making a statement knowing it to be false, or with reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity of the statement.

I don’t think he could have met that burden in this case, but ABC decided to settle. It’s their money. If they wanted to give $15 million to Trump[‘s library] that’s their business.

Last edited Sun Dec 15, 2024, 02:16 PM - Edit history (1)

They filed a couple briefs and made some calls.

Lawyers are a bunch of fucking crooks.

even though both definitions define rape in New York State law.

While it still technically fits the definition of rape in NY, it wasn't what he was found guilty of, like George Stephanopoulos incorrectly said.

Time to start suing ourselves.

However, be previously bragged about grabbing women by the _____, which would be sexual assault and the plaintiff gave sworn testimony of an act that could be defined as rape. So I’m with you, why did they settle?

NY law, however, is odd in that “rape” required penetration by a penis. Carroll testified that she wasn’t certain whether he used his penis or fingers.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-rape/

George Stephanopoulos said (erroneously, and multiple times) that a jury found Trump guilty of rape. They specifically did not - passing over that charge, and rather found him guilty of sexual abuse (or battery) and defamation.

so what George Stephanopoulos said was true. Trump raped her.

and at least deserved a hearing in court.
Again - the original jury had the option, and didn't choose it. And the TV personality kept repeating a false claims that 'the jury' had - when in fact they hadn't.

(would have been different if he had said, "But the judge said this .. " But, alas he did not.

but it's still rape.

and hence the defamation suit. Which this court (judge) could have tossed - but, again, did not.

unconsented penetration by finger is legally defined in New York State as sexual abuse. In layman's terms, it's rape.

... ABC decided to show their "fairness" by giving Trump a win. They wanted to move on, and not be known as the "anti-Trump" news org. I would have argued the case. Possibly, the potential Judge would be a negative, but I don't know... if it came to a trial, George could say the past Judge stated that the incident fit his definition of "rape," if I recall correctly. The actual crime was not classified as "rape," but the attack was in the general area of that crime. I think, from what I heard, it fits my definition of rape. If I were ABC, I would think the think the trial came down to what exactly Trump did... which makes him look bad, not ABC.

and a constant reminder of what he did.

taking the case at face value, on a legal level, donnie's claim was that he was defamed by abc's george stephanopolous stating on air that a jury found him liable for rape.

in fact, the jury did not find him liable for rape, they found him liable for sexual assault and defamation. the nature of that sexual assault was such that a lay person would consider it rape, but it didn't meet the narrow legal definition under new york law.

specifically, donnie violated carroll, but she could not tell whether he had done so with his mushroom or his stubby little fingers. she didn't see it and evidently there wasn't enough of a size difference for her to be able to tell. under new york law, it's not rape if he didn't use his mushroom, it's "only" sexual assault. most people would say, well, maybe he raped her with his finger, but it's still rape.


so the legal case is not only that the statements abc aired were inaccurate, but also that donnie was defamed specifically by that inaccuracy. that is, he's claiming he was damaged by the statement that a jury found him liable for rape in a way that he wouldn't have been damaged by a statement that a jury found him liable for sexual assault that amounted to rape.

plus, he got elected president, so really, how "defamed" could he have been. he's a convicted felon, the biggest liar in history, twice impeached, renowned misogynist and bigot, etc., but oh, yeah, that subtle distinction really damaged his reputation somehow.

even if he's technically correct that abc's statement was inaccurate, saying he was meaningfully defamed by that inaccuracy is ludicrous. plus, it's really hard (though not impossible) to win a defamation case as a famous person because legally, famous people should expect to get talked about negatively, that's the price of the fame they sought.


on a different level, billionaires and corporations are stumbling over themselves to donate to donnie's inaugural fund or otherwise bend the knee and pay him "respects". in that context, the settlement make far, far more sense.

basically, it amounted to a shakedown. if you want continued access, you're gonna have to bribe me. i strongly suspect that abc would not have settled the case had kamala won the election.

Trump's M.O. is to sue, often over bullshit, and drag people through the court system until the legal bills bankrupt them. This is how he extracts revenge. ABC probably decided it was just easier to pay him off here, than to drag it on further, which could potentially cost them many more times than this payout.