I love The Bulwark because your politics mostly align with mine. I love it even more because you strive to get facts right, even when they don't help your arguments. The news about ABC's settlement with Trump is fading from our consciousness, but I still hear it mentioned on various Bulwark podcasts, and I think you are getting it wrong - and in a way that really hurts the anti-Trump movement.

As I'm writing this, I must acknowledge that while there is some room for opinion, there are some stubborn facts about this story. One fact - perhaps the most important/stubborn of them all, is that Stephanopoulos lied - many times - when he said that Trump was found liable for rape by a jury. This is demonstrably true. And while it is not known with certainty whether Stephanopoulos knew of its falsity, it would be interesting to hear the cross-examination of him if he denied knowing this - a well-respected journalist who is undoubtedly required to abide by ABC's standards. There is also, of course, a good argument that he acted with reckless disregard of its falsity, at a minimum.

And I've heard the argument that Trump could not prove harm, given his reputation, etc. I think this too is probably short-sighted. A decent attorney, it seems to me, should have an easy time getting a jury to believe that a false accusation of rape, by a well-respected journalist, during a presedential campaign, did inflict at least some harm.

In case you've read this far, here is my point: This is not a story about ABC capitulating to Trump, or an ominous story about how the media is going to think twice about reporting negative stories about Trump. Perhaps, if the media keeps reporting the story this way, it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy, and the media will be reluctant to post unfavorable stories about Trump.

But what if the news reported that for some unknown reason, George Stephanopolous lied about Trump on the air, and because of that, they were likely to lose at trial, and they wisely decided that 15 million was a pretty cheap way to avoid all the negative publicity of a trial when they were likely to lose anyway. THIS, it seems to me, is the real story. Perhaps more importantly, if it were told this way - honestly, from my perspective - it would not seem as ominous and would not advance the perception that Trump has more power than he has. Further, what most people would take from it, is that the rule of law matters, and it is a very bad idea to defame anyone - even someone as broadly reviled as Trump.

I don't understand why it has not been reported this way. It makes me cringe a bit that those I go to that help me understand what is going on in the world are misreporting this story. Or - and I acknowledge this is possible - maybe my take is wrong. That could be - but I've yet to hear anyone address the issues I raised about in a manner that made me rethink my position.

A HUGE fan,

Phillip in Sacramento