My H, an attorney (so am I), looked up the ABC case and discovered that Stephanopoulos, during that interview, said 10 times that Trump was “convicted of rape”. Trump was only convicted of sexual assault, not rape. What the judge said, and he shouldn’t have said it, in his order was just dicta. Dicta is extraneous judicial speech that co…
My H, an attorney (so am I), looked up the ABC case and discovered that Stephanopoulos, during that interview, said 10 times that Trump was “convicted of rape”. Trump was only convicted of sexual assault, not rape. What the judge said, and he shouldn’t have said it, in his order was just dicta. Dicta is extraneous judicial speech that counts for nothing. Stephanopoulos shouldn’t have said there was a rape conviction, and he definitely shouldn’t have said it 10 times. This wasn’t going to be a case ABC could win, and it was a good corporate decision to settle, even if Trump haters (I am one) wish it were different. Besides which, how many people actually think of digital penetration when they hear the word “rape”? Not many is my guess. This whole ABC thing may be frustrating but it’s a logical result on the facts.
Shit. I hate to say it, but if your characterization of what Stephanopoulos said is accurate, you are right.
Was he really that dumb, given how frantically cautious reporters generally are when talking about legal issues? I mean, even the reporting of today's school shooting in Madison is referring to the perpetrator, who took her own life, as the "alleged suspect."
If so, then they really did have little choice. And for what? Was Stephanopoulos's statement going to have the slightest impact on the election, especially when it was inaccurate?
I just looked into what Stephanopoulos actually said. According to the Columbia Journalism Review (https://www.cjr.org/business_of_news/questions-abc-news-should-answer-16-million-trump-settlement.php), Per that article, "Stephanopoulos first said 'judges in two juries have found [Trump] liable for rape,'” and later "said nine separate times that Trump was 'found liable for rape.'” However, he did once say "the judge said Trump was found to have committed rape.”
So, it looks to me like the only instance where he crossed the line into using the word "committed" was in referencing what the trial judge had said. Is that enough for Trump to have prevailed in this suit?
The judge did not find Trump “liable for rape”. The jury found Trump guilty of sexual assault. In a jury trial, the jury makes the finding, not the judge. The judge made an extrajudicial statement that was, as I said, dicta. Dicta is meaningless and superfluous. It’s unnecessary, means nothing, and has no legal significance. Trump was NEVER found liable for rape, so to say that 9 different times (in the same interview, no less!) was definitely actionable and Trump would probably have won on the merits. All 10 statements by Stephanopoulos were factually and legally incorrect. Personally, I think Stephanopoulos knew, or certainly should have known, that these statements were incorrect and inflammatory. I’m certain Stephanopoulos meant for his statements to be inflammatory and damaging to Trump. The chances of Trump proving all the elements of defamation are/were pretty high. Had Trump won, that would be very damaging to ABC’s reputation, and to Stephanopoulos’s reputation and credibility going forward. It’s pretty unconscionable that Stephanopoulos did what he did and put ABC in the crosshairs to this extent. I hate Trump with a passion, so to totally blow it in this fashion just makes going after him legitimately that much harder. Stephanopoulos should be fired.
I wonder, though, how much of what is said by Fox, Newsmax and OAN, about various Democrats. would be legally just as egregious? My hope is that answer is "yes", as this may be the only effective way to combat the influence they have over the right and swing voters through the lies they tell their audience.
My H, an attorney (so am I), looked up the ABC case and discovered that Stephanopoulos, during that interview, said 10 times that Trump was “convicted of rape”. Trump was only convicted of sexual assault, not rape. What the judge said, and he shouldn’t have said it, in his order was just dicta. Dicta is extraneous judicial speech that counts for nothing. Stephanopoulos shouldn’t have said there was a rape conviction, and he definitely shouldn’t have said it 10 times. This wasn’t going to be a case ABC could win, and it was a good corporate decision to settle, even if Trump haters (I am one) wish it were different. Besides which, how many people actually think of digital penetration when they hear the word “rape”? Not many is my guess. This whole ABC thing may be frustrating but it’s a logical result on the facts.
Shit. I hate to say it, but if your characterization of what Stephanopoulos said is accurate, you are right.
Was he really that dumb, given how frantically cautious reporters generally are when talking about legal issues? I mean, even the reporting of today's school shooting in Madison is referring to the perpetrator, who took her own life, as the "alleged suspect."
If so, then they really did have little choice. And for what? Was Stephanopoulos's statement going to have the slightest impact on the election, especially when it was inaccurate?
I just looked into what Stephanopoulos actually said. According to the Columbia Journalism Review (https://www.cjr.org/business_of_news/questions-abc-news-should-answer-16-million-trump-settlement.php), Per that article, "Stephanopoulos first said 'judges in two juries have found [Trump] liable for rape,'” and later "said nine separate times that Trump was 'found liable for rape.'” However, he did once say "the judge said Trump was found to have committed rape.”
So, it looks to me like the only instance where he crossed the line into using the word "committed" was in referencing what the trial judge had said. Is that enough for Trump to have prevailed in this suit?
The judge did not find Trump “liable for rape”. The jury found Trump guilty of sexual assault. In a jury trial, the jury makes the finding, not the judge. The judge made an extrajudicial statement that was, as I said, dicta. Dicta is meaningless and superfluous. It’s unnecessary, means nothing, and has no legal significance. Trump was NEVER found liable for rape, so to say that 9 different times (in the same interview, no less!) was definitely actionable and Trump would probably have won on the merits. All 10 statements by Stephanopoulos were factually and legally incorrect. Personally, I think Stephanopoulos knew, or certainly should have known, that these statements were incorrect and inflammatory. I’m certain Stephanopoulos meant for his statements to be inflammatory and damaging to Trump. The chances of Trump proving all the elements of defamation are/were pretty high. Had Trump won, that would be very damaging to ABC’s reputation, and to Stephanopoulos’s reputation and credibility going forward. It’s pretty unconscionable that Stephanopoulos did what he did and put ABC in the crosshairs to this extent. I hate Trump with a passion, so to totally blow it in this fashion just makes going after him legitimately that much harder. Stephanopoulos should be fired.
Yes, but what were his damages? Loss of good reputation? (Cue the dead people laughing)
I agree.
I wonder, though, how much of what is said by Fox, Newsmax and OAN, about various Democrats. would be legally just as egregious? My hope is that answer is "yes", as this may be the only effective way to combat the influence they have over the right and swing voters through the lies they tell their audience.
Agree, but Democrats have not shown any inclination to fight fire with fire, so we’re stuck.