Yes it's a fox link

https://www.foxnews.com/media/...ttle-defamation-suit

Stephanopoulos fucked up plain and simple, his hatred towards Trump is baffling
And he knew exactly what he was saying as that was total political stump

Just one of several reckonings to ensue.

ABC with NBC is circling the toilet in ratings. They need to try everything to get viewers.

I don’t know if this is accurate as Trump was just ordered today to set for a deposition.

My initial reaction was ti agree, but the Judge used the term rape. That might get Stephanopoulos through.

However, I do not see this getting dismissed on Summary Judgement.

Maybe ABC can payoff Trump’s judgments to Carroll?

Yep, President Trump wins this one.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/1...ation-lawsuit-settle

Carroll and the State of NY thanks ABC for their donation.

Actually, the structure of the settlement to the foundation insulates the money from a Trump’s creditors.

Stephanopoulos went too far. One cannot say Trump raped someone. One could say he was found liable for sexual assault.

Oh well, I feel sorry for all the Trump lawyers who have got stuck with all his nonsense only to watch someone else get this easy one.

Are you really that stupid Frank, that you think it's Trumps personal books in a presidential library.

Love it. ABC deserves it.

I hope Trump gets a membership in that library.

He needs to read books on TRUTH, HONESTY, SELF RESPECT!

Depending on how it all works out, but if history offers clues, it won't be called Trump Library. It will be Trumpism Holocaust Memorial.

In front of the museum near the entrance will be a marble statute depicting a large orange cross with an American flag draped across it, overlooking a bonfire with remnants of the constitution poking out, with people on the left cringing and weeping and people on the right cheering and wearing MAGA hats.

The plaque in front will read:

Never Forget What YOU Almost Let Happen.

Followed by the poem:

First they came for the Black Americans. But I wasn't black, so I didn't speak up.

Then they came for the Jews. But I wasn't Jewish, so I didn't speak up.

Then they came for LGBTQ Americans. But I wasn't queer, so I didn't speak up.

Then they came for election poll workers. I wasn't a poll worker, so I didn't speak out.

Then they came for the teachers. But I wasn't a teacher, so I didn't speak out.

Then they came for the jurists and jurors and their families. I was neither, so I didn't speak up.

Then they came for the school board members. I wasn't a school board member, so I didn't speak up.

Then they came for the immigrants and their children and relatives. Again, I didn't speak up.

Then they came for the press and journalists. I spoke up but by this time it didn't matter.

Then they came for liberal institutions and secular individuals. There was no one left unafraid to speak on their behalf.

But speak up they did, and here before you is a memorial honoring those who spoke up.

Maggie
Living in fear must suck

quote:

Per my far-right friend: "reality sucks"

I have to admit that I didn't dream up that post above uninspired.

I happened upon this article:

Baptist News Global

https://baptistnews.com/articl...g6sXIxRoCACcQAvD_BwE

First they came for them, then they came for us
Opinion
Bill Leonard, Senior Columnist | September 28, 2023

Some Quotes from the article:

Gaustad cites Reinhold Niebuhr that “consent makes democracy possible, dissent makes democracy meaningful.” Christians must dissent against violent language and the threats it produces.

Gaustad cites Reinhold Niebuhr that “consent makes democracy possible, dissent makes democracy meaningful.” Christians must dissent against violent language and the threats it produces.

Third, we must not succumb to the rhetoric of those Christians who bend the language of Jesus toward violence. In a Nov. 14, 2022, article in Religion Dispatches, Mark Clatterbuck reports his experience at a ReAwaken America rally where certain right-wing pastors joined folks like Michael Flynn, Roger Stone, Mike Lindell and others in presenting dominionist and Christian nationalist demands for cultural and religious dominance.

Clatterbuck, reared in the movement, writes: “While forays into national politics and spiritual warfare rhetoric have long marked the NAR (New Apostolic Reformation) movement, the degree to which the dominionist theology of NAR has co-opted far-right political extremism, conspiracy theory culture and open calls for violence is both a novel and dangerous development. And this is a movement that is no longer confined to the fringes of American religious and political life.”

He concludes, “Underneath it all was a seething groundswell of spiritually sanctioned incitement to violence that was impossible to ignore. The spiritual leaders of this new religio-political movement are using increasingly violent rhetoric to direct an inspired army of God to wage war against all who stand outside their camp.”

Finally, efforts to turn the gospel toward violence demand our rigorous dissent in the church and the culture, and that may mean we too will receive threats. For if democracy is at stake, and it is, so is the meaning of the gospel in and for our times.

These days, let us cling to the words of the Great Dissenter: “You shall know the truth, and the truth will make you free.”

Then and now he’d surely add: “And it will get you threatened.”

The law is strongly in ABCs favor here. The fact that they settled when they did really makes me wonder what documents they had to cross the ABC hater. Probably emails telling him not to say what he planned to say and his response to His bosses telling them to pound sand and he will say what he wants. There has to be some strong evidence that Stephanopoulos knew it was false and intended to say it anyway regardless. Unprofessional democrat operative.

Well ABC apparently didn't think so. They likely know something we don't and don't want us to know.

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
Well ABC apparently didn't think so. They likely know something we don't and don't want us to know.

You don't know that!!!

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
Maggie
Living in fear must suck

To others, specifically maga, ignorance is bliss.

quote:

Originally posted by wymple:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
Maggie
Living in fear must suck

To others, specifically maga, ignorance is bliss.

then you must be in heaven, close enough

I know they paid serious money!

Before discovery, which means it was only going to get worse for them.

Live with it liberals, ABC is biased and essentially admitted it.

This was obvious, and really stupid thing to do.

The jury made a clear, specific, direct, express finding that rape did not occur.

Just stupid and stupid should hurt.

Frankly, I would fire him.

I do not follow ME’s long post in the context of this thread. I mean, I do not see, read how the article is relevant to ABC or GS liability. The article does not present any authority to negate liability.

Trump/Lavaca take this one. There is no use Pretending otherwise or ignoring is not useful.

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
Before discovery, which means it was only going to get worse for them.

Live with it liberals, ABC is biased and essentially admitted it.

Shame on you, counselor. Do you think ABC paid because they were afraid of being found to be biased?

Private parties are entitled to be biased. Why don't you complain about Musk?

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
This was obvious, and really stupid thing to do.

The jury made a clear, specific, direct, express finding that rape did not occur.

Just stupid and stupid should hurt.

Frankly, I would fire him.

I do not follow ME’s long post in the context of this thread. I mean, I do not see, read how the article is relevant to ABC or GS liability. The article does not present any authority to negate liability.

Trump/Lavaca take this one. There is no use Pretending otherwise or ignoring is not useful.

Okay Mr. LHeym, I'll take your word for truth on this one. For one thing I agree with you that a journalist or the media should not have said Trump was "convicted" of rape or that he's a rapist. Calling him a serial pussy grabber is okay in the court of public opinion since he confessed to guilt.

I don't think bias had much to do with the mistake. It was just sloppy journalism, IMO. Sloppy enough to be excluded from precedent cases protecting freedom of press. Get too sloppy and pay. Faux News paid for the same reason - different scale in the sloppiness, bias and dollars paid to settle.

I didn't go back and research on the notion of rape. I went from memory. And, as I remember the details of the civil case, defamation is civil and rape is criminal and of course each have different burdens of proof, rape being much harder to prove, probably different jurisdictions too. So the plaintiff's attorneys weren't out to prove rape although some of the evidence supported the notion. There was no specific finding of rape and in a civil case it would not be appropriate anyway.

One point in my above post, which you didn't find relevant to this thread, was that any "win" only serves to encourage Trump. But at the same time this one needs to vanish as quietly as possible. Trump is out for revenge and to silence or at least put fear in the press that opposes him in any way. All the other targets mentioned in the poem are on his list too. My point is that this case is a small thing in the big picture re Trump. I tried to paint that bigger picture with a poem remembrance or ghosting something from history, but with a happy ending.

quote:

So the plaintiff's attorneys weren't out to prove rape although some of the evidence supported the notion. There was no specific finding of rape and in a civil case it would not be appropriate anyway.

My memory says the plaintiff testified that Trump raped her and did try to prove it, but the jury made a specific finding of not guilty on the rape charge,

I could be wrong though.

I think the bottom line is:

quote:

Stephanopoulos fucked up

I think we agree on that.

I would have to do some research on the case to be sure of not being mistaken but I'm not that interested in pure accuracy on this case. But I am interested in accuracy regarding the law in general in this type of situation as I understand it.

I remember it being a civil case, defamation, and rape has a different higher level of proof burden on the accuser. I also think it is not appropriate for a jury in a civil case to find guilt or not guilty on rape when that was not the charge in prosecution in the first place.

The plaintiff's testimony regarding rape is not enough by itself to meet a burden of proof for rape. But it probably had influence on the jury's decision in the civil case.

If Stephanopoulos had reported that the plaintiff had testified that Trump raped her, and such testimony did happen - the court allowed it, then the journalist would have told the truth and IMO would win if sued.

If he said Trump was convicted of or found guilty of rape in court when he was not, that is reason to settle.

Get over it. ABC has. And they paid.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
This was obvious, and really stupid thing to do.

The jury made a clear, specific, direct, express finding that rape did not occur.

Just stupid and stupid should hurt.

Frankly, I would fire him.

I do not follow ME’s long post in the context of this thread. I mean, I do not see, read how the article is relevant to ABC or GS liability. The article does not present any authority to negate liability.

Trump/Lavaca take this one. There is no use Pretending otherwise or ignoring is not useful.

Okay Mr. LHeym, I'll take your word for truth on this one. For one thing I agree with you that a journalist or the media should not have said Trump was "convicted" of rape or that he's a rapist. Calling him a serial pussy grabber is okay in the court of public opinion since he confessed to guilt.

I don't think bias had much to do with the mistake. It was just sloppy journalism, IMO. Sloppy enough to be excluded from precedent cases protecting freedom of press. Get too sloppy and pay. Faux News paid for the same reason - different scale in the sloppiness, bias and dollars paid to settle.

I didn't go back and research on the notion of rape. I went from memory. And, as I remember the details of the civil case, defamation is civil and rape is criminal and of course each have different burdens of proof, rape being much harder to prove, probably different jurisdictions too. So the plaintiff's attorneys weren't out to prove rape although some of the evidence supported the notion. There was no specific finding of rape and in a civil case it would not be appropriate anyway.

One point in my above post, which you didn't find relevant to this thread, was that any "win" only serves to encourage Trump. But at the same time this one needs to vanish as quietly as possible. Trump is out for revenge and to silence or at least put fear in the press that opposes him in any way. All the other targets mentioned in the poem are on his list too. My point is that this case is a small thing in the big picture re Trump. I tried to paint that bigger picture with a poem remembrance or ghosting something from history, but with a happy ending.

Tilting at windmills (look up the phrase) is not helping Trump disappear. All it does is give fire, breath to him as a person and the politics that raises him.


Carrol did try to prove a rape had occurred in Civil Action. The jury was instructed on take. One does not get a jury instruction unless a) they ask for it and b) the evidence presented w reasonable inferences drawn supports the finding.

I have posted the hurry instructions before.

NY uses forms for jury instructions which I find odd, and KY would not allow. The hurt made a specific finding Trump did not rape her. Gs and ABC were dead, shot in the head and left for dead in this one.

All you are doing w this is fueling the Trump train like coal to a steam engine. Just like your Trump Insurrection argument. All you got out of that was bad law.

quote:

Tilting at windmills

Definition:
Engaging in futile or misguided efforts
The phrase "tilting at windmills" means engaging in futile or misguided efforts, often based on a misinterpretation of reality. It describes situations where someone pursues an unattainable goal or fights imaginary enemies instead of addressing real issues.

====================================================

Well, I'm glad we have attorneys herein like you to keep us straight with reality and its relationship with law.

Somehow, given that Trump won the election, one might infer that self-deemed up-and-up (uppity) lawyers lost the election just as much as Biden did. The dirty lawyers (assuming they are not all dirty) and the nasty candidate won the contest.

How's that for tilting at windmills?

What would satisfy you? Do you suggest that I quit arguing, especially with you?

I tried to be "nice" by saying "I'll take your word for truth on this one".

Was I differing to authority enough for you?

Given your last post, here's a video that explains what I see as the difference in my opinion and yours:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...K1r?ocid=socialshare

Done with Never Trump? Polarizing op-ed divides anti-Trump conservatives ahead of second Trump term

Former Never Trumpers—and even some Democrats—are suggesting Donald Trump deserves another chance. In a New York Times op-ed, "Done with Never Trump," Bret Stephens claims critics overreacted to January 6 and other threats to democracy, even speculating Trump may have changed. But Trump hasn’t become more disciplined—he’s doubling down, suing news outlets and targeting Never Trumpers like Liz Cheney. MSNBC's Ayman Mohyeldin explains how Stephens’ op-ed gets it wrong—and why Democrats like Senator Fetterman shouldn’t push for making peace with MAGA.

Trump won.

I lost.

The obscuring the fact GS and ABC defamed Trump on this matter is not helpful to seeing the politics of Trump defeate. It just makes it stronger.

Okay, Mr. LHeym, I'm dense.

When you state your point simply, like the post above, I get it.

And I agree with you on all the points you said in one sentence.

I certainly didn't intend to obscure the "fact" as you stated or any other facts.

Also, I didn't say that Trump didn't have grounds to claim and probably win defamation. In fact, I agreed with another poster who normally I don't agree with: "Stephanopoulos fucked up plain and simple".

I thought, perhaps mistakenly, that we all had settled that.

So, I was looking at some collateral stuff. Issues like this IMO aren't stand-alone but part of bigger issues.