In a recent segment, conservative commentator Kelly provided further insight into the legal battle between former President Donald Trump and ABC News, detailing a key moment in the case that led to a settlement. According to Kelly, Trump’s legal team had scheduled a deposition of ABC News representatives, including prominent anchor George Stephanopoulos, which, according to the lawyer involved in the case, ABC may have been eager to avoid. This led Kelly to read a statement that suggested ABC’s decision to settle was less about what the network had learned during the case and more about what Trump’s legal team might uncover through the deposition process.
Kelly quoted the lawyer, who said, “It wasn’t something ABC learned that caused them to settle, but rather something Trump’s team may learn.” This statement raised a critical question about the exchange of documents between the two sides before the deposition. In most legal cases, especially high-profile ones, both parties are required to exchange discovery documents—texts, emails, and other relevant materials—to prepare for a deposition. This process is meant to ensure that both sides have access to the necessary information before they question witnesses under oath. However, Kelly pointed out that Trump’s team had received very few documents from ABC in this case, suggesting that the network had been less forthcoming with the information that could potentially expose them.
At the time of the settlement, Trump’s legal team had reportedly only received one document from ABC, which is highly unusual in a case of this nature. The fact that ABC had produced so little information only added to the suspicion that they may have been hiding something, and that something may have been related to their handling of Trump or the broader network’s operations. Kelly stressed that this lack of documentation exchange, which she described as “minimal,” could have been a significant factor in the settlement, suggesting that ABC was fearful of what Trump’s team might discover during the deposition and what could come to light in a public trial.
The key point Kelly was making was that the fear of what might be revealed about ABC and Stephanopoulos could have played a pivotal role in the settlement decision. If Trump’s team had been allowed to proceed with the deposition, the revelation of certain documents or conversations could have damaged ABC’s reputation or exposed potential wrongdoing. In the high-stakes world of media and politics, where public perception is everything, the risk of such revelations could have led the network to settle to avoid further embarrassment or legal complications.
This situation underscores the intense scrutiny that major media companies, particularly those like ABC, face when they become entangled in legal battles involving public figures like Trump. As Kelly pointed out, the settlement suggests that ABC may have been more concerned with protecting their internal operations from public exposure than with the legal aspects of the case itself. For many conservatives, this case serves as another example of the mainstream media’s tendency to protect its own interests, often at the expense of transparency.
Ultimately, the case illustrates how important it is for both sides in legal battles—particularly high-profile ones involving powerful figures like Trump—to carefully manage what information is made public. In this case, it seems that ABC and Stephanopoulos may have settled not just to avoid a prolonged legal battle, but to keep certain documents and communications under wraps. This only adds to the narrative that the media industry is often more concerned with preserving its reputation and avoiding scandal than with engaging in full transparency or accountability.
