George Stephanopoulos and ABC apologize to Trump, are forced to pay $15 million to settle defamation suit | Fox News
By: George Stephanopoulos (Fox News)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
ABC News agrees to pay $15 million in Trump defamation suit
'Fox News Live' co-host Arthel Neville reports on the breaking story.
FIRST ON FOX- ABC News and its top anchor George Stephanopoulos have reached a settlement with Donald Trump in his defamation suit, which will result in the news network paying the president-elect $15 million.
The settlement was publicly filed on Saturday, revealing that the two parties have come to an agreement and avoided a costly trial. According to the settlement, ABC News will pay $15 million as a charitable contribution to a "Presidential foundation and museum to be established by or for Plaintiff, as Presidents of the United States of America have established in the past." Additionally, the network will pay $1 million in Trump's attorney fees.
Stephanopoulos and ABC News also had to issue statements of "regret" as an editor's note at the bottom of a March 10, 2024, online article, about comments made earlier this year that prompted Trump to file the defamation lawsuit. The note reads, "ABC News and George Stephanopoulos regret statements regarding President Donald J. Trump made during an interview by George Stephanopoulos with Rep. Nancy Mace on ABC's This Week on March 10, 2024."
ABC NEWS' GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS INACCURATELY SAID TRUMP WAS FOUND 'LIABLE FOR RAPE' 10 TIMES, LEGAL GURUS SAY
ABC News said the network was "pleased" to have concluded the case.
"We are pleased that the parties have reached an agreement to dismiss the lawsuit on the terms in the court filing," an ABC News spokesperson told Fox News Digital.
Trump filed a defamation suit against Stephanopoulos after he asserted that Trump was found "liable for rape" in a civil case during a contentious interview with Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., last March.
After playing a clip of Mace discussing being a victim of rape, Stephanopoulos asked her, "How do you square your endorsement of Donald Trump with the testimony we just saw?"
"You've endorsed Donald Trump for president. Judges and two separate juries have found him liable for rape and for defaming the victim of that rape," Stephanopoulos said, alluding to the legal victory by Trump accuser E. Jean Carroll.
Stephanopoulos repeated that claim ten times during his spat with Mace, despite the fact that a jury actually determined Trump was liable for "sexual abuse," which has a distinct definition under New York law.
After the federal jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse, but not rape, Judge Lewis Kaplan wrote in a later ruling that just because Carroll failed to prove rape "within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump 'raped' her as many people commonly understand the word 'rape.'"
President-elect Trump and ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos settled outside of court this week following Trump suing the anchor and his network for defamation.(Getty Images)
Initially, Stephanopoulos was defiant in the face of Trump's lawsuit, telling CBS late-night host Stephen Colbert that he wouldn't be "cowed out of doing my job because of a threat."
"Trump sued me because I used the word 'rape,' even though a judge said that's in fact what did happen. We filed a motion to dismiss," Stephanopoulos said.
The settlement came after U.S. Magistrate Judge Lisette M. Reid ordered Trump and Stephanopoulos on Friday to sit for depositions next week ahead of the Dec. 24 deadline for the defendants to file a motion for summary judgment, in order to avoid a trial.
In his lawsuit against Stephanopoulos and ABC, Trump was represented by Florida attorneys Alejandro Brito and Richard Klugh. The settlement with ABC was filed in the Southern District of Florida Federal Court where both parties signed and agreed to the terms.
The settlement comes after a string of legal victories for Trump and his legal team, coordinated by senior legal adviser Boris Epshteyn.
Federal Judge Tanya Chutkan recently granted Special Counsel Jack Smith's recent request to dismiss his case against Trump related to the 2020 election. Smith also tossed his appeal in the classified records case on Monday after a federal judge dismissed the charges altogether in July, ruling that he was unlawfully appointed as special counsel.
In New York v. Trump, Judge Juan Merchan granted Trump's request to file a motion to dismiss the charges stemming from Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's case and removed the sentencing date for the president-elect from the schedule.
Trump is also suing CBS News for $10 billion in damages, stating the network practiced "deceptive conduct" for the purpose of election interference in its interview in October with Vice President Kamala Harris.
Fox News' Brian Flood, David Rutz and Alexander Hall contributed to this report.
Gabriel Hays is an associate editor for Fox News Digital.
Trolling, taunting, spamming, and off-topic comments may be removed at the discretion of group mods. NT members that vote up their own comments, repeat comments, respond to themselves, or continue to disrupt the conversation risk having all their comments deleted. Please remember to quote the person(s) you are replying to preserve the continuity of this seed. Posting debunked lies will be subject to deletion
No Fascism References, Source Dissing.
Tags
Who is online
159 visitors
It appears George Stephanopoulos is just like Stormy Daniels, Just another whore who has to pay trump for not keeping his mouth shut. 15 million is a nice start for a Presidential library.
Hilarious!
"Trump sued me because I used the word 'rape,' even though a judge said that's in fact what did happen. We filed a motion to dismiss," Stephanopoulos said."
They couldn't even prove that Ms. Carroll was "sexually abused", let alone raped, getting a jury to believe her lies from an incident that allegedly happened almost 30 years ago. And yet no one believed that all the women that accused Bill Clinton of sexual harassment, abuse, and yes, rape....were telling the truth?
That [sexual abuse] was the actual verdict of the formal trial:
Are you coining a special definition for ' prove ' in a legal context? The standard of proof in this civil case was "Preponderance of the evidence". Legally that standard of proof was met. In the legal context, that is what prove means.
What did not meet the standard of proof in this trial was the allegation of rape. The jury was not convinced by the evidence that Trump raped her.
If I recall correctly, didn't the judge that oversaw this case, himself, state the Carrol was raped ?
Anti Trump judge and jury from TDS driven NY- the place where the Constitution and laws go to die.
Plaintiff (who even couldn't get the when down; and who had no damn witnesses) with high profile lawyers paid for by rich elite Democrat donors.
Democrats/leftists shitting continuously on what this country should stand for; and then acting shocked when no one with an ounce of free thought rejects them.
Yes the judge stated that Trump had effectively raped her in the classical sense of the word when he dismissed the defamation suit Trump brought against Carroll. But in the trial, they used the New York legal definition which requires forced insertion of his penis, not just his finger.
Of course, Trump never does anything wrong ... it is always a rigged system.
When Trump is accused, his supporters ask if he has been found guilty / liable (depending upon the nature).
When he is found guilty / liable, Trump supporters claim the system was rigged.
Trump was found liable for sexual assault by a jury in a formal civil trial. A formal trial is the most authoritative determination of guilt or liability our legal system can provide.
You would think, as did I, that if the presiding judge termed it rape, rapist would be an applicable term for 45, butt, it's that assumption cliche again. I also noticed this payment was supposed to go to a charity of some sort ? Irregardless, Trumps self admission during that brutal inquisitive interrogation performed by Billy (beats it out of them) Bush, when it comes to spilling the beans, was possibly NOT, the cause that caused twenty some females to all allege sexual assaults, and or his guilty verdicts due to evidence Trump funneled monies to his 'girlfriends'', one Adult Movie XXX actress, and one just a lonely girl, looking for a new mate, to play witness with, instead of jockeying for another non-missionary positionary to not pay another fore which has been Don the cons' MO for some time now.
Who would of thought Analog jamb Don would be fluming over all that is wrong with Don the Con, being trumped for only being digital, in the new and exciting analog world today.../?
Perhaps, two ounces of 'free thought', are required...?
They still couldn't prove sexual abuse. The judge wasn't there when it allegedly happened years ago. There was no preponderance of evidence, since it all came down to "she said".
"The judge wasn't there when it allegedly happened years ago."
An astonishingly ignorant comment.
Carroll's case was buttressed by two witnesses that testified under oath that she had told them about the incident shortly after it happened. People are convicted of crimes every day in this country based on such evidence.
E. Jean Carroll and Donald Trump rested their cases Thursday in the civil trial in which Carroll accused Trump of raping her decades ago.
She is suing him in Manhattan federal court for battery over the alleged rape, and for defamation over social media comments Trump made last year accusing Carroll of promoting a “hoax.” He maintains the alleged incident “never happened.”
While Trump’s lawyers didn’t call any witnesses, Carroll’s team called nearly a dozen over the course of seven days. Here’s what they said.
E. Jean Carroll
A writer and longtime advice columnist for Elle magazine
What she said
Over the course of three days, Carroll testified in detail about her account of the alleged rape, her response at the time, and her behavior in the decades since. She said Trump raped her in a dressing room in the lingerie department on the sixth floor of Bergdorf Goodman. She said she believed the attack occurred on a Thursday evening in the spring of 1996, but that she wasn’t certain of the timing. And she said she told two friends right away but never told anyone else until 2019, when the “Me Too” movement inspired her to publicize her account.
Why it matters
Since there are no third-party eyewitnesses and no physical evidence, Carroll’s case hinges on whether the jury finds her credible. Trump’s attorney used his cross-examination to try to cast doubt on Carroll’s motives and memory, but Carroll did not waver, saying “Those are facts that I could never forget.”
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.
All the witnesses who testified in Donald Trump’s rape trial - POLITICO
More "she saids". Did Carroll report this rape to the police? Was a rape kit test done? If not, why not?
Almost 30 years later?
No one can stop you from believing Trump is "innocent" about everything. Its fucking ridiculous, but its a free country, for now.
I'll ask you a serious question. Has Trump in particular , and MAGA in general, ever shit on what this country should stand for ?
Well, they had to wait for Law and Order to write the story first.
Again, Greg, you fail to recognize how jurisprudence works.
Legally, the jury determined that the evidence met the burden of proof based on the standard of "preponderance of evidence" which is common in civil trials.
You did not sit on the jury yet you actually have the temerity to claim that the jury was wrong.
They didn't have any physical evidence and relied only on hearsay testimony. The jury bought the prosecution's bullshit. It's Kavanaugh version 2.0
Yet again, you were not on the jury, you did not observe the evidence, you did not assess the credibility of the witnesses, you did not hear the arguments, you did not participate in deliberations and you did not hear any of the instructions from the judge.
You just emotionally proclaim that the trial was "bullshit" and offer no sound argument as to why.
Further, given Trump's demonstrated abysmal character, why are you so adamant that he did not "grab her by the pussy" (so to speak) to the point of dismissing the verdict of a formal trial? The behavior is certainly consistent with how Trump operates so what other than a refusal to accept that Trump can do wrong, triggers this blind denial of jurisprudence?
And neither were you.
Did you see me make a claim about the trial other than report on the publicly known findings?
No? So your comment makes zero sense.
Did you see me claim that you did?
No I did not.
My comment was clear and concise.
[deleted][✘]
WTF? That was literally the finding in that case.
Jury finds Trump liable for sexual abuse, awards accuser $5M
Trump should sue everybody who called him a rapist. Start right here.
I believe he already has, thus the article you are currently commenting on.
Start right here.
think how many times that would be here alone
OK he's not a rapist, he's someone found liable for sexual assaulting a woman, by the U.S. judicial system, and now he owes her tens of millions of dollars.
Maybe once he's corrupted enough judges he'll sue someone for referring to him as a sexual assaulter.
[✘]
Like everyone else, Trump is presumed to be innocent unless he is charged and found guilty of a crime. The court of left wing public opinion does not count.
None of the things he things he has been accused of in the last few years have come without have credible and solid evidence. Just biased DA's, judges, and juries.
Your comments are routinely among the most uninformed on this forum.
Wow, that’s quite an achievement. DAs, judges, and juries. All three working in concert. Whoever is responsible for this team building, they deserve to be acknowledged as a master of inspiration and leadership. Since you’re so certain, perhaps you could detail for the rest of us how this efficient conspiracy comes together.
Nothing new. For example, Trump is a poor mans Bill Clinton when it comes to sexual abuse. And yet, few of the Trump triggered here were as vocal about him.
Ignorance is an understatement in that regard.
How do you know? Social media barely existed when Clinton was in his horndog days. Broadband high speed internet didnt begin until the early 2000's.
Polling did. Democrats loved their own accused rapist/serial assaulter of women.
So lie to me. Tell me you bagged on Clinton back then as hard as you bag on Trump today. Lie to me JR. lie to me …..
Correct. Under the law, the jury found that he “only” sexually abused her.
Thank goodness we got that cleared up. Otherwise, his reputation might have been damaged and people might have a low opinion of his moral character.
Whew! Bullet dodged!
I’ve said it for years, but it bears repeating. The truth about Donald Trump is bad enough on its own. Exaggerating serves no positive purpose, but it does give his supporters grounds for claiming he is the victim of people’s lies. They gleefully ignore the moral bankruptcy required to defend a serial assaulter of women - who has bragged about it.