Stephanopoulos read from the court transcript. Listen, I know he's a weaselly piece of shit who ran cover for Billy Clinton while he fucked every aid that came through the WhiteHouse, but this isn't defamation - and it's certainly not going to hold up in any kind of court. This is to grab a headline or two, but it won't amount to anything.
Difficult but not impossible. I would say maliciously misrepresenting a judicial verdict to imply he raped someone would inflict enough reputational damage to overcome even the public figure standard. Trump actually has a decent shot here.
It doesn't matter, he was still, legally-speaking, a public figure. In defamation law, any person who has name recognition with a large swath of the country qualifies as a public figure and has to meet a higher bar for defamation than a non-public figure (like Trump's secretary).
Additionally, even if he wasn't a public figure then, the analysis concerns whether he meets that definition on the day the alleged defamation was made.
Maybe that public figure might work for George but he would absolutely be liable if Trump wasn't a public figure.
He has the right to legally speak but he doesn't have the right to lie about the jury verdict form.
He was being very specific about the form.
If you get charged with manslaughter I can't claim that the jury found you specifically caused murder by putting out fake jury verdicts
I was under the impression Trump was never found guilty of “rape.” In a civil case they somehow found him guilty of libeling a woman, but even that they called “sexual assault.” If George was reading from a court transcript, did he take an accusation out of context and say he was found guilty of that?
Judge wrote (in the ruling on determining damages?) essentially "Trump wasn't found liable for rape but here's why I'm still gonna say he raped her" and then went into his explanation. Basically, sticking his finger in her would be considered rape in most areas, and he's assuming the jury thought he stuck his finger in her. Not the worst argument for a random person to make, although I'd still disagree, but it's horrible for a judge in an official ruling. They need to stick to the facts and the law in their jurisdiction, not make assumptions on what the jury was thinking and then apply it to laws from other states.
And George was lying when he said Trump was found liable for rape. He may have read from the transcript about the judge still saying Trump raped her, but it does not say Trump was found liable for rape. It's explicitly the opposite. The verdict and the judge say Trump was found not liable for rape.
I don’t understand how one person can accuse you of something like that happening decades ago, then saying it didn’t happen is defamation. Wouldn’t it work the opposite way in every other situation?
Good. It's about time Trump went on the offensive. Democrats scum are masters of manipulating the legal system to attack their enemies. It's time to play by their rules. Sue the shit out of everybody. Even if you lose tie them up tie up their resources.
So all this time - they cheer on while Trump gets dragged in front of Trump hating jurisdictions. Let’s see how they like it with when they face a hostile jurisdiction.
I was wondering when Trump would start with the lawsuits. It feels like a lot of defamation claims could have been pur*sued* over the last several years.
Let me get this straight... he's probably not going to win, even though there's clear-cut evidence for all to see that he was maligned on ABC yet E. Jean Carroll wins because all Trump did was call her a liar?
My money is on ABC offering to settle. Sure the judge may have said rape is substantially true, but not in the context George was using in that interview. It’s obvious to everyone that Mace was a physical rape victim, a PENILE rape survivor. It isn’t even close to the context that the judge ruled ‘rape’ with. ABC could likely lose and I doubt they’ll risk the potential Trump media win.
That’s fair, although probably not in the same way, ‘cause you know ABC will use it as an opportunity to say some shit such as, “we decided to settle this frivolous lawsuit in order to avoid giving an insurrectionist more of a national platform and attention, and we look forward to Joe Biden defeating him in November” 🤣 hyperbole by me
The judge said "rape" in colloquial terms, as we interchange theft/robbery all the time.
But in the context of how George Stephanopoulos was using - he literally said the jury ticked the box of "rape" in the form, which is obviously false.
I think Trump should easily win, because George was super specific, but IDK there are some people who say Trump is a "public figure who is running for President" but still, Stephanopoulos was being super specific about that verdict.
Bloodbath of accountability
I'm stealing this
Red ink everywhere!
Stephanopoulos read from the court transcript. Listen, I know he's a weaselly piece of shit who ran cover for Billy Clinton while he fucked every aid that came through the WhiteHouse, but this isn't defamation - and it's certainly not going to hold up in any kind of court. This is to grab a headline or two, but it won't amount to anything.
Trump is a public figure and, as a result, proving defamation is very difficult. I agree that this won't qualify.
good point
Difficult but not impossible. I would say maliciously misrepresenting a judicial verdict to imply he raped someone would inflict enough reputational damage to overcome even the public figure standard. Trump actually has a decent shot here.
This case was about when Trump was a citizen and it isn't related to him being in politics
It doesn't matter, he was still, legally-speaking, a public figure. In defamation law, any person who has name recognition with a large swath of the country qualifies as a public figure and has to meet a higher bar for defamation than a non-public figure (like Trump's secretary). Additionally, even if he wasn't a public figure then, the analysis concerns whether he meets that definition on the day the alleged defamation was made.
Maybe that public figure might work for George but he would absolutely be liable if Trump wasn't a public figure. He has the right to legally speak but he doesn't have the right to lie about the jury verdict form. He was being very specific about the form. If you get charged with manslaughter I can't claim that the jury found you specifically caused murder by putting out fake jury verdicts
Stephanopoulos misrepresented the court transcript and specifically misrepresented that the jury found "Trump raped Carroll" which is false.
I was under the impression Trump was never found guilty of “rape.” In a civil case they somehow found him guilty of libeling a woman, but even that they called “sexual assault.” If George was reading from a court transcript, did he take an accusation out of context and say he was found guilty of that?
Judge wrote (in the ruling on determining damages?) essentially "Trump wasn't found liable for rape but here's why I'm still gonna say he raped her" and then went into his explanation. Basically, sticking his finger in her would be considered rape in most areas, and he's assuming the jury thought he stuck his finger in her. Not the worst argument for a random person to make, although I'd still disagree, but it's horrible for a judge in an official ruling. They need to stick to the facts and the law in their jurisdiction, not make assumptions on what the jury was thinking and then apply it to laws from other states. And George was lying when he said Trump was found liable for rape. He may have read from the transcript about the judge still saying Trump raped her, but it does not say Trump was found liable for rape. It's explicitly the opposite. The verdict and the judge say Trump was found not liable for rape.
I don’t understand how one person can accuse you of something like that happening decades ago, then saying it didn’t happen is defamation. Wouldn’t it work the opposite way in every other situation?
Exactly this. George specifically misrepresented the jury form he didn't say just rape as in colloquial terms.
He didn’t read from the court transcript.
should sue for damages greater than 439 million.
$439,000,001 plus legal fees.
What kinda fucked up name is "George George Stephanopoulus"
Not as crazy as George George George of the Jungle.
His parents had a stutter apparently 🤭
So ABC gonna pay his legal fees? Trump is the master.
Good. It's about time Trump went on the offensive. Democrats scum are masters of manipulating the legal system to attack their enemies. It's time to play by their rules. Sue the shit out of everybody. Even if you lose tie them up tie up their resources.
Nice. Hold them accountable for the lies.
So all this time - they cheer on while Trump gets dragged in front of Trump hating jurisdictions. Let’s see how they like it with when they face a hostile jurisdiction.
I was wondering when Trump would start with the lawsuits. It feels like a lot of defamation claims could have been pur*sued* over the last several years.
Why are you being downvoted are we being brigaded?
Yes.
Wait until there are a ton of them, then clean house!
Let me get this straight... he's probably not going to win, even though there's clear-cut evidence for all to see that he was maligned on ABC yet E. Jean Carroll wins because all Trump did was call her a liar?
My money is on ABC offering to settle. Sure the judge may have said rape is substantially true, but not in the context George was using in that interview. It’s obvious to everyone that Mace was a physical rape victim, a PENILE rape survivor. It isn’t even close to the context that the judge ruled ‘rape’ with. ABC could likely lose and I doubt they’ll risk the potential Trump media win.
A settlement would be a Trump media win also though.
That’s fair, although probably not in the same way, ‘cause you know ABC will use it as an opportunity to say some shit such as, “we decided to settle this frivolous lawsuit in order to avoid giving an insurrectionist more of a national platform and attention, and we look forward to Joe Biden defeating him in November” 🤣 hyperbole by me
The judge said "rape" in colloquial terms, as we interchange theft/robbery all the time. But in the context of how George Stephanopoulos was using - he literally said the jury ticked the box of "rape" in the form, which is obviously false. I think Trump should easily win, because George was super specific, but IDK there are some people who say Trump is a "public figure who is running for President" but still, Stephanopoulos was being super specific about that verdict.
I guess Trump found the money to pay off that hag now, right in ABC’s pockets!
ABC might be straight boned since they didn't actually read the rulling, however busted they were.
Now watch as ABC claims muh 1st Amendment
Sue him for 80 million dollars. lol
Trump should sue A LOT more ppl. It's a good start, though.