." That does not necessarily mean Trump would have prevailed if the case had gone to trial. But Trump's argument in this case certainly is more credible than the legal claims he has made in other lawsuits against news outlets.
In 2022, for example, Trump sued CNN, arguing that its description of his stolen-election fantasy as "the Big Lie" was defamatory. In a lawsuit he filed last October, Trump is seeking $10 billion in damages from CBS because he did not like the way 60 Minutes edited an interview with Vice President Kamala Harris. By making her seem more cogent than she really was, the lawsuit implausibly claims, CBS violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
Unlike such frivolous cases, the defamation lawsuit against ABC and Stephanopoulos alleged facts that might persuade a reasonable jury to side with Trump. And the lawsuit could have been avoided if Stephanopoulos had spoken more carefully or if ABC had conceded that he should have.
Despite that reality, MSNBC legal analyst Barbara McQuade seems to think ABC should have kept fighting. "ABC actually had a very strong case, but chose to settle," she said on Saturday. "I do worry about the effect this could have on others and the chilling effect it might have on people who otherwise would be critical of Donald Trump."
Election lawyer Marc Elias, founder of Democracy Docket, had a stronger take: "Knee bent. Ring kissed. Another legacy news outlet chooses obedience."
Defamation attorney Ken Turkel, speculating about why ABC decided to settle now instead of "preparing for summary judgment to challenge the legal sufficiency of [Trump's] claim," similarly suggested to CNN's Brian Stelter that "perhaps they didn't want to be actively litigating against a sitting president." But Turkel also wondered whether ABC worried that internal communications obtained during discovery might have made it look even worse that it already did.
Conservative commentator Eric Erickson also thinks that explanation is plausible. "Unlike some of the journalists commenting, I not only practiced law, but represented a newspaper and television station, working under a very skilled partner who did First Amendment law," he wrote on X Sunday morning. "No, a $15 million settlement is not the cost of doing business. It is avoiding discovery."
The venerable First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams told Stelter a settlement of "this magnitude" is "disturbing." But he noted that "the case undoubtedly posed a genuine level of risk for ABC since George Stephanopoulos had inaccurately summarized the jury verdict as one in which the jury had found Trump liable for rape when it had instead found him liable for 'sexual abuse' and not rape."
As part of the settlement, ABC appended a note to its March 10 story about the Mace interview: "ABC News and George Stephanopoulos regret statements regarding President Donald J. Trump made during an interview by George Stephanopoulos with Rep. Nancy Mace on ABC's This Week on March 10, 2024." The story still includes Stephanopoulos' assertion that Trump was "found liable for rape," which accurately reflects what he said but not what the jury actually found.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Hey Sullum, why don’t you just go write for the NYT already, dip?
He's holding out for The View.
So he thinks he's smarter than Whoopi?
I have shoes smarter than Whoopi.
You also have shoes smarter then sullum
I’m sure he’s ready to undergo sexual reassignment surgery to make it happen.
Grab your popcorn, the party's just getting started!
https://thefederalist.com/2024/12/16/watch-cnn-msnbc-repeatedly-air-the-same-defamatory-phrase-that-cost-abc-15-million/
Resist!
E. Jean Carroll's accusation is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. She is far and away one of the least reliable witnesses in the history of witnesses. She is crazy, an attention seeker and completely deranged. Her cat's name is Vagina T. Fireball.
Trump is far more likely to have raped someone else than he was to have raped her. Certainly all the women who claimed Bill Clinton raped them (and who Stephanopoulos did everything within his power to destroy) were way more credible than this mega lunatic.
That two separate kangaroo courts ordered Trump to give her money shows how absurd some of these court verdicts are.
Why should Sullum let facts get in the way of his terminal TDS?
She definitely isn’t Trump‘s type. And he has a very obvious type. And plenty of access to them.
That's why the guys trying to smear Trump with Epstein are so ridiculous. Trump has made no secret of what he's into.
As with most things when it comes to these people, it’s 100% projection.
Are you serious? He was shown a picture of her around the same time frame during a deposition and confused her for his ex wife. She was most definitely his 'type.' His type is people who look like his daughter.
She is far and away one of the least reliable witnesses in the history of witnesses.
Maybe you missed the Duke Lacrosse Case, the "Dear Colleagues" letter, the #MeToo movement, and/or the Brett Kavanaugh appointment trial interroview?
I'd even go so far as to say that she's nowhere near the least reliable witness. She's a 'just reliable enough to send a message' witness. That is, not the least bit reliable but not enough of a disease-infested, feral-cat-throwing, bridge troll that the party faithful cannot rally behind.
To be fair, she kind of single-handedly brings childless cat ladies to say, "There but for the grace of God go I"
IDK, between Avanatti and Swetnick it's not entirely clear who claims what they witnessed happen but at one point it was along the lines of "I've personally and on more than one occasion watched Brett Kavanaugh and Mark Judge drug and gangrape more girls through more shattered glass coffee tables than any two UVA fraternities combined."
To the point that even major news outlets were like "We reached out to former classmates and co-workers of the accuser and, oddly, none of them seemed to know who she was."
The same with Coakley. She wasn't Erdely's first sensationalist confabulation, she was just the most superficially-credibly successful.
Duke lacrosse "victim" admitted she lied just this weekend. Finally.
Yeah, but it started an important national conversation about gang rape and lacrosse teams.
And no other important conversations that we aren't going to talk about were started.
"That is, not the least bit reliable but not enough of a disease-infested, feral-cat-throwing, bridge troll that the party faithful cannot rally behind."
You win the coveted "Description of the Day" award.
"She is far and away one of the least reliable witnesses in the history of witnesses."
All of Brett Kavanaugh's accusers be like: Hold my beer
The Donald has smashed some fine looking women in his time. He is a billionaire, he has bopped some babes.
I believe The Donald when he says that knarly-assed looking string-bean is not his type. Just look at her. Then look at Melania.
Uh no. Methinks that lady is full of shit and Reid Hoffman's fingerprints are all over that case, that slimy Epstein loving SOB. I bet that fat fuck is on Diddy's lists too.
She has obviously, spent way too much time around Hunter S. Thompson, known for excessive alcohol and drug use.
My guess is that she partook in a few of the "medication" Thompson was known to use along with the Wild Turkey bourbon.
"The host of This Week repeatedly and inaccurately asserted that Trump had been "found liable for rape."
Yeah, unlike Bill Clinton, right George?
The man whose job in the Clinton '92 campaign was tamping down Slick Willie's "bimbo eruptions".
Trump, and Republicans in general, the viciously sue every time phony claims like this are made.
Tapper and CNN are going to have a much bigger payout soon with the Afghanistan flights person. Emails show executives saying to burn his company to the ground.
I hope they are bankrupted. Along with every other Democrat compliant news outlet.
The latest scam involving the so called rescue of one of Assad's so called victims has backfired on CNN viciously.
Just another nail in the coffin of CNN/Crap News Network.
Huh, maybe I can add "carelessness" to the list of journolisming watch words-- the same list that "unfortunate" resides.
Instead of $15 million, I would rather see Stephanopoulos positioned at Trump's naked rump, catch a fresh turd, place it gently on some bread, and then eat a shit sandwich. That might have more deterrence for future "journalists".
This may go back to court. The agreement required a retraction and apology publicly. CNN did not issue an apology yet.
That’s turn on talk for SQRLSY.
We don't need or want to know your kinks
He was just careless a dozen times. Lol.
God damn sullum.
But Trump's argument in this case certainly is more credible than the legal claims he has made in other lawsuits against news outlets.
Did you have to stab yourself in the thigh with a fork as you wrote that, Jake?
"ABC actually had a very strong case, but chose to settle," she said on Saturday. "I do worry about the effect this could have on others and the chilling effect it might have on people who otherwise would be critical of Donald Trump."
"Be critical" and "telling lies" are not the same thing.
"Knee bent. Ring kissed. Another legacy news outlet chooses obedience."
Another legacy news outlet knows that its days are numbered. Nobody trusts them anymore, they've polarized half the country with their gaslighting, and they know that if they keep it up after the absolute brutal beating Democrats got in November that they will not survive until 2028.
ABC in particular knows it. That's why Sunny Hostin's new role there is to stare at the camera - at America - with hateful contempt as she's forced against her will to say true things after having brazenly said false things.
They're not kissing the ring. They're digging into foxholes hoping to ride out the comeuppance that they've been begging to get for two decades.
Spoiler alert - they won't. Y'know why? Because they don't have the guts to call out the LGBT pedos and the environmental wackos and throw them under the bus. They're just as afraid of the end-result of that, as they are the comeuppance they're now facing.
‘"Be critical" and "telling lies" are not the same thing.’
*snort*
All depends on who, not what. Being critical of Trump reveals one as a leftist liar, and spreading lies about his critics is ok.
What sort of lies about his critics have been spread? I assume you're being specific to this comments section, but it's difficult to tell.
You’re kidding right? The Trump defenders tell nothing but lies. Pointing out a truth would be much more difficult.
*no examples given*
Because he's trolling and lying to do it.
He has none.
He has none. All he has is projection and likes to speak about what others would say. That's a fool's game in and of itself.
The Trump cult has nothing but lies and mass delusion.
I don't need an exact cite or anything, maybe just a specific false claim that has been widely disseminated against someone who is critical of Trump, that is known to be false, and yet perpetuated, out of malice or disregard.
Maybe something against Maddow or someone similar?
Because it seems to me that the last several years, accusations that are immediately shot down by the corporate media as some 'right wing conspiracy theory' and 'debunked', end up being reluctantly admitted as having a strong factual basis, later on, as evidence mounts. It used to take years, then months.
And, there doesn't seem to be a single corruption or immorality charge against Trump or the Republicans that the Left / Democrats ever level, that they aren't actively guilty of themselves, often to a much greater degree. It's almost as though they can't conceptualize anything but their own schemes.
This is ironic coming just a day after you rushed to Jeffs obvious lie. You and him were even provided the full quote. Yet you defended jeffs misrepresentation about it.
Pathological.
You seem to forget that we're talking about defamation.
Being critical - ie. criticizing his character, actions, personality, words, deeds, etc. - would have been perfectly fine.
Telling a bald-faced lie - ie. a knowingly false statement - is not. And, as this case has illustrated, "well you know what I meant" or "it's basically the same thing" isn't a defense to such an action.
Oh I know exactly what we’re talking about. What matters is who is saying it and who they’re saying it about, not what was said.
"I know exactly what we're talking about." "The exact opposite of what we're talking about."
Derp.
Yawn. More projection from king of projection.
In fairness, it is the same lie that was repeated all throughout the media including Reason. It isn't even the worst lie told about him. Funny enough, Sullum continues to slander Trump with patently false information throughout this article (not to mention over 100 other tds articles from him.)
Did we ever get a real article here regarding Alex Jones and the continued lawfare inflicted against him from that bs defamation case? It'd be nice to at least mention the insane penalties and sloppy justification of Jones and even the FOX v. dominion cases.
Trump defenders like defamation laws now.
Please, justify the 1.5B Jones judgement. You continue to refuse to say how the parents were harmed by 150M given USSC precedent for punitive damages is 10x.
It is a weird argument you make. Being against an obviously unconstitutional ruling means someone is against all rulings?
It is amazing how you defend all democrat inspired lawfare against your enemies.
How were the families of Alex Jones harmed 100x greater than Trump given the latter has billions in businesses.
And, again, unlike Trump or Weinstein or Epstein, the underlying allegations of Jones' libel was that they were socially and politically profiting off the death of their children.
Apologies and legal fees as a decision makes sense even if I think it's still at odds with Reason/others cries of "MUH 1A!". But beyond that, punitively, you're just proving that Jones was right.
Unequivocally, a decision against the "A republic, if you can keep it." sentiment.
Sandy Hook was a false flag. Crisis actors and supposedly took place at a school that was no longer in use.
Fake, made up , used to inflict more damage on Americans.
Fake,fake,fake just like 9/11
Delusional
False flag or not, it is/has been politically and fiscally lucrative.
Ridiculous. You would have to hundreds of people keep their silence where there is international media attention.
Do you understand the definition of ‘absurd’?
Meanwhile Fox had paid how many hundreds of millions?
Yet another odd defense of lawfare. The company in the fox suit had yearly revenues of around 3M. Using USSC precedent they should have been awarded at most 30M. Yet demanded 1.5B, odd number fresh off the Jones suit. You continue to defend lawfare. Why?
They had to settle. The judge prevented Fox from engaging in discovery. The whole thing should be overturned, the judge removed and disbarred.
I was gonna say, there were major problems with that case if memory serves.
Like New York Times v Sullivan?
Another travesty in lawfare.
This was not carelessness but a deliberate and known lie you mendacious cunt. He accurately characterized the the jury finding when interviewing Carroll but later, all of a sudden has to deliberately lie about the finding? That is not carelessness, that is a deliberate, knowing and malicious falsehood for narrative purposes.
"mendacious cunt" = Trump cultist
In Sarc’s mind, all that matters is that it’s Trump.
Carroll is incontrovertibally a liar. The dress she was purportedly sexually abused in didn't exist until after the period in which the spposed abuse took place. Thus she lied. Now, what she lied about may be in question, but she lied about something. Combined with her self admitted on national TV rape fantasies, and the probability that anything occurred outside her head is next to nil.
Carroll is a drug crazed old woman fantasizing about something that never happened.
Sorta like Crystal Magnum's fantasy of being raped by the Duke Lacross team.
Sure.....we should believe all women./s
"I do worry about the effect this could have on others and the chilling effect it might have on people who otherwise would be critical of…”
I don’t remember a lot of the mainstream giving two fucks about the chilling nature of the Alex Jones case or the Dominion case. The Dominion case even more so, since there was ample evidence of Democrats saying the same kinds of things about those machines just a few elections prior to 2020.
Your memory is sound.
And you never hear about the Alex Jones one. Which was absolutely nuts. The judge just had it in for him.
LOL, Sullum. You can see the little dribble of blood on his chin where he bit through his lip while he wrote this.
George Stephanopolous suddenly pretended to be really concerned about accusations of rape. There is no evidence Trump raped Jean Carroll but a lot of evidence that her entire story is a lie. Hopefully, that judgment will be overturned and Carroll will have to tell Rachel Maddow she will not be buying her a beach house after all.
I remember well how G.S. vilified the women that accused Clinton of rape and sexual assault. He certainly had a different opinion back then about women accusers than he does now.
I've disliked him ever since, and his attitude towards Nancy Mace in that interview proved I have good judgment. She was another rape victim that he had no problem treating with disdain.
Wasn't it George S with whom the Democrats planted the question about birth control to harp on non-stop when interviewing Romney prior to the 2012 election? No politician, and certainly not Romney, had said a word about birth control prior to then but certainly it became a major campaign issue as the Democrats and their adoring media insisted Republicans were going to ban access to the products. Romney was blind-sided by the question and of course had no prepared answer, but little Georgie wouldn't let go of the subject.
Democrats. A pox on them all!
Listening to MAGAs repeatedly explain that "it's not rape because he only forcibly penetrated her with his fingers, which even though that's rape now, wasn't technically rape then" never gets old.
Reading lies from TDS-addled piles of steaming shit like this gets tired very quickly.
Get reamed with a barb-wire-wrapped broom stick and then fuck off and die, asshole.
No.
Reading lies from TDS-addled piles of steaming shit like this gets tired very quickly.
Get reamed with a barb-wire-wrapped baseball bat and then fuck off and die, asshole.
No one wants to hear your rape fantasies and kinks, Tinkerbell
I think of rape as meaning forced sexual intercourse. But I'm not going to quibble on whether fingers count as rape. The case does seem like more "get Trump at all costs" bullshit to me though.
Not being considered actual rape is the crux of the ABC lawsuit. Otherwise Trump wouldn't have a case.
"Given George Stephanopoulos' Carelessness..."
It's spelled L-Y-I-N-G, TDS-addled shit pile Sullum.
"The host of This Week repeatedly and inaccurately asserted that Trump had been "found liable for rape."
Funny how Little Stephie never mentions Clinton's rape cases.
Weird, huh?
'Cuz bothsiderism is required in absolutely every case in which your little feelings might get hurt, right?
The legacy media continues to dig its own hole, making ready for its own funeral.
Whether it's ABC, CNN or MSNBC or any of the rest of them, it's almost too late for a reprieve. They have no credibility at all.
The latest with ABC's $15 million dollar judgement against them thanks to little Georgie should send a message to the lot of them but I doubt it will do any good.
Allow the legacy media to fail, to become has beens that never were, and the rise of the citizen journalist along with people such as James O'keefe can't happen soon enough.
Goodbye and good riddence.
That's a lot of words to make the argument that the writer only believes in free speech and the First Amendment when it is aimed at someone they don't agree with but ignore blatant lies, obfuscations and attacks by their own partisans
It was a complete unforced error by ABC. First, George S. has the experience and skill to have avoided saying "rape" 12 times, especially because he knew what the jury had found. Second, ABC should have issued an apology.
I am not a fan of President-elect Trump, but the statements were false, defamatory and not opinion. Whether they were made with actual malice would have been very messy, but I suspect that George's ABC emails and texts would not convince the jury that he was an impartial journalist who had just made a negligent error.
This is not precedent that should deter any serious media outlet.
Trump's lawyers won this case when they got it into a Florida court rather than a New York court with biased judges and biased juries. Generally in suits claiming libel against celebrities, "actual malice" is a legal term of art meaning "reckless disregard of the truth." But there was worse than recklessness going on here. I'd be quite surprised that it wasn't possible to prove to the satisfaction of a Florida jury that not only repeatedly made public statements that he _knew_ were inaccurate, while writing private e-mails that actually expressed malice towards Trump. In a situation like this, the wise man settles rather than waiting for a jury to decide how high they can rack up the damages.
OTOH, Trump certainly wasn't wise in regards to Carroll's lawsuits - although I understand his rage about her (probably) getting away with lying. It seems unlikely that a man who dated and married models and beauty queens would have been attracted to this skank, and as I understand it, in the original suit the judge did not allow Trump to present evidence of Carroll getting caught in similar lies.
The corporate media needs to be held accountable for their lying and twisting of the truth. The saying "with great power comes great responsibility", but lacks accountability that is needed sorely.
Georgie was not careless, he was malicious, as he always is. After his interview with Nancy Mace, he should be labeled a woman abuser.