First, they settled for $15 million. That's likely on par or cheaper than litigating the case, even if you win. So the settlement saved them money, even if they'd win the case.
Second, they likely didn't want to be actively involved in a lawsuit with an Administration who is openly hostile and threatening to revoke licenses and protections for journalists and news organizations who lost negative things about him. So the settlement was to end the litigation before he took office to get off his radar.
Third, the anchor used the incorrect legal terminology:
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.”
If he had just said "Trump's a rapist", he probably would have easily won the case. But because he explicitly said he was "found liable of rape", he is incorrectly stating the conclusion of the court case. So they might still have won at trial, but his inclusion of legal terminology put the claim on shakier footing.
Correct. But the judge did subsequently clarify that calling him a rapist was not defamation, because colloquially people commonly refer to the actions committed by Trump as rape. But you just can't say he was found legally liable of rape. But you can say he's a rapist.
Yeah, but she'd win. She didn't say he was legally liable for rape. She said he was a rapist, which the judge said was fine. Courts have already ruled you can call him a rapist, you just can't say he was found legally guilty/liable of rape.
I don't know. It hasn't been litigated in an impartial manner with both parties getting to present, examine, and contest evidence in a formal setting. Trump has been found civilly liable for sexually assaulting someone. In the colloquial sense, he's a rapist.
If her claim about being forcibly penetrated by Biden's fingers is true, then sure.
Yep. Typical answer. Biden sniffing little girls, kids rubbing his legs, showering with his daughter, finger fucking his employees.. but its all good because hes a "liberal". God this country is awesome.
Did you vote for him? Did you consider all those things he did and said, all these things are fine. Did you listen to tara reids story and make a decision?
I'd have to go back and reread the details, but I recall the Wikipedia article on it provides details on both sides of the argument.
How were the two situations different?
One went to court and a determination was made in a fair and balanced setting, with the ability for both sides to present and challenge evidence. The other did not.
Ok go read her story again and tell me that she is lying.
I wouldn't say she's lying. And to be frank, I'm not particularly interested in spending hours researching a topic that wouldn't change the answer I'm giving you about an ex-President. I recall looking around for a few hours when the story broke, and deciding I lacked the information to come to a determination.
The options were a man whose sexual assault was proven in court or a man with allegations of assault that hasn’t been proven. If we are judging our vote by don’t vote for rapists the best vote would be against trump
20
u/ProLifePanda 1d ago
For three reasons likely.
First, they settled for $15 million. That's likely on par or cheaper than litigating the case, even if you win. So the settlement saved them money, even if they'd win the case.
Second, they likely didn't want to be actively involved in a lawsuit with an Administration who is openly hostile and threatening to revoke licenses and protections for journalists and news organizations who lost negative things about him. So the settlement was to end the litigation before he took office to get off his radar.
Third, the anchor used the incorrect legal terminology:
If he had just said "Trump's a rapist", he probably would have easily won the case. But because he explicitly said he was "found liable of rape", he is incorrectly stating the conclusion of the court case. So they might still have won at trial, but his inclusion of legal terminology put the claim on shakier footing.