David Folkenflik

So let's go back to March. Donald Trump, former president, surging in the Republican primaries. Stephanopoulos on the Sunday Public Affairs show this week, he was speaking with Nancy Mace. She's a Republican congresswoman from South Carolina, used to be a real critic of Trump, became a supporter of him. She had talked poignantly about how she'd been raped as a teen.

So let's go back to March. Donald Trump, former president, surging in the Republican primaries. Stephanopoulos on the Sunday Public Affairs show this week, he was speaking with Nancy Mace. She's a Republican congresswoman from South Carolina, used to be a real critic of Trump, became a supporter of him. She had talked poignantly about how she'd been raped as a teen.

And George Stephanopoulos is saying, well, then why do you support Donald Trump? And he kept saying relentlessly, look, uh, he was found liable in a civil suit of rape. Well, that's not actually quite right. He was found guilty of sexual abuse, and the jury in that civil trial did not find him liable of rape.

And George Stephanopoulos is saying, well, then why do you support Donald Trump? And he kept saying relentlessly, look, uh, he was found liable in a civil suit of rape. Well, that's not actually quite right. He was found guilty of sexual abuse, and the jury in that civil trial did not find him liable of rape.

And George Stephanopoulos is saying, well, then why do you support Donald Trump? And he kept saying relentlessly, look, uh, he was found liable in a civil suit of rape. Well, that's not actually quite right. He was found guilty of sexual abuse, and the jury in that civil trial did not find him liable of rape.

What the judge said in the case, pointedly, however, was that what he was found liable for did fall under the definition of what everybody in America in common conversation might understand to be rape, but that it didn't fit under the precise technical definition of rape under New York state law.

What the judge said in the case, pointedly, however, was that what he was found liable for did fall under the definition of what everybody in America in common conversation might understand to be rape, but that it didn't fit under the precise technical definition of rape under New York state law.

What the judge said in the case, pointedly, however, was that what he was found liable for did fall under the definition of what everybody in America in common conversation might understand to be rape, but that it didn't fit under the precise technical definition of rape under New York state law.

Sure. I spoke to six First Amendment media lawyers over this weekend, and they kind of agreed with my gut instinct on this. They said what George Stephanopoulos did was a screw up. And a number of them said they would have expected ABC and Stephanopoulos to clarify the distinction pretty promptly.

Sure. I spoke to six First Amendment media lawyers over this weekend, and they kind of agreed with my gut instinct on this. They said what George Stephanopoulos did was a screw up. And a number of them said they would have expected ABC and Stephanopoulos to clarify the distinction pretty promptly.

Sure. I spoke to six First Amendment media lawyers over this weekend, and they kind of agreed with my gut instinct on this. They said what George Stephanopoulos did was a screw up. And a number of them said they would have expected ABC and Stephanopoulos to clarify the distinction pretty promptly.

But they also said this should have been a pretty easy call to defend in court because what Stephanopoulos said was close to what the judge said. But in precise, there's kind of a case law defense of something being substantially true. And as you point out,

But they also said this should have been a pretty easy call to defend in court because what Stephanopoulos said was close to what the judge said. But in precise, there's kind of a case law defense of something being substantially true. And as you point out,

But they also said this should have been a pretty easy call to defend in court because what Stephanopoulos said was close to what the judge said. But in precise, there's kind of a case law defense of something being substantially true. And as you point out,

Public figures under a major court case decided by the Supreme Court called New York Times v. Sullivan 60 years ago, they gave great protections to what people say in the press and in public about public officials to allow for sort of a rolling and roiling freedom of speech about politicians that you don't have to be perfect.

Public figures under a major court case decided by the Supreme Court called New York Times v. Sullivan 60 years ago, they gave great protections to what people say in the press and in public about public officials to allow for sort of a rolling and roiling freedom of speech about politicians that you don't have to be perfect.

Public figures under a major court case decided by the Supreme Court called New York Times v. Sullivan 60 years ago, they gave great protections to what people say in the press and in public about public officials to allow for sort of a rolling and roiling freedom of speech about politicians that you don't have to be perfect.

And so you can say things that are critical about public figures and they can't just use the courts against you. A president or a former president or a future president would be somebody at the very top of the pyramid of public figures.

And so you can say things that are critical about public figures and they can't just use the courts against you. A president or a former president or a future president would be somebody at the very top of the pyramid of public figures.

And so you can say things that are critical about public figures and they can't just use the courts against you. A president or a former president or a future president would be somebody at the very top of the pyramid of public figures.