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.
pbinca says Trump plotted with Eastman, Giuliani, Bannon, Meadows, Powell and dozens of others to pull off a peaceful coup in the Joint Session, under the hand of Mike Pence.
Your inner, lying California police state fascist Democrat is strong in you today, pbinca. As when you posted complaining about Trump’s “big lie” – when he said the REAL big lie which was YOUR party’s “Russia Dossier” was a witch hunt.
And a few weeks ago you were demanding young adults have their Second Amendment rights stripped from them until they had served an apprenticeship with a “mature adult” Democrat before being given their Second Amendment rights.
The real plot is disgusting, police state fascist Democrats like you, lying in attempts to rewrite history to criminalize those who stand in your way.
Does this constitute a substantive rebuttal, or is it merely a hysterical ad hominem characteristic of a narcissistic diatribe? Does this not violate the Turley Blog Civility Rule?
“The lady doth protest too much, methinks,” William Shakespeare.
Actually the facts constitute a rebutal.
Even the facts of the claim constitute a rebutal.
Trying to get congress to refuse to certify the 2020 election is called Politics.
The allegation was this coup was peaceful – if it was peaceful it was not a coup.
So long as congress makes its choices absent the threat of force, trying to persuade them to make a choice some people do not like is perfectly legal .
New York Times v. Sullivan has been a disaster. It has encouraged a climate of spin and outright lies. In my opinion, the BBC edit was clearly reckless disregard in splicing snippits 56 minutes apart. Unless, the BBC explicitly identified it as “opinion” then it ought to be liable. A few more lawsuits and maybe the vaunted free press will be more careful.
Interesting piece. I note that you didn’t address the matter of jurisdiction, with many lawyers saying that Trump won’t get it, as the documentary was never shown in the U.S.
That aside, as a UK viewer, I did find the bias of the documentary rather flabbergasting. In his letter to the BBC, Brito wrote that under Florida law, “Statements are defamatory if ‘the defendant juxtaposes a series of facts so as to imply a defamatory connection between them, or creates a defamatory implication by omitting facts.'” The most important, key fact that the BBC seemed to deliberately leave out – and still hasn’t reported to this day – is that Trump requested National Guard troops to secure the Capitol days before J6. BBC journalists still, even now, call January 6th Trump’s ‘coup’ or ‘insurrection,’ without wanting to tell anyone about this. It’s all rather absurd.
Dear Prof Turley,
Pure political theater. The BBC doesn’t have $5 billion. .. all their money is tied up in promoting Ukraine corruption.
Much like Jan. 6 was political theater.
The purpose and intent (i.e. the ‘grab’) of Trump’s rally was to ‘Stop The Steal’. .. I have detailed files.
[to recap: Three weeks before the ‘transfer of power’, the sitting president decided to hold a public rally to protest the certification of the theft.]
Of course, the ‘Feds’ were all over the ‘Stop the Steal’ rally. Imho, it would have been a dereliction of duty not to! .. theft of elections could be a serious problem.
Of course, the Democrats in congress, true to form after a hastily failed 2nd impeachment, went after grandma,/grandpa, the Q-non Shaman and other mentally disturbed people stupid enough to attend such a ‘peaceful’ hootenanny. .. the rest were all Fed agents and other various provocateurs.
[note. this is all classified far above your level.]
‘If you can’t impeach Trump then you sure can’t impeach Democrats’ seems to be a workable formula that keeps both parties in symbiotic perpetual power no matter what happens, forever .. . and forever is a long time.
*also, fyi, ‘Tariffs’ should be a product/calculation of free market ‘supply & demand’ between nation-states .. . not instruments of war
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/fM7cMyL-12E
dgsnowden
War is politics by other means
Clauswitz.
Regardless tariffs are not instruments of war.
They are many things – but that is not one of them.
They are instruments of foreign policy. of economic policy, of tax policy.
In a perfect world they should not exist – but we do not live in a perfect world.
A truly free market would have Zero Tariffs – Governments impose tariffs for a variet of reasons.
Markers don’t
OT
BBC “Nothing Burger” against Bannon as yet more insidious deception!
______________________________________________________________________________
“In November 2018, Steve Bannon, formerly Donald Trump’s chief strategist, was in the UK preparing for a speech at the Oxford Union. The event was interrupted by hundreds of protesters and Bannon, who was due to board a flight that night, told Jeffrey Epstein in an email: “Protesters slowed down speech don’t think I can make the flight we r enroute to heathrow”. Epstein replied: “There. Is a gulf air that leaves at 950 with a stop in Bahrain”. Bannon replied: “U r an amazing assistant”.”
– BBC, 19 Hours Ago
It’s a common tactic for Trump haters. Misrepresent and edit the comments to reshape it into the desired negative narrative, get caught, fire or have the perpetrators resign, not apologize and pretend the heinous attack did not happen attributing it as a mistake. They always think that the person will attack. They are wrong and will probably pay some type of compensation.
Didn’t read most of today’s serving of slop because it’s just more of the same MAGA-media purchased propaganda. How about discussing this, Turley: 8 Republican Senators slipped a provision in the bill to reopen the the government that took away prosecutorial immunity and paves the way for them to sue for millions over the DOJ obtaining phone records in the wake of January 6th–which was done to investigate the extent of involvement of Republicans in the insurrection? The records obtained contained no contents of calls–just a listing of dates and times of numbers called and received, as part of the investigation into the unprecedented attack on the Capitol at the instigation of Trump when he lost in 2020. Lindsey Graham arrogantly announced that he wouldn’t even take $1 million of our taxpayer dollars to settle what he claims to be the affront to his whatever. And, the person who is in a position to award our taxpayer dollars is none other than Bottle Blondie herself. Just part of Trump’s pathetic effort to rewrite history and victimize himself and Republicans. Blondie is “investigating” Hillary Clinton, Brenner and others at Trump’s direction, too.
How about this tidbit of news, Turley– as a diversion away from the trove of Epstein emails that prove that he “knows about the girls”, Trump commanded Bottle Blondie to go after Democrats he claimed were involved in the Epstein scandal–and she agreed! None of this manipulation of the DOJ for political purposes was conducted in secret or behind closed doors—it’s all out in public. Trump and Republicans always claimed that Biden and Democrats were controlling the DOJ when they went after him for instigating the insurrection and for his theft of classified documents–all without anything resembling evidence, but now, there IS evidence that this is exactly what Trump is doing–and Blondie is complicit. She needs to lose her law license.
ABA Rule 3.8, entitled “Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor”, provides, in relevant part:
The prosecutor in a criminal case shall:
(a) refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause;
Donald Trump’s desire for revenge because he lost in 2020 and his need to divert attention away from his involvement in a child sex scandal do not constitute “probable cause”.
Yet you keep coming back. Just maybe the issue is you?
Sour grapes can make you nasty. Try to calm down.
That sounds like Nutchachacha!
Anon 12:13p You have displayed the harms of TDS to all-new levels. Seriously, your hateful obsession with President Trump is clinically diagnosable.
10ffgrid, followers of David Koresh and Jim Jones made similar defenses as you do of Trump.
My advice to you is, avoid the Drink-Ade.
Jim Jones was backed and loved by the dem-o-rat party of Calif.
Learn some history.
I didn’t read most of today’s serving of slop because it’s just more of the same MAGA-media purchased propaganda.
Of course you didn’t – you came here to post more Democrat copy ‘n paste lies and BBBBUUUTTT…. MUH TRUMP!!!!. Which is why you will drop your shyte here and then swiftly disappear.
Republican Senators slipped a provision in the bill to reopen the the government that took away prosecutorial immunity and paves the way for them to sue for millions over the DOJ obtaining phone records in the wake of January 6th
Yes… it is still a felony in the USA for real prosecutors – as well as illegitimate prosecutors as Jack Smith was when he and Judge Boasberg did that – to deprive Americans of their civil rights by color of law. Over 430 Americans in all were deprived by Smith, Garland and Wray of their 1st and 4th Amendment rights. Not just senators and their staff, but also journalists, former Attorney Generals, donors, and anyone who looked like a useful target.
Among those he deprived of their rights was a group that didn’t even EXIST when the three hour long J6 riot occurred. Jack Smith attempted Comey’s “Russia Dossier” felonies all over again.
Those of you who were involved in this really should already be in prison. But unfortunately, as it’s Washington DC, you’re confident that none of you will see prison. Just as you’re confident Professor Turley won’t excoriate his fellow Democrat bar association members who did this.
But your mask is gone – just like you’re going to disappear after defecating all over this blog once again.
There was probable cause for the investigation into an attack upon the Legislative branch of the government.
Just because a group did not exist at some time, doesn’t mean it’s not worth investigating if it is formed up of members who were part of a major frontal attack on the election process after that attack. Clearly they had something in common to form the group and they had the Jan 6th attack in common as well; this is not coincidence.
“There was probable cause for the investigation into an attack upon the Legislative branch of the government.”
Probably not, but that is not relevant regardless,
There is absolutely no probable cause that those whose records were illegally obtained committed any crime.
That is the reuqirement of the 4th amendment. When those in govenrment violate peoples constitutional rights – that is a CRIME.
“Just because a group did not exist at some time, doesn’t mean it’s not worth investigating if it is formed up of members who were part of a major frontal attack on the election process after that attack. Clearly they had something in common to form the group and they had the Jan 6th attack in common as well; this is not coincidence.”
Whether you think something is worth investigating is not the standard in the constitution.
Jack Smith was illegally appointed SC in a stupid own goal by Garland. All Garland had to do was appoint an existing US Attorney as SC and he would have avoided the ilegalatity fo appoint Smith.
But honestly Smith’s appointment was a Gift to Trump. Smith has a long long long history of being a disaster – and he proved to be exactly that.
Regardless, the SC was tasked with a specific investigation – not anything he wanted to investigate.
Haven’t we had enugh of left wing nut unfounded abuse of power investigations ?
John.
Remember when O-dumber used the power of government (IRS) to suppress the free speech of the Tea Party.
These people were threaten over and over.
ATS – the records were obtained ILLEGALLY – ther are numerous supreme court cases on this.
You can sometimes learn MORE from the metadata of a call than the contents of the call
Regardless, it was an abuse of power under color of law and there should be consequences.
I think AI is going to change this. AI can create compelling false evidence, and it will become increasingly costly to debunk. The result is that media can frame someone so convincingly that a suspect becomes guilty until proven innocent.
Add to that, highly politicized venues where conservatives can be indicted (and convicted!) on even flimsy evidence. That’s already huge.
If we don’t want to resort to censorship as a solution (I don’t), we’ll have to substantially increase the penalties and liabilities for creating or passing “manufactured” evidence, and some regulation may be required. For instance, digital tags could be required on products of AI so that the absence of a tag can be taken as evidence of malice. Courts may need to hold news outlets to a new legal standard for fact checking.
New York Times v. Sullivan will need significant adjustment to keep up with technology (and woke juries). Trump is already working on that with his lawsuits.
“I think AI is going to change this. AI can create compelling false evidence, and it will become increasingly costly to debunk. The result is that media can frame someone so convincingly that a suspect becomes guilty until proven innocent.”
Yes, but that can cut both ways. What happens when there are contradictory competing AI narratives? You may think that the one that is being advanced by MSM/Deep State interests will automatically prevail, and you may be correct. OTOH, I am highly uncertain that assumptions about identification of AI narratives with one or the other side will remain reliable once this kind of thing begins. Total chaos in dissemination of “news” may result. That in turn might delegitimize general purpose, internet-slop-trained, chat-bot style AI (as I believe it deserves). In any event, this should prove interesting…
I get your concern. The false flags, etc. could also cause people to discount even what’s true. Interesting times indeed.
The first Trump administration introduced the concept of “alternative facts.” The goal was to convince Trump’s followers to doubt everything except what Trump said, even if he had previously said something contradictory. If it is inflamatory, it was a joke. If it was demented, Trump did not mean it. If it was proved incorrect it was that he was talking of something else. Whatever it was, it’s someone else’s fault.
The first Trump administration attempted to return the Media to ACTUAL facts.
They still haven’t gotten how important being truthful is.
What is it that the media was right about ?
Do I need to Insert the really really long list of media lies over the past decade ?
The correct name for the first Trump administrations “Alternate facts” is “The Truth”
As opposed to the Democrats press secretary telling us everyday how competent Biden was.
Sharp as a tack
Diogenes, what happens when we can no longer trust our eyes and ears because AI makes it so inexpensive to produce a convincing lie? When that happens, we lose all the tools we’ve relied on for more than a century. How did people determine the truth before cameras, recordings, and images existed at all? They turned to the only thing that couldn’t be forged: a man’s reputation and character.
When evidence is cheap and unreliable, we resort to reputation and character.
OT
The dumbocrats don’t say, “Sorry, we were wrong to perpetrate lawfare, and we will stop.”
The dumbocrats say, “Trump is reasonably retaliating for our initial lawfare, and so when we get back into office, we will take lawfare NUCLEAR, and we will pack the court!”
The dumbocrats are the very epitome of statesmen and true patriots of the Constitution and America.
When your enemy is making a mistake – do not interfere.
You are wrong on this one, Jonathan, which is rare for you. To omit Trump’s statements about protesting peacefully, changes everything. Doing so makes his speech an incitement. Given the hatred for Trump expressed most viciously by most journalists and political talking heads, editing his words to make it appear he was an out-of-control dictator, refusing to honor the constitution, was indeed a criminal act, a purposeful, directed, malicious lie feeding the inflammatory speech intended to destroy him and his presidency. That, my friend, is traitorous.
If the only words used were about protesting peacefully, of writing to their representatives, of leaving messages with their offices, of waving banners that would be the truth. But the truth is that they were gathered for a physical confrontation and Trump said to “Fight Like Hell or You Won’t Have A Country Anymore.” and they went and shoved through barricades, beat police, shattered windows, broke down office doors, and carried off the contents as trophies.
None of that was peaceful.
No, they were gathered to raise their voices and petition congress to refuse to certify the election.
The claim that MAGA started the violence has been effectively dead for 3 years since the video of the CP lobbing Tear Gas into a peaceful crowd and starting the violence was made public – but there has been even more damning evidence that the violence was not started by MAGA since.
John Say,
I saw the crowd pushing past police lines and toppling barriers long before there was any tear gas.
Stop lying.
Peaceful crowds do not show up with individuals carrying dozens of plastic handcuffs. They do not shatter windows because of tear gas.
Ignoring the clear videos of the entire process isn’t a good look for your argument.
Trump waited for hours before making an address – he wanted to see if it would succeed and only called off his attack squad when it was clear that VP Pence would not cave.
I am not sure that as Panorama edited the speech that it constitutted incitement. The standard for incitement is VERY HIGH.
But that just points out how deceptive the editing was. Witht eh other material the speech was OBVIOUSLY not incitement.
Don’t you know. March peacefully to the Capitol was just a code word to the proud boys.
When Pelosi admitted that it was our fault she was only using the code words to tell her media friends that it was their fault because they didn’t sound the alarm loud enough to let the nation know that the proud boys would be there fomenting the violence. The intelligence community should have known that “March Peacefully” was just a code word and they should have been more prepared.
Conspiracy theories are so much fun and they know that the hounds will be there to just lap up their morning repast. Repast: a meal served after a funeral service.
“It will be able to claim that it used clips that reflected what it viewed as the thrust of the speech.”
That generous interpretation of “viewpoint” should be reserved to protect only those speaking out based on incomplete or misleading information, such as, in this case, the duped viewers of the BBC. Unless the courts agree to allow juries to form their views without any regard for the evidence presented, the BBC should be roasted.
Oh, OK, the edit just accidently put Trump in the worst possible light.
One of the facts left out here is that this BBC film was presented as a “documentary.” -By a national public broadcaster, no less.
Such designation is supposed to invoke additional journalistic elements of ethical standards of fairness and balance with its in-depth investigation and coverage of an issue/event/topic. This is true whether or not any bias or slant reaches the level of actionable or culpable conduct.
As members of the general public, we can expect slanted political coverage from cable networks like CNN, MSNBC, FOX, et. al. We have LEARNED to expect slanted and intentionally selective facts/selective stories from legacy media/MSM like NBC and ABC networks.
But we deservedly expect MUCH higher standards from NATIONAL PUBLIC BROADCASTERS like NPR and BBC, (which is the United Kingdom’s national public service broadcaster, equivalent to NPR (until the recent severance in the U.S.). The gradual decline of objective “documentary” coverage into bias-laden presentations has blurred the distinction and left the general public wary of ALL sources, which is really a frightening thing in the event of any true crisis.
Who would we trust?
(I should mention that the good professor himself states in his very first sentence that this involves “the investigative documentary series Panorama.” I was referring to the discussions/comments herein.)
Lin, when you speak of trusting the media that dog is dead. What killed the poor beast? The media telling us that Covid was not released from a Chinese lab. A not to far second place was the media glowingly showing Pelosi striding through China town to prove that Trump is a xenophobe. Who do we trust is a perfect ending question to your comment. The boot polish is still wet upon the lips of NPR, PBS and The BBC. Responsible to tell the truth never had a chance.
Thinker: Your point is well taken.
Although not limited to “documentary” status, there is the objective fact that the Great Barrington Declaration (signed by THOUSANDS of physicians and scientists objecting to strict COVID lockdowns), received significantly, indeed MASSIVELY-less media coverage (both in documentary and national news) than all the media attention given to the mere 50 former senior intelligence officials in an open letter declaring that Hunter Biden’s laptop “has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.”
Think, you are right but you could have added the Russia Hoax, the laptop, Biden is sharp as a tack, Kamala is pure joy, GW Bush’s fake documents by Dan Rather and the 51 Intelligence officers.
What difference does it make where Covid came from when a President told everyone that it wasn’t a problem? That Xi was doing a great job handling Covid?
Oh, by the way, Trump wanted only Chinese people to be excluded from coming to the US when the majority were Americans who caught it from Europeans who had gone to China for vacations and brought it back to Europe.
Claiming that only Chinese people could possibly carry the virus is the racist and xenophobic part.
On the other hand, Trump claimed the election of 2016 was fraudulent. That is, until he won. Then the election was fine.
Truth never had a chance.
That is false. The ban was on all travel directly from China.
And the fact is that there was massive fraud in the 2016 election; just not quite enough to drag Clinton over the finish line, so in 2020 they stepped up the fraud machine.
Milhouse,
First, there was not massive fraud in the 2016 election. Trump had 4 years in his first term to find it and nothing was uncovered. There is no manner in which millions of votes necessary to change the outcome of an election can escape notice. Trump told the same lie about not getting TV awards for Mark Burnett’s show that he acted in.
https://time.com/4537809/donald-trump-emmy-awards-debate/
Even when he wasn’t on the ticket:
“Trump also previously called for the American people, presumably those who didn’t vote for Obama, to “fight like hell and stop this great and disgusting injustice,” because “the world is laughing at us.””
In the 2016 primaries
“When he ran to become the Republican Party nominee in 2016, he attempted to cast doubt on the election process. Trump said he did not lose the Iowa caucuses in 2016 to then candidate Sen. Ted Cruz, because he “stole it.””
For 2020:
“… his rally on Aug. 17 in Oshkosh, Wisconsin — when he famously said, “The only way we’re going to lose this election is if the election is rigged””
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-longstanding-history-calling-elections-rigged-doesnt-results/story?id=74126926
Second, it was TRUMP’s claim: “We would’ve had thousands of people additionally die if we let people come in from heavily infected China. But we stopped it. We did a travel ban in January. … By closing up, we saved millions, potentially millions of lives.” — Rose Garden remarks Tuesday.
In practice:
“The U.S. restrictions that took effect Feb. 2 continued to allow travel to the U.S. from China’s Hong Kong and Macao territories over the past five months. The Associated Press reported that more than 8,000 Chinese and foreign nationals based in those territories entered the U.S. in the first three months after the travel restrictions were imposed.
Additionally, more than 27,000 Americans returned from mainland China in the first month after the restrictions took effect. U.S. officials lost track of more than 1,600 of them who were supposed to be monitored for virus exposure.”
apnews.com/article/asia-pacific-anthony-fauci-pandemics-politics-ap-fact-check-d227b34b168e576bf5068b92a03c003d
So while he was stirring up xenophobic reactions to Chinese Americans he was letting people in without concern if they were infected. Why? Because the major entry points to the US are New York City and Los Angeles, both in heavily Democrat leaning states. The thought that those who voted against him would suffer or die seemed the clear motivation. It took a while to get to the Red states.
He is a petty, vindictive, vengeful little man.
There is fraud in all elections. Even Democrats have been claiming as much for decades.
The question is not whether there is election fraud – those on the left who are only since Trump alleged it in 2020 are now lying about election fraud.
The question is not whether there is fraud, but how large is that fraud and how well organized it is.
In a recent election in Nebraska a winning candidate in a local election was found to have voted for himself atleast 5 times.
Worse still turns out he was not a citizen and ineligable to vote at all. Worse still, he has bee in the US for ecades and easily could have become a citizen but did not.
There are myriads of other instance of fraud found all the time – if you bothered to pay attention.
Further we can know that because most of that fraud is only caught by accident – there are very few serious investigations of fraud,
that there ust be significantly more fraud that we have not found.
I would also note that until more recently the fraud we have seen was with in person voting, which is the hardest fraud to commit and the easiest to catch.
But since 2020 we have been seeing increasing “mailin” election fraud – that should not surprise anyone with a brain. Anytime ballots leave the control of election officials the oportunities for fraud increase exponentially and the difficulty of catching the fraudsters descreases exponentially.
That is why since late in the 19th century when Fraud in the US (and elsewhere) was rampant 38 US states have had constitutional amendments REQUIRING secret ballot or austrailian elections.
There are 4 requirements for a secret ballot
1) an official ballot being printed at public expense,
2) on which the names of the nominated candidates of all parties and all proposals appear,
3) being distributed only at the polling place and
4) being marked in secret.
Nearly all US states have laws or state constitutional amendments requiring that.
Pretty much every developed nation and nearly all undeveloped nation votes that way today.
Except the US since Covid. Even Europeans voted in person during Covid.
Those of you on the left do not grasp how important election integrity is.
It is not about who wins or loses in the election. It is about the ability of people to trust the process.
The purpose of elections is to establish trust that those we elected to govern us were actually chosen by us.
We need not like the choice others made. But we need to walk away from an election loss knowing that
the election was honest and that if we lost – we would have won had we persuaded more voters.
This is critical.
The left misrepresents January 6th.
But they do sort of get one thing right.
When people can not trust the outcome of an election – then as the declaration of independence states it is their right to alter or abolish the govenrment – by FORCE if necescary.
Each political party today accuses the other of political violence pretending they are pure and openly stating that political violence is beyond the pale.
But this country was born of political violence.
The declaration of independence is intentionally a “legal” argument that political violence can be justified.
It lays out the requirements for justifiable political violence.
While it does not explicitly cite elections, the declaration of indepence makes clear that legitimate government REQUIRES the consent of the governed.
That does not mean we must assent to every law, or like the outcome of every election.
But it does mean that we must be able to trust the process.
And today we can not.
“What difference does it make where Covid came from”
A great deal of difference.
What covid proved was that there is not even close to sufficient precautions being taken is dangerous scientific research.
Humans have had the ability to wipe ourselves off the face of the earth for most of my lifetime.
But it has become ever easier with each decade. Further now rather than intentional global nuclear war we face the prospects of wiping out humanity by well intentioned accident.
So yes it matters a great deal where it came from.
If we wish to learn anything and avoid the same mistakes in the future we must know the who, what when where how and why.
“when a President told everyone that it wasn’t a problem? That Xi was doing a great job handling Covid?”
But that is not What Trump said – that was actually said by Pelosi earily on when Trump shut down travel from china.
“Oh, by the way, Trump wanted only Chinese people to be excluded from coming to the US”
Correct – and we are increasingly certain that the earliest cases arrived in the US in late 2019 and came from CHINA.
“when the majority were Americans who caught it from Europeans who had gone to China for vacations and brought it back to Europe.”
Also correct.
Because the Chinese were lying to the world about Covid – it is now near certain that Covid was present in China in either late September or Early October 2019 – and the Chinese KNEW it, but that WHO and CDC and all the people in public health either did NOT know, or were hiding their knowledge in the hope that China would gain control of Covid, the result is that Covid had already spread well beyond China before any nation had the chance to act.
This is again why we need to know everything possible about how Covid came about and how it was spread – and who and what was to blame.
“Claiming that only Chinese people could possibly carry the virus is the racist and xenophobic part.”
No one did that.
“On the other hand, Trump claimed the election of 2016 was fraudulent. That is, until he won. Then the election was fine.”
Almost certainly there was fraud in 2016.
Regardless. Trump’s pre-election position on the 2016 and later 2020 election were strategic – and NEITHER political part should EVER promise to blanket accept the outcome of ANY election.
A major part of what prevents election fraud is the likelyhood that the losing candidate will challenge the elction.
Democrats have challenged in congress the election of every republican president in my lifetime – and they should be able to do so.
In 1876 Congress refused to certify a presidential election because of fraud, with the result being the other candidate became president.
In 1960 Vice President Richard Nixon certified the ALTERNATE electors from Hawaii – who voted for Kennedy rather than the official state certified electors who had voted for him.
“Truth never had a chance.”
Correct – we will never be able to get to the truth when one political party embraces censorship
We deserve a much better President. Or, on second thought, the US deserves to be as badly damaged as possible for thinking the magical con man would make America great again. Similar thing to what Hitler said of Germany in his rise to power, and I desperately hope the US is left in ruins the way Germany was. I also hope we can do it without murdering millions of people; just the old fashioned way, by stealing the money from the middle and lower class, leaving them angry and heavily armed and with a straightforward goal.
To paraphrase Winston Churchill – Trump is the worst possible president, except all the others.
I am libertarain – I did not vote for him.
But if you had put a gun to my head and said you can only choose between Trump and the democrat,
Hands down Trump is the lessor of two evils.
I have not seen either party run a candidate that would make a good president in my liftime.
With all his problems and there are many – Trump is still the best president in the 21st century – that is a low bar.
The other choices are Bush, Obama, and Biden. Biden is likely to replace James Buchannon as the worst president in US history – certainly he should. Obama is not far behind.
We just had the longest govenrment shutdown in US history over the disaster that is US healthcare – something that Democrats purportedly Fixed with Obamacare a decade ago.
Trump doesn’t give a damn about the money. He just wants to keep the bias of the media front and center in the news. Unlike in the Biden administration that brainstormed to get their talking points out Trump is a one man media message genius. Think serving hamburgers at McDonalds. Driving a garbage truck. Sombreros on Schumer and Jeffries. It drives the Democratic Socialist crazy and opens the eyes of the public to their mania. The fancy pants have been outsmarted again. Me be laughing out loud.
Thinkitthrough,
Trump cares only about money and being talked about. It’s why he wants his face on US coinage, he has Trump digital coins to scam the weak and act as a back-door bribe from the wealthy, sells Trump watches, and is adding gold painted crap from Home Depot on every available surface of the White House.
It doesn’t make any Democrat crazy to see the stupid stunts that he does. He didn’t serve hamburgers to anyone, only sat behind the wheel of a stationary truck that didn’t move because the biggest vehicle he can drive is a golf cart, did an elementary school paste-up of a picture (actually, he doesn’t know the “cyber”, so he had someone else do that for him.)
What is bothersome is he is selling out the US to billionaires, both foreign and domestic, and working very hard to destroy the middle class to accomplish it.
Just laughing out loud is a sign of severe mental illness. Have that looked at.
Of COURSE there was “actual malice” and “intent” in the BBC editing of Trump’s speech.
No “reasonable person” (which used to be the legal standard) could ever argue otherwise.
Look at where the U.K. has gone in recent years. It’s all Far Left, open border, no guns, restricted speech garbage.
Sadly, choosing a court location is all politics these days, so while Trump might not get a unanimous jury to agree due to one partisan hack, at least the BBC will have to spend thousands, if not millions of dollars, either defending it or settling it.
Either way, the humiliating headlines and costs to British taxpayers will be worth it, and maybe even inspire a return to a reasonable government in the U.K.
And another bonus will be reminding the public of how the Democrat + RINO J6 committee did exactly the same thing to Trump, with Pelosi, Biden and Schumer cheering them on, knowing it was all done with “actual malice”.
C.J.:
“… No “reasonable person” (which used to be the legal standard) …”
I like that! 👍👍
Judge Easterbrook is a heavy hitter, not just in the 7th Circuit, but in the entire federal appellate system.
Good. The BBC will find all sort of good stuff during discovery. Trump will sorely lose this and the BBC wants nothing from Trump so they can’t bribe their way out of it.
Also the BBC did air what Trump actually said. They cut out some parts, but the overall theme and tone was correctly portrayed. Trump did tell his people to be violent.
That would be a lie and you know it
Anon 10:35a You have absolutely nothing factual to back that willful lie.
Hey way to commit defamation yourself.
He did? Would you like to cite to your support for that?
Care to explain why the top two execs at the BBC resigned?
If Trump had actually said what BBC claimed in exactly the way BBC claimed it would STILL fall far short of the legal requirements for incitement. It would also fall short of what ordinary democrats say on a daily basis.
There was no incitement to violence – there was not even anything close.
The context provided by the rest of his speech is incredibly important.
Because it makes it Crystal Clear what Trump intended.
What he wanted was a crowd outside the Capitol to give Republicans senators and representatives inside he capital enough backbone to refuse to certify the election.
^ only in tour dreams, low IQ anonymous troll ^
In a defamation lawsuit the primary target of discovery is the defendant – in this case the BBC – not the plaintiff.
Regardless, the left and the media have been investigating Trump for nearly a decade.
Do you really expect that now that Trump has sued the BBC you will finally get the smoking gun that no one has found ?
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome.
It was trivial to gauge that the probability of Trump “colluding with Russia” to rig the 2016 election was less than zero.
You have to buy all kinds of stupid assumptions to beleive that claim.
But after multiple Special Counsels all the media in the world have investigated all of this – to STILL beleive something with less than zero probability of being true is batschiff crazy.
I guess you still beleive there is a pee tape ?
Hey you seniors who are overweight. The Trump administration who supposedly is going to take your health care away has made a deal with the drug companies to lower the price of GP-1 drugs. Only the wealthy have been able to afford these weight reducing drugs. Now the drugs are available for medicare and medicaid patients for a copay of $50 per month. Trump knows how to put a deal together and Biden didn’t have a clue. At least thirty million seniors suffer from the symptoms of obesity. Wouldn’t it be nice if the pain in your feet would go away? https://www.wsj.com/health/pharma/ozempic-glp1-weight-loss-mass-market-f70f8484?st=JT1gBk
“The Trump administration who supposedly is going to take your health care away has made a deal with the drug companies to lower the price of GP-1 drugs.”
Your point that lowering the price of those drugs is to Trump’s credit is well-taken. However, there are much better ways to lose weight for most seniors. I’m in my mid-70s and came up with a 6.6 AIC 12 months ago. Fortunately I was given the choice between drugs and a diet and exercise program. I chose the latter, stuck with the program, and got it down to 5.4 after a 40 lb. loss. I have friends on the drugs who have had serious side-effects. I believe that in general, if you have a health goal that can feasibly be achieved without pharmaceuticals, that is the way you should go.
Whether it is democrats or republicans – if you beleive that government interferance in the free market will make things better – Your fighting nature.
Price controls do not work.
Subsidies do not work
rationing does not work.
What works is free markets.
No product that is not heavily regulated costs more in real dollars a decade later.
That is the core to the famous Simon/Ehrlich bet.
Most products have a lower nominal price in other words their price is lower even without adjusting for inflation.
In 1983 when I got married I bought the top of the line amanna refridgerator. I managed to buy it wholesale, and I paid $1200 for it.
Today you can buy a far better fridge at any box store for 999 or less.
This is how free markets work.
Look arround – everything that government is involved in costs more – much more.
Everything it is not costs less.
Even Trump can not change the laws of economics.
Truly free markets work.
“. . . *the editing* of the speech was clearly misleading. The editors joined statements *separated by almost an hour* . . .” (emphases added)
I was a professional editor for decades.
That was not editing. That was *doctoring*. It was as dishonest and fraudulent as doctoring science experiments and loan applications.
Isn’t the truth of Jan 6th dramatic enough for a BBC documentary? Trump plotted with Eastman, Giuliani, Bannon, Meadows, Powell and dozens of others to pull off a peaceful coup in the Joint Session, under the hand of Mike Pence. This was a brazen, defiant GAMING of the Constitution’s process for Presidential selection. If not thwarted by Pence, it would have thrown the nation is a likely civil war and set back our political system by a century, such was the recklessness of Trump’s gambit.
Clearly, the plan was for a peaceful coup mounted from inside the Capitol by lawyers. There was no plan for violence on the part of the plotters. Why pretend there was? Why do we have to embellish the narrative? The truth is enough.
The Proud Boys were in contact with the White House in the days leading up to the march. The mob was part of the plan. Also they were not “gaming the Constitution” they were going to ignore and violate it.
Anonymous, you have written about the proud boys being in contact with the Whitehouse before and as usual you offer no proof of your assertion. You seem to think that just because you’ve got a conspiracy theory in your head that we should just take your word for it. We haven’t forgotten that you also were all in on the pee tape conspiracy. The sad part is that you have become an expert on so many things including things that are not true that are stored up in your brain that you keep at the ready to be used at a moments notice. One thing is for certain. You are as predictable as the sun coming up in the morning. Nuance is missing.
The PB were not in contact with the WH. That is just a fact.
But even if they were – that is not proof of anything.
If you have to speculate about what “contact” means – if you have to guess what was said, if you have to guess what was planned.
You do not have proof.
Democrats constantly pretend to be able to read everyone’s minds, and then claim their mind reading is evidence.
They were, huh? LOL
The Proud Boys were in contact with the White House in the days leading up to the march.
The Proud Boys were getting their instructions from FBI Headquarters – just like BLM and Antifa who assaulted the White House a few weeks before J6 also got their instructions from the FBI.
BTW, what’s the Proud Boys most grievous sin? Volunteering to tell violent raging communist Antifa attacking defenseless people that if they want to fight – they’ll be their huckleberry?
Or just not bending the knee to those other raging Democrats, the communist black racists in BLM?
pbinca says Trump plotted with Eastman, Giuliani, Bannon, Meadows, Powell and dozens of others to pull off a peaceful coup in the Joint Session, under the hand of Mike Pence.
Your inner, lying California police state fascist Democrat is strong in you today, pbinca. As when you posted complaining about Trump’s “big lie” – when he said the REAL big lie which was YOUR party’s “Russia Dossier” was a witch hunt.
And a few weeks ago you were demanding young adults have their Second Amendment rights stripped from them until they had served an apprenticeship with a “mature adult” Democrat before being given their Second Amendment rights.
The real plot is disgusting, police state fascists like you, wanting to rewrite history to criminalize those who stand in your way.
“Trump plotted with Eastman, Giuliani, Bannon, Meadows, Powell and dozens of others to pull off a peaceful coup in the Joint Session, under the hand of Mike Pence.”
If pbinca isn’t lying and deceiving, then she’s in hiding or denying after her previous attempts led to her falling flat on her fraudulent lying face.
“Trump plotted with Eastman, Giuliani, Bannon, Meadows, Powell and dozens of others to”
Persuade enough senators and representatives to refuse to certify the election
And that is perfectly legal – Democrats attempt it pretty much every time a republican is elected
Trump and his “conspirators” likely would have failed. But in 1876 Congress did reject the certified results because of allegations of wide spread fraud in several states.
“This was a brazen, defiant GAMING of the Constitution’s process for Presidential selection.”
I am not sure what that means. Regardless what was planned conformed with the constitution – which barely speaks to the process of congress certifying an election – EXCEPT that is clearly delegates the final decision on a presidential election to Congress.
Further while What Trump sought was within the rules congress set out for itself – as evidenced by Pelosi changing those rules in the hopes of preventing that in the future. A stupid hope, because each congress gets to make its own rules.
Democrats started the process of repealing the fillibuster – now it is half gone. Trump urged republicans to do so to end the shutdown – nothing in the constitution precluded Republicans from changing the rules. and ending the filibuster.
Nothing in the constitution prevents democrats from doing so should they ever regain control of the senate.
It is likely Trump would have failed in his efforts to get congress to refuse to certify.
Though there might have been more scrutiny of the election. Sen. Cruz was proposing a 10 day hiatus for certification and sending the national guard to count ballots by hand in the contested locations.
Regardless, what you call “gaming the system” is perfectly constitutional – democrats do it all the time.
“If not thwarted by Pence, it would have thrown the nation is a likely civil war”
ROFL
There is not going to be another Civil War – despite all the rants from both sides the US is not even close to a civil war.
Trump was highly unlikely to get Congress to change the outcome of the election – that has happend ONCE in us history and did NOT result in a civil war.
Regardless, the US has a long long history of violent political rhetoric and even political violence – and yet only one civil war.
I have no doubt the left would have responded to the highly unlikely possibility that the 2021 congress confirmed Trump as president with massive violence, but not likely much worse than after Rodney King or Geroge Floyd or in the summer of rage in the 60’s
It would not have been a civil war.
“and set back our political system by a century,”
Democrats have already set themselves back a decade.
It would be a very good thing if our political system was set back a century.
“Clearly, the plan was for a peaceful coup mounted from inside the Capitol by lawyers. ”
There is no such thing as a peaceful coup mounted by lawyers.
Congress has the final say on presidential elections. They are constrained only by the likelyhood of being thrown out of office in the next election. Trump has no more control over congressmen than Biden or Obama.
Right now the Republican congress is far more MAGA and beholding to Trump than in 2021 – and they refused to wipe out the filibuster for him.
Those on the left always presume that people – whether voters or elected officials or senators and representatives are totally entrhalled by their political leaders.
That is poppycock.
The GOP has plenty of internal divisions right now – and that is a good thing overall.
Democrats have fewer divisions – but they are much deeper and dangerous to the party.
Regardless the point is that Congress was going to do what it wanted on Jan 6, 2021.
Not what Trump or Eastman wanted.
Senators and representative acting on their own – based on THEIR understanding of the constitution and their role is NOT a coup of anykind.
It is what the constitution intended – whether you like the choice they make or not.
Further that is exactly what we want. It is the ability of congress to say NO to an election that is one of the last bulwarks against Tyranny and Fraud.
The world would have been better off if the Reichstag had sent Hitler packing but they did not.
Even today – the Senate republicans in particular have made it clear – Trump does not control them.
Republicans Senators share much common ground with Trump – that is to be expected they are all republicans.
But they are not rubber stamps for Trump either.
And that is exactly what we want. Too bad we see very little of that from democrats.
“There was no plan for violence on the part of the plotters. Why pretend there was? Why do we have to embellish the narrative? The truth is enough.”
Because without actual violence of CONSEQUENCE or a very real and immediate and explicit threat of political violence – there is no coup, just an outcome you do not like.
It is highly unlikely that Trump and his lawyers were getting what they wanted out of congress in 2021.
Though it is likely that the process of confirming Biden would have been rough and highlighted again the ugly nature of the 2020 election.
Regardless, even if it was 100% certain Trump would get what he wanted from congress – absent serious political violence of the threat of violence there is no coup. And the results are legitimate even if many of us do not like them.
While Coups usually invole the military they ALWAYS involve FORCE or the plausible threat of FORCE.
Tanks on the Capital grounds would have been a Coup.
The arrest of Democrat senators and reps before the joint session would have been a coup.
Efforts to persuade senators and representatives are not a “soft coup” anymore than Trump’s efforts to end the shutdown by telling senate republicans to end the filibuster.
The conduct of those within DOJ and FBI, the Conduct of Obama and Biden in late 2016 – those are all far closer to a soft coup than J6