╌>

Trump sues ABC News, George Stephanopoulos for defamation

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  vic-eldred  •  one month ago  •  135 comments

By:   Hanna PanreckBrian Flood (Fox News)

Trump sues ABC News, George Stephanopoulos for defamation
Donald Trump, the presumptive GOP nominee, is suing ABC's "This Week" host George Stephanopoulos and ABC News for defamation over his interview with Rep. Nancy Mace.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


Presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump is suing ABC News and George Stephanopoulos for defamation after the ABC News host said several times on air that the former president was "found liable for rape" during a heated March 10 interview with Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C.

Mace, a rape survivor, says she felt personally attacked when Stephanopoulos, a former top aide to President Bill Clinton, asked how she could support Trump's White House bid. Stephanopoulos said Trump was found "liable for rape" 10 times during the exchange.

A federal jury in New York decided that Trump was not liable for rape but was liable for sexual abuse and defamation in the 2023 civil trial of advice columnist E. Jean Carroll vs. Trump. The former president has called the verdict a "disgrace," and denied all wrongdoing.

Donald Trump is suing ABC News and George Stephanopoulos for defamation. (LEFT: Photographer: Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images, RIght: (Photo by Jose Perez/Bauer-Griffin/GC Images))

The lawsuit, filed Monday in Florida, claims Stephanopoulos' statements are "false" and were made with "actual malice or with a reckless disregard for the truth given that Defendant Stephanopoulos knows these statements are patently and demonstrably false." The court document then noted that a jury "expressly found that Plantiff did not commit rape."

The suit notes that Trump representatives contacted ABC seeking a retraction following the interview, but the Disney-owned news outlet failed to apologize or correct the record.

"Since making such false, malicious, and defamatory statements, many news and press outlets have continued to quote Stephanopoulos by wrongfully broadcasting that Plaintiff was found liable for rape," Trump's lawyers wrote.

Trump's team has requested a jury trial.

George Stephanopoulos said former President Trump was found "liable for rape" multiple times during a recent interview. (Screenshot/ABC News)

Mace accused Stephanopoulos of "shaming" her in his questioning that resulted in the suit.

"Judges and two separate juries have found him liable for rape and for defaming the victim of that rape," the ABC anchor told Mace. "How do you square your endorsement of Donald Trump with the testimony we just saw?"

"Well, I will tell you, I was raped at the age of 16," Mace said. "Any rape victim will tell you, I've lived for 30 years with an incredible amount of shame for being raped. I didn't come forward because of that judgment and shame that I felt. It's a shame that you will never feel, George."

Stephanopoulos argued during the exchange that it wasn't about "shaming" her and said his question was about the allegations against Trump in the E. Jean Carroll case.

Last week, Fox News contributor Andrew McCarthy, a former assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, explained that Trump was not found guilty of rape.

"Trump was found civilly liable for sexual abuse. The evidence was that Carroll claimed she was penetrated, though she was unsure — in what she described as a struggle — if it was digitally or by the sex organ. The jury did not find rape proved but was unanimous that Trump sexually abused Carroll. The verdict does not mean the jury found Carroll was not raped; instead, the jury found that there was sexual abuse but could not agree that it included rape. To be clear, this was a civil trial; the jury was not asked to find, and did not find, that Trump was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. He has not been criminally accused, much less convicted, of sexual abuse or rape," McCarthy told Fox News Digital.

South Carolina Rep. Nancy Mace appears on "This Week" with George Stephanopoulos on March 10, 2024. (ABC screenshot)

ABC News declined comment when reached by Fox News Digital.

The network previously has stood by Stephanopoulos.

"George did his job by asking meaningful questions that are relevant to our viewers," an ABC News spokesperson told Fox News Digital prior to the lawsuit being filed.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Vic Eldred    one month ago

The liar said it 10 times.

And that is why the left will not accept facts.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    one month ago

lucky for trump his legal battalion is out in front of this crime. let me guess, the defamation damages sought exceed $91.6 million...

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
1.1.1  Ronin2  replied to  devangelical @1.1    one month ago

How about 10 billion? A billion for each time George opened his mouth and told the lie?

That should make up for the frivolous lawsuits and fines/awards given by TDS driven New Yorkers.

It will even cover his bond to get a retrial over the faux judgement against his businesses.

It would be in line of what Fox has been sued for. I am sure ABC can afford it.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.2  Ozzwald  replied to  devangelical @1.1    one month ago
lucky for trump his legal battalion is out in front of this crime. let me guess, the defamation damages sought exceed $91.6 million...

Trump's lawyers playing the semantics game again.

Judge clarifies: Yes, Trump was found to have raped E. Jean Carroll

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
1.1.3  evilone  replied to  Ronin2 @1.1.1    one month ago
That should make up for the frivolous lawsuits and fines/awards given by TDS driven New Yorkers.

Orrr... how about they fine Trump again for filing this frivolous lawsuit?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
1.1.4  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.2    one month ago
Trump's lawyers playing the semantics game again.

Now this is projection. 

The jury was specifically asked if he raped her and the jury voted no. 

If you don't understand you are playing semantic games to turn the jury's no on that specific question  into a yes you don't understand what the term means. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.5  Ozzwald  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.4    one month ago
The jury was specifically asked if he raped her and the jury voted no.

And the judge says yes.  Jury only decides guilt and innocence, and in civil trials liabilities.  The judge determines everything else.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
1.1.6  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.5    one month ago
Jury only decides guilt and innocence, and in civil trials liabilities.

Yes, as to whether Trump raped her, the jury specifically found he did not.  I'm surprised you are having this much trouble following it.  The jury was asked if Trump raped her, and voted he did not. Thus, anyone who says the jury found Trump guilty of rape is either lying or essentially illiterate. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.7  CB  replied to  evilone @1.1.3    one month ago

That's right. When, oh when, are the courts going to look at this clown and his lawyers and decide that court harassment is too much. . .c'mon already!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.8  CB  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.6    one month ago

Give it up already. Here is Judge Kaplan (who ruled on the case of E. Jean Carroll defaming Trump for rape (Trump lost)):

Important: See Page 17.  ("Digitally rape.")

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.1.9  Trout Giggles  replied to  CB @1.1.8    one month ago

New York needs to expand their forcible rape definition

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
1.1.10  Sean Treacy  replied to  CB @1.1.8    one month ago

Read the actual jury verdict and get back to me and answer this question:

When the jury was directly, on point, with no equivocation or semantic games, asked if Trump raped Carroll, how did did it respond? 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
1.1.11  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.10    one month ago

What I don't understand is that one of the "witnesses" that testified said this...............

She testified that Carroll called her in the early evening one spring night in 1996 and told her that she had just left Bergdorf, where she had encountered Trump, who assaulted her in a dressing room, pulling down her tights and penetrating her with his penis. 

Lisa Burnbach was her name. Now THAT is some mixed messaging. One of the two has a memory problem.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.12  Ozzwald  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.1.11    one month ago
One of the two has a memory problem.

Talking to a friend over the phone is a lot different than in front of a jury under oath.  The truth turned out to be that she couldn't tell the difference between Trump's penis and his pinky finger.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.13  Tessylo  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.12    one month ago

And that's fucking hilarious!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  I believe she also stated that at one point 'it was so small - I wasn't sure'

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
1.1.14  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.12    one month ago
The truth turned out to be that she couldn't tell the difference between Trump's penis and his pinky finger.

So your saying that they previously had sex?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.15  CB  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.4    one month ago

That was Carroll I jury trial. In Carroll II the Trump defamation claim against Ms. Carroll the judge (alone) ruled 'forced fingering' is a form of "digital rape." See 1.1.8 for court record.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.16  CB  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.10    one month ago

Caroll I is superceded and enhanced by Caroll II 4.2.15 below - you should catch up and then write me. Sorry, I don't take questions from MAGAs. (MAGA, me, and questions have a bad past so no.)

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.17  CB  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.1.11    one month ago

Old people need allowances for memory issues. There are (sadly) lots of senior moments in that bunch! Courts clearly work around it. The court concluded something was in those pants of Ms. Carroll that did not get permission to 'grab.' 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.18  Ozzwald  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.1.14    one month ago
So your saying that they previously had sex?

If they had, she'd have probably been able to tell the difference....

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
2  Just Jim NC TttH    one month ago

$454million should do it LOL

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2    one month ago

Usually, the damn Sullivan law allows for this smearing, but can it allow a TV news host to lie about a verdict?  I think it is worth a lawsuit to find out.

Either way it helps Trump.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
2.2  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2    one month ago

I was thinking exactly the same thing!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3  JohnRussell    one month ago

Trump likes to bang his head into the wall to to distract everyone from his numerous horrible qualities as a human being.

ABC and George are having a good laugh at this. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3    one month ago

You think ABC can lie and cheat?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.1.1  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1    one month ago

they can always use the FOX news defense...

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4  JohnRussell    one month ago
In the  civil trial  involving writer  E. Jean Carroll  and former President  Donald Trump , the jury found Trump  liable for battery and defamation . The trial stemmed from allegations that Trump sexually abused Carroll in a luxury department store dressing room in the spring of  1996 Although the jury did not specifically find him guilty of rape, they awarded Carroll   $5 million   in damages for battery and defamation 1 2 3 .   The judge clarified that what Trump did to Carroll was, in fact,  rape , as commonly understood, even if it didn’t fit New York law’s narrow definition 4 .

The idiot Trump thinks he has a defamation case against someone who was using the terminology used by the judge in the case.  

LOL. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @4    one month ago

It won't work John.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1    one month ago

I'll give you this, you enthusiastically try to put lipstick on the pig that is Donald Trump.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.1    one month ago

Don't you see how all this lawfare and propaganda has backfired. 

Biden's handlers have him out in Nevada & Arizona because he is losing those states.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.2    one month ago

I see that trump's propaganda works on undiscerning people,  yes.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.4  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.3    one month ago

Why isn't Biden touting his "accomplishments?"

Why is his campaign so dirty?

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
4.1.5  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.3    one month ago

It still doesn't fit the legal definition of rape, and this woman has no more credible evidence of even sexual assault being committed than Christine Blasey Ford did against Kavanaugh, let alone rape.

Bill Clinton had multiple credible accusers of sexual crimes, why hasn't he been sued or imprisoned?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1.6  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.4    one month ago
Why is his campaign so dirty?

thats hilarious. 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
4.1.7  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.2    one month ago

He is certainly losing in my part of Southern Arizona down on or near the border where he is pretty much detested by residents here, with the exception of alleged "sanctuary county" Santa Cruz County, and it is rapidly spreading Northwards.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.1.8  Sparty On  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.3    one month ago

The hopelessly triggered liberal horse left the barn years ago.

The capability to discern truth, left with it in the saddle bags.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
4.1.9  CB  replied to  Greg Jones @4.1.5    one month ago

original " There you go again " with a whataboutism. Using a little practice and discipline its a habit that can be defeated.

In a court of law, each case is expected to be judged on its own merit. That is, courts don't "solicit" for plantiffs!

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
4.1.10  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.2    one month ago

With some, seeing is definitely not believing.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
4.1.11  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Greg Jones @4.1.5    one month ago

It's called layers upon layers of Teflon coatings on his back!

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.1.12  Sparty On  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @4.1.11    one month ago

Bill Clinton is a well known misogynistic pig and yet ….. our friends on the left still love him.     But Trump, but Trump, but Trump …..

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
4.2  Right Down the Center  replied to  JohnRussell @4    one month ago
In the  civil trial  involving writer  E. Jean Carroll  and former President  Donald Trump , the jury found Trump  liable for battery and defamation .

End of statement.  But it is good that you showed proof Snuffleupagus lied over and over.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.2.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Right Down the Center @4.2    one month ago

Stephanopoulos used the language of the judge that presided over the trial. He's not going to be found liable for defamation.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.2.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2.1    one month ago

But it was not the verdict of the fucking partisan jury.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.2.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2.2    one month ago

if Trump won this defamation case it would be the shock of the century. He's not doing this to win, he's doing it to distract.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
4.2.4  devangelical  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2.3    one month ago

it's another sucker trap for trump to raise money off of...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.2.5  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2.3    one month ago

As I said before, it is a possibility. The Sullivan law is a bad one these days, but I doubt it allows the media to lie about a verdict.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.2.6  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @4.2.4    one month ago

Thank God it doesn't cost much to file a lawsuit.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.2.7  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2.5    one month ago

ABC used the terminology of the judge who presided over the case. It is impossible to show defamation.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
4.2.8  Right Down the Center  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2.1    one month ago

The judge did not say he was found guilty of rape.  Snuffleupagus lied, very simple.  If it rises to what he is being sued for I will let the courts decide.  I left my internet law degree in my other pants.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
4.2.9  Right Down the Center  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2.3    one month ago
He's not doing this to win, he's doing it to distract.

Sometimes it seem some people are so knowledgeable about what Trump does and why he does it I have to wonder if they are secretly part of the Trump team.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.2.10  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2.7    one month ago

One of ABC's hosts, a very partisan one at that, had to frame the Trump verdict as "rape" to get his guest who was a rape victim to answer his pointed question. It was an intentional gross mischaracterization of the verdict from a partisan jury, presided over by a partisan judge, which was "liable for sexual abuse and defamation."

There has to be a modicum of fairness & decency in American law that would put a stop to the media lies.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.2.11  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2.10    one month ago
It was an intentional gross mischaracterization of the verdict from a partisan jury, presided over by a partisan judge, which was "liable for sexual abuse and defamation."There has to be a modicum of fairness & decency in American law that would put a stop to the media lies.

You think that everything that happens to trump is unfair and he's being persecuted. It is laughable.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Participates
4.2.12  1stwarrior  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2.1    one month ago

Recommend you try learning how to read what the judge/jury "ACTUALLY" said John - "The court document then noted that a jury "expressly found that Plaintiff did not commit rape."

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
4.2.13  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2.11    one month ago
You think that everything that happens to trump is unfair and he's being persecuted. It is laughable.

Your inability to understand what the judge and the jury had actually said is laughable.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
4.2.14  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2.5    one month ago

Not unless they think they can get away with it!jrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
4.2.15  CB  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2.10    one month ago

Trump knows a judge did rule Trump digitally raped E. Jean Carroll, because he, Trump, sued her for defamation in saying after the first trial that he did in fact rape her. Trump lost his defamation claim against Carroll:

Important: See Page 17.  ("Digitally rape.")

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
4.2.16  CB  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2.10    one month ago

The host asked Ms. Mace in what version of reality does a woman who is alleging she is a rape victim side in politics with a man who is a 'fingers rapist' and she spun into a talking point clearly prepared for the moment. 

It reminds me of the moment the late, great, Larry King, who was a most gracious host to 'tens of thousands' he interviews and (let Carrie Prejean hawk her book on his show at the start of the interview and then she left on him ) she called his question inappropriate, started talking to someone off camera, took off her studio mic, and the interview was hastily STOPPED:

A one-way grifter Ms. Prejean turned out to be! Ms. Mace pulled off a grift too as she was not there for the purposes of a interactive interview she stuck to her agenda.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
4.2.17  CB  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @4.2.13    one month ago

jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif See 4.2.15

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5  JBB    one month ago

The court already found that the sexual assault Trump made upon Carroll was in fact a form of rape. Trump penetrated her with his finger against her [will.deleted]

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.1  CB  replied to  JBB @5    one month ago

EMPHATICALLY.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Participates
5.2  1stwarrior  replied to  JBB @5    one month ago

[deleted

A federal jury in New York decided that Trump was not liable for rape but was liable for sexual abuse and defamation

Where is the "penetrated with his fingers" statement?  Where is the "sexual assault" statement?

[deleted]

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.2.1  JohnRussell  replied to  1stwarrior @5.2    one month ago
Thinking it would be a good story to tell later, Carroll agreed. In the lingerie department, Trump suggested that Carroll try on some lingerie. She testified that she joked with him, saying he should try it on instead because it was his color. When the two approached a fitting room, Trump allegedly shut the door behind them and then proceeded to rape her.

"He put his hand inside my vagina and curved his fingers," she said in her testimony ,

according to a report in The Daily Beast. "As I'm sitting here today, I can still feel it."

E. Jean Carroll Shares Graphic Details of Alleged Trump Rape (newsweek.com)
 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Participates
5.2.2  1stwarrior  replied to  JohnRussell @5.2.1    one month ago

Wait a minute - "He put his hand inside my vagina and curved his fingers"

She wasn't giving birth at that moment so I kinda seriously doubt her vagina had extended/expanded that much in a matter of seconds/minutes.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.2.3  JohnRussell  replied to  1stwarrior @5.2.2    one month ago

I guess trump would have loved having you on the jury

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.2.4  Tessylo  replied to  1stwarrior @5.2.2    one month ago

So did you get your gynecology degree through tRumpU?

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5.2.5  JBB  replied to  1stwarrior @5.2.2    one month ago

How many fingers could a strange man force down your pants and into your butthole against your will be before it becomes too many?

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
5.2.6  Trout Giggles  replied to  JBB @5.2.5    one month ago

There! Use language that's understandable to a man.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
5.2.7  devangelical  replied to  JBB @5.2.5    one month ago

that may take quite a bit of research time by a maga respondent before you're able to get an answer...

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
5.2.8  devangelical  replied to  Trout Giggles @5.2.6    one month ago

uh oh, now it'll be about 20 minutes before maga can come back to answer, but at least they'll be less stressed...

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
5.2.9  Trout Giggles  replied to  devangelical @5.2.7    one month ago

you are so bad....

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.2.10  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @5.2.8    one month ago

jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
5.3  Greg Jones  replied to  JBB @5    one month ago

So where is the proof of that? In your wild imagination?

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
6  evilone    one month ago

I'm surprised there is a lawyer willing to take the case. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1  JohnRussell  replied to  evilone @6    one month ago

Maybe trump will represent himself. It will be a "show" trial.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
6.1.1  evilone  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1    one month ago
Maybe trump will represent himself.

Perhaps is Habba again? She seems stupid enough to work for free.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
6.1.2  devangelical  replied to  evilone @6.1.1    one month ago

trump told her that since she botched the fraud trial she had to do this one for free and win it or else...

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
6.2  devangelical  replied to  evilone @6    one month ago

I more interested in the client restrictions and escape clauses on the representation agreement, and the size of the retainer.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
7  Sean Treacy    one month ago

The jury was specifically asked if trump raped her. The jury said no. 

anyone who claims the jury found him guilty of rape is lying. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
7.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @7    one month ago
the ABC News host said several times on air that the former president was "found liable for rape" 

is trump going to sue the judge too ?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7.1.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1    one month ago

The judge's future fate is yet unknown.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
7.1.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1    one month ago

He could, but the judge at least hedged by using weasel words to equivocate.  Stephanpolous simply lied. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
7.1.3  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1    one month ago

Hopefully.

Judges need to stop legislating from the bench.

Democrat judges need to learn what the rule of law is, impartiality, and what a "fair" trial means.

This judge being sued for slander/liable would make for a great example for the rest.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
7.1.4  CB  replied to  Ronin2 @7.1.3    one month ago

Good luck with that. . . and, your new turn of phrase: "Judges legislating from the bench." I hope you do understand that (democrat) judges make judgements and in doing so the congress does not have superceding authority.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
7.1.5  Gsquared  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1    one month ago

I guess it's no surprise that your rhetorical question would result in ignorant responses like Trump could sue the judge or that the judge being sued for slander/liable would make a great example.

Judges have absolute immunity from being sued for defamation based on statements they made during trial or while on the bench.  Of course, anyone can file a lawsuit, but in this instance the case would be dismissed by the first judge that came across it.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
7.1.6  Gsquared  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1.1    one month ago
The judge's future fate is yet unknown.

Most likely he will receive a commendation for excellent service.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
7.1.7  JBB  replied to  Ronin2 @7.1.3    one month ago

What would Vlad Putin do for a thousand Alex, er, Ken?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
7.1.8  Sean Treacy  replied to  Gsquared @7.1.5    one month ago
absolute immunity from being sued for defamation based on statements they made during trial or while on the bench

So, according to Progressives, the Judge is another coward hiding behind legal technicalities. 

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
7.1.9  Gsquared  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.8    one month ago

That sounds like something an extremist Reactionary would believe.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
7.1.10  Sparty On  replied to  JBB @7.1.7    one month ago

We need a new version of Godwins law that encompasses Putin and Russia.

It’s the lefts new Nazi and Hitler comparison approach du jour ….

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
7.1.11  JBB  replied to  Sparty On @7.1.10    one month ago

original Meanwhile...

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
7.1.12  Sparty On  replied to  JBB @7.1.11    one month ago

And the empirical data for a new law expands even further ….

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
7.1.13  Sean Treacy  replied to  Gsquared @7.1.9    one month ago
That sounds like something an extremist Reactionary would believ

No, unsurprisingly to people the least bit familiar with history it's the run of the mill progressives on this site who are attacking people for asserting their rights and demanding due process.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
7.1.14  Snuffy  replied to  Gsquared @7.1.5    one month ago

I do find that phrase, absolute immunity, to be interesting. And you are basically correct.

Judges and judicial officers have always been awarded 'absolute' immunity for their judicial acts . Absolute immunity covers even conduct which is corrupt, malicious or intended to do injury.” State ex rel. Jacobs v. Sherard, 36 N.C. App 60, 64 (1978).

..

“[T]he scope of the judge’s jurisdiction must be construed 
broadly where the issue is the immunity of the judge. A judge will 
not be deprived of immunity because the action he took was in 
error, was done maliciously, or was in excess of his authority; 
rather, he will be subject to liability only when he has acted in 
the ‘clear absence of all jurisdiction.’” Stump v. Sparkman, 435 
U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978) (quoting Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 
335, 351 (1871)).

Judicial Immunity Mar. 2015.pdf (unc.edu)

Also...

Absolute immunity is not available to most officials. Unlike qualified immunity, the nature of the act is not as important as the position of the official. Generally, only judges, prosecutors, legislators, and the highest executive officials of all governments are absolutely immune from liability when acting within their authority. Medical peer review participants may also receive absolute immunity. Ostrzenski v. Seigel, 177 F.3d 245 (4th Cir. 1999).
Absolute immunity only applies to acts committed within the scope of the official's duties. Usually, this will not include acts that are committed by the official with malice or corrupt motives.
So if SCOTUS finds that Trump was acting within the scope of his official duties then shouldn't the Jan 6th case as well as the Georgia case go away?
 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
7.1.15  Gsquared  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.13    one month ago

Your comment applies to people "the least bit familiar with history".  Those with more than the least bit of familiarity know quite well that your comment is false.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
7.1.16  Gsquared  replied to  Snuffy @7.1.14    one month ago

The judicial immunity applies to statements a judge may have made while on the bench, and certain other activities, but it does not grant immunity from criminal prosecution.  Criminal misconduct is not within the scope of official duties.  If SCOTUS finds that Trump was acting within the scope of his official duties, they would be deciding that criminal misconduct is within the scope of a president's official duties and that is extremely unlikely.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
7.1.17  CB  replied to  Gsquared @7.1.16    one month ago

Yes. As Trump was in his role of CANDIDATE TRUMP on January 6 and even moreso when he called Georgia's Secretary of State - thus, explaining why he was recorded for saying stupid crap that he thought he could get away with as official duties. Candidate Trump is distinct from President Trump.

And by the way, opportunist that Trump is, he is trying to 'blend the two distinct activities of president and candidate into one. They are not! 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
7.1.18  Trout Giggles  replied to  Snuffy @7.1.14    one month ago

official duties?

His official duty is to go out to a deranged crowd and stir them up even more?

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
8  JBB    one month ago

So, what if some creep forcefully stuck his hand down your wife's, mother's, daughter's, granddaughter's or even grandmother's panties and repeatedly penetrated her with his fingers against her will?

And, then asked you for your vote?

How would that work out? Prison?

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Participates
8.1  1stwarrior  replied to  JBB @8    one month ago

Where, AGAIN, do you get your typically misleading information???

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
8.1.1  JBB  replied to  1stwarrior @8.1    one month ago

No, how would you feel if someone did it to a woman you love? If your daughter, wife or mother was violated by a man's FINGER?

My information comes from Carroll's own testimony in court which was found credible enough by the judge and jury to find that Trump had force his hand down Carroll's pants, into her panties and penetrated Carroll against her will with his fingers!

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Participates
8.1.2  1stwarrior  replied to  JBB @8.1.1    one month ago

Link?  Oh yeah - "He said - she said"  It's against Trump so he's guilty.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
8.1.3  JBB  replied to  1stwarrior @8.1.2    one month ago

Trump was found guilty by a jury in civil count of violently sexually abusing Ms Carroll. You do know this! Right?

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Participates
8.1.4  1stwarrior  replied to  JBB @8.1.1    one month ago

Interesting - in "one" of her dialogs, she was wearing a dress that separated in the front from the waist down - so now she's wearing pants?

Like I asked and you have refused to answer - where do you get this stuff from?

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
8.1.5  JBB  replied to  1stwarrior @8.1.4    one month ago

Tale it to an appeals court after posting $100,000,000 bond. The judge and jury already found Trump liable for the crime!

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
8.1.6  Trout Giggles  replied to  1stwarrior @8.1.4    one month ago

Panties! Not pants. Even you should know the difference!

good gawd

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
8.1.7  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JBB @8.1.3    one month ago

So violent she couldn't yell or scream or kick him in the nuts or, or, or,

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
8.1.8  Trout Giggles  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @8.1.7    one month ago

unbelievable

You're blaming the victim

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
8.1.9  Ronin2  replied to  JBB @8.1.3    one month ago

Trump was found guilty by a TDS judge, jury, and plaintiff who happened to be backed by very wealthy Democrat donors (go figure).

She at least got the who and where part down, but couldn't get the when locked in- also couldn't get down why there were no witnesses, no security footage, and most importantly of all why she waited so damn long to do anything about it. Well past the statute of limitations.

Luckily for her New York enacted a nice law (Call it the get Trump at all costs law passed in 2022) to allow her to sue in civil court.

Seems TDS driven New Yorkers really like civil suits as the burden of proof is non existent. Especially with mighty mental midget Democrat judges that won't allow defendants to submit evidence on their own behalf; and ignore real estate values in favor of tax evaluations (which aren't the same damn thing).

Hopefully New Yorkers will get what they deserve with rape cases well past their statute of limitation being filed against Democrats (looking at you Mayor Adams); and businesses and investors take their money and depart faster than they already were.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Participates
8.1.10  1stwarrior  replied to  Trout Giggles @8.1.6    one month ago

My information comes from Carroll's own testimony in court which was found credible enough by the judge and jury to find that Trump had force his hand down Carroll's pants, into her panties and penetrated Carroll against her will with his fingers!

Was responding to jbb's comment -

"even you should know the difference - good gawd."

[deleted]

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
8.1.11  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Trout Giggles @8.1.8    one month ago

Nope. Just wondered.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.1.12  TᵢG  replied to  Trout Giggles @8.1.6    one month ago

Incredible how partisan politics distorts reality.   Look at this irrational excuse making for Trump even after being found liable for sexual assault.   

If Trump were a D you can bet the GOP partisans would be condemning him daily.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
8.1.13  Trout Giggles  replied to  TᵢG @8.1.12    one month ago

And they would be calling it rape. As loud and as far as they could

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
8.1.14  JohnRussell  replied to  1stwarrior @8.1.2    one month ago
  1. Lisa Birnbach :

  2. Carol Martin :

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
8.1.15  George  replied to  Trout Giggles @8.1.13    one month ago

And that is probably what actually happened, but the point is the jury specifically said trump didn't rape her and George knows this and said it anyway. Trump is a public figure so defamation will be almost impossible to prove.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
8.1.16  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1.14    one month ago

All the witnesses who testified in Donald Trump’s rape trial - POLITICO

Lisa Birnbach

A writer and longtime friend of Carroll

WHAT SHE SAID

She testified that Carroll called her in the early evening one spring night in 1996 and told her that she had just left Bergdorf, where she had encountered Trump, who assaulted her in a dressing room, pulling down her tights and penetrating her with his penis. Birnbach said she told Carroll that Trump had raped her and advised her to report the incident to the police.

WHY IT MATTERS

As one of the two people whom Carroll says she told contemporaneously, Birnbach helped undercut Trump’s contention that Carroll made up the incident after the fact. Birnbach’s testimony also corroborated Carroll’s account of the timing: She said she remembered that Carroll’s call came in the spring of 1996 because it was shortly after Birnbach had published a story in New York Magazine about visiting Mar-a-Lago.

Carol Martin

A retired journalist and a longtime friend and former co-worker of Carroll

WHAT SHE SAID

According to Martin, Carroll came to her a day or two after the alleged incident and told her about it. “She said, ‘Trump attacked me,’” Martin said, recalling that Carroll was visibly upset. “I was completely floored,” Martin said. She said she cautioned Carroll against taking any steps in response to the incident “because it was Donald Trump and he had a lot of attorneys and he would bury her.”

WHY IT MATTERS

Like Birnbach, Martin says Carroll told her of the rape contemporaneously, which undermines Trump’s argument that Carroll manufactured the story in recent years.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
8.1.17  Sean Treacy  replied to  George @8.1.15    one month ago
Trump is a public figure so defamation will be almost impossible to prove.

One of those damn legal protections the left now hates. I'm waiting for John to accuse George of being a coward for hiding behind the Sullivan standard. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
8.1.18  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1.14    one month ago
Carroll told Birnbach that Trump had assaulted her in a dressing room, pulling down her tights and penetrating her with his penis.

So what was it? Fingers or penis? Little conflicting......................

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.1.19  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @8.1.18    one month ago

They're both little . . . little confusing . . . . . . lol

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
8.1.20  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @8.1.7    one month ago

E Jean might have thought that New Yorkers are used to hearing screams from the dressing rooms at Bergdorf Goodman department store and wouldn't pay attention.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Participates
8.1.21  1stwarrior  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @8.1.18    one month ago

Well, obviously if you're a D, it was both - surprised his tongue hasn't been called the source of the attack - unless the "D"'s are holding off for another 'Trump kill".

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Participates
8.1.22  1stwarrior  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @8.1.20    one month ago

Bergdorf Goodman department store -

PRIVATE APPOINTMENTS

Enjoy a guided shopping experience with one of our exceptional Sales Associates, who will take you through our store, including our ready-to-wear, shoe and accessories departments.

What to expect:

• A private shopping area or fitting room will be available for you.

• Items can be pre-selected for you, either by recommendation or your request, and made available in a fitting room.

• Alterations and tailoring services are available.

• Beverages will be served upon request.

• Purchases can be messengered to you home upon request.

To schedule a private appointment, please email Bergdorf Goodman Concierge.

VIRTUAL APPOINTMENTS

Enjoy a luxurious shopping experience from the convenience of your home with a Personal Shopper, who will be on hand in the store to take you through the latest collections.

Appointments include complimentary shipping. Your purchase can also be messengered to your home upon request.

To schedule a virtual appointment, please email Bergdorf Goodman Concierge.

BGconcierge@bergdorfgoodman.com

Very quiet and secluded dressing rooms that are locked and not available for "walk-ins"

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
8.1.23  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  1stwarrior @8.1.22    one month ago

jrSmiley_123_smiley_image.gif

That's strange.............

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
8.1.24  CB  replied to  1stwarrior @8.1.2    one month ago

Please present your  version of the court proceeding where Trump is found innocent of 'finger rape.' Because all adults in our country, people of a certain age, understand that civil proceedings have a preponderance of the evidence standard, as occurred in the case. The jury found Trump guilty and later on in Carroll II (as it is court named) where Trump sued Ms. Carroll for calling him a rapist, the judge demonstrated why Ms. Carroll did not defame Trump because it is substantially true that she was digitally raped.  Trump's defamation challenge to Ms. Carroll failed.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
8.1.25  CB  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @8.1.7    one month ago

Jim, in the words of Carrie Prejean, "You're being inappropriate right now." Not all girls or women yell, scream, kick, or slap and scratch-as some men might do-if someone stuck several fingers in the front or back of their shorts. 

While Ms. Carroll was able to safely get away from Trump, the 'sex-obsessed beast,' who used his celebrity to prowl and date 'vulnerable' women who might rever his star power or need a 'new set of room decor.'

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
8.2  Greg Jones  replied to  JBB @8    one month ago

How come Bill Clinton is walking free from all the alleged sexual abuse, harassment, and rape that he was accused of?

The rape allegation against Bill Clinton, explained - Vox

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
8.2.1  JBB  replied to  Greg Jones @8.2    one month ago

How come Trump is walking free? I ask, because he is...

He had to put up a hundred million dollars to appeal it!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.2.2  Tessylo  replied to  Greg Jones @8.2    one month ago

PROJECTION, DEFLECTION, DENIAL.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
8.2.3  JBB  replied to  Tessylo @8.2.2    one month ago

Yes, because Bill Clinton is not running for POTUS! Bill Clinton is not asking for our votes. Bill Clinton is not still facing over eighty other criminal indictments in four different jurisdictions...

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
8.2.4  Greg Jones  replied to  JBB @8.2.3    one month ago
PROJECTION, DEFLECTION, DENIAL

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
10  Buzz of the Orient    one month ago

I'm not a Trump supporter, but I think he'll have a successful case on this matter.  Maybe George and ABC should plead "immunity" because it was about a former POTUS.  After all, what's good for the goose......LOL

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
10.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @10    one month ago

And maybe the jury might provide the same kind of award to him as the jury did for the doctor in the movie QB VII where it was a half penny for damage to his reputation, because can anything damage the reputation of a person whose reputation is already so disgusting.  For those who didn't see the movie QB VII, the doctor who brought a libel suit against an author had been a doctor in a Nazi concentration camp who tortured, experimented with and castrated Jewish prisoners.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
10.2  Tessylo  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @10    one month ago

We know you're not a fucking moron Buzz so your non-support of the former 'president' is obvious.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
10.2.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Tessylo @10.2    4 weeks ago

Thank you Tess.  As I've said a few times already I pick my issues without catering to political party loyalties and there is usually at least a little good and bad in everyone.  Although I believe Trump was the best POTUS of all of them for the benefit of Israel, he also has the blood of an awful lot of Americans on his hands because he "didn't want them to panic", words recorded coming from his mouth by Woodward. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
11  CB    one month ago

An aside: I have to make this comment: Kids are great. We went through the 'p**sy grabber verbiage in media and the kids around me have not uttered a word about "p**sy.' And we know they have heard it in the news over and over again.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
12  Sparty On    one month ago

[Deleted]

 
 

Who is online





77 visitors