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.
Turley– “The BBC has already effectively admitted that it was negligent, but insists that it was not intentional.”
True, but the negligence was repeated on a different, and more widely viewed, BBC program. That could help the argument that it was deliberate and malicious.
But I suspect Professor Turley is right in thinking that technical legalities and evidence will have less to do with the fate of the case than money and politics. The BBC has gotten on the wrong side of local issues and it has its own problems with the British public. They don’t need a Trump issue just now.
Trump is in the same league as the sexual predator formerly known as Prince. I think the British public is going to be OK with any damage done to Trump.
Anonymous’s reference to “the sexual predator formerly known as Prince” has nothing to do with the author of “I Would Die 4 U.” Just want to clean that up.
While you claim the BBC is publicly supported you left out “involuntary.”
The UK government extracts £174.00 involuntary from UK subjects as a so-called yearly licence.
Oh, no, something lasting less than 5 minutes among tens of thousands of hours of programming beloved worldwide has upset your tummy-wummy.
Get a grip. That’s £15 a month, which is a bargain compared to most broadcasting, and which arrives without advertising within the UK.
Justifying lying. big surprise. “a bargain compared to most broadcasting and which arrives without advertising”
and without the damned truth. paying for lies is the commie way!
tyranny.
It wasn’t even a lie. It was what Trump said and what Trump meant and what happened because of it.
Mexico is falling apart.
https://rumble.com/v71rp2u-mexico-is-in-full-revolt.html
I wonder if Hunter was on the same flight?
________________________
If you’re going to look at scantily-clad women on your iPad on an airplane, be sure that the person next to you isn’t taking pictures. Also, make sure you’re not a United States Congressman. Also, don’t try to blame the X algorithm because that makes things even worse.
Democrat Congressman Brad Sherman went viral when images of him on a plane were posted on social media. In the images, Sherman can be seen scrolling, mouth agape, to see multiple provocative images of females on his iPad. To his credit, he did not claim the images were fake.
These two have something in common.
OOPS
BREAKING: The official X account of the Democrat Party has DELETED their post claiming President Trump spent Thanksgiving with Jeffrey Epstein in 2017
He was literally the President, dumbasses. You don’t think someone would’ve noticed?!
Trump should BANKRUPT the DNC for this
Trump spent the day with the US Coast guard.
Jeffrey Epstein mentioned President Donald Trump in an email exchange about his plans for Thanksgiving in 2017, according to documents released by members of the House Oversight Committee.
In an email exchange on Nov. 23, 2017, Faith Kates, the founder of NEXT Model Management, asked the disgraced financier and convicted sex offender where he was spending Thanksgiving.
Epstein replied, “eva,” possibly a reference to his former girlfriend Eva Andersson-Dubin. Kates said that means “glenn” must be there, a likely reference to Glenn Dubin, Andersson-Dubin’s husband.
Kates then asked, “who else is down there?”
“David fizel. hanson. trump,” Epstein replied.
—
Maybe don’t get on an e-mail list with a know sexual abuse trafficker.
Trump is jealous he didn’t have a portrait made of him in a blue stained dress that hung in Epstein’s mansion in Manhattan. Oh, to be a friend of Bill Clinton
+1000
A comment on the video link:
“it isn’t a fake, and art student did the portrait for a thesis. The artwork, an oil painting titled “Parsing Bill,” was created by Australian-American artist Petrina Ryan-Kleid as part of her master’s thesis in 2012. The artist intended the work as a satirical commentary on the messages people receive about presidents. She sold it at a charity art auction and was unaware it was purchased by Epstein until reports emerged in 2019″
—
“… she writes of the painting, known as Parsing Bill, and its companion painting of George W. Bush playing with blocks and paper airplanes called War Games. “It was just a silly school artwork that was supposed to show, pictorially, the messages we are bombarded with in regards to these presidents.” She confirms that the blue dress is a reference to Monica Lewinsky’s blue dress, a prominent piece of evidence in Clinton’s affair with his former intern.
Today, Ryan-Kleid says she actually feels bad about the content of the painting. “Since I’m Australian, I wasn’t then, nor am I now, partisan about American politics,” she writes. “At the time, most of my ideas were fresh from the Daily Show or from Australian cable TV.”
“One thing that seems clear is that the painting of Clinton is not about making fun of the idea of a man wearing a dress, any more than her painting of Bush is about making fun of a man playing with children’s toys. Parsing Bill and War Games are both about “how opposition parties caricature presidents,” Ryan-Kleid emphasizes. “Neither painting should be taken literally.””
https://news.artnet.com/art-world-archives/artist-epstein-clinton-painting-1628953
It appears that she nailed the assignment as it is being used by opposition parties to caricature Pres. Clinton.
Rabble:
In context, seems to me, “who else is down there” is referring to who else was in the south of Florida at the time. Trump, with primary residence of Mar-A-Lago, would of course be in Florida for the feast.
Also, “Maybe don’t get on an e-mail list with a know sexual abuse trafficker.”? How about the female Senator who was *texting* with Eppy during a congressional hearing about him?!
BBC execs were not forced out only because of Trump. What’s not making the news is the 250 or so corrections and retractions BBC had to make since October 7, 2023, because they took BBC Arabic reporting as God’s truth and did not verify.
Sorry Prof./ Turley – but the edit was Actual Malice – as were all the other defamatory edits and efforts to paint trump as inciting violence on J6.
Further as we are increasingly learning – the Violence was NOT started by MAGA – but by the CP themselves.
I have repeatedly noted the video showing that there was not violence at the west tunnel entrance until the CP teargassed themselves and they tear gassed a peaceful crowd. Witht eh very hogh level of suspicion that a CP officer planted the pipe bombs at the DNC and RNC we learned that that officer – as well as meany others used Lethal Force against protestors – violating the Rules of engagement.
The weapons they were using were only non-lethal when ricochetted off the ground and into the leggs and lower torso.
There are never supposed to be used firing down onto crowds, nor are the ever supposed to be aimed at the upper body or head.
Yet that is exactly what CP officers including the suspected pipe bomber did causing extremely serious injuries to many people
They were very lucky no one died, because these weapons can be lethal if fired at the head or upper body as they were.
The above is all established Fact – except that the identity of the DNC/RNC bomber is only 94% probable thus far, atleast based on the publicly available evidence.
But there are other allegations some have been arround for a long time but others are new that are leading to more than just that the pipe bomber was a CP officer, But that there was a “conspiracy” to turn the protest into a riot. Sargent at Arms Sund has been repeatedly claiming that there is a J6 conspiracy – he was denied intelligence that numerous others had inadvance including Pelosi’s office. Some of his subordinates knew things that he did not, they only could have known if they were involved in a conspiracy.
He is now alleging that the DNC/RNC pipe bombs were deliberate efforts by these conpsirators to remove CP and MPD officers from the capital at a critical time.
Is this conspiracy proven beyond any doubt ? Not yet, but we do know the likely conspirators.
And we have a growing body of evidence.
We now know that the FBI KNEW ahead of J6 that Antifa was planning to infiltrate the event and that there were likely atleast 50 Antifa mixed in the crowd.
We now know there were a ery large number of FBI agents in the crowd – but we still do not know how many FBI informants were involved.
I would call J6 a false flag operation – but it appears worse that that. We now know there were outside actors on BOTH sides – both among the protestors and among the Capital Police and possibly FBI acting to make J6 turn from a protest into a riot.
Returning to Trump’s remarks – only those suffering from TDS think that was incitement to violence.
Missing from your analysis is the fact that BBC and others – did not that express an oppinion, they did more than questions Trump’s morality – they accused him of committing multiple crimes. That too is evidence of actual malice.
I do not think Trump’s case is strong – or more accurately I do nto think he can get billions in damages – BCC’s recent actions DO mitigate damages.
That is the weakness in this case – not proving actual malice.
Regardless, this case is very bad news – not just for the BBC but for the left.
Trumps 2nd term is a steady drip of damning evidence of ever more malicious lies and active abuses of power by not just the media – but those in our govenrment.
This lawsuit will keep more and more and more of that in the news for a long long time.
Ultimately I do not expect this to go to court – BBC will settle.
But the lawsuit itself is much more important than the BBC.
Prof Turley can defend those in the BBC and elsewhere that Claimed years ago that Trump had incited violence on J6.
But if you do that again today – you will be sued and you are much more likely to lose than the BBC.
And increasingly this goes beyond just the deceptive editing of Trump’s speech and extends into the entirety of J6,
If you try to claim the “Gallows” on J6 was real – you are defaming those who brought it – there is a sign on it that the media conveninetly avoided photographing – that says “this is art” – but more importantly it was incapable of hanging anything heavier than a teddy bear.
One of the points of this lawsuit is not punishment of BBC for actual malicious defamation but a warning shot to those on the left suffering from TDS and lying about MAGA and everything Trump related.
Keep it up – and we will see you in court.
It is also a warning that Trump and likely FBI/DOJ are looking into the alleged conspiracy here, adn coming for those involved.
John
There was pictures of people who were hit in the face with rubber bullets and the damage was severe. Your face a many areas of soft tissues.
John Say,
“there was not violence at the west tunnel entrance ”
The only access by the mob to the west tunnel entrance was after having pushed Capitol Police and barricades aside – mob violence had already taken place to get there.
If you think “this is art” is a suitable offense then Charlie Manson missed a bid to claim that slaughtering people was performance art as an excuse.
“Fight like hell or you won’t have a country anymore” means only one thing.
Perhaps – “Go and make your voices heard” would be ambiguous as a call to violence, but a call to “fight” to an upset mob?
So peaceful that Trump did not ask those waving Trump battle flags to stop until after their goal was clearly unattainable.
Trump was hoping for martyrs, shot and their blood running down the Capitol steps. He had to settle for those convicted of actual crimes, crimes he verified with the pardons for committing those crimes. Many of them have gone on to commit other crimes.
Why do you suppose Nancy Pelosi decided to retire? Aside from her senility and corruption. Confiscate her wealth and pay down the deficit.
When Journalism was overtaken by social media standards, the line between free speech and defamation was effectively dissolved.
MOOCHHELL OBONGO: Let me explain something to white people. Our hair comes out of our head naturally in a curly pattern.
When we straighten it to follow your beauty standards, we are trapped by the straightness. That’s why so many of us can’t swim; that’s why we run away from the water.
People won’t go to the gym because we’re trying to keep our hair straight for y’all.
“It’s exhausting, it is expensive, and takes up so much time…Why do we need an act of law to tell White folks to get out of our hair?
– Moochhell Obongo, Daily Caller
Nuts…
looks like her real side is showing.
Nuts Dusty?
That’s what be hanging between Mikes legs.
Famous Black sayings:
What you talkin about Willis?
Cocaine a helluva drug…
My husband Michael and I…
Where da white women?
It was easy to get a settlement from companies that stand with the FCC knife to their throats, particularly CBS, held by Paramount, itself held by a company manned by a supporter of Trump who could use this as a back-door contribution without much suspicion.
“It will be able to claim that it used clips that reflected what it viewed as the thrust of the speech.”
Considering a great number in attendance heard the speech and then went to ransack the Capitol building and drive the members of the House of Representatives to flee, many in the face of death threats, that seems to be a terrific argument. There was no defamation.
This, of course, may make no difference if a biased jury in the Republican controlled state of Florida is called upon to decide that some foreign government owes their cult leader a tribute.
It’s the height of hypocrisy to criticize the BBC over journalistic standards when President Trump clearly has no standards at all.
Waa waa waa. Mommy, Trump man bad. Make him go away. Boo hoo. Waa waa waa!
ATS – all these idiotic claims are falling apart.
There was no ransacking – certainly nothing that compares to an ordinary peaceful ptotest by the left.
The violence on J6 was started by the CP.
Increaingly that is starting to look like a depiberate conspiracy – with multiple acts and actors planned in advance to deliberately turn a peaceful protest violent.
CBS settled for a pittance – but they did settle because this lawsuit was going to be a disaster for them.
The knife at their throat was not the FCC. It was the discovery that Trump would have gotten.
That will also be the case in this lawsuit.
Trump does not need to win this lawsuit – though it is likely that it will be settled before trial.
All trump needs to do is to survive a motion to dismiss – which he certainly wil, and that allows him to get discovery and that is why BBC will settle.
Regardless the lawsuit is not about journalistic standards – if it was all the media would be in deep schiff.
It is about using the bully pulpit of the news to accuse someone of a very serious crime using manufactured evidence.
There are plenty of democrats in Florida. All that Trump needs to do to win this lawsuit is remove the few left win loonies from the jury.
People – even democrats are increasingly tired of the lies from the left.
Considering a great number in attendance heard the speech and then went to ransack the Capitol building and drive the members of the House of Representatives to flee, many in the face of death threats,
That did not happen.
Milhouse,
It must be wonderful to live in that tiny, fact-free bubble.
“A self-described “idiot” who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6 and stole a wallet and a framed photo of the late civil rights icon Rep. John Lewis from then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office was sentenced to more than four years in federal prison on Friday.”
That’s ransacking.
“”Lyons left the Capitol via an Uber before traveling back to the Chicago,” federal prosecutors wrote in a sentencing memo. “That night he texted some friends a picture of the stolen photograph with an admission that he took the photograph. He then bragged, ‘I’m pretty confident I am now a multiple Federal felon.’ The photograph was never recovered.””
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/idiot-jan-6-rioter-stole-john-lewis-photo-nancy-pelosis-office-gets-4-rcna94150
“He said when he entered the “big boss” office — a reference to Pelosi — he saw a broken mirror and up to 30 people inside. ”
““Hello Nice FBI Lady,” Lyons emailed a special agent on Jan. 9, according to the complaint. “Here are the links to the videos. Looks like Podium Guy is in one of them, less the podium. Let me know if you need anything else.”
“Podium Guy” was an apparent reference to Adam Johnson, 36, who was charged with participating in the riot after he was allegedly caught on camera carrying the House speaker’s lectern.”
https://www.chicagotribune.com/2021/01/13/feds-say-chicago-man-charged-with-entering-us-capitol-during-attack-posted-photo-outside-nancy-pelosis-office/
“. . . particularly CBS . . . . . . . . . .”
One more step and you get to Kevin Bacon.
“. . . itself held by a company . . .”
Why, dishonest one, were you afraid to name that company? Trying to hide something?
The name of that company is Paramount Skydance. Its Chairman and CEO is David Ellison. He was *not* “a supporter of Trump.” He contributed some $1 million to the recent Biden campaign.
Sam,
“Larry and David Ellison Are Building a Pro-Trump Media Behemoth”
“Now the administration has weighed in, saying that it is favorably disposed to let the newly minted Paramount Skydance acquire Warner Bros. Discovery, which announced on October 21 that it is considering a sale.
The reason? Larry Ellison is one of Trump’s strongest backers, from the early days of his presidency. That is the real story of his growing power and wealth. Now he’ll plan to use it to pay the president back.”
https://newrepublic.com/article/202272/larry-david-ellison-paramount-warner-pro-trump-media-behemoth
“In the United States, the Ellisons are trying to play a similar role, gobbling up as many outlets as they can to build a mass media and entertainment empire that will keep growing larger—as long as Ellison keeps placating the president.
At CBS News, they have already begun to do that, purchasing the anti-woke outlet The Free Press and installing its founder, Bari Weiss, as the network’s editor in chief, despite her lack of any meaningful reporting or newsroom experience.
Weiss has already begun making changes, pushing the network in a pro-Trump, pro-Israel direction—one that could be expected at CNN if the Ellisons take control of it.
Weiss laid off about a hundred staffers as part of a broader restructuring in late October, while longtime anchor John Dickerson, who is widely respected at CBS, announced his departure on October 27. According to reports, Weiss is hoping to bring a conservative voice, like CNN’s shrill talking head Scott Jennings, to the network.”
Get out of your bubble. Maybe David has daddy issues. Maybe he wanted to get the favorable treatment from Biden that the $20 Million payout got from Trump.
Good, Trump should sue them for a Trillion!
The President shouldn’t sue or be sued in his personal capacity during his term(s) as President.
Generally I agree – but the cow is out of the barn.
Further since Trump was first elected all kinds of things that should never happen have.
Trump is directly responsible for SOME of those – but the majority come from the left.
The rules you are esposing are the old rules.
The media and the left burned those to ash and then $hat on them.
The key case here is Masson v. New Yorker Magazine https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15073454428774944905&q=masson+v.+new+yorker&hl=en&as_sdt=2006 where the Supreme court held that attributing false quotes to a public figure can constitute malice under New York Times v. Sullivan. The twist here is that the BBC used Trump’s own words, taken out of context but I think that makes it worse because they are providing proof that Trump actually said what the BBC claimed he was saying.
You need a unanimous jury in civil cases tried in federal court but in most state courts, including I believe Florida, you only need a majority. Presumably, Trump would file the lawsuit in state court and the question then would be whether the BBC can remove it to federal court and that probably depends on the BBC’s status as a UK governmental entity. I haven’t researched it, but my guess is that there is no easy answer to that.
US law does not apply. BBC is in the UK.
If that were true, it would make the case a lot easier for Trump, as NY Times v. Sullivan is not part of UK law. But it’s not true, as the broadcast was made available in Florida and viewed by some people there. It’s as if you shot a rifle in Canada and the bullet travelled across the border and hit someone in the US. I’m pretty sure any lawsuit brought in the US against the shooter would be government by the law of the state where the injury occurred. If you have contrary authority, post it as I’d like to see it.
I think you’re right.
AI Overview: a tort is considered to occur in the jurisdiction where the harm or injury occurs, as this is when the claim is completed and the tort is considered a “completed” wrong. While the negligent act takes place in another jurisdiction, it is the law of the place where the harm is sustained that typically governs the legal claim, although the place of the negligent act can also be considered relevant for jurisdictional purposes.
The harm was global – Trump can sue anywhere BBC broadcast.
But beyond that we have seen massive expansion of the jurisdiction of US and other courts into truly foreign matters.
The fact that BBC is in the UK is not even a speed bump in this case.
But Trump might bring the case int he UK or in Florida. or both.
Defamation is much easier to prove and much broader in the UK that the US.
The standard of proof in civl court is not beyond a reasonable doubt, it is more likely than not.
The United States will soon fundamentally transform into the Union of American Socialist Republics (UASR).
“Crazy Abe” Lincoln would have already imposed martial law and suspended habeas corpus and the freedom of speech given the evident, nay, blatant rebellion and insurrection taking place across America.
C’mon, Donald.
“Crazy Abe” Saved the Union, right?
Now it’s time to Save the Country…
and the Constitution.
Read Trump’s billion-dollar threat to the BBC in full
Trump’s legal team concluded the letter by writing, ‘The BBC is on notice’
By: Reuters ~ November 10th 2025
https://www.the-independent.com/news/uk/home-news/donald-trump-bbc-letter-full-panorama-edits-b2862392.html
FYI:
Scroll Down the Article for:
A. Applicable law and B. Demand, etc.
The BBC’s ‘Panorama’ show would be a kin to ’60 Minutes’ on CBS.
Episode at issue: BBC’s Panorama – ‘ Trump: A Second Chance? ‘ – Episode aired Oct 28, 2024 | 58m
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt34274490/
Prediction:
Since the statute of limitations will last longer than 2028, the BBC will just wait until Democrats control Congress and the WH then countersue Trump. What goes around comes around.
R
There is nothing a Democratic Congress can do when a Suit is filed.
Look at mandatory counterclaims and law of latches for the problems with your theory.
^Anonymous : at 2:28 PM^
[Question] What is the Statue of Limitation for an International (Foreign) Suit?
What is the UK’s Statue of Limitation for a Suit?
What are the Limits? (Amounts Awarded)
Trump (Org) in an International Entity with businesses in the UK.
Seeking a venue in the UK is very lucrative, considering the reputable damage to Trump golf properties in the United Kingdom:
Trump Turnberry in Ayrshire, Scotland, a luxury resort and golf club, and Trump International Golf Links in Aberdeenshire, Scotland.
Anyone
Teh panorama episode aired in Oct 2024. The SOL is not even close to expiring.
The clock on defamation starts over everytime you repeat it.
Hey Einstein, what is the cause of action the BBC will take if they sue Trump?
If Democrats gain control of the house in 2026 – which may or may not happen
We can expect alot more of the nonsense from 2019 and 2020. Which is one reason that voters might well reject democrats in the house.
In 2021 I repeatedly told Republicans not to count there 2022 chickens until they hatched.
While republicans did take the house. it was just barely.
It is likely if there are an election today that Democrats would take the house.
It is also likely that all the reasons democrats would win will have disappeared by Nov 2026.
Don’t count your chickens until they have hatched.
There is massive anger with democrats today.
Anger with Trump and Republicans right now is because many people expected things to get batter faster after Trump was elected.
The improvement has been slower that most expected. But things are improving.
Anger with democrats is much less transient – it is not going away easy. You have lied repeatedly and egregiously.
People do not forget that.
If you can’t debate the substance of any issue, just attack the messenger!
The interesting part is the ones attacking the messengers are either committing felony domestic spying -or- carelessly stereotyping the messenger.
How does one know the messenger’s political party (if any) without either committing a felony (illegally obtain IP addresses) or making a wild a$$ guess?