So that won't happen now.

And a troot social post or two




✌🏻

top secret documents.

The grift continues.

He'll probably buy an old Kmart, stick some self-aggrandizing crap in it, and lease it out from himself for a million a year. Don't forget the gift shop, where you can buy the most bestest Chinese made souvenirs at exorbitant prices.

Cowards.

Even tho the judge ruled he “digitally raped her”.

Because you can't use a settlement as authority in another lawsuit.

Isn't that exactly what happened? The judge himself said it was rape.

I could be wrong though, but officially, there's a difference in legal terms.

For sexual assault but the judge clarified after the verdict that under NY state law that is considered rape.
ABC just folded line a lot of other news organizations.

It's a slippery slope.

Has anyone made an estimation how many people Dipshit Caligula has defamed?

OPE

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Sickening.

Plan a lawsuit and make a settlement. Great way to cover up a bribe.

Link to tweet

The American public should be ashamed of themselves for electing such a piece of garbage. It says more about the American voter than it does about Trump.

ABC/Disney killed two birds with one stone. got rid of the lawsuit and paid a bribe. This lawsuit was patently absurd from the get-go. Suing a journalist for basically reading a court opinion? This had no chance of success in front of a judge or jury.

under the table donation. FUCK ABC!

ABC's lawyers will hold the $15 million in escrow until trump provides proof that a valid 501(c)(3) entity is formed for a presidential library. I wonder what happens if trump never forms this entity.

Link to tweet

The jury was explicitly asked whether or not he raped her and said "no".

The defense in this case (which matches some of the judge's comments) is that the NY jury was given a very narrow definition of the term which did not fit her accusations... but that other people use the term in broader sense.

Once the motion to dismiss without a trial was rejected - ABC obviously felt that $16 million was easier/cheaper than the likely results.

George Stephanopoulos is not a lawyer. He was using the word "rape" as it is commonly understood. The jury found that Trump penetrated E. Jean Carroll's vagina with his fingers. Most Americans consider that rape. That is why Stephanopoulos used the word rape. Shortly before Stephanopoulos had that interview with Mace and said that, the judge in Carroll's case had clarified that what the jury found was what would commonly be considered rape:

The defense would no doubt use the explanation you've provided (which is entirely reasonable) - but the jury form had an explicit question - "Did Ms. Carroll prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Mr. Trump raped Ms. Carroll"

... and they checked "no".

The prospect of a new jury (in Miami vs NY) placing "has been found liable for rape by a jury" next to that "no" was too risky to take the chance of going to trial.

As the judge in the Caroll case made clear, we are not required to restate a jury verdict form verbatim in all its legalese. We can summarize a jury's finding in every day comonly used language, namely, that the jury found Trump raped her.

Sure, a Miami jury could be more conservative than a Manhattan jury, but even if they decided that George's statement was incorrect, then they would have to find malice, and then damages. What are Trump's damages?? He got elected after George said that, and that's despite being convicted of 34 felonies. What person suddenly thought worse of Trump because of how George Stephanopoulos described the Carroll verdict?

You are overstating the risk ABC would be taking in terms of any judgement after trial.

The risk ABC/Disney was probably most afraid of was being in the bad graces of our dictactor-elect, not any judgment in this stupid case. That's why I think they coughed up $16M.

They don't have to find malice by a criminal "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard... just be a "more likely than not" standard - which a Miami jury could do pretty easily since George had been a political strategist for a Democratic president. And then you're way off on your assumptions of how damages work. How much was he ordered to pay Caroll? Tens of millions of dollars. Not because that's the damage she suffered - but because damages are also based on punitive damages determined by his wealth. A company the size of ABC could trigger a very large award.

You may not be that far off on the risk of losing. But say they evaluate it as merely a 10% chance of losing $200 million? $16 now is cheaper than millions in legal fees plus that 10% chance.

Let alone $200 million! 26 women had already accused him of rape, including his first wife. He himself admitted he "grabs" women "by the pussy," which is what he did to Carroll. When Trump lied that she was a "nutjob" and he "never met her" she got death threats and it affected her otherwise excellent reputation as a writer. Stephanopoulos repeating what CARROLL'S JUDGE HAD ALREADY SAID (that the jury found Trump raped Carroll) changed nothing for Trump. NOBODY's opinion of Trump, nor their actions toward him, were changed by Stephanopoulos repeating what Judge Kaplan had already said from the bench.

If news organizations fold in the face his kind of shit, we lose the First Amended and slide into a kleptocratic dictatorship. You justifying this settlement is just greasing the skids. We should not be obeying in advance.

This sets a horrible precedent. This will further chill critical reporting of Trump. Trump's defamation/libel suits are basically SLAPP suits. They are about intimidation, to prevent people from saying critical things about Trump, a public figure. And now he will be filing a shit ton more of them, thanks to ABC caving.

You are not helping matters by defending this harmful cowardice by ABC.

ABC had the money to fight Trump and take it to trial. Most people, including many journalists, don't have that kind of money. How can we expect these smaller folks to be braver than ABC? This is horrible for our country.

George Stephanopoulos is not a lawyer. He was using the word "rape" as it is commonly understood. The jury found that Trump penetrated E. Jean Carroll's vagina with his fingers. Most Americans consider that rape. That is why Stephanopoulos used the word rape. Shortly before Stephanopoulos had that interview with Mace and said that, the judge in Carroll's case had clarified that what the jury found was what would commonly be considered rape:

Fk Trump with rusty rebar.

Indeed - they hold the world record for a defamation settlement because of it.

Last year there was $12million for one of Carlson’s producers

And I think the Smartmatic suit is still pending

Shouldn't every Democrat in office be suing them over their numerous lies and slanders?

This settlement is fucking outrageous

Fucking cowards.

Shame on you ABC!

This is sickening. America is going to be
burned to the ground.

What would they put in it, we know he doesn't read (despite stealing boxes of classified documents...)

the fucking felon can't read, or will it be picture books????

Nothing at all. Nada. Zilch. Gar nichts. Rien du tout. Niente. Τίποτε. Ничто. Semmi.

He was found liable for sexually assaulting her.

guilty of rape under NY law. They answered no. #2 was DJT guilty of sexual assault under NY law. They answered yes.

That is the total of the disagreement.

George Stephanopoulos is not a lawyer. He was using the word "rape" as it is commonly understood. The jury found that Trump penetrated E. Jean Carroll's vagina with his fingers. Most Americans consider that rape. That is why Stephanopoulos used the word rape. Shortly before Stephanopoulos had that interview with Mace and said that, the judge in Carroll's case had clarified that what the jury found was what would commonly be considered rape:

I was actually watching the ABC show that Sunday morning in question, either because I had grown weary of 'Meet The Press' or because they were pre-empted by some sports event-- I can't recall the date now, but I remember that I was very happy with George Stephanopoulos for pressing and refusing to back down on that exact point--- that Trump had been found "liable" for what the judge afterwards described as 'rape', in that civil case.

Disappointed in ABC, but I suppose they may consider this as merely a 'business decision',
and the amount tendered might be less than they estimated it could cost them in legal expenses alone,
just to fight the case out to a conclusion that they weren't guaranteed to win....

$15 million.... well, I suppose they are rich, right ? Probably "chump change" to them, to make this go away.

If I were the judge, I would have dismissed the case... but I'm not a lawyer either, much less a judge.


In the end.... "Trump wins again" when he clearly deserved to LOSE. I grow weary of that....


Eventually, the judgement from 'karma' is coming,
and that bill is bound to be high....

Money won't settle that case.

guilty of rape under NY law. They answered no. #2 was DJT guilty of sexual assault under NY law. They answered yes.

That is the total of the disagreement.

of 'rape', I guess....

George isn't a lawyer... he may have mis-characterized the legal decision of the jury,
but a semantical error does not equate with 'liable', IMHO--
especially when the supposed victim is a public figure,
for which there are much higher requirements to prove 'liable'

I think 'malice' is one of those requirements-- something very hard to prove from an interview.


Common sense dictates that 'digital penetration' is in fact 'rape'--
what I have heard of the case is that this was one of the allegations.

Am I misinformed on that ?

(I am not a NY lawyer) is that under NY law rape is defined as penetration by a penis into a vagina, rectum or mouth. That is why when specifically asked if DJT committed rape under NY law, the jury answered no.

George said specifically that the JURY had found DJT liable for rape. That is just factually incorrect.

As I recall, the presiding judge thought so.


Regardless of the technicalities of New York state rape law,
I think that a jury assigned to this liable case,
who aren't lawyers either, and are more governed by common sense
would have been hard-put to have found in Trump's favor.

jury instructions. Those instructions will at minimum have all the elements of the crime explained in great detail. Again, the legal definition of rape in NY, for lack of a better phrase, requires a penis to be involved. That is why the jury did in fact find that DJT was not liable for rape.

As to my definition of rape? Are you asking if I am in court or at a cocktail party? In court I would review the statutory definition of rape and base my thoughts on that. At a cocktail party? 100% this is rape.

All this though is not the problem that ABC had. The problem that ABC had was Stephanopoulos said:

'the JURY found him liable of rape'

Do you understand that when the jury SPECIFIALLY DID NOT find him liable for rape, that is a problem?

and in THIS case they should have done so, if it ever had come to that point---

just as they should probably ignore any 'jury instructions' having to do with any future case prosecuting women or doctors for violating state laws against abortion.


I still say that George's "mistake" in characterizing that jury's decision
does not rise to the standard of 'liable' against a public figure--
regardless of the deep and clearly out-of-date technicalities
of New York State rape law.

Do you understand that ?

element of liable against a public figure. I have been involved in several liable cases (although not in NY).

of New York State 'rape law' in its relationship to this former case.... from a 'strictly legal' standpoint.

Thanks for your educational responses. Now I presume there is no further need for us to debate a case which no longer even exists! LOL


As I said before, I am disappointed with ABC for 'settling' this case,
but I suspect it was merely a 'business decision'

The unfortunate part of it was how it threw free speech 'under the bus'
while handing Trump a tidy suitcase of millions.

believe that!).

One other small quibble and not to start a fight. Liable laws have long been an exception to free speech.

although I suspect that in some cases you might agree that not all 'speech'
should have blanket 1st Amendment protections---
particularly if they are lies which represent themselves as facts,
as opposed to 'opinions'.--- the classic example being
screaming "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theater when there is no fire....

(or screaming "election fraud" and/or "the voting machines are rigged"
when those things are not true)


My conclusion from this case, and the many likely liables committed by right-wing media,
is that Democrats do not sue for liable enough....

First of all, Stephanopoulos is not a lawyer. He was using the word "rape" as it is commonly understood. The jury found that Trump penetrated E. Jean Carroll's vagina with his fingers. Most Americans consider that rape. That is why Stephanopoulos used the word rape. Shortly before Stephanopoulos had that interview with Mace and said that, the judge in Carroll's case had clarified that what the jury found was what would commonly be considered rape:

a clarification for no reason at all?

I propose a more likely explanation as explained in detail in my other posts that ABC's lawyers and their insurance companies pressured them to settle. In any event, it does not matter which of us is correct. it is a done deal.

I am NOT arguing ABC paid $16M "for no reason at all." I don't know how you can suggest that. I believe they did it out of fear and to ingratiate themselves to our dictactor-elect. Basically, a bribe.

And it sure as fuck does matter at the end of the day. This sets a horrible precedent. This will further chill critical reporting of Trump. Trump's defamation/libel suits are basically SLAPP suits. They are about intimidation, to prevent people from saying critical things about Trump, a public figure. And now he will be filing a shit ton more of them, thanks to ABC caving.

You are not helping matters by defending this harmful cowardice by ABC.

ABC had the money to fight Trump and take it to trial. Most people, including many journalists, don't have that kind of money. How can we expect these smaller folks to be braver than ABC? This is horrible for our country.

First of all, Stephanopoulos is not a lawyer. He was using the word "rape" as it is commonly understood. The jury found that Trump penetrated E. Jean Carroll's vagina with his fingers. Most Americans consider that rape. That is why Stephanopoulos used the word rape. Shortly before Stephanopoulos had that interview with Mace and said that, the judge in Carroll's case had clarified that what the jury found was what would commonly be considered rape:

purely legal perspective THAT is why ABC settled.

If he would have said 'the jury found him liable for sexual assault', no problem as that is factually accurate.
If he would have said 'the jury found him liable for what most people would consider rape', almost definitely not a problem.
If he would have said they jury found him liable for what the Judge described as Mr. Trump ‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape.’, almost definitely not a problem.

He did not say any of those. He said 'the JURY found him liable of rape' which is a factually incorrect statement.

I don't know how to make it clearer.

ABC in trouble.

I wrote:

"If he would have said they jury found him liable for what the Judge described as Mr. Trump ‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape.’, almost definitely not a problem."

Did you not read that?

In any event, ABC News and George S paid 15M to DJT's presidential library fund and agreed to issue a clarification. You can continue to believe they did that for no reason at all. I will continue to believe their attorneys/insurance co. pressured them to settle for the reasons I stated above. I AM NOT saying it was a slam dunk that DJT would win his libel lawsuit. Just that it is not as preposterous as many here claim.

It does not matter at the end of the day which of us is correct. It is a done deal.

I did read what you said. Dial back the arrogant condescension.

Sure, your awkward run-on sentence might have been "safer"--but no guarantee Trump wouldn't have sued regardless.

George could have been even safer if he had pulled out the jury verdict form and read it word for word.

Or, he could talk like a normal human being--which is what he did.

As the judge said, ordinary people would say that the jury found Trump raped Carroll. And that is exactly what George, a lay journalist, said.

I did not say ABC paid $16M "for no reason at all." Please don't put such silly words in my mouth. I believe they did it out of fear and to ingratiate themselves to our dictactor-elect.

And it sure as fuck does matter at the end of the day. This sets a horrible precedent. This will further chill critical reporting of Trump. Trump's defamation/libel suits are basically SLAPP suits. They are about intimidation, to prevent people from saying critical things about Trump, a public figure. And now he will be filing a shit ton more of them, thanks to ABC caving.

You are not helping matters by defending this harmful cowardice by ABC.

ABC had the money to fight Trump and take it to trial. Most people, including many journalists, don't have that kind of money. How can we expect these smaller folks to be braver than ABC? This is horrible for our country.

George Stephanopoulos is not a lawyer either. He was using the word "rape" as it is commonly understood. The jury found that Trump penetrated E. Jean Carroll's vagina with his fingers. Most Americans consider that rape. That is why Stephanopoulos used the word rape. Shortly before Stephanopoulos had that interview with Mace and said that, the judge in Carroll's case had clarified that what the jury found was what would commonly be considered rape:

Getting old and running out of patience.

The entire main stream media will be one fascist propaganda because it will be more profitable.

The civil judge already said the sexual assault would colloquially be known as rape.

But Disney ownership caved either for tax breaks or to obey in advance.

to kiss this guys ass. Shameful. Disney is the parent company of ABC. I just had to include the disclaimer because that's what they always say after running "stories" about some Disney show, movie, resort, cruise etc.

Billionaires and corporations are falling over themselves to "donate" to Donnie's inaugural slush fund and otherwise curry favor. Media corporations are competing for "access".

In this context, any payment from a business to Donnie is some combination of shakedown and bribe. The fact that this payment is happening in the guise of settling an almost entirely baseless legal case is missing the point. The case is just cover for the corrupt nature of the payment.

No.

Trumps library should be in a sewer. Every panic document he shredded and pumped down the white house shitter.
and any top secret document that could sell was in a Mara logo port a potty. wtf

Cave-in and capitulate

of classified documents or the pictures of his toilet with documents sitting on them as one of his great achievements..........or the six justices pictures with moohla under there feet giving him a free pass in Colorado ruling by not barring him from running and have his name removed from the ballot behind display case and in Florida case have a picture of the smiling judge judge basically throwing out the Espionage Act.........with those documents........but the all time favorite will be tapes of the votes in the senate run my Mitch McConnel stating along with Susan Collins and the other assholes that he will have learned his lesson and should not have been impeached........and he then will force the citizenry to make a pilgrimages to his fucking library every year to see his great accomplishments................

So you are forced to look at him everywhere you go.

That makes it so much better.

What the actual F?

That's why they can kiss Trumps lily white ass and it costs them NOTHING.

Is there no one who will stand up to the bully?

Apparently not.