ABC Pays Trump $15 Million For Telling Truth
They repeatedly said he has been found "liable for rape." The nerve.
AP (“ABC agrees to give $15 million to Donald Trump’s presidential library to settle defamation lawsuit“):
ABC News has agreed to pay $15 million toward Donald Trump’s presidential library to settle a defamation lawsuit over anchor George Stephanopoulos’ inaccurate on-air assertion that the president-elect had been found civilly liable for raping writer E. Jean Carroll.
As part of the settlement made public Saturday, ABC News posted an editor’s note to its website expressing regret over Stephanopoulos’ statements during a March 10 segment on his “This Week” program. The network will also pay $1 million in legal fees to the law firm of Trump’s attorney, Alejandro Brito.
The settlement agreement describes ABC’s presidential library payment as a “charitable contribution,” with the money earmarked for a non-profit organization that is being established in connection with the yet-to-be built library.
[…]
The settlement agreement was signed Friday, the same day a Florida federal judge ordered Trump and Stephanopoulos to sit for separate depositions in the case next week. The settlement means that sworn testimony is no longer required.
[…]
Trump sued ABC and Stephanopoulos in federal court in Miami days after the network aired the segment, in which the longtime “Good Morning America” anchor and “This Week” host repeatedly misstated the verdicts in Carroll’s two civil lawsuits against Trump.
During a live “This Week” interview with Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., Stephanopoulos wrongly claimed that Trump had been “found liable for rape” and “defaming the victim of that rape.”
Neither verdict involved a finding of rape as defined under New York law.
In the first of the lawsuits to go to trial, Trump was found liable last year of sexually abusing and defaming Carroll. A jury ordered him to pay her $5 million.
[…]
Testifying in April 2023, Carroll told jurors: “I’m here because Donald Trump raped me, and when I wrote about it, he said it didn’t happen. He lied and shattered my reputation, and I’m here to try and get my life back.”
After she’d agreed to help Trump shop for a gift for a woman, Carroll testified that he pushed her against a dressing room wall, stamped his mouth onto hers, yanked down her tights and shoved his hand and then his penis inside her while she struggled against him.
She said she finally kneed him off her and fled.
In upholding the $5 million judgment in the first trial, U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan wrote that the unanimous verdict was almost entirely in favor of Carroll, except that the jury concluded she had failed to prove that Trump raped her “within the narrow, technical meaning of a particular section of the New York Penal Law.”
Kaplan, who presided over both of Carroll’s lawsuits against Trump, said the definition of rape in the state code was “far narrower” than how rape is defined in common modern parlance, in some dictionaries, in some federal and state criminal statutes and elsewhere.
Under New York law, a rape finding requires vaginal penetration by a penis. Forcible penetration without consent of the vagina or other bodily orifices by fingers or anything else is labeled “sexual abuse.”
The judge said the verdict did not mean that Carroll “failed to prove that Mr. Trump ‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape.’ Indeed … the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that.”
So . . . Carroll testified that Trump raped her. The jury found that he merely sexually assaulted her because his conduct did not meet New York’s statutory definition of “rape.” But the judge said the findings amounted to rape as commonly understood. And Trump was found civilly liable for that and ordered to pay damages.
NYT (“ABC to Pay $15 Million to Settle a Defamation Suit Brought by Trump“) adds:
The agreement was a significant concession by a major news organization and a rare victory for a media-bashing politician whose previous litigation efforts against news outlets have often ended in defeat.
[…]
Several experts in media law said they believed that ABC News could have continued to fight, given the high threshold required by the courts for a public figure like Mr. Trump to prove defamation. A plaintiff must not only show that a news outlet published false information, but that it did so knowing that the information was false or with substantial doubts about its accuracy.
“Major news organizations have often been very leery of settlements in defamation suits brought by public officials and public figures, both because they fear the dangerous pattern of doing so and because they have the full weight of the First Amendment on their side,” said RonNell Andersen Jones, a professor of law at the University of Utah.
“What we might be seeing here is an attitudinal shift,” she added. “Compared to the mainstream American press of a decade ago, today’s press is far less financially robust, far more politically threatened, and exponentially less confident that a given jury will value press freedom, rather than embrace a vilification of it.”
[…]
Tensions ran high between ABC News and Mr. Trump’s camp throughout the 2024 campaign.
Mr. Trump denounced ABC as “terrible” for its handling of his sole debate against Vice President Kamala Harris, faulting the moderators, David Muir and Linsey Davis, for fact-checking his answers and musing about stripping the network of its broadcasting license.
He also grumbled about the ties between Ms. Harris and Dana Walden, the senior Disney executive whose sprawling portfolio includes ABC News. Ms. Walden is a longtime friend of the vice president who held Harris fund-raisers at her home. ABC News said that Ms. Walden played no role in editorial decisions.
The possible explanations for the settlement that occur to me, which aren’t mutually exclusive, are:
The $15 million settlement is a small price to make a nuisance go away. Parent company Disney brought in $22.6 billion the last quarter. ABC is increasingly a money loser overall, and the news division has always been a drain on profits. Journalism is not a huge priority for Disney leadership, so concern for setting a bad precedent is probably rather low.
It’s also possible that Walden’s relationship with Harris will look like a significant conflict of interest to the general public. Paying a small fee to keep the dirty laundry hidden may well be worth it.
Finally, given the degree to which Trump has promised to make his second term a revenge tour against those who he perceives to have wronged him, it’s quite possible that Disney leadership wants to be further down the list. Kissing the ring may well achieve that goal.
Yes, any decent lawyer would have advised ABC to settle with the rapist, for what amounts to an honorarium in Disney dollars.
This is but a sign of the lawlessness to come.
@drj: By lawlessness you mean…accountability for lying?
@Fortune: Sure, there should be accountability for lying.
“I will lower the price of gasoline by 40%”
“ I will reduce the cost of groceries”
“ I will end the war in 24 hours”
The should definitely be accountability.
1) “Under New York law, a rape finding requires vaginal penetration by a penis.”
Carroll claimed this happened. The jury agreed. The judge modified the judgement to comport to NY law. So Stephanopoulos was wrong on the detail of the conviction, but not wrong on the jury ruling? And has Trump paid up on the other judgements against him yet?
2) “He also grumbled about the ties between Ms. Harris and Dana Walden, the senior Disney executive”
If this was a significant factor pushing for settlement, it again illustrates the degree of deformation standards taking place around Trump, a person who exists on “inbred” relationships…. in office, in business, in courts. The magnitude of influence one malignant individual can have on an entire society, an entire moral structure, an entire legal/political system, an entire economy, an entire nation, and the Western world’s sense of stability is breathtaking. And tragically catastrophic.
@Bobert: Yes.
@Rob1: If he’d called Trump a rapist, he’d probably be fine. He used legal terminology in the same sentence as the word “rape”, which put the term into a legal context rather than a common one.
Also, Stephanopoulos exists on inbred relationships. He made his career convincing journalists to cover up sexual accusations. He’s more partisan than Trump.
It’s not ABC, in the end, this is Disney.
@Fortune:
You are ignoring the facts. But that is required to support Trump.
@DK:
Make a nuisance lawsuit go away for Disney: $15M
Give trolls justification for electing a convicted felon (for fraud – that’s criminal liability for lying BTW @Fortune): Priceless
@Scott F.: Bingo.
@Fortune:
By lawlessness you mean…accountability for lying?
What did Stephanopoulos lie about?
This is about ABC and their Disney ownership caving in and genuflecting to Trump. Make no mistake, ABC has the money and legal resources to go toe-to-toe indefinitely with Trump, but they chose to buy better influence with Trump.
The billionaire class is going all in on the Neville Chamberlain approach to Trump; appeasement, surrender now, write the check: Musk gave Trump $100M, Bezos and Zuckerberg are 'donating' millions of dollars to Trump's January 20th Inauguration festivities.
@Paul L.:
Two separate juries of citizens found E. Jean Carroll credible through a legal process where Defendant Trump had every opportunity for his high-priced lawyers to discredit her and her account of the events. They found her $91M worth of credible.
In American Jurisprudence, E. Jean Carroll is as credible as a person gets. You OTOH are some rando on the Internet.
@Scott F.:
When did the first and second jury find E Jean credible?
So you saying that Grand Juries are excellent judges of credibility and guilt?
But I am just some rando loon and kook on the Internet who brings up rare instances of legal judicial system failing and covering up and minimizing government misconduct.
@Fortune:
That’s neither here nor there nor central to this discussion. Stephanopoulos is neither a rapist nor a Presidential aspirant. And your comment confuses “connected by virtue of experience” and political “playah.”
Disney made a $15M strategic donation to the Trump campaign. That’s it. There is no other explaination.
There was absolutely no other reason to settle, as they had the winning case. Most legal experts expected the case to be tossed. Disney chose the cowardly, but prudent, best decision for the Disney Corporation.
@Paul L.:
I’m giving more time than I prefer to some rando loon and kook. (Thanks for providing additional descriptors, they help.) But this is such a softball and I’ve finished the Sunday crossword, so I’m going to indulge.
E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump is the name of two related lawsuits by author E. Jean Carroll against Donald Trump. Both suits went to jury trials, so in each case a group of citizens was impaneled to review evidence and determine findings. The two suits were defamation cases which by their nature are trials that put the credibility of the defamed party up against the credibility of the accused.
With me so far?
The first suit added a claim of battery and it went to trial in April 2023. The jury verdict in this case found Trump liable for sexually abusing and defaming Carroll, and ordered him to pay US$5 million in damages.
That’s the first jury that found E. Jean Carroll more credible than DJT. (Ergo, far more credible than you.)
Trump kept on defaming Carroll, so she sued again. The second jury verdict from the January 2024 trial was US$83.3 million in additional damages. (The US$91 million I referenced was the price of the bond Trump had to post in order to appeal.)
So, that’s the second jury that found E. Jean Carroll more credible than DJT.
To close, Trump got plenty “due process, defenses and evidences.” The legal judicial system (including Trump’s ongoing appeals) works and the only “government misconduct” is the Republican Party nominating a felon for POTUS.
@Steven L. Taylor: I don’t support Trump, and where am I wrong about the facts? I said the same thing you did, if you called Trump a rapist in any context other than law youd be fine. Right? I said that, right? So did you.
@Scott F.: Thanks for provided this info.
@Scott F.:
So 2 juries but the same judge Lewis A. Kaplan? Didn’t Judge Kaplan instruct the 2nd jury they can only evaluate the damages Trump must pay for continuing the defamation and not the findings of the 1st jury?
@Paul L.:
What questions did Team Trump want to ask Caroll that were blocked by the judge? Specifics please. Show how this process harmed Trump.
@DK:
Plus, it sends a message to the unprofitable news division that Disney doesn’t want them making waves. Among other things, Disney World has an uneasy truce in FL with DeUseless.
A neighbor and good friend of mine was assaulted in TX in the early 70s. The guy had penetrated her with a finger, the cops were quite explicit that in TX that was rape. As it has been in New York state since early this year.
@Gustopher:
E Jean has accused 20 men of rape and said “Rape is sexy”. Evidence of the Dress unable when the rape occurred.
@gVOR10:
I am not allowed to mention a verboten credible accused grand jury indictment certified sexual assault/rape have occurred in the 2000s as it is old news that has been adjudicated without true due process because the government should have a fair trial too.
@Paul L.: I rarely respond to you, Paul, but you’re gonna have to provide a solid link of E. Jean Carroll accusing 20 men of rape.
@Fortune:
You could have fooled me.
Read the fucking quote. I am tired of this bullshit.
@Paul L.: Just so you’re aware, Paul L, I’ve been raped by people I knew well 3 fucking times. I don’t know ANY woman, personally, who hasn’t been assaulted or raped. Literally, NONE. Every woman I know has experienced it, at some point in their lives.
So you can just shut the fuck up and be gross. Maybe do better, as a human being.
My concern is that this sets an expectation for the MAGA.
Trump’s Motus Operandi has always been: 1) Claim Victory, 2) Deny Wrongdoing, 3) Sue, and Sue again.
Now, if any media organization reports anything that the POTUS-elect is doing not to DJT’s liking, there will be a lawsuit filed.
Those that choose not to bend the knee but go to court on First Amendment basis will likely run into his Supreme Court.
Dark times ahead.
https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-was-donald-trump-found-guilty-rape-1799935
@Steven L. Taylor: I read the quote. The judge was making the distinction between what most people would consider rape (i.e. the word as commonly used) and what the state law at the time defined as rape (i.e. the legal definition). You, me, and the lawyers are all agreeing Trump was found liable for an act that we’d all call rape in a non-legal context, but was not found liable for an act that falls within the applicable legal definition. Hence Donald accused George of defamation.
@Steven L. Taylor:
and I’m getting tired of this. Reality is I don’t support Trump. Reality is ABC settled because George Stephanopoulos was wrong. I don’t care if you’re getting tired of denying reality. Maybe it’s a good sign.
@Fortune:
You should provide some evidence that it was defamation then. There’s no “common definition of the word doesn’t count, only NY state law definition as read from the bench” clause of defamation.
Or, to put it another way, Jean Carroll has said multiple times Trump has raped her. Based on the Judge’s decision do you think Trump would have an actionable defamation claim against Carroll, the woman who just won a settlement because Trump raped her?
When did this ‘rape’ or sexual assault happen?
@Fortune:
Ok, fine. You don’t support him.
You just always defend him.
You are a defender of Trump.
Does that make you feel better?
@Neil Hudelson:
Altonaga’s ruling addresses the question at length with case law cited, in particular about description of rape and sexual assault.
@Steven L. Taylor: I defend reality when someone denies it. You have a habit of denying reality when it comes to Trump. I’ve been called a communist by knee-jerk right-wingers who blindly defend Trump. I feel good about both but I’d feel better if you responded to the substance of my argument.
@Fortune:
Ok, so light critique from a point of caring: this is exactly why I WISH people would take a moment and unpack their arguments for clarity–doing so GREATLY help with understanding your perspective.*
For everyone else: by “Altonaga,” Fortune is referring to Chief Judge Cecilia Altonaga of the Southern District of Florida. In July, Justice Altonaga ruled that Trump’s defamation lawsuit against ABC could move forward:
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4790668-trump-defamation-lawsuit-stephanopoulos/
Eugene Volokh references the decision here:
https://reason.com/volokh/2024/12/14/the-trump-v-abc-defamation-decision-that-led-to-the-15m-settlement/
So her reading of the issue does match what Fortune is saying–that Stephanopoulos wasn’t referring to “rape” in the colloquial sense.
AND importantly, she also doesn’t make any decision as to whether that statement constitutes defamation. From the decision:
Given that decision not to dismiss the case, and Trump’s election, it makes sense that ABC decided to dismiss the case rather than getting caught up in a LOT of discovery.
* – Fortune, by this I mean it’s good that you provided a name that with a little bit of googling enabled us to understand your position. And I understand you don’t have any requirement to do more than that. My point is just that we could have skipped a lot of this back and forth if you had just shared that link to being with.
@Fortune:
Obviously, everyone chooses which windmills they’ll joust online. All I’ll say is that on OTB, in my experience, you have primarily (or possibly exclusively–I am not sure I’ve read all of your comments) chosen to joust in favor of Trump (or, from the post that I believe brought you to this site, Tucker Carlson).
Again, that’s totally your choice. And that preference is going to shape our interactions with you. It’s great that you post differently on other sites. But unless you’re going to share links to some of those examples, you’re asking us to take you on your word–which doesn’t work out that well in a medium that is, at the end of the day, just words.
What follows is directed at most of us…
Two-to-three-sentence bursts don’t present a lot of substance–especially from lay people on legal issues. I write that as someone who has been–very fairly–raked over the coals by our readers who are lawyers in the past. And we have a few posters who regularly misinterpret case law to fit their personal biases.
That’s why there is so much value for everyone in unpacking your argument (see my previous comment). This isn’t an appeal to authority FWIW. It’s showing the context (aka the substance) your position is based on.
It’s a good thing for all of us to do.
And again, you might disagree with that. I totally get why you would. But if someone chooses not to provide that critical context, they shouldn’t be surprised when someone doesn’t seriously engage with what you think is the substance of their argument.
@Matt Bernius: What also could have saved us time? If the original article had been more accurate. Or if Neil or Steven were’t wrong in every word they posted. If you’re tracking my comments so closely make sure you note that everything I’ve said on this thread has been right and everyone who disagreed with me was wrong.
@Matt Bernius:
Steven and Neil.
@Fortune:
You know, some people might have looked at the time I took to (a) unpack what you were saying and (b) engage with you in good faith and explain where I was coming from and thought “hey that guy is interested in engaging in the serious conversation I claim to be asking for.”
But once again you woke up and chose violence–that isn’t the greatest way to ingratiate yourself to a community.
@Fortune:
Your silence in the regular legal interpretive jazz of Paul L.’s legal interpretations is deafening.
I will take you in good faith that you are not a Trump supporter. But your constant resort to being personally persecuted and butt-hurt makes you all but indistinguishable from them.
Sorry to add to the idea that world is against you as the only person who sees clearly on all issues.
@Matt Bernius: I wasn’t paranoid until you told me you were tracking my comments.
I dont know if I’ve responded to Paul L. Maybe he’s never replied to me. Steven keeps replying to me angrier and angrier.
@Fortune:
Oh, ok… now I got it. We’ve got a communication breakdown.
I’m not tracking your comments. Not intentionally.
I am also a little neuro-spicy and, by practice, a qualitative researcher. So while–for the life of me–I cannot remember people’s names 5 minutes after they talk to me, my hyperlinked brain somehow keeps track of people’s posts.
Since we have relatively small (maybe 30 at most) consistent posters, I more or less can keep track of everyone–at least in broad strokes. That doesn’t mean I intentionally do it, but it’s just who I am.
Hopefully that taps down the paranoia a bit. Feel free to ask me more questions.
Insert “please don’t put in the newspapers I got mad” meme.
Throughout this exchange you have either demonstrated a misunderstanding of what defamation is, or demonstrated a misunderstanding of the implications of denying a motion to dismiss. You have also have a writing style that is entirely opaque, to the point that most of us are left to only guess wtf you are talking about. For instance, Matt had to both steelman your argument and provide sources for you.
Doing so revealed that in a post referring to multiple quoted articles about Judge Kaplan and in which you replied to comments about Judge Kaplan and in which you were referred to Judge Kaplan, everyone of your replies in which you referred to the “the judge” you actually meant Judge Altonoga.
And what’s frustrating–for you and for everyone interacting with you–is that you may very well be the smartest person in the room but you don’t communicate in a way that allows for people to see that. And when people react to opaque or confusing messages with (apparently) misdirected venom or a similarly confusing reply, you get butthurt.
Now, imagine if the exchange had gone something like this:
—–
[Steven posts long article with quotes from Judge Kaplan.]
You: “Yes, but you are ignoring Judge ALTONOGA [Names!] ruling allowing the case to proceed which lays out how a final ruling may find defamation to be possible. ”
[PROVIDES A LINK].
Steven: [Replies to your clear and substantive comment.]
—–
Can you imagine that this entire thread may have developed differently?
Ummm, I comment here about once a week*, usually in the open forum section. I can’t remember the last time I interpreted case law on here. And I’ve engaged with you…never? Or if I have before, it was entirely forgettable. I find myself asking this a lot when it comes to you, but, what the hell are you talking about? Toughen up, buddy.
*ETA maybe better put “I engage people on here about once or twice a week.” I probably post more than a single comment when I do. Point is, I seem to be taking up more space in your head than my presence here demands.
@joe:
Google is your friend.
Thanks for participating.
@Neil Hudelson:
For the record, this is what I mean when I talk about someone unpacking the substance of their argument. And AGAIN, that’s a critique of everyone (including myself).
@Neil Hudelson: I have nothing against you. You asked a question so I answered you. I did resent what looked like Matt sneering at people who misrepresent case law when I assume he only meant non-left-wingers. If he’s going to track my style and accuracy, he should also note that Steven was wrong and cursed at me.
I do assume that if someone comments on a subject they’ve read something about it. If someone read this far and doesn’t know the name Altonaga I don’t know what to say. The only people to provide links were Jack and Matt.
PS – I was referring to Judge Kaplan who made the distinction between the common and legal meanings of “rape”. I added Judge Altonoga’s comment because it addressed your point.
*Sigh*
The issue isn’t lack of knowledge of who Altonaga is (though one can read about the case as much as any layman would be expected to and not remember the presiding Judge’s name.)
The issue was that in a post that specifically referenced a particular judge multiple times, and in which you were replying to comments about a particular judge, you used the term “the judge” to mean an entirely different person than the person being discussed. It is on the person bringing in a NEW subject to clarify that this “judge” is not the same “judge” that all the other comments were previously referring to. This is just how language works. Understood (as in unstated) references are a fundamental part of written and spoken language.
And to be clear, every person on this site and in life has probably made the mistake of not making clear who or what they are referencing. It happens. But when it happens–and especially when it causes confusion–perhaps don’t sustain your butthurt.
And to be clear as to what I mean by sustaining butthurt: If you are as intelligent as you seem to be, it is hard for me to believe that you interpret repeated explanations of your opacity to actually mean that someone doesn’t know the name Altonaga. The VERY issue is that you, for some reason, refused to use the name Altonaga for multiple comments. For all your concern about Steven’s ‘snearing’ (I mean, really?) you are either unaware or do not care how very, very petty you seem right now.
@Fortune:
Paul’s never replied to you–at least not that I can remember. That really isn’t his style–he tends to gish gallop with wildly wrong legal takes.
Anyway, FWIW, I agree that Steven had gotten more and more frustrated (or angry) with your responses in this thread. And I appreciate that you think your responses have been reasonable.
Steven and I tend to read things in very similar ways. I think part of this is what Neil pointed out above, that if you had provided a bit more context then it might have avoided some of that back and forth.
For what it’s worth, I’ll also add one last thing about my perspective on this: namely that I think when someone makes any claim, the onus is on them to back the claim up. That’s the rule I try my best to apply to myself.
I understand if you say “well, did Steven do that?” Answer one: probably not (though I think he unpacked his position more). Answer two: I cannot control what Steven does. Or you do for that matter. I can only control myself and so I try to do what I want others to do.
Finally, if I was in your position, I might ask, “ok, so Mr. Moral-arbiter, why have you directed all of your critiques at me versus Steven (or Neil… or Michael/*insert another commenter here*)?!”
All I can say is “You’re right–I’m not being fair. AND all of those folks are people who I’ve been in community with for years. And so they’ve earned some get-out-of-making-mistakes/benefit-of-the-doubt points you haven’t… yet.”
Is that fair? It depends on what system of fairness we’re talking about.
@Fortune:
That’s an absolutely absurd position. No offense, but it is.
I only knew who Altonaga is because you dropped the name and I googled it. Once I realized who she was, I also then could connect other facts about her–including she is, according to leaks, the judge who attempted to pressure Justice Cannon off of the documents case. But if you had dropped that name in basic conversation, I’d have no idea who you are talking about–and very clearly admitted that above.
It’s absolute intellectual elitism to assume that just because you know who someone is, everyone else should. To me, at least, that demonstrates a fundamental lack of empathy and imagination.
Imagine how easier this conversation would have been if you had shared a link?
BTW, to the point about Judge Altonaga’s obscurity, I just scanned the article Jack posted and it doesn’t mention her or that decision.
@Neil Hudelson:
Perhaps I’m losing the thread, but this isn’t accurate. Fortune was the first person to bring up Justice Altonaga, mentioned her only once, and didn’t include the really important honorific that would have grounded the comment.
Here is what they wrote:
FWIW, “ruling” suggests that Altonaga was a judge. But that was it. I had to go on a google fishing trip to figure out the context.
@Matt Bernius:
[I think any more explanations of how I and others misread Fortune’s replies, and why, will inevitably feel like I’m just harping more, which fwiw I have no interest in doing and isn’t my intention.] But that said i went back and reread Fortune’s replies and assumed that when Fortune said something like “the judge said…” that they were referring to Altonaga. If that’s not what they meant, I’m fine with saying I misread it. Gotta be honest the amount I’ve written about this thread is far out of proportion to how much I care. I would not be surprised if this feeling is shared by Fortuna, et al.
@Neil Hudelson:
It me, too!
In my case, this thread provided me with the necessary axe to take to the grinding wheel about some of my pet peeves when it comes to online discussions.
And pointing the critique at myself, my personal online discussion kink is to try and encourage better discussions so I can learn. So I spent way more time on this than I intended.
@Fortune: First, yes, I got testy. On the one hand, I honestly try not to do that, but on the other, you need to look in the mirror about the way you present your positions. You come off as glib/only half (at best) make your point. I am truly tired of trying to figure out what people are saying (which is why, for example, I have stopped bothering with Paul L altogether).
First, I will agree that I did not directly enrage your position—although you really hadn’t spelled out much when I got testy in the first place.
Second, I have to honestly admit that bolded part above takes some chutzpah on your part, as you usually do not engage in substance. Now that I remember exactly who you are, I once wrote over a thousand words trying to explain something in part on response to an interchange you and I had in a comment thread and you simply did not engage in all of that substance. Your critique was something along the lines of “it’s not very good.”
So, you might not be surprised if I am not interested in trying to overly engage your “substance.”
While I know I have gotten testy at times over the years, long-time readers can confirm I can be a bit stubborn about trying to convince someone of a position. But I really am getting weary and weary leads to testy.
Honest tip: if you want to have an actual interchange, make an actual argument.
And if you don’t want to be perceived as a Trump supporter/defender, then maybe you could comment about things you don’t support or defend about Trump. There are a lot of posts to choose from. And if I have written nothing about Trump you agree with, then it is hard to accept you aren’t at least a passive supporter.
And to be super clear on what really made me angry: I am tired, oh so very tired, of Trump’s bad behavior becoming the stuff of parsing and excuses and somehow, therefore, not mattering.
Here we are taking about a sexual assault that was accepted as true by two different juries in two civil trials that required him to pay millions for lying about it. And yet we are racking around word choice and ABC is paying $15 million because they are, in my view, acquiescing to Trump. He is, again, using the court system to his advantage and this appears to be being amplified now that he is president-elect.
This is troubling and it is wearying. And I am losing patience with glib defenses of it all.
Yes, let’s ignore that the incoming president sexual assaulted someone and argue over whether George Stephanopolous was using the term “rape” colloquially or not.
And that some people seem to think that what Stephanopolous did was more important than what Trump did is truly disturbing.
In my experience here, the average comment thread is broad left-wing agreement, one or two non left-winger disagreements, and then a swarm of insults from the left-wingers. Well if I know I’m right I’ll occasionally keep pushing back, until Steven threatens to ban me.
@Steven L. Taylor: No, you made the two line comment that didn’t make sense, and you’re the one engaging immaturely and trying to change the subject. It might not fit your impression of yourself but look over this thread and tell me why I shouldn’t reject anything you say out of hand.
@Fortune:
Apologies. @Your first comment was a one-liner.:
I then directed you to a quote from the piece. I did not engage much past that and did get testy.
But, as always, I wrote a number of paragraphs which you then, just, ignore.
Par for the course.
Lets be honest. Fortune makes a fair point. This is a site for mainly center left to far left commenters. And he is correct again about the dearth of center right commenters. Also the fact they get ganged banged here.
But its usually because they deserve the gang banging.
Bill.Maher had a nun on his program. And being a lifelong catholic school boy he suggested to her “Sister, you have no idea how many times I was banged over the knuckles by a nun…” To which she replied without missing a beat “And I bet you deserved everyone didn’t you Bill?”
The center right gets beat up here usually because they deserve it.
This being one of the rare exceptions. You made a good point that was dismissed and ultimately you were vindicated.
@Steven L. Taylor: You only wrote multiple paragraphs about the thread. If I’d written those, you’d say I was switching subjects and I’m not allowed to discuss the fascism article. If you want to say my position on this thread lacked substance, it’s because no one has disputed that A Trump wasn’t found liable for rape, and B Stephanopoulos said Trump was found liable for rape. There’s no further argument. Kaplan said it, AP said it, Joyner said it, you said it (or at least referred to the distinction) (but apparently you thought you were saying the opposite). I didn’t think I had to clarify something which was said repeatedly and no one disagreed with.
@Steven L. Taylor:
It’s not Trump vs GS. It’s GS. And I’ve seen a clip of GS actually saying he was not liable for rape. GS knew what he was doing. And I understand discovery would have been ugly. That’s why they settled.
And I think the selective outrage wouldn’t be an issue if a full throated criticism WJC or Swallwell was evident here. All leaving aside this woman appeared out of nowhere many years later. Just like the Kavansugh chic.
@Jack: I would have loved seeing George Stephanopoulos under oath. Who do you think has covered up more sexual assaults, Trump or Stephanopoulos?