It’s amazing that they caved on this, I’m not going to guarantee they would have won but it seems very easy to argue. They have the judge’s own words to back up their reporting. They have the definition of rape from basically every other state. They can have myriads of witnesses to argue about a common colloquial definition of a word. Again I wouldn’t say Ironclad but with how hard it is to prove defamation I have trouble seeing how they would have lost. They just straight up kowtowed. This is basically a bribe. Or maybe a tribute is the better word.
Honestly I wish they had fought this, but I understand why they settled.
Firstly, he was held liable for “sexual assault” which was legally different from rape at the time. (Obviously, he’s still a fucking rapist). He loves to tout this fact, as weird and sad as that is.
Secondly, and most likely the biggest factor in their decision, fighting Trump’s BS suit would likely cost way more than $15M and he’s soon to be the president (uuuuuuugh) so that complicates things even further in his favor because the case would go on beyond his inauguration.
In a normal environment sure. But Trump has already threatened their broadcast license. So it doesn’t matter if they win in court, if he yanks the rug out from under their entire business.
Not to mention for a public figure to win on defamation they have to prove “malicious intent.” No way this is malicious when it’s literally the truth and public record lol
when it’s literally the truth and public record lol
It ain’t and that’s the crux of the lawsuit. Stephanopolous said trump had been liable for rape when in reality he’d been found liable for sexual assault. Rape is a different charge.
It’s a subtle difference but it is one a veteran journalist would be expected to know, which is why the bar of him acting “with a reckless disregard for the truth” wouldn’t be unthinkable.
Morally, yeah, I’m with you. But legally, ABC was on dicey ground. Maybe could win but damn, that’d be a battle. Stephanopolous would have to, in court, claim he didn’t understand the difference between the charges which isn’t a great look for an anchor.
“The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was ‘raped’ within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump ‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape,’ ” Kaplan wrote.
He added: “Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that.”
Exactly, the key bit being "Ms Carroll failed to prove that she was ‘raped’ within the meaning of the New York Penal Law’
In other words, even though he wasn’t found liable for rape, she was raped as the word is commonly understood. Unfortunately, Stephanopolous made the claim (repeatedly I believe) that trump had been found liable for rape.
I thought the judge specifically said it was rape, despite the wording of the crime. that’s like saying they used the word “stole” when the public record says “embezzlement”. hardly an argument.
a difference between rape and sexual assult is an argument designed into the system. not because theres an actual difference in the crime. because theres a difference between who each charge will be applied to. just like theft vs embezzlement.
The standards for a news reporter are probably a lot higher than for a normal citizen. Colloquial definition almost certainly doesn’t cut it.
Especially as Stephanopolous somewhat goofed and repeatedly asserted trump had been found** liable of a crime** which was different from the crimes which he was actually guilty. (Ironically, I almost wonder if he’d been better off saying he raped Carroll as then you could more easily invoke the colloquial meaning defence whereas saying trump was found liable for rape changes the meaning subtly but meaningfully.)
As a news reporter, he should have known that from a legal perspective trump had not been “found liable for rape.” It’s splitting hairs but that’s a lot of law. I would not want to argue it wasn’t reckless and injurious to trump’s “reputation”.
It’s amazing that they caved on this, I’m not going to guarantee they would have won but it seems very easy to argue. They have the judge’s own words to back up their reporting. They have the definition of rape from basically every other state. They can have myriads of witnesses to argue about a common colloquial definition of a word. Again I wouldn’t say Ironclad but with how hard it is to prove defamation I have trouble seeing how they would have lost. They just straight up kowtowed. This is basically a bribe. Or maybe a tribute is the better word.
Honestly I wish they had fought this, but I understand why they settled.
Firstly, he was held liable for “sexual assault” which was legally different from rape at the time. (Obviously, he’s still a fucking rapist). He loves to tout this fact, as weird and sad as that is.
Secondly, and most likely the biggest factor in their decision, fighting Trump’s BS suit would likely cost way more than $15M and he’s soon to be the president (uuuuuuugh) so that complicates things even further in his favor because the case would go on beyond his inauguration.
Could just be a bribe in disguise, albeit maybe an unplanned one.
In a normal environment sure. But Trump has already threatened their broadcast license. So it doesn’t matter if they win in court, if he yanks the rug out from under their entire business.
Sure sounds like fascism
“Tribute” is the perfect word.
Not to mention for a public figure to win on defamation they have to prove “malicious intent.” No way this is malicious when it’s literally the truth and public record lol
It ain’t and that’s the crux of the lawsuit. Stephanopolous said trump had been liable for rape when in reality he’d been found liable for sexual assault. Rape is a different charge.
It’s a subtle difference but it is one a veteran journalist would be expected to know, which is why the bar of him acting “with a reckless disregard for the truth” wouldn’t be unthinkable.
Morally, yeah, I’m with you. But legally, ABC was on dicey ground. Maybe could win but damn, that’d be a battle. Stephanopolous would have to, in court, claim he didn’t understand the difference between the charges which isn’t a great look for an anchor.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-rape/
Judge clarifies: Yes, Trump was found to have raped E. Jean Carroll
Archive
Exactly, the key bit being "Ms Carroll failed to prove that she was ‘raped’ within the meaning of the New York Penal Law’
In other words, even though he wasn’t found liable for rape, she was raped as the word is commonly understood. Unfortunately, Stephanopolous made the claim (repeatedly I believe) that trump had been found liable for rape.
I thought the judge specifically said it was rape, despite the wording of the crime. that’s like saying they used the word “stole” when the public record says “embezzlement”. hardly an argument.
a difference between rape and sexual assult is an argument designed into the system. not because theres an actual difference in the crime. because theres a difference between who each charge will be applied to. just like theft vs embezzlement.
The standards for a news reporter are probably a lot higher than for a normal citizen. Colloquial definition almost certainly doesn’t cut it.
Especially as Stephanopolous somewhat goofed and repeatedly asserted trump had been found** liable of a crime** which was different from the crimes which he was actually guilty. (Ironically, I almost wonder if he’d been better off saying he raped Carroll as then you could more easily invoke the colloquial meaning defence whereas saying trump was found liable for rape changes the meaning subtly but meaningfully.)
As a news reporter, he should have known that from a legal perspective trump had not been “found liable for rape.” It’s splitting hairs but that’s a lot of law. I would not want to argue it wasn’t reckless and injurious to trump’s “reputation”.