The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
The Trump v. ABC Defamation Decision That Led to the $15M Settlement
From the July 24 opinion by Chief Judge Cecilia Altonaga (S.D. Fla.) that led to ABC's $15M (plus $1M in attorney fees plus an editor's note) settlement filed today:
On March 10, 2024, Stephanopoulos interviewed United States Representative Nancy Mace; ABC and ABC News broadcast the interview as part of the show This Week with George Stephanopoulos. In the interview, Stephanopoulos asked Mace about her endorsement of Plaintiff despite the fact he was "found liable for rape" [in E. Jean Carroll's civil case against him]. He repeated the phrase ten times during the interview, at one point stating "[j]udges and two separate juries have found him liable for rape," and "[t]he Judge affirmed that it was, in fact, rape." A screenshot of a newspaper headline stating that "Judge clarifies: Yes, Trump was found to have raped E. Jean Carroll[,]" was shown near the end of the broadcast….
Trump sued, arguing that the jury had concluded he had not committed rape but had only committed sexual abuse; ABC argued that, in context, the jury in Carroll v. Trump must have concluded he committed digital penetration, which is a form of rape or in any event tantamount to rape. But Chief Judge Altonaga disagreed:
"Under the substantial truth doctrine, a statement does not have to be perfectly accurate if the 'gist' or the 'sting' of the statement is true." …
[In resolving this question], the Court is mindful of the specific setting in which the statements were made. Here, Stephanopoulos was not describing Plaintiff's actions or Carroll's testimony against him; he was describing the jury's verdict.
This distinguishes several of the cases Defendants cite. In those cases, courts concluded it is substantially true for publications to describe forced sexual contact as rape when reporting on the events themselves. See, e.g., Moore v. Lowe (N.D. Ala. 2022) (concluding that it was substantially true to report that the plaintiff was accused of attempted rape, even if the statement would lead readers to believe he was accused of "forced vaginal sex rather than forced oral sex"); Nanji v. Nat'l Geographic Soc. (D. Md. 2005) (concluding it was not inaccurate to "use [] the term 'rape' as shorthand for sexual misconduct" when recounting "the abundance of sexual misconduct evidence in the public records").
More to the point, Defendants also cite cases finding substantial truth can arise when describing charges of forced sexual contact as charges for rape. Yet, these cases all involved underlying law that seemingly did not distinguish between rape and other forced sex crimes. See, e.g., Simonson v. United Press Int'l, Inc. (7th Cir. 1981) (noting "that 'rape' as defined by common usage is incorporated into second-degree sexual assault under Wisconsin law"); Hovey v. Iowa State Daily Pub. Bd., Inc. (Iowa 1985) (citing Simonson and noting that "[t]he definition of the crime of rape provided by the criminal law of Iowa was subsumed into the crime of sexual abuse with the adoption of the new Iowa Criminal Code"); Moore (noting, without addressing, the defendant's argument that forced oral sex constituted rape under Alabama law).
Here, of course, New York has opted to separate out a crime of rape; and Stephanopoulos's statements dealt not with the public's usage of that term, but the jury's consideration of it during a formal legal proceeding. Thus, while Defendants' cited cases are compelling, they are not directly responsive to the issue of whether it is substantially true to say a jury (or juries) found Plaintiff liable for rape by a jury despite the jury's verdict expressly finding he was not liable for rape under New York Penal Law.
To the contrary, one of Defendants' cited cases suggests Florida courts do not consider legal definitions to be mere formalities in this context. See Clark (determining that use of the term "rape" to describe an arrest for sexual battery "in the absence of formal legal charges is [ ] not defamatory"). The Court thus cannot definitively say it was substantially true to report on the (single) jury's verdict in Carroll II—which did not find Plaintiff liable for rape as that term is defined under New York law—as finding Plaintiff liable for rape.
Certainly, Defendants' theory has one credible supporter: Judge Kaplan, who repeatedly determined that the jury's verdict—regardless of its finding that no rape as defined by New York's Penal Law had occurred—amounted to a finding of liability for rape as rape is commonly understood. As explained, however, Judge Kaplan's findings do not have preclusive effect here. The Court is thus only persuaded that substantial truth would arise if the jury's verdict of "No" was presented in combination with Judge Kaplan's additional findings. The Court considers that aspect of Defendants' arguments now, considering the allegedly defamatory segment in its entirety and in context, from the perspective of a reasonable viewer.
Under that standard, a reasonable jury could interpret Stephanopoulos's statements as defamatory. Stephanopoulos's exchange with Mace lasted about ten minutes, during which Stephanopoulos stated ten times that a jury—or juries—had found Plaintiff liable for rape. In fact, of course, the Carroll II jury did not find Plaintiff liable for rape under New York Penal Law; it was Judge Kaplan who determined that the jury's verdict amounted to liability for rape. Yet, none of these particularities make it into the segment such that a reasonable viewer would have indisputably understood what Defendants now brief in detail.
Instead, at one point, Stephanopoulos asked to display a screenshot of a newspaper article about Judge Kaplan's findings and stated that "the Judge affirmed that it was, in fact, rape." This ostensible "clarification" occurred late in the segment and did not include any further explanation; viewers were simply treated to a ten-second glimpse of a headline and partially blurred text, with no mention of Judge Kaplan by name or any description of why his description of the verdict differed from the jury's actual verdict as recounted by Mace. On this record, the Court finds that the segment is, at least, "confusing or ambiguous" and susceptible to defamatory interpretation.
Once again, the Court does not find that a reasonable jury must—or even is likely to—conclude Stephanopoulos's statements were defamatory. A jury may, upon viewing the segment, find there was sufficient context. A jury may also conclude Plaintiff fails to establish other elements of his claim. See Readon v. WPLG, LLC (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) ("The First Amendment safeguards publishers from defamation suits brought by public figures unless the publisher acts with actual malice." (citations omitted)). But a reasonable jury could conclude Plaintiff was defamed and, as a result, dismissal is inappropriate.
For much the same reason, Chief Judge Altonaga also rejected defendants' fair report privilege arguments, which applies only to substantially accurate reports of court proceedings.
True, the fair report privilege absolves the media of the burden to be "technically precise" in their descriptions of legal proceedings. But the privilege does not protect media where the omission of important context renders a report misleading. See Dershowitz v. Cable News Network, Inc. (S.D. Fla. 2021) (rejecting the application of the fair report privilege, where playing a partial video clip, as opposed to the full video, "presented an official proceeding in a misleading manner"). Here, a reasonable viewer—especially one who was aware that Plaintiff had been charged with rape under New York Penal Law—could have been misled by Stephanopoulos's statements, which did not include the jury's original findings and only fleetingly referenced the interpretation Judge Kaplan later offered.
There's a lot more in the opinion, including a juicy (is there any other kind?) collateral estoppel issue. The settlement also obligates ABC to add an editor's note saying that "ABC News and George Stephanopoulos regret" the statements about Trump. Alejandro Brito (Brito LLC) represents Trump.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they 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 for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Five times in the last few weeks (4 on the view in one day, this) that ABC has had to admit that they are liars, corrupt, incompetent.
You'd think the shareholders might get upset.
There aren't any -- ABC is owned by Disney.
Now Disney shareholder pressure to unload ABC is a possibility...
Ralph Malph from "Happy Days" had more Gravitas than ABC's had since Sam Donaldson used to try and yell over the noise of Marine 1 (loved how Ronaldus Maximus would always say "I can't hear!" even when the Rotor wasn't turning.)
Instead of the money I'd rather have Nancy M kick Georgie Snuffaluffagus in his tiny Balls, that's assuming he ever had any.
Frank
I take it you don't consider forcible finger penetration of a woman's vagina to be "rape".
Is your motto also, "Grab 'em by the pussy!"
When they ask, maybe.
Does male/female sex scare you?
Do you mean rape?
No, he means you're a slimy pile of TDS-addled shit who should fuck off and die.
Whatever Trump utilizes the $15 million for at his presidential library should be accompanied by a plaque that reads "Made Possible by a $15 Million Donation from ABC and George Stephanopoulos."
Yes, and let's not forget that it was actually made possible by Trump's underlying abhorrent conduct, which amounted to rape*.
* As it is commonly understood, particularly among civilized people and those not suffering from TDS**.
** TDS refers to Trump Derangement Syndrome, which is a condition which causes the sufferer to confuse fantasy with fact.
ObviouslyNotSpam 1 hour ago
"Yes, and let's not forget that it was actually made possible by Trump's underlying abhorrent conduct, which amounted to rape*."
Was Kennedy's, Johnson's or clinton's conduct okay?
Asking for a friend
Look, it's a whataboutism, alive and in the wild!
Did any of them sexually assault people? (I know Clinton¹ has been accused of that by Juanita Broaddrick, but she also swore under oath that it didn't happen, so she by definition isn't reliable.) Otherwise, whatever they did is not in the same ballpark as what Trump did.
¹Given the context, I assume that your question was a reference to Bill, not Hillary.
Well, he had a state trooper bring a state employee to his hotel room in the middle of the night and exposed himself to her, and he forcibly groped Kathleen Willey.
And feminists have discussed ad-nauseum in every other case about how it's not uncommon for victims to recant to take the spotlight off themselves.
Broadrick has witnesses to came to the sconce and corroborated that she had a bloody lip. She told a few people what happened at the time of the attack. She only recanted several years later because she didn't want to get involved in the Paula Jones lawsuit. People are free not to believe her if they choose. Personally, I think she's more credible than, say, Blasey Ford or E. Jean Carrol.
Juanita Broaddrick never swore under oath that Bill Clinton raped her. She has sworn that:
http://anusha.com/janedoe5.htm
TwelveInchPianist, if you had an important decision to make about a member of your family, and the only information you had came from Juanita Broaddrick, would you seek out additional information before making that decision?
Here's what Broaderick's friend, Norma Rodgers, said happened in 1978:
And there's more corroboration than just that.
Are you claiming that Norma Rodgers or Rogers (you spelled her name both ways) told the truth but Juanita Broaddrick lied under oath? Do you find that persuasive?
Again, TIP, if you had an important decision to make about a member of your family, and the only information you had came from Juanita Broaddrick, would you seek out additional information before making that decision? It seems that she regards truth as such a precious commodity that she uses it sparingly.
1. Yes, I am. Yes, I do.
2. I would seek out additional information, just like I have in this case. And the totality of the information available to me in this case convinces me that the initial allegation is more reliable.
"you spelled her name both ways"
No, I spelled it one way, the NYT spelled it another. I'd go with their spelling if I were you.
It seems to me that what Ms. Broaddrick says to be true is entirely situational. There is a reason that juries are routinely instructed on the principle of falsus in uno; falsus in omnibus. While the rule is not inflexible, a witness who falsely testifies about one matter is not credible to testify about any matter.
The only time that that slippery female has held up her hand and sworn to tell the truth, she exculpated Bill Clinton.
Well, she can't be falsa in omnibus, either he raped her or he didn't.
I get that as a proudly partisan Democrat, you are motivated to believe that her statement to Jones's lawyers are the ones that are false.
But why would a non-proudly partisan non-Democrat draw that inference? She gave a consistent account the hour it happened, and it's understandable that she might recant a few decades later to avoid getting sucked into a partisan lawsuit.
"I get that as a proudly partisan Democrat, you are motivated to believe that her statement to Jones's lawyers are the ones that are false."
Uh, no. Precisely the opposite. The affidavit filed by Paula Hound Dog's lawyers on March 28, 1998 is the one I regard as true, based in part on the fact that it is the only statement Ms. Broaddrick made under oath.
Her sworn, unequivocal denial that Bill Clinton made any unwanted sexual advances toward her negates any claim that he forced her to do anything sexual. When a witness makes contradictory statements about a single fact, those statements cancel each other out and are considered to be "no evidence" of that fact.
"When a witness makes contradictory statements about a single fact, those statements cancel each other out and are considered to be "no evidence" of that fact."
Are you sure you had a law license at one point?
When a witness makes contradictory statements, the factfinder has to evaluate the statements and determine which one he believes, if any.
Right. And as juries are routinely instructed, a factfinder who finds that a witness has sworn falsely as to a material fact on one point is free (although not required) to disregard that witness's testimony in its entirety.
Juanita Broaddrick has never faced the crucible of cross-examination as to anything she has said, let alone as to her contradictory statements. She has shown that she will say whatever serves her purposes at the time. A prudent person should believe nothing that she says.
In addition to Juanita Broaddrick, ask Paula Jones and Kathleen Willey. But what exactly is your point crazy Dave, that defamatory media lies are ok? What a clownish POS troll.
If it wasnt for double standards, DN would have no standards
If it wasnt for double standards, DN would have no standards
Same with NG
Joe_Dallas, I am a proudly partisan Democrat, and I know that I am just as subject to confirmation bias as the next fellow. That is why I typically cite legal authorities and original source materials (where I can) in support of what I say.
Can you say the same?
NG - As you are fully aware and as others have pointed out, Clinton was involved in multiple sexual assualts.
Thus your defense doesnt change the fact that you demonstrate an extreme level of double standards.
Do you add all your standards together, or do you break them out separately for each sockpuppet account?
Not sure which Johnson you're referring to, or which Kennedy for that matter, but I was in favor of Clinton's impeachment and would have voted to convict him, had I been a Senator. He committed perjury, which was inexcusable for a lawyer.
Do you have any other brilliant ripostes you'd like to try?
It's a case to show how easy it will prove for over-concentrated American media to fall victim to over-concentrated political power.
I don't get it, "45/47" is "over-concentrated American media"??(I think you mean "Supersaturated", probably should leave Scientific terms to those with a Scientific background) and ABC is "over-concentrated political power"??
ABC should just contract out their news division to ESPN, like they did with Sports. Seriously, Alex Karras and "Dandy Don" Meredith had more Political Gravitas in either of their little fingers than Snuffaluffagus in his entire scrawny body. (just the sight of him makes me want to kick sand in his face)
Frank
You’re ok with the media spreading lies, from the Russian collusion fraud, the Hunter laptop garbage and the present defamation. But if the victim target actually gets compensation, then you’re indignant?
Never mind the 'over-concentrated' political media lemonade stuff; did someone just mention a Trump "presidential library"?
Yes, what of it?
https://www.trumplibrary.gov/
BHe's actually entitled to *two* libraries as he is both the 45th and 47th POTUS.
The really interesting thing will be the status of all of the documents from his prior administration on January 20th -- will the National Archives have to cart them all back? If not, why not?
Been to the Nixon, Eisenhower, Truman, Hoover Libraries, and the LBJ Ranch (Officially the "LBJ Historical Park) skip the LBJ Lie-bury in Austin, it's just full of stupid papers and files, the Ranch has his refurbished Lockheed Jetstar (looks like you could just fire her up and takeoff) Luci-bird's 65 Stingray (that she never got to drive apparently, man, what a waste of machinery) It's still a working Cattle Ranch and a short piece down the road is LBJ's grave (you're not supposed to jump the short stone wall surrounding the cemetery but I did anyway)
Nixon's Library in beautiful downtown Yorba Linda is everything you'd think it would be, great recreations of the Oval Orifice (slip the Attendant a fin and he'll let you sit in Tricky Dick's chair)
Easily the humblest is Hoovers, on the outskirts of West Branch Iowa, which doesn't even have a McDonalds (no wonder he moved), you can see everything in about 15 minutes (mostly framed Newspaper front pages noting various of his many birthdays) The Ranger at the entrance seemed surprised anyone was interested and asked what I wanted, and didn't bother to collect the $5 Senior admittance fee ("software problem" he said)
Ironically, as a native born Atlantan, I've never been to Jimmuh Cartuh's Li-bury, it's on the "John Lewis Freedom Parkway" which like any street named after MLK, is in one of the most dangerous parts of town.
Frank
No Obama Library?
Are his papers still in a closed, former furniture store?
The Kennedy Library is on the old Boston city dump (seriously -- Columbia Point was the dump) and the adjacent Ted Kennedy Senate Immersion Tank (it's name) has a boat ramp behind it.
I am not making this up -- there is a boat ramp behind it!
It's tactically a good location for various law enforcement agencies to launch a boat from as it is out on a point in the entrance to the harbor (Logan Airport is on the other side) but I saw it there and could not help but laugh.
Teddy seemed to embrace his scandal, remember his pet Portuguese Water Dog, "Splash"?
I think the biggest problem was the reference to the jury's verdict, which was demonstrably false. Alas, there is no shorthand for, "He violently shoved his finger into a woman's vagina against her will and without her consent...but it's not technically rape in NY, although it's rape in other jurisdictions."
I'm actually surprised that the case settled. I would have thought the "liberal" media would have relished the chance to go to trial, to depose Trump on this (ie, perjury trap for the pathological liar), etc.. I guess the defendants' lawyers believed Trump's chances of winner were quite high.
I'll eat crow here; when the case was filed, I thought for sure that the "Well; it was substantially true." defense would win out, and that there was no way this case would settle. I was dead-wrong, and I'll own up to that.
".but it's not technically rape in NY, although it's rape in other jurisdictions."
Really? Name three.
Although in fairness, I am not aware of a state that actually uses the term "statutory rape."
Massachusetts, for one, you incalculably gigantic doofus.
No, the jury did not find that Trump did anything that would be rape in Massachusetts.
The jury, as the link you yourself posted, found that Trump forcibly engaged in nonconsensual sexual contact via digital penetration. That conduct falls under the statutory definition of rape in Massachusetts.
NAS, see 265 MGL 22(a) -- the term used is "unnatural sexual intercourse", as distinguished from "sexual intercourse."
Your point being… what, exactly?
There is a federal law imposing consequences on anybody convicted of "statutory rape" in violation of state law. A man had a conviction for statutory rape of a 17 year old. The federal age of consent is 16. Is that a qualifying conviction? An appeals court said yes. A few years later the Supreme Court came to the opposite conclusion in a different case.
I think your alternative long form assertion opens a different can of worms.
It’s easy to prove in ABC’s defense that a court found whatever it did find. Though you do have to get your claim right about what it found.
But your long form claim is about what actually happened not what a court found. And for that the NY court finding is worth nothing. Or strictly less than nothing.
So then you have to win in Florida on the facts, where the court might not be quite so inclined to believe E Jean.
So I suspect ABC were right to home in on the court finding not the actual facts. They just needed to get the finding right and they’d be home free.
At the risk of being overly technical, exactly what DID the jury find?
As I understand it, the jury found that he libeled E Jean by saying that she was a liar. That's really not the same thing as saying that he actually DID digitally penetrate her, only that he libeled her in saying she was lying when she claimed he did.
I'm thinking of Bill Clinton and the definition of the word "is."
Here is the verdict form.
https://www.scribd.com/document/644110955/gov-uscourts-nysd-590045-174-0-1
You don’t understand it correctly, of course. The jury was first asked to make findings on what Trump actually did, as well as whether, in light of his actions, his statements about Carroll were defamatory.
No, that's not right. If this were a suit between Trump and EJC, then what Trump did to her would be relevant (though also res judicata.) But this was a suit against ABC, in which the relevant question is whether the gist of ABC's statement was knowingly/recklessly false. If a federal judge says (paraphrased) "It's correct to say that Trump was found liable for raping her," then it's hard to see how that burden could be met.
Now, you might say, "If that's true, why did ABC settle?" And the answer is: I don't know. Maybe they were worried about extralegal consequences from the incoming administration. Maybe there's something that they're afraid would come out in discovery that would make them look even worse in some other way. But the answer is not because Trump gets to relitigate whether he shoved his fingers insider her without her consent.
The jury determined that Trump did not rape her, and did not have a finding that he shoved his finger anywhere. There would be no need to depose Trump. George Steph. lied on ABC tv repeatedly about what the jury found.
This seems about as clearly libel as any case could be. ABC repeatedly and maliciously said a jury found that Trump raped, when the jury said exactly the opposite.
The jury did find Trump liable for sexual assault, based on his conduct.
In New York, forcibly "grabbing someone by the pussy" isn't rape, but it can be sexual assault. He's such a hero!
But the whole point — as District Judge Lewis Kaplan already ruled — is that "It doesn't fit the definition in the NY penal code for rape" is not the same thing as "it's not rape in NY."
What's the difference? If it does not fit the definition of rape, then it is not rape.
Presumably, though I am happy to be corrected, the judge was making a distinction between the legal definition and the "plain English" meaning - ie the word as it is commonly understood in New York.
Obviously opinions will differ as to what the common man (or woman) understands by "rape" as a matter of plain English. I suspect the average lawyer is probably heavily influenced by the ever developing legal definitions in his or her impression of what constutes plain English. Whereas the average butcher, baker or candlestick maker is probably not.
As I google it, some people use the term in sentences like: "The bank raped me with an overdraft fee." Ok, fine, but the judge defined it for the jury, and that is the only definition he should be talking about.
Reading. Is. Fundamental. I didn't say that "it doesn't fit the definition of rape." That would be a ridiculous thing to say, because there is no "the" definition of rape; rape can and is defined in multiple ways. What I said was that "it doesn't fit the definition in the NY penal code for rape."
"Alas, there is no shorthand for, "He violently shoved his finger into a woman's vagina against her will and without her consent...but it's not technically rape in NY, although it's rape in other jurisdictions."
You mean other than "sexual abuse" which is what they found him liable for?
Bravo! Brilliant defense of an American President. Helps the citizenry take pride in their choice.
Yeah, bummer that the other side couldn't find a better candidate.
SM,
ABC was not going to go to trial against an incoming POTUS. There is to much to lose. So they pays their money and gets treated like the other networks.
In related news, Chrystal Magnum now admits shew lied about the zfuke lacrosse team.
Not that she has any credibility. She could be lying about why she did it.
Fortunately, there's no need to even entertain that possibility when it comes to Trump!
* Crystal
* Mangum
* she
* Duke
Dude, you already made* partner. There's nobody left to impress with this sort of thing.
I think the reason ABC would settle a case like this which on the basis of known facts could be a close call, because of unknown facts they do not want the judge and a jury aware of.
Here's the giveaway "He repeated the phrase ten times during the interview". I think discovery would reveal extensive preproduction meetings on just what they could probably get away with, and guilty knowledge that it was not technically correct and a decision to go with it anyway.
You don't repeat the same phrase 10 times by accident, you repeat it because its pre-planned and you are trying to go just that far, but no further.
And if it was discussed at those preproduction meetings that it was not technically correct, but the decision was to go with it anyway, there is your actual malice, and massive liability.
Yes, it is impossible that the ABC staff did not know the jury decision. It had to be a deliberate decision to lie about the jury. The jury said that Trump did not rape her. That was the big story.
This would be like, immediately after the Daniel Penny verdict, ABC said ten times that the jury found Penny guilty of manslaughter. Penny would sue and win, regardless of the fact that some people think that Penny is guilty of something.
You're conveniently omitting what Judge Kaplan has said about that particular verdict. One can only guess why...
ABC omitted that. ABC could have quoted the judge's opinion, but it did not.
So your excuse is that ABC omitted it, so you can omit it. Conditional ethics is so in fashion these days!
Kaz and Roger S have a good assessment of ABC's /Stephanopoulos likely knowledge of the facts. Somewhat similar to Mapes and Rather having knowledge of the fake Killian memo's.
Yeah, that's terrible legal analysis.
1) The jury didn't say that Trump didn't rape her; it said that she didn't prove it by a preponderance of the evidence.
2) But the jury didn't even say that; the jury said that she didn't prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Trump committed the act that NY Penal Law calls rape.
3) It wouldn't be like that, because the difference between "the jury found Penny guilty of manslaughter" and the jury not finding Penny guilty of anything is very far from the difference between the jury finding Trump liable for sexual abuse and the jury finding Trump liable for rape, particularly given that what Trump did would be considered rape.
George Stephanopolous's commentary was boneheaded. I wonder, however, if ABC considered conceding liability but leaving the determination of damages to a jury. Donald Trump already had a (self-inflicted) reputation for grabbing women's genitalia, and the conduct for which the New York jury found him culpable does in common parlance amount to rape.
The magistrate judge had ordered Trump and Stephanopolous to sit for depositions this week. I wish the parties had waited to see what those depositions yielded before settling.
I don't see why — if they were willing to trust their fate to a jury — they wouldn't have also let the jury determine liability. (Anything relevant to damages that could've been presented in the liability phase could also be presented in a damages inquiry anyway.) If this were a $150,000 settlement, then saving the litigation costs might be justification. But the marginal cost of continuing to litigate liability in a $15m case is relatively small, if you're going to hold a jury trial anyway.
I am not going to go through the comment archive here and list the commenters and their statements that went even further that Stephanopoulos did in falsely calling Trump a rapist.*
*At least until Trumps lawyers establish a tip line for reporting actionable statements with monetary rewards for documented instances.
A judge disagreeing with ABC whether sexual abuse via digital penetration counts as rape is hardly time to get all righteous about how Trump was wronged.
So you never digitally fondled any chicks in High Screw-el??
OK, I didn't either, or College, I had to wait until Med School, and then only with the rare Candy Striper who was impressed with my Johnny Cougar mullet.
Of course I digitally fondled my own genitals constantly, from about the 5th grade on, nice thing about Anesthesia, getting to wear Scrubs all the time (gotta get the hard to find bottoms with pockets)
Frank
The other wrongs suffered by President Trump (and others) will have to wait until he assumes office for retribution and justice. Even with his pardon, the big guy’s bagman will still have to testify and I doubt the big guy can or will pardon everyone. Oh he’ll try but he certainly can’t pardon an agency itself. And the crimes will still be exposed. And you’ll still be BS gaslighting. Or maybe it’s too much for you to lie about? Nah, I doubt you have any compunctions. And you’re a clown.
ABC thoght Trump was wronged enough that they paid him 15 million dollars to avoid a trial.
And 15 million is a lot more than just "avoiding "the cost of the defense".
... and of course a million dollars to Trump's lawyers.
That's not why one settles.
But yeah, keep yelling how it was only sexual abuse via digital penetration; sure make you look like a tool if you've gotta defend Trump on this shit.
It's possible that there are some folk who entertain doubts that the New York jury's verdict was the same one they would have reached.
It’s about risk and litigation costs. A business decision not one based on how wronged Trump truly was.
I'm not yelling about "it was only sexual abuse via digital penetration".
I've never seen any evidence they've ever even met.
So you think the first verdict was wrong, and Trump didn’t do anything at all?
You really are picking and choosing what you give credence to and what you don’t. All so Trump is innocent.
Pretty toolish!
Speaking of toolish,
It was a 30 year old recollection with no corroborating evidence that was only able to be brought to court because the NY Assembly passed a one year window to allow it.
So yes, he probably thinks the verdict was wrong because it was just another case of Democrats and their Get Trump By Any Means Necessary assaults on Democracy.
Right, I do not give credence to an allegation that (1) describes an absurdity that would never happen; (2) has no evidence; and (3) does not even say what year it happened.
Yes, despite the fact that numerous women have accused Trump of substantially similar conduct and the fact that Trump admitted substantially similar conduct, it's an "absurdity that would never happen."
The thing about the year is bad faith; you would still lie about the trial even if she had said it happened in 1996, or in June 1996, or on June 26, 1986, or on June 26, 1986 at 7:15 p.m.
Well tell me what year Trump allegedly did it, if you want me to give it any credence.
When you can't name the year, let alone the month then forgive me for not giving the allegation any credibility.
Allegedly? No that’s the one a jury found he did it.
What year did he do it?
And that was a civil jury by preponderance, a coin flip that came up tails, its conclusion would be entitled to no difference in any other proceeding, so yeah, allegedly.
A civil jury by preponderance is not a coin flip, you tool.
its conclusion would be entitled to no difference in any other proceeding
What a fancy new bullshitty goalpost you put out there!
A jury found Trump did it.
You don't want to give it any weight so you're furiously making arbitrary new goalposts and excuses. All outta your ass with no actual legal or practical moment. But it'll keep you believing, I guess.
Yeah, we all know you gave away your critical thinking long ago.
"Pretty toolish!"
Why? None of us is bound by the jury's verdict. It's perfectly reasonable to look at the evidence as reported and come to a different conclusion than a jury.
Tool.
True
The defense was probably very worried about an impartial jury, instead of a NYC jury
Twelveinch — Are you sure nobody else is bound by the jury's verdict? I think the question remains at least legally controversial whether a publisher aware of an adjudicated defamation is at liberty to re-publish the defamatory allegations, except perhaps in an accurate account of the court proceedings. Whatever the law may be, given the particulars of various cases, it strikes me as extremely unwise to do that.
Also, if you know some particular allegation has been found false and defamatory in court, with a judgment to compensate the victim for damages, what kind of a jackass do you have to be—just as a matter of personal character—to republish and inflict more damage? I think, leaving aside the legal definition of actual malice, and using, "malice," in its ordinary meaning, you have to be a malicious jackass.
It may be perfectly reasonable to look at the evidence presented to the jury and come to a different conclusion than the jury. It is not perfectly reasonable to look at what you read on twitter (or the VC comment threads) about the evidence and come to a different conclusion than the jury.
You mean, other than the photo of them meeting, I assume.
Tell us again in what year this happened?
Tell us what decade it happened. Tell us when any woman was ever raped in the dressing room of a high-end Manhattan department store. Tell us how space aliens facilitated it.
The 1990s.
And by "judge" you mean "jury", you lying bootlicker.
You're next in the lawsuits, hopefully it's after you get fired or quit b/c you have to actually start working.
No need. Allow me to reiterate: Donald Trump was found civilly liable in New York for conduct which anyone of a reasonable nature would call "rape" if it had happened to their loved one. As someone who has been found liable for what is commonly known as "rape", Trump is, therefore, a person commonly known as a "rapist" (among other things).
(Please note that he is not a convicted rapist! No, that would be wrong.)
False. Trump was found civilly liable for defamation, and not for what anyone would call rape. The jury unanimous determined that Trump did not rape her.
Trump was found civilly liable by a unanimous jury for sexually abusing her by nonconsensually penetrating her with his fingers, which is what virtually everyone would call rape.
Er, you yourself posted a link to the jury's verdict form. Didn't you read it?
The jury found Trump liable for defamation AND for "what anyone would call rape", aka, "sexual abuse".
conduct which anyone of a reasonable nature would call "rape" if it had happened to their loved one
I suspect there are many more people with an "unreasonable nature" than you presume. My guess would be that a comfortable majority of parents, siblings, friends etc of a victim of a sexual assault such as penetration of the vagina by a finger, would be thinking - "How horrible ! How terrible ! My poor Dolores !..... but Thank God, at least, it wasn't an actual rape." And I suspect that's what a majority of victims would be thinking too. Likewise if most people read in a newspaper or online that Trump had "raped" E Jean, they would not be thinking fingers.
Which is not to say that according to the details and the psychology of the victim, there aren't many examples of sexual assault which are not actual rape, which may nevertheless be just as traumatic, or indeed more so.
The long march of expanded statutory defintions of rape, from the common understanding and the common law, is by no means complete and has yet to reach large sections of the common people.
No, not even Carroll said it was finger rape. He claimed it was penis-in-vagina rape. The jury unanimously agreed that she lied.
He??? Which "he" are you referring to?
I meant that Carroll claimed it was piv rape. I got her pronoun wrong.
Where was the jury's "unanimous agreement" about her testimony memorialized?
Looking at the case from a prior point of view, as if it had not yet settled, was this case properly about what constitutes rape in Florida, or properly about what constitutes libel nationwide, under the 1A?
Seems to me you have to conclude it was about the former to reach an argument that the settlement was anything but a surprise, maybe a legal blunder, maybe a politically-motivated cave-in by ABC, or possibly a tactical decision to keep from the Supreme Court an opportunity to narrow libel protection for media under NYT v. Sullivan?
Can anyone among the lawyers who comment here provide clarification about the posture of the case when ABC made the settlement decision? Was ABC somehow on the hook for a loss much larger than $15 million if it appealed? Was there any reason to suppose the legal costs to appeal would amount to a notable fraction of $15 million? Was a decision to settle likely motivated by reflection that if it went to the Supreme Court, it would be the partisan Thomas/Alito Court making the decision, and thus risk a precedent to notably narrow the scope of media libel protection under NYT v. Sullivan?
My suspicion is ABC didn't appeal because they thought they might lose. Then the decision would be circuit precedent, creating potential future liability. It would also cost them another wheelbarrow full of money. It's not unusual for a party to settle after losing a motion to dismiss.
Personally, as painful as it is to see Trump win anything ever, I think this decision came out on the right side of the line. It's close though and I wouldn't be bothered if it had gone the other way.
"was this case properly about what constitutes rape in Florida, or properly about what constitutes libel nationwide, under the 1A?"
Neither. It was about what constitutes rape in New York and what constitutes defamation in Florida. It isn't that complicated: New York, uniquely, distinguishes Trump's conduct from rape. ABC was reporting (explicitly) on the jury's finding rather than the conduct. The judge ruled that because they were talking about the jury's finding specifically they had to be more accurate than if they were talking about the conduct itself or the trial generally. I think that's fair, but only because ABC is sophisticated enough to know the difference.
There was no verdict for ABC to appeal, the judge merely ruled on a pretrial motion to dismiss.
ABC wasn't concerned with a possible appeal to the Supreme Court of a possible jury verdict after several rounds of possible appeals.
They were concerned with a jury hearing the case in the first place.
Neirther NYT v sullivan or harte Hanks would help Stepanololis or ABC since, they had full knowledge of the facts and/or had the ability to easily check the facts.
Yes, one of which is that the jury had not found Trump liable for "rape".
The jury did find him liable for sexual assault, which relates to conduct commonly known as "rape", making Trump a "rapist", as that term is commonly understood.
Sadly, ABC's lawyers (or Stepho himself) did not bother with making the distinction, thus making a rich rapist $15m richer.
No, the jury did not find Trump liable for sexual assault. It found him liable for defamation. It said that no rape occurred.
"No, the jury did not find Trump liable for sexual assault. It found him liable for defamation. It said that no rape occurred."
Au contraire. The jury in Carroll II found on May 9, 2023 that Ms. Carroll did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Trump raped Ms. Carroll. The jury also found that Ms. Carroll did prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Trump sexually abused Ms. Carroll. The jury further found that Mr. Trump's conduct regarding this sexual abuse was willfully or wantonly negligent, reckless, or done with a conscious disregard of the rights of Ms. Carroll, or was so reckless as to amount to such disregard. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.590045/gov.uscourts.nysd.590045.174.0_3.pdf
There is no substitute for original source materials.
Thanks for that clarification. That verdict sheet did not say that Trump was liable for sexual assault. It said "sexually abused", whatever that means. I assume that rape and sexual assault are defined crimes in NY. I doubt that sexual abuse is. I suppose it could mean digital penetration, but it could also mean a lot of other things, many of them non-criminal, and many of them very far from what is understood as rape. I do not know what this jury meant.
Sexual abuse is a defined crime.
From what I can tell, it wasn't clear whether the penetration was PIV or something else, so they had to go with sexual abuse instead of rape.
You know what they say about assuming. What I don't understand is why you would lie about this, or "assume" the facts away, when it would literally take 20 seconds to google
sexual abuse penal law ny
and find out from the very first¹ link that sexual abuse is defined in NY Penal Law §§ 130.55 - 130.70.
¹Google's results are personalized, so it is possible it was the second or third link if you did the search. In any case, there were multiple results.
"Can anyone among the lawyers who comment here provide clarification about the posture of the case when ABC made the settlement decision? Was ABC somehow on the hook for a loss much larger than $15 million if it appealed? Was there any reason to suppose the legal costs to appeal would amount to a notable fraction of $15 million? Was a decision to settle likely motivated by reflection that if it went to the Supreme Court, it would be the partisan Thomas/Alito Court making the decision, and thus risk a precedent to notably narrow the scope of media libel protection under NYT v. Sullivan?"
The posture of the case is that the District Judge had denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss. I don't know whether the Defendants had or had not filed an answer to the complaint (which is not required while a motion to dismiss is pending). The Magistrate Judge had ordered Donald Trump and George Stephanopolous to sit for depositions this week, not to exceed four hours each.
The District Court's denial of the motion to dismiss would not have been appealable prior to trial or other final judgment. Had the settlement not been reached, the lawsuit would have proceeded to discovery, including but not limited to the depositions of the principals which was ordered to occur this week.
A lot of the comments above are more frivolous-politics-oriented than serious-law-directed, which people are entitled to (I suppose), but which really don't contribute to this blog's raison d'etre. Why are you wasting everybody's time?
Instead, what really happened in E.V.'s reported case is that the judge denied a Motion to Dismiss, hence (merely) allowing to case to go to trial/jury. That is, the judge decided the case couldn't be dismissed at a matter of LAW, because the FACTS first need to be determined by the jury. That was a clear and correct decision, IMHO.
The much more interesting question is, what would/should have happened IF the case had gone to the jury (absent ABC's settlement). That's what I'd like to see have happened. And from what I see in the decision (without having followed it before now, and not really studying the decision super-closely now even) is that if I were on the jury, I'd vote in favor of ABC, not for political purposes, but on the basis of Fair Report Privilege and Substantial Truth Doctrine. I believe ABC's prep work for the Stephanopoulos interview probably considered this is deep detail (as other commenters note), and came to the same conclusion as me. Too bad, it would've made a good test case for these very important FRP and STD principles.
My comment crossed in the mail with Drewski's. His comment is a good one (not one of the crazed political ones), even though we disagree, as if we were thoughtful jury members. Too bad all comments to E.V.'s blogs aren't so thoughtful.
Mr.Anon — Your comment more or less mirrors my thoughts. I also appreciate Drewski's thoughtful response, although I have trouble as a layman understanding how 1A precedents protecting press freedom can be circumvented or somehow bypassed because of state laws in New York and Florida.
I happened to see that ABC segment as it happened, and remember thinking at the time, "Yikes, Stephanopoulos can't be winging this on his own, he has to have got the lawyers' okay to go ahead with that." But I did not think the lawyers' okay was unlikely, or even a reach. The settlement really did come as a surprise to me. But then I started thinking about how Alito and Thomas have been champing at the bit to undercut NYT v. Sullivan.
They cannot, of course. The relevant precedents would require Trump to prove "actual malice" as that term is defined in the caselaw.
"The much more interesting question is, what would/should have happened IF the case had gone to the jury (absent ABC's settlement). That's what I'd like to see have happened."
But would ABC have liked to see it happen?
Is not the practice of law also a question of tactics and risk assessment? To what extent does the reputation of the client come in to play? (Remember the airline that initially argued contributory negligence to a child molestation suit?)
What none of us know is what ABC's attorneys know, and where it would be one thing if ABC were as pure as driven snow and truly objective in reporting on Trump, but I don't think that even their supporters believe that to be true.
So in calculating in what would have happened, you have to also calculate in what might have come out in discovery and (a) what it would have done to this case, (b) what other suits it might have spawned, and (c) what it would have done to ABC's reputation?
IANAA but I have taken admin courses where real high-priced trial attorneys have come in and discussed the above.
Did Snuffaluffagus ever interview Ted Kennedy?
The ultimate issue is not just whether they are different, but whether they are different in a way that materially affects the plaintiff’s public reputation.
Thus, the trier of fact needs to take the additional step of assessing how an ordinary reasonable member of the public would PERCEIVE the difference (or lack thereof) between a jury finding of rape and a jury finding of sexual assault with respect to its effect on the defendant’s punlic reputation. because material affect on reputation is not just a matter of legal niceties, but how (and whether) ordinary members of the public perceive those niceties. The judge here concluded that an ordinary person COULD perceive the two as different. Not that they would.
If this case had gone to trial, a jury might indeed find a difference between the two. On the other hand, it might also find that, either because any difference between the two is small or because Trump will soon be elected President anyway, his reputation hasn’t really been diminished very much, and hence he isn’t entitled to much in the way of damages.
"A judge might reasonably say that because Trump will soon be elected President anyway, his reputation hasn’t really been so diminished."
How about his marriage and what his wife thinks of him? What his children think of him? How about harm it does to Melania?
Does not this come to play in an assessment of damages?
Case in point, Andrew Jackson was hounded for bigamy -- it didn't harm his ability to get elected but it did kill his wife...
And because it would have been a jury trial, the jury could have reached its verdict for any number of reasons, including wholly improper and unjust reasons. C'est la jurie...
(No, I don't think that's actually French.)
You are now at one with The Donald.
If you only knew the power of the dark side.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious."
Description of NY court system and MSM.
What does the New York court system have to do with anything?
Another point not yet mentioned in the comments. Trump had already been repeatedly featured nationwide on TV, remarking on his prowess to get away with the kind of sexual assault he inflicted on E. Jean Carroll.
In that context, on what legal theory would a reasonable juror conclude the Stephanopoulos remarks had power to effect any negative change in Trump's reputation—or, for that matter, why not conclude those remarks enhanced Trump's reputation? That seems actually to be the notion Trump himself cherished. He was plainly boasting on the Access Hollywood Tape.
And despite the New York trial, no one has ever been able to show that the Access Hollywood remarks effected any overall change in Trump's reputation, let alone a negative change.
The more I think about the settlement, the more it looks to me like a, "Please don't hurt us when you're President," moral collapse by ABC.
What on Earth are you talking about? The "grab by the pussy" tape? That was prominently part of the civil trial.
What is really glossed over in the comments over the debate about what is / what is not rape is that rape is a CRIME, and Trump was never convicted in a criminal court of that crime.
On that line of reasoning, to be civilly adjudicated a rapist does not deprive the person charged of life, or liberty. Monetary loss can be a legitimate outcome for the person accused in either class of legal action. So what's your point?
What he's talking about is that in order to collect actual damages you have to show you were actually damaged. And given that Trump admitted — bragged about — engaging in the very acts for which he was found liable here, it's hard to show that any minor inaccuracy in Stephanopolous's statements actually harmed Trump in any way.
What on earth are YOU talking about when you say that Trump wasn't convicted criminally? Everyone knows that, and it isn't part of this case t all.
If you said that on ABC, you would be paying for defamation. No, Trump has never remark on his ability to get away with sexual assault, and no, there was no sexual assault against Carroll.
The Access Hollywood Tape was a comedy routine, according to all those involved, and it only described consensual interactions.
Nobody described it as a "comedy routine." Trump called it "locker room talk," and it of course described non-consensual actions.
Could Judge Kaplan be sued for libel? I'm assuming the answer is no, because of qualified immunity.
See my description (H/T Obi Wan) of NY courts system above.
No, but not for any reason having anything to do with qualified immunity.
Absolute immunity.
This outcome is concerning to me, since it signals that, when a large media conglomerate is challenged by a president with a boundless pile of cash to pursue even the slightest and least defensible defamation claim, paired with no particular concern over using federal power to punish the conglomerate in other areas, the conglomerate will prove all too willing to capitulate. As we see the LATimes doing with increasing frequency under its ownership, and as we saw the WaPo do with its presidential endorsement.
I realize that most of the retards who post here do not consume news other than through hyper-partisan and/or engagement-driven algorithmic sorting, so they're utterly indifferent to anything but their quality angertainment, but it's worth remembering that the founders expected a free and independent media to be an important check on our elected officials. Whatever your opinion of the increasingly mis-named "mainstream media," there needs to be a space for independently-financed, professional media to do its work, in our society. If all of our media is effectively self-censored by fears over Republican lawsuits and broader corporate agendas, how can we hope to have a chance against any kind of political corruption, abuse, misinformation?
None of you trust politicians. None of you trust the media. So how can we have a public discourse? How can we have a society? The stupid cheerleading I'm seeing in the comments here is extremely myopic. It's like a crowd of idiots cheering the snake-oil salesman's chasing the last honest doctor out of town.
Yet another good comment, SimonP. At least for me, the last sentence hits hard, while also getting past Orwell's stern dictum never to use a figure of speech you have ever heard before. Well done.
SL and SP want the media to blatantly lie without repercussion. In other news, SL and SP are raging hypocrites. But, we know what they say about Leftists and standards.
The large media companies nearly always successfully defend against defamation lawsuits. This was an egregious case. ABC said ten times that the jury found Trump guilty of rape, when the jury said precisely the opposite. ABC should be held accountable. Yes, I cheer that.
Nearly all the comments here also defame Trump. Maybe it is TDS.
I don't think anyone who cannot distinguish between "guilty of rape" and "liable for rape" would be considered much of an authority on what qualifies and does not qualify as defamation. (Or TDS!)
What you're glossing over is that the establishment media decided to stop being free and independent all on their own. This rendered them obsolete. They chose to become the public relations arm of the Democratic Party, but with better lighting and sets.
And "cheerleading"? What else would you call what the establishment media has done to itself? It has tripped all over itself cheerleading for the establishment.
There were more than a few professionals pushed out of the way by this switch. Many of them landed on substack and became truly independent. Some of them, such as The Free Press (thefp.com) even formed their own media companies, and drew in some really remarkable talents.
At this point the MAGAs are engaged in a desperate rear-guard action to make Trump seem tawdry, instead of criminal. Observers looking retrospectively from a couple generations hence will be challenged not so much to understand Trump, as to understand his defenders.
The actual malice standard required of a public figure plaintiff like Trump is almost insurmountable. Settlement was thus a business decision.
Yes, ABC would have won in court if it had any defense at all. It did not. Settlement is always a business decision.
I say again -- what was ABC worried about coming out???