ABC's $15M Settlement with Trump is Being Overblown

This was a smart strategic move that prevented a spectacle that Trump surely wanted

Look all over Substack right now and you see two very common phrases that have gained prominence over the past several months:

“Bending the knee” and “obeying in advance”.

These are both things that people accuse ABC of doing, matching its media cohorts in pathetic acquiescence to Trump and his upcoming regime.

Since this is pretty much all you’re seeing, at least on the pro-democracy side, I’m apparently going to be offering up an unpopular take, which is that this is all being way overblown.

Don’t get me wrong, I understand all the arguments about why this is a worrying development. I understand that it looks like another corporate media entity is “bending the knee” before Trump to kiss his ring and beg for forgiveness and mercy. I understand that it seems to set a dangerous precedent that by “obeying in advance” to fascists you give them permission to commit further acts of legal and political terror.

This take should not be construed as a vote of confidence in ABC or the corporate media. I’ve lost faith in them. They’ve failed miserably during the Trump era and will likely fail more.

In addition, the arguments I lay out below does not apply to the other media entities’ pending lawsuits brought on by Trump, which appear much more frivolous compared to this one, such as CBS’s case of an editing choice they made for their broadcast of the 60 Minutes Kamala Harris interview.

But in the same way that a broken clock is right twice a day, even Trump is bound to have one or two legitimate cases within his prolific litigiousness. And this appears to be one.

And I’m not on Trump’s side here, by any means. I don’t support his frivolous lawsuits, his hypocritically employed lawfare, or his intimidation tactics.

But from an objective legal standpoint, Trump probably had a case against ABC and had a decent chance of winning.

I’m not a lawyer and don’t know the ins and outs of defamation law. But I’m engaged enough to understand the basic arguments. You can’t just say something that is untrue in the public sphere that is damaging to someone’s reputation. When you’re a public figure, as Trump obviously is, these rules get stretched to some degree, but they still apply.

So when ABC’s George Stephanopoulos made repeated comments about Trump being “found liable for rape” during an interview with Rep. Nancy Mace, I figured there could be some trouble brewing for the network.

Why? Because it wasn’t technically true. A New York jury found Trump liable for “sexual assault”, not “rape”.

Believe me, I would like for our media to be able to call Trump a “rapist”. It is a very conveniently short and concise way to describe him, something that easily rolls off the tongue, as opposed to “sexual assaulter” or “sexual predator”. Really, we should put more energy into trying to find a one-word description that summarizes “one who legally commits sexual assault”. It would make things a lot easier for commentators and pundits.

But you can’t call someone a “rapist” in an official public way unless that someone was actually found guilty or liable for rape. Or, rather, you can’t do it unless you are willing to stand by it and fight for it in court, should the accused want to sue you.

ABC obviously wasn’t willing to stand by the remark and fight. Here are some reasons why, and reasons why I think this was a smart move and that it doesn’t really result in a Trump win.

Money

The first and foremost reason is money. ABC will donate $15M to Trump and pay $1M to his lawyer in the case.

This is a lot of money to most of us, but not really that much in the context of a major media conglomerate and Trump.

Remember, Fox News just had to pay out a near-$800M sum to Dominion Voting Systems Corporation in its defamation case. And Dominion they didn’t actually win the case; it was a settlement, just like the ABC case. Dominion was seeking an award from the fury for roughly twice that amount.

But it was a settlement that was in the much later stages of the process. It was right on the cusp of the trial beginning after both parties had been through discovery and depositions. A lot of damaging stuff about Fox came out publicly during this process and they lost a lot of leverage as a result. In hindsight, they would have been much better off had they settled well before they got to the point of trial

Which is probably the same calculation that ABC made. They were in the early stages of the discovery phase and filing legal disputes regarding it. In fact, the event that triggered the settlement was the judge’s ruling on a discovery dispute on Dec 13, which included ordering depositions to proceed. The next day, the settlement agreement was reached.

The 8 hours of depositions alone probably would have cost millions in legal fees. In addition, there probably would have been something embarrassing on ABC’s side to come forward, which would have had the effect of increasing the settlement demands. Every single day, minute, and second would have equated to bits and pieces of lost leverage, which would have cost more and more money and made the legal fight seem less and less worth the risk.

The risk

One obvious risk with not settling is that you cost yourself hundreds of millions of dollars instead of tens of millions. But that’s not all.

You have the public trial, where George Stephanopoulos and some ABC producers and executives take the stand; where internal communications get released and publicized for maximum embarrassment; where Donald Trump and MAGA get to bask in the glory of the spectacle.

It wouldn’t have taken long for any salacious intra-office romances to be uncovered; for a questionable comment by a producer to be overly scrutinized; for a political statement made in private confidence to see the light of day. There’s too much that can come of this over and beyond the central question

Where exactly would ABC have won in all of this even if they win the trial? Is this an opportunity to defend the First Amendment and the press’ ability to report the truth as they see fit?

Well, not exactly……

What was the fight over?

What was the goal that that risk was about? Was it freedom of speech? Rights of the press? Some other noble cause?

Well, kinda, maybe, I guess. ABC would be fighting to defend George Stephanopoulos’s ability to say Trump was a “rapist”.

There’s going to be a lot of battles to fight during Trump’s time in power, many of them winnable. But fighting for the right to call Trump a “rapist”—while highly desired by many and definitely a fun troll—really isn’t the most important of them.

Trump was never found guilty or liable of rape. Calling him a rapist is a damaging term that is not technically true.

He’s legally a sexual predator. One who sexually assaults women. A sex abuser. Call him what you want, as legally defined by his civil trials. But just don’t call him a rapist.

This may sound weak and lame, but is it really worth fighting this fight at all costs, when you’re going to be calling him a lot of things he doesn’t like over the next four years while accurately reporting on his psychotic policies and behavior? He’s going to be suing ABC multiple times I’d imagine, and those suits will be far more winnable and noble for ABC than this one.

ABC is better served to save their money and be ready for the potential onslaught of legal challenges that they’ll be inundated with in the upcoming years. Some of these will be instigated by Trump and his team. Some will be instigated by ABC. All of them will need boundless resources to see to their conclusions. This is not the battle to fight at this time.

The Reward

I think that we should take a step back on this one and try to appreciate that the reward is what this settlement may have avoided, not in what it gained ABC.

I’ve read and listened to many legal pundits that I respect say that this was an easy win for ABC, that they were in the right, etc. But we’ve had a few years in a row now of these legal experts just flat out getting it wrong, having too much faith in our legal system. Judges and juries have a way of surprising us, and with all the novelty that Trump brings, things are more unpredictable than ever.

The bottom line is that this case appeared more winnable for Trump than his other defamation cases, and surely ones that are yet to come. So that means more of a chance at a huge multi-million-dollar victory for him, with countless media appearances and press conferences, and breathless MAGA influencers bragging and dunking on the mainstream media and “fake news”. It would be the spectacle that Trump always relishes.

And it wouldn’t matter if he lost all the other ones. This one would be the one that is pushed in our faces for multiple news cycles as a victory for Trump and affirmation of his power and influence.

Avoiding these scenes will go a long way to keeping Trump in a more diminished state, at least as much as can be hoped for when he’s the president.