I don't know why you guys just can't seem to accept reality. So here's just one more example of the semantics, man on the street, or whatever. Remember when stehanopilis referred to trump "raping Carroll....well ABC didn't seem to think it was just semantics...
"The lawsuit, which was settled for $15 million, stemmed from a March 2024 interview where anchor George Stephanopoulos repeatedly and inaccurately stated that Trump had been "found liable for rape" in the E. Jean Carroll civil case. In reality, a jury had found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation, but not rape.
As part of the settlement, ABC News agreed to:
- Transfer $15 million to a fund designated for Trump’s future presidential library.
- Pay $1 million in legal fees directly to Trump’s lawyers.
- Append an editor's note to the online article regarding the interview, expressing regret for the statements made"
So, as I posted, trump might well be guilty/liable for rape, but not in the E Jean Carroll case...or at least ABC was willing to pay $15 million to "regret the statements made" concerning Trump being "Liable for rape"
so recapping, a jury REJECTED Carrolls claim of rape and ABC paid $16 million to trump's library regretting it's statements made reading trump being Liable for rape....but you guys, who have only peripheral knowledge of the issue, know it was rape...
Like I posted before, you want to refer to trump as a rapist, knock yourselves out. But it wouldn't hurt your case just to be accurate and refer to him as a sexual abuser, as that was what the jury held.