MIAMI - Former President Donald Trump will get to pursue defamation claims against ABC News for its use of the word "rape" when reporting on the "sexual abuse" verdict against him.
Miami federal judge Cecilia Altonaga on July 24 ruled there is still much to discuss about Trump's lawsuit against ABC News and George Stephanopoulos. She denied their motions to dismiss, writing that while Trump may not ultimately be able to prove his claims, he has adequately alleged them.
ABC and Stephanopoulos argued their coverage was true, but the legal definition of "rape" in New York, where the story took place, clouds things. In that state, "rape" is limited to penile penetration.
"(T)he Court does not find that a reasonable jury must - or even is likely to - conclude Stephanopoulos' statements were defamatory," Altonaga wrote.
"But a reasonable jury could conclude Plaintiff was defamed and, as a result, dismissal is improper."
The jury in accuser E. Jean Carroll's lawsuit against Trump found that there was digital penetration, so it could not find him liable for rape. Instead, it was sexual assault.
The verdict was part of two different trials against Trump that were successful for Carroll, who was first awarded $2 million for the sexual assault then $83.3 million for a defamation claim.
Trump twice called in Judge Lewis Kaplan on issues of "rape." He challenged the sexual assault verdict as excessive because he was not found liable for rape. He brought a defamation claim against Carroll for maintaining in a TV interview that he had raped her.
"The finding that... 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 (Trump) 'raped' her as many people commonly understand the word 'rape,'" Kaplan ruled.
"Indeed, the jury found that (Trump) in fact did exactly that."
ABC News and Stephanopoulos apparently thought that gave them the clearance to use the word "rape" when reporting on the case. On March 10, Stephanopoulos interviewed U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., to ask about her endorsement of Trump in this year's Presidential election despite him being "found liable for rape."
He used the phrase 10 times, stating, "judges and two separate juries have found him liable for rape." He added that Kaplan "affirmed that it was, in fact, rape," and a screenshot of a newspaper headline reading "Judge clarifies: Yes, Trump was found to have raped E. Jean Carrol."
Judge Altonaga was left to decide whether ABC News and Stephanopoulos presented "substantially true" coverage of Carroll's cases. Many of the cases they cited were disregarded by Altonaga because the defendants weren't reporting on Carroll's experiences, only the jury's verdicts.
"More to the point, Defendants also cite cases finding substantial truth can arise when describing charges of forced sexual contact as charges for rape," Altonaga added.
"Yet, these cases all involved underlying law that seemingly did not distinguish between rape and other forced sex crimes. Here, of course, New York has opted to separate out a crime of rape; and Stephanopoulos' statements dealt not with the public's usage of that term, but the jury's consideration of it during a formal legal proceeding."
Judge Kaplan would certainly agree with ABC and Stephanopoulos, Altonaga said, but his statements do not have a preclusive effect on the case against them.
"The Court is thus only persuaded that substantial truth would arise if the jury's verdict of 'No' was presented in combination with Judge Kaplan's additional findings," she wrote.
Altonaga said a reasonable jury could interpret Stephanopoulos' statements as defamatory. A clarification presented as the newspaper headline mentioned above wasn't enough, she wrote.
"This ostensible 'clarification' occurred late in the (10-minute) segment and did not include any further explanation; viewers were simply treated to a 10-second glimpse of a headline and partially blurred text, with no mention of Judge Kaplan by name or any description of why his description of the verdict differed from the jury's actual verdict as recounted by Mace," she wrote.
"On this record, the Court finds that the segment is, at least, 'confusing and ambiguous' and susceptible to defamation interpretation."