President Donald Trump on Friday announced that he plans to file a defamation lawsuit against the BBC for up to $5 billion over a misleading edit of his January 6, 2021, speech for the investigative documentary series Panorama. While the BBC has apologized, pulled the program, and announced the resignation of two top executives, President Trump is demanding compensation. The lawsuit, however, would be challenging if filed in the United States. (For full disclosure, I previously served as legal analyst for the BBC).
Trump told reporters that “We’ll sue them for anywhere between a billion and $5 billion probably sometime next week.”
Trump previously secured settlements from American networks, including CBS, for $16 million. Notably, some of us expressed skepticism over the legal chances of the CBS lawsuit, but the network elected to settle rather than face prolonged litigation (particularly at a sensitive time for the company, given a planned merger).
As the BBC itself has acknowledged, the editing of the speech was clearly misleading. The editors joined statements separated by almost an hour while omitting statements where the President called on his supporters to march on the Capitol “peacefully” and said that the purpose was to “cheer on” their allies in Congress.
It is also true that this is a common misconstruction. I previously wrote about how the J6 Committee in Congress routinely edited out Trump’s call to protest “peacefully” despite objections that it was intentionally omitting a material element to his speech. As with the BBC, the language did not fit what Nancy Pelosi called “the narrative” of the Committee, so it was deleted.
Trump is clearly using these lawsuits to push back on such unfair framing of the speech. Many media organizations have omitted or downplayed Trump’s words about a peaceful protest. However, I disagree with friends and colleagues who have suggested that this is an easy case to prove in a U.S. court.
Ironically, the best place to bring this action would have been the United Kingdom, which has laws that favor plaintiffs in such actions. The United States is far more protective of free speech and free press values. Nevertheless, there are barriers to bringing an action at this time in the UK.
The United States has more robust protections for media organizations, particularly in statements concerning public officials or public figures.
Over six decades ago, Justice William Brennan eloquently wrote in New York Times v. Sullivan about how defamation law can undermine the First Amendment without proper limitations. News outlets were being targeted at the time by anti-segregation figures in lawsuits to deter them from covering the civil rights marches.
The court correctly viewed civil liability as creating a chilling effect on the free press, either by draining publications of funds or inducing a type of self-censorship. Imposing a high standard for proof of defamation, Brennan sought to give the free press “breathing space” to carry out its key function in our system.
The case established a higher standard of proof for defamation than simple negligence for public officials. The court believed that public officials have ample means to rebut false statements, but that it’s essential for democracy for voters and reporters to be able to challenge government officials. To achieve that breathing space, the court required public officials to prove “actual malice,” where the defendant had actual knowledge of the falsity of a statement or showed reckless disregard for whether it was true or false.
For public officials (and later public figures) mere negligence is not enough to prove defamation (as it would be in a case where an ordinary person was defamed).
On one level, it is hard to see how an editor did not show reckless disregard for the truth in stitching together these statements, separated by almost an hour, while cutting out material in the middle that indicated a peaceful intent. It showed, at a minimum, appalling judgment and a lack of interest in offering a balanced “grab” from the speech.
However, was it “actual malice” as a legal matter? Keep in mind that you have to convince a jury that there was no innocent or merely negligent basis for the edit. The BBC has already effectively admitted that it was negligent, but insists that it was not intentional.
There is also an element of opinion in these edits. An editor is trying to capture what the program believes is the gist of the message. Even with the President’s statement about going peacefully to the Capitol to cheer on allies, many do not agree that that was the thrust or clear message from his speech. Congress ultimately impeached the President on the basis of the speech (“Donald John Trump engaged in high Crimes and Misdemeanors by inciting violence against the Government of the United States…”). Congress also regularly omitted the exculpatory language, and many members insisted that those statements were merely “asides” and were not material to his overall message. The BBC can cite the impeachment and the views of many commentators to support the editing choice as an exercise of editorial discretion.
While I criticized the speech on air as it was being given (due to legal claims made about the authority of then-Vice President Pence to refuse to certify the election), I have long maintained that the speech did not constitute criminal incitement and was, in fact, protected speech under cases such as Brandenburg v. Ohio. I opposed the impeachment based on the speech. Notably, Trump was never charged with criminal incitement despite widespread claims from experts that it did so meet that standard.
This brings us back to the BBC case. The network will be able to enjoy the greater “breathing space” afforded in the United States as opposed to the United Kingdom if this is filed, as expected, in Florida or some other state. It will be able to claim that it used clips that reflected what it viewed as the thrust of the speech. The segment was exploring the January 6th riot and the BBC used those comments that it considered most inflammatory on that day. It should not have done so, but jurors or the court could view it as an exercise of journalistic discretion or opinion.
In Wilkow v. Forbes, Inc., 241 F.3d 552 (7th Cir. 2001), opinion prevailed as a defense. In that case, a journalist with Forbes was sued for harsh characterizations of a lawyer and his practice. Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote that “although the article drips with disapproval of Wilkow’s (and the judges’) conduct, an author’s opinion about business ethics isn’t defamatory under Illinois law.” Notably, the article was not on an opinion page, but the court found that the journalist’s opinion was obvious from the tenor of the column.
It is an argument that could easily persuade some jurors and could also raise a threshold constitutional concern for the court. Again, none of this means that the BBC was in the right. It was not and has admitted to the violation of journalistic standards. However, the question is how a defamation lawsuit would likely play out in a U.S. courtroom. I have my doubts about securing a jury verdict on this evidence.
In the end, any settlement is likely to be driven more by political rather than legal concerns. The question is whether the BBC wants to have a prolonged case on an embarrassing segment. However, the BBC is different from the American networks. It is a publicly supported network, and these are British tax dollars. Moreover, it is a cherished institution in the UK. A demand for compensation may be a bridge too far for our British cousins.
No doubt the content alteration creates a statement offebsive and defamatory and that this misconstruction comes with a history recognized as intentional and malicious; the question, can ignorance truly be the excuse or defense here is to me seemingly absurd. Question me this: Does not the BBC license content to literally hundreds of U.S. radio stations? (This, by the way, is not government funding, it’s commercial income.) And, if so, should not the BBC now be begging Trump to settle?
Good for Donald (and Melania and Kids). The Media has become weaponized against the Three Branches of Government (Congress Men/Women, Justices, and Presidents), striking with surgical precision. The Government itself has interjected it’s subversion programs into the Media as well (i.e.: Deep State narratives). Since this behavior will not cease, and the Networks will continue to peddle propaganda (etc.), then Why not litigate? What the Media did to Donald Trump (et.al.) and continues to do it, is fair game for litigation. The Media wanted it, They got it.
It is apparently an acceptable disgusting way to conduct a Nation’s Political differences, but Politics are a dirty game to begin with. So Be It.
If you ask Me, $5 Billion isn’t enough, the Trumps deserve a $1 Trillion Dollar Pay Package for putting up with the Media and DNC Party’s attacks already served.
Trillion? Obviously you never managed a corporate budget in your life.
Another thing. You obvioulsly don’t know the 3 branches of government.
And that’s OK – Anonymous: at 9:34 AM
You go buy a Tesla, because Elon needs 100 Billion per year for 10 years ($1 Trillion)
Tesla’s Management sure know how to a Budget. Smart Move putting $100 Billion/yr x10 Egg into one basket (Called Elon).
Instead of putting $1 Billion/yr x10 into 100 Eggs (1000 Eggs after 10 yrs.) into one basket called Tesla.
Right – I can see your sold on Elon – good luck with that.
Wake up on the wrong side of the bed?
Don’t sleep, Plugged into the Matrix, Brain activity 24/7/365 …. just a Human Data Center
Now Anonymous is an expert on managing a corporate budget. We are surely blessed with her opinion because she is also an expert on the law and trans medical treatments on twelve year old kids. We should thank our lucky stars that we are blessed with someone who is so knowledgeable at every subject known to man kind. I guess I could have said it more succinctly by just saying she’s a blanking know it all.
“ However, the BBC is different from the American networks. It is a publicly supported network, and these are British tax dollars. Moreover, it is a cherished institution in the UK. A demand for compensation may be a bridge too far for our British cousins.”
BBC is not a “cherished institution in the UK” anymore. It’s only the naïve or deranged Left who are doing all the cherishing. The “bridge too far” should be what the BBC did, not the demand for compensation by the POTUS. BBC did everything they could to destroy President Trump, as a POTUS and as a human being for nearly a decade, with their lies, half-truths and unadulterated biases, and put America and her America citizens through unimaginable misery in the process. They knew full well what they were doing. Any sensible person would agree with that. The BBC brought this upon themselves and whether President Trump wins the $5 billion dollar settlement or not, the BBC should be dragged through mud, named, shamed and shut down. If they are supported by the British taxpayers, but are working against their interests and function as the paramilitary arm of an authoritarian state, the tax dollars and their license should be pulled and every trace of their existence as a “Public Service Organization” should be erased.
BBC is not a “cherished institution in the UK” anymore. Really? How would you know? You’re an American, stupid and naïve.
Professor Turley would do well to give us a few more facts about this case. The video in question aired last October before the election. The BBC is on many U.S. cable packages, and we need to know if the program that aired the false video was available to viewers in the U.S. It seems this would be important to show “injury-in-fact,” a requirement in the U.S. and U.K. for filing a defamation suit. It would not bode well for Trump or the U.S. for a suit to be filed in the U.K. and immediately tossed for lack of standing. British courts in England and Wales, like their U.S. counterparts, allow for the discovery of relevant documents in a civil suit of this nature. My guess is that, like CBS, the BBC is going to want to protect the secrecy of its internal documents and will offer a generous settlement. Inasmuch as the BBC is like our NPR and taxpayer-funded, Trump should donate whatever settlement he receives to a Children’s Hospital in London. As Trump likes to say, “Success is my revenge!”
Discovery goes two ways. Trump would hate discovery more than the BBC.
Anon: Yes, discovery goes both ways but the material subject to discovery must be relevant and material to the matter at hand. Trump had nothing to do with the BBC production and, presumably, would have nothing discoverable, whereas the BBC may have all sorts of internal texting and other documentary materials it wishes to avoid turning over. Thus, as we saw with ABC and CBS, the companies would rather settle than have to give up incriminating and embarrassing internal records, not to mention also that if the case were to go to trial, those same records would greatly diminish prospects for the defendants to prevail.
The BBC can ask for all documents related to J6. Their goal is to show that what they aired was at least substantially true.
A new personality every day for Anonymous. One day a lawyer. The next day a medical professional opinion on the benefits of transition surgery for kids. A professional on the harvesting of vegetables by illegal aliens. Indeed a talent in her own mind.
Wrong again. The rule permitting discovery is not intended to be a fishing expedition. There is no way to prove an already admitted fraudulent video presentation. Whether what was aired was substantially true or not is meaningless; the suit is based on the BBC admitting that it doctored the piece in question. If Trump can show he was injured in some way by the actions of BBC, the case is over. BBC has already admitted to what Trump says they did and the evidence seems to prove that. What actually occurred on J6 is completely irrelevant to whether the video was doctored to harm Trump. That he has a giood chance to win this case will, I;’m sure, motivate the BBC to settle just like ABC and CBS settled rather that embarrass themselves by having to produce internal records materially relevant to their intent to disparage Trump in some way.
Sullivan has turned out to be a terrible decision. It was decided in an era when journalism was a profession that maintained self-imposed ethical standards. The problem is they were only that, “professional standards”. When the print media gave way to cable news, fact checking gave way to getting the story out first. Now, anyone with a computer can be a “journalist”. There are no professional standards and there is no line between news and opinion. Journalists don’t feel they a need to present balanced reporting. They now want to transform public opinion, not just report on it. Actual malice was a ridiculously high standard that was meant to provide journalists with a sword to use to keep public figures honest. What it’s become is a shield for anyone with a computer to hide behind and attack public figures with no accountability. Sullivan cannot work in an era of internet journalism. Retractions mean nothing.
By comparison, many conservative news organizations simply talk about other things, omitting the news they dislike.
This is a pattern, something really bad happens to Republicans and any legitimate news organization would have to report it. Many conservative news groups simply omit it altogether.
No they simply omit that part of the news by trashing Biden, Hillary, Harris or Obama. So their viewers never see that news. Guess it protects them from lawsuits doing it that way.
So what news outlet was it again that edited the footage of the J6 speech that they didn’t like?
Fox deceptively edits footage every day.
Examples? What footage from a speech, or anything else, did they deceptively edit?
Trump has limited time and limited resources. He should concentrate on the important parts of his job instead of getting even with the journalists who have used him as a punching bag. He needs to rise above his critics.
There is always time for accountability. If he doesn’t, it gives a green-light for others to continue doing it.
Reportedly 2 more instances of selective editing by the BBC have turned up. Whether they will add or detract to the case is uncertain. However, I would suspect that the more cases of “selective editing” that might turn up, the more likely Malice could be proved.
A one time slip up can be a mistake but repeated similar events could make the case for a point of view that is biased and malicious.
At one point in time I could see the need for some breathing “space” for the press. However that presumes the press is an more unbiased observer and reporter of the facts in this world. The press would seem to get breaks now that most of the rest of us would never be able to obtain.
I have no problem with the press being brought to task for sloppy work, lies, provable slander and such. When you take a side then that can happen. Just be accurate and observe that context and nuance can have significant effects on interpretation of news and statements also.
The press has, I believe, contributed much to the ferocity and viciousness of political discourse today. Maybe getting slapped around in court or becoming poorer because of ill conceived actions can temper their reporting and improve accuracy and discretion.
Are you sure the BBC is a ‘cherished institution’? What percentage of people would drop their subscription if it was not required by law because they own a tv set?
^ the BBC is a ‘cherished institution’?^
The BBC is a ‘Pushed Institution’, Pushed upon Us at; Airport Terminals, Flights, Hotels, where ever there is a Public Viewing Screen, the BBC is there.
They are the Machine of which the Ghost Lives.
(Too Much Information – the Ghost in the Machine)
The press would seem to get breaks now that most of the rest of us would never be able to obtain. Really, how would you know. You’re just a geriatric commenter who lives in Indiana.
The press has contributed? Have you ever taken into consideration Trumps insane comments on social media? Of course not.
^Anonymous: at 9:38 AM^
“Have you ever taken into consideration Trumps insane comments”
WOW you do a lot of profiling, don’t you?
Consider it All, every angle, from every source – because living in Indiana is the epicenter of the universe.
I See You
Depends on what you see as Trump’s goal. If his goal is to get paid billions of dollars, then yeah maybe this will fail. If his goal is to make fake news outlets think twice before slandering him, he has already succeeded and will continue to do so. If he DIDN’T sue, it would be a green light for continued malfeasance. Either way, it’s going to cost the BBC a buttload of American dollars to defend this in court. Imagine how thrilled British taxpayers will be to see their money going towards defending the indefensible. Still acts as a deterrent which is what I believe Trump wants.
Liability and damages in a suit for damages compensation has a resemblance to golf. Liability is driving for show. Damages is putting for dough. There are murmurs of additional statements by both BBC and Australia’s ABC that reveal a pattern or practice of malice against this President. Equally fascinating is what theories of damages convincingly support 1-5 $billion damages. I think President Trump is willing to press his case for the show even if the jury awards $1 for the putt.
Could some Venezuela families sue Trump himself for blowing up boats? Some civil liberties attorneys have successfully gone after personal assets of government officials when they violate their oath of office.
Trump made a promise to GOD to follow the U.S. Constitution to the best of his ability. The U.S. Navy or U.S. Coast Guard could have legally intercepted the boats, arrested the suspected drug smugglers and confiscated the drugs as evidence.
Trump instead destroyed all evidence to prove his case and acted as cop, prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner in violation of American federal law, in violation of international law, in violation of the U.S. Constitution and gross disloyalty to his oath of office loyalty oath.
In the 1950’s, the U.S. Department of Justice designated these types of officials exercising extrajudicial authority as “constitutional-subversives”. The oath of office refers to these type of officials as “domestic enemies to the U.S. Constitution” – which every government official swears an oath to defend against.
Article I of the U.S. Constitution grants exclusive authority to declare wars and put U.S. military boots on the ground to Congress. No Executive Branch has the authority to start wars without Congress.
“acted as cop, prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner” sounds like Obama every Tuesday choosing which wedding party to blow up. As with Clinton bombing Kosovo or Biden bombing Nord Stream, it isn’t a war unless there are “boots on the ground”.
How do you know that it was a Venezuelan boat, or that anyone on it was killed? Who was on board? Were bodies recovered or an autopsy performed showing a cause of death? Maybe it was gas leak that caused the explosion. Fishing in the Gulf of America can be dangerous. You’re basing a case entirely upon a video, that was likely leaked, that may or may not be accurate. You’ll have an easier time proving that Brezhnev was never in my kitchen.
This is all utter nonsense. The president has the authority to use the armed forces to further the USA’s interests, with or without a declaration of war. There is nothing in US law that forbids what he’s doing, and there’s no such thing as “international law”. What’s called by that name is just the customs of nations, that they choose to follow most of the time. When they don’t they don’t. They’re good for rhetorical purposes only, but there is no court that can enforce them.
The BBC news story was directed by MGMT/Global Elite/Davos Crowd. They intended to do harm to Pres. Trump chances in the election. Their apologia was so so, They did not want to apologies but were forced to issue a so so apology. Trump case should be brought in Florida where the courts/jury will be more friendly. I suspect the BBC will decide to settle, politics will drive the settlement. But BBC should suffer reputation and loss of $$$ Sterling.
1. Florida has no authority over the BBC.
2. UK libel laws are much more friendly than US ones. Trump would surely lose in the US. He will also lose in the UK, but not as badly.
The once respected news agencies can remedy this situation and prevent future problems by reporting the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Is the right thing to do and it would be a good business move.
I doubt (as Professor Turley pointed out, that he would ever win outright, but they will settle, probably another benefactor in the Presidential library. The lawsuit or even the threat of it will highlight yet another news outlet that is being run by lunatics.
It is a shot across the bow for something stupid and hate driven the BBC did.
As far as the Ellipse speech in question, the main thrust of it was “Go to the Capitol, and witness a lawyerly spectacle where (if Mike Pence does the right thing) I’ll be declared President for the next 4 year”. I’m boiling down the main message of the speech. Not asking for violence, but rather celebration of a historical spectacle.
And yet, totally defiant as to the Constitutional process for determining the President — a brazen violation of Constitutional Oath, and reckless desecration of democratic control over government leadership through voting. A repugnant, fantasy-driven miscalculation of how things work, and have worked since the corrupt machinations following the 1876 election. A national disgrace on the world stage.
Both paragraphs are true. However, since it serves neither Trump’s following, not his adversaries, this realistic narrative of Jan 6th is simply NOT TOLD. Only us independents can afford to be candid and honest about it.
And yet, despite how highly you think of your interpretation of Jan 6, nothing you wrote changes the fact that the BBC removed important context to change, distort and misrepresent what Trump actually said.
An excellent movie that explores this legal scenario is “Absence of Malice”, starring Paul Newman and Sally Field. In that story, a newspaper reporter chasing a scoop is manipulated by an overeager prosecutor into disclosing details that hurt an unrelated third party. Has the paper shown an absence of malice? Highly recommended. If you’ve never seen Sally Fields in a serious role, she’s a revelation.
In my opinion Trump is trying to bring into the public view what some or most of the media companies are doing. They are presenting their personal political view instead of just the facts. Perhaps they need the sensationalism, or the need to feel a part of the anti movement, or media group think. What ever it is it is meant to distort and convince people that their view is correct and he is vile, abusive, sexist, white nationalist and a predator. As long as people support these stations and their advertisers they will continue with this type of action. Perhaps like with NPR and PBS with funding revoked they will start to present the news as it is or fade into non existence.
If Trump were able to present truthful recitations of factual information, without self-serving spin, without defaming others — he would make a sympathetic plaintiff for someone being defamed. But, he himself is a shameless deceitful infowarrior and serial defamer. The wrongheaded Fitzgerald SCOTUS precedent allows him free reign to lie and defame without being sued.
The facts of Jan 6th are that Trump, Giuliani and Eastman tried to wage a peaceful, lawyerly coup — they thought of the Constitution was an artifact of history to be gamed, rather than an agreement among all to operate within a set of established rules. Mike Pence thwarted their plot, and the crowd sent to the Capitol to witness a soft coup went ballistic upon Trump tweeting “Mike Pence betrayed us”.
Isn’t that a compelling enough narrative — enough drama for a BBC documentary? Why feel the need to deviate from it to embellish the narrative? It’s beneath the BBC to do that.
I’m therefore in favor of Trump suing the BBC, but also want Fitzgerald overturned, so any President who tries to dupe the American public can be sued on the spot. Enough infowarfare…it’s destroying our trust in one another.
Your distillation of Jan. 6th and Trump’s role are quite accurate, but we (independents) should also acknowledge that in Dec. 2016, progressives immediately undertook nationwide means to counter a Trump re-election in 2020. The various coordinated CoVid emergency election responses highly favored the Dem candidate for 2020 paired with; “freest and fairest election ever” nonsense spouted nonstop by Trump-hating media (to this very day), along with many credible reports of ballot and counting shenanigans, the 3 a.m. count spike for Biden in key precincts in swing states, and every single swing state then going to Biden with no serious judicial recourse that could possibly dare challenge state certifications gave us an uncontestable result that tasted a lot like a shit sandwich. Trump’s 2020 reelection team fumbled the ball inside the 10 yard line for sure and allowed for an unchallenged, slick, crafty group of well-funded and highly intelligent “resisters” to check mate him, even with Joe Biden secreted in his basement. Rather than obligingly step into the Jan. 6th rally-protest-riot-insurrection trap that was only too easily set for him and his crack(pot) Legal Team, he should have humbly explained that the results produced by the selectively rigged systems, no matter how unjust and dubious, were not going to be reviewed by our courts, and that our democracy at time rewards the lesser candidate–“best of luck to Joe Biden, and i hope he doesn’t F it up”. Had Trump eked out a 3 elector win, we can be almost certain that Leftists, with Dem. officials smiling, would have engaged in a mostly peaceful 2020-style protest of their own at the Capital, with far more damaging results.
To: longgreyhair: at 7:58 AM
Good Points. I feel the Networks push HUMILIATION.
There are a group of people (an audience of) that their motivation (modus) is Humiliation. They buy into the product and recapitulate it in their Own lives.
They just want to humiliate people through berating the Subject (Person of Target). The Aggressors behavior is being reinforced by Humiliation Influencers, the like of: Rachel Maddow, Jake Tapper and Dana Bash, Fareed Zakaria, Willie Geist, Kristen Welker, Margaret Brennan, George Stephanopoulos, Lawrence O’Donnell, Stephanie Ruhle, Al Sharpton, Nicolle Wallace, Chris Hayes, Jonathan Capehart, Chris Matthews, … You get the Picture – Talking Heads of Humiliation.
These are the Agent Provocateurs delivering the message of Humiliation by grooming and conditioning the Audience.
The ‘Age of Rage’ -JT is fueled by Humiliation, in that the power to Humiliate is employed to push People (Opponents) into submission, retreat, or surrender (The rewards of the Persecutor).
It’s permeated everything. The Modus is to deliver Humiliating Defeat, deliver a crushing Defeat, as in:
Football/Sports
Political Battles
Ethnic Conflicts
Proclivity vs Proclivity
[Proclivity Wars]
So the Audience is vindicated (conditioned) and feels ‘It’s OK’ to Humiliate others to have it your own way.
It’s not healthy for the Nation or the World.
The Network platforms of Humiliation Influencers are there to Raising an Army of Covert Narcissist.
(i.e.: Rachel Maddow and her Army of Covert Narcissist, etc).
Covert Narcissist come in all proclivities; White Black, Hispanic, Asian, LGBTQ, Blog Trolls …
There hours of YouTube videos on how to defend your life from them:
How Narcissists Use Humiliation And How You Can Respond
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nnqBlzpb1U
(!) How social media revolutionized narcissistic supply
The BBC can’t afford the public battle. Having the issue constantly in the public eye further endangers their already embattled licensing fees. Their credibility is on the line so the sooner they settle, the safer their public funding will be.
That’s exactly what Turley wrote.
I think that deep analysis of this move is likely to be misleading. Trump is justifiably using the lawsuit to threaten BBC, and thereby intimidate them into more “accurate” reporting. If he makes a few bucks via settlement in the process, so much the better. Of course, being Donald Trump, he equates “accurate” with “favorable”, but in this example, he would be correct.
And Trump’s lawyers told you that?
Its defamation not a seditious act. It is a tort. Not a criminal act. That BBC video was a simple cut-n-paste job that mgmt. ordered. They are employees of the BBC, not J6 Comm. Which has no bearing on this case.
Maslow needs? WTF?
A trial would allow the Trump team to review the operations of the January 6th committee as possibly influenced by the BBC report, and could review the inadequate preparation for a possible problem. The Trump team would of course review all national commentary based on the BBC report. The trial would consume months and months of testimony, ripping off barely formed scabs. So, we could take a Maslow “needs” approach by asking
a. Does Trump need this?
b. Can the Dems be damaged?
c. Does the country (either of them) need this?
maslow? You are so far off base that it makes me think you don’t have 2 feet on the ground. Crazy comment.
A trial would allow the Trump team to review the operations of the January 6th committee as possibly influenced by the BBC report,
Huh? How is that even possible? How on earth could the J6 committee, which operated 2021-2022, possibly have been influenced by a BBC fakumentary in 2024?!