Rep. Nancy Mace, ABC’s George Stephanopoulos on March 10, 2024 (ABC News/screengrab)
Just eight days after ABC’s George Stephanopoulos interviewed Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., asking her to explain on “This Week” how, as a rape victim, she can support former President Donald Trump, considering that a jury found him “liable for rape” in the E. Jean Carroll civil case, Trump’s Miami lawyer has filed a defamation lawsuit against the network and Stephanopoulos as an individual.
The lawsuit, filed by attorney Alejandro Brito in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Monday, argues that ABC and Stephanopoulos defamed Trump in an article’s initial headline and on “This Week” by saying “more than 10 times” that the former president was “found liable for rape” — even though the jury verdict sheet specifically said “no” as to that finding.
Trump essentially argued that Stephanopoulos must have known his statements were false because he has “vast experience as a journalist” and once “specifically” asked E. Jean Carroll how she felt that Trump “was not found liable for rape.” The plaintiff further said that ABC rebuffed a retraction demand and did not apologize, only changing an article headline from “Nancy Mace defends her support Trump after he was found liable for rape” to “Nancy Mace defends her support Trump after he was found liable for sexual assault.”
Leaving aside commentary on the tactic of arguing in the context of a defamation action that it wasn’t rape, it was just sexual assault, the Trump lawsuit conspicuously does not mention — except for quoting Stephanopoulos’ “It’s been affirmed by a judge” line — any of what Senior U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan has said on the issue.
After Trump was found liable for sexually assaulting and defaming Carroll in May 2023, Judge Kaplan two months later rejected the defendant’s motion for a new trial based on jury error.
Kaplan said that Trump was “entirely unpersuasive” in arguing that the millions in damages were excessive as “groping” and other offenses of that level are a “far cry from rape.”
“So why does this matter?” the judge asked before answering his own question. “It matters because Mr. Trump now contends that the jury’s $2 million compensatory damages award for Ms. Carroll’s sexual assault claim was excessive because the jury concluded that he had not ‘raped’ Ms. Carroll. Its verdict, he says, could have been based upon no more than ‘groping of [Ms. Carroll’s] breasts through clothing or similar conduct, which is a far cry from rape.’ And while Mr. Trump is right that a $2 million award for such groping alone could well be regarded as excessive, that undermines rather than supports his argument.”
The judge didn’t stop here, writing that even though the jury checked off the box for “not liable for rape,” the sexual assault at issue was forcible digital penetration, which “many people commonly understand” to be rape even if New York Penal Law doesn’t.
“The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was ‘raped’ 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,”” Kaplan wrote. “Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that.”
Then the judge added in a footnote in which he issued a finding: “As the jury’s response to Question 2 was an implicit finding that Mr. Trump forcibly digitally penetrated Ms. Carroll’s vagina, no explicit independent finding by the Court is necessary. Nevertheless, the Court alternatively finds that he did so.”
Kaplan said that Trump’s arguments were “foreclosed” as a result of the judge’s own determination that the “jury implicitly found Mr. Trump did in fact digitally rape Ms. Carroll.”
Renowned First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams told Law&Crime that Judge Kaplan’s ruling appears to be a significant obstacle for Trump’s defamation action.
The Trump lawsuit against ABC and Stephanopoulos alleges two counts, one for defamation per se and the other defamation per quod. He seeks a jury trial, damages, and costs. Meanwhile, Trump’s Carroll appeal continues.
Read the lawsuit here.
