MSNBC Whines About Defamation Settlement, Fearmongers 'Chilling Effect'

Michael Wnek
December 16th, 2024 9:51 PM

Text to Speech

00:00 00:00
Font Size

MSNBC’s Sunday shows followed a characteristically redundant script while discussing the newly reached settlement in President-elect Trump’s defamation suit with ABC News. The hosts were evidently convinced that the case spelled disaster for the “free press” as the Republicans realized their malicious plans, straight from the “playbook in authoritarianism.”

The Weekend co-host Symone Sanders ironically reassured viewers that MSNBC’s standards department “is always making sure that we are keeping the bar high, and substantive, and accurate,” apparently confident that ABC anchor George Stephanopoulos met that standard in his March interview with Congresswoman Nancy Mace (R-SC). She further worried about the “chilling effect” the settlement would have on the media.

 

 

Co-host Michael Steele wondered what exactly the money could be used for and indignantly pointed out that “they didn’t even have an account set up for this…they have no place to put [it].” 

He decided that the case was proof of an “easily manipulated” legal system and a media space “willing to blow past the obvious problems with this incoming administration,” even though the regime media’s attacks on the Trump administration have not ceased since his first term.

During the show’s second hour, Sanders reiterated MSNBC’s commitment to accuracy and the truth before firmly deciding, “this seems quite targeted and I don't think George Stephanopoulos was wrong.” She was met with a brief moment of silence which she triumphantly interpreted as the immediate result of the “chilling effect.”

 

 

MSNBC’s Velshi adopted a similar tone, with legal analyst Barbara McQuade expressing concern that “ABC buckled” in spite of what she saw as “a strong case.” Taking up the buzzword of the day, she raised the question of a “self-censoring effect” with an additional note of warning and poorly disguised insinuation of what the press could expect from the Trump administration. 

In McQuade’s words, “a vigorous free press is essential in any administration, even more so in one where Donald Trump has vowed to go after his enemy.”

 

 

Later, on The Sunday Show with Jonathan Capehart, lawyer and activist Maya Wiley outrageously suggested that the settlement guaranteed the Trump administration’s utilization of what she called the “playbook in authoritarianism.” She continued to explicitly spell out how she thought the Trump administration would attack the media: "The playbook is you come for independent journalism and you work hard to threaten it, make it afraid, and therefore, no longer independent. And we've already heard in the news cycle the threats of continuing legal battles because it has now worked."

Of course, this came as no surprise from the doomsayers over at MSNBC who remain bent on persuading their viewers that Trump and the Republicans exist as the modern Adolf Hitler and his Nazis.

The transcripts are below. Click "expand" to read:

MSNBC’s The Weekend

12/15/2024

08:07:54 AM EST

SYMONE SANDERS: I would just say, I mean, this feels like it has a really chilling effect, like. I mean, shoutout to the standards department, ok. Standards is always making sure that we are keeping the bar high, and substantive, and accurate. But, what George Stephanopoulos said in that interview, I mean, it–it seems to hold up to what the judge said after the fact. And now, this news organization and himself–George Stephanopoulos, himself, is paying $1 million of his own money to the lawyers, and ABC $15 million. It’s insane.

(...)

08:16:15 AM EST

MICHAEL STEELE: For Trump, this is, you know–they didn't even have the account set up for this. They don’t have–they have no place to put the $15 million.

SANDERS: The $15 million is gonna, what, be sent in escrow like they about to buy a house?

STEELE: Right, exactly. So, I mean, what does that say to you? That–you know, I have been on this program and elsewhere complaining–’cause it is a complaint–about how the legal system itself has been so easily manipulated. The media now is sort of falling into that, “Oh, we just–we want to play nice.” What’s–what is your assessment of how this affects the way the country governs itself when both the judicial and the media space seem so willing to blow past the obvious problems with this incoming administration?

(...)

09:06:15 AM EST

SANDERS: George Stephanopoulos, le–let’s–just to be clear about what he said during the interview. He said that “Trump has been found liable for rape by a jury”–this is according to NBC article. Trump, however, was found liable in a civil case for sexually abusing Carroll, not for her alleged rape. Then I remember during that case check the box marked no when asked whether Carroll had proven by a preponderance of evidence that Mr. Trump raped Carroll. But then you have the judge in the case after that exchange with Nancy Mace and George Stephanopoulos, the judge came out and actually put an asterisk there and kinda underscored that what George Stephanopoulos said is true. All of this to someone watching this might sound like semantics but, I guess, for me, as Michael and I are sitting here and as–you know, we all go on TV all the time and we talk about late breaking news, right?

STEELE: Yeah.

SANDERS: And, Michael, I'm just kinda wondering, the parsing of this–the judge said that George Stephanopoulos was right, essentially. 

STEELE: Right.

SANDERS: But Donald Trump sued anyway for defamation and ABC made the calculated decision that, “You know what, we’re just going to pay.” That–George Stephanopoulos also has to pay, he is on the hook for $1 million of his own money. And that leaves the rest of us with–what? We want to be accurate, right? We have a standards department. We are all endeavoring to keep the bar high and substantive and not allow–not engage in interviews and conversations where people just lie or throw out conspiracy theories and they themselves are not accurate. But this–this seems quite targeted and I don't think George Stephanopoulos was wrong. I'm sorry.

[Silence]

LISA RUBIN: I don’t know if…

SANDERS: Now y’all got nothing to say ‘cause nobody wants a lawsuit. See? This is the chilling effect! 

RUBIN: Well…

SANDERS: This is the chi–my mom is about to text me, “Shut up, ‘cause what are you d…”

STEELE: (Laughs). No, no, no, no. Li–I mean, go ahead, Lisa. You can…

RUBIN: No, what I was gonna say is I'm not sure that George Stephanopoulos was wrong in a colloquial sense. But where this case emerges from and where he got tripped up is in attempting to describe what was found by the jury. 

SANDERS: Mmmmm.

RUBIN: And, as you noted, the jury itself found very precisely that Donald Trump did not commit rape within the technical definition of rape in New York’s criminal code. They found him liable for sexual abuse. Now, Judge Kaplan, who is the judge in the New York cases brought by E. Jean Carroll–in a separate finding found that Donald Trump could not sue E. Jean Carroll for defamation after that verdict because colloquially speaking, what the jury had found that Donald Trump did to E. Jean Carroll could be understood by normal, nonlegal people as a rape. It is a–essentially what they found was that he digitally penetrated her. But New York law said that unless there is genital to genital contact, it’s not rape. 

The problem with what George Stephanopoulos said was that he was trying to describe the jury verdict, not what conventional people understood or, at least, the difference that I just described to you is how a Florida district court judge saw it when faced with a motion to dismiss by Stephanopoulos and ABC. And having not won on that initial motion to dismiss on solely legal grounds, ABC had said that, essentially, what the New York judge found and what George Stephanopoulos said were so similar that the issue had already been litigated and there was nothing for Donald Trump to sue about. That Florida judge disagreed and that’s what allowed the case to continue and put ABC in the position of either having to continue to litigate through discovery and potentially to trial, or to settle this thing now, shortly after a judge ruled on Friday that both sides were going to have to sit for the deposition.

SANDERS: Mmmm.

(...)

 

MSNBC’s Velshi

12/15/2024

10:11:18 AM EST

BARBARA MCQUADE: Yeah, I think it’s a concerning sign, Melissa, that ABC buckled here. They were just about to take the deposition of Donald Trump this week, which would have helped to solidify their case, which is already, in my view, a strong case. The phrases that they objected to was when George Stephanopoulos repeatedly said that Donald Trump had been found civilly liable for rape. Of course, what the jury actually found was sexual assault, but the judge said, that in the way the terms are commonly understood, Donald Trump did indeed commit rape. So, it’s a matter of interpretation, about what that word means to most people. 

But ordinarily, in defamation cases, you have to prove that the person was defamed, that there was actual malice, and that the gist of the story was inaccurate. In addition, you have to show the person's reputation was harmed in this way. It seems that ABC had a very strong case here and yet they sort of caved anyway. And I think it sends a bad signal to other media enterprises and might have a chilling effect or a self-censoring effect on the media, as they cover the Trump administration. And, of course, a vigorous free press is essential in any administration, even more so in one where Donald Trump has vowed to go after his enemy.

(...)

 

MSNBC’s The Sunday Show with Jonathan Capehart

12/15/2024

06:43:20 PM EST

MAYA WILEY: The common understanding of what he was found civilly liable for is the equivalent of rape. It just doesn't meet the narrow legal definition.

JONATHAN CAPEHART: Mhmm.

WILEY: And when you have a public figure, you have an even higher burden when it's a journalistic issue about whether or not–in other words, there's a stronger defense for journalists when they're using common parlance about whether or not they've engaged in defamation. So when you have a judge who has said in two separate cases, “Saying it's rape is not defam–is not a problem,” then you can understand why a Stephanopoulos might say, “Call it rape,” as it's commonly understood. 

But I say that because it’s–because what really is so troubling here is there was a defense. Put aside whether or not there were other reasons to settle it and in the context of the playbook in authoritarianism, the playbook is you come for independent journalism and you work hard to threaten it, make it afraid, and therefore, no longer independent. And we've already heard in the news cycle the threats of continuing legal battles because it has now worked.

CAPEHART: Mhmm.

(...)

Donor Privacy Policy