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.
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.