President Donald Trump’s lawsuit against the BBC for defamation just received a green light from a federal judge to go forward to trial. Judge Jeffrey Kuntz (S.D. Fla.) ruled in Trump v. BBC that the media outlet must stand trial for splicing together lines from Trump’s January 6th speech to make it seem more violence-inducing before the riot at the Capitol. Judge Kuntz, however, rejected a claim under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. The biggest challenge for the court may be whether it can seat jurors who can overcome the case’s underlying political elements.
Judge Kuntz, a Trump nominee, notes prior cases brought by the President that federal courts dismissed as not actionable. See Trump v. CNN (S.D. Fla. 2023), aff’d (11th Cir. 2025); Trump v. Dow Jones & Co., Inc. (S.D. Fla. 2026). As a torts professor, I was critical of some past filings by the President that pursued overbroad or flawed defamation claims.
BBC was different. It involved an act that is anathema to ethical journalists — cutting lines from different parts of a tape and then joining them as if they were stated together. Even BBC’s own journalists admitted that what they did in the segment violated the most basic ethical standards taught in journalism schools.
The case stems from a documentary denounced as a BBC “hit piece” that aired just a week before the 2024 election, on October 28, 2024. Titled “Trump: A Second Chance,” BBC showed a twelve-second segment from Trump’s January 6, 2021 speech:
We’re going to walk down to the Capitol and I’ll be there with you. And we fight. We fight like hell and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.
Those two lines actually were stated fifty-five minutes apart. Moreover, Trump also expressly told his followers to go to the Hill “peacefully” to let their voices be heard — words routinely edited out by many in the media and, most notoriously, by the Democratic J6 Committee,
However, the BBC effectively created a new statement by splicing together two lines. What was actually said was very different from what aired. First, Trump declared:
Now it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy. And after this, we’re going to walk down and I’ll be there with you. We’re going to walk down, we’re going to walk down. Anyone you want but I think right here, we’re going to walk down to the Capitol and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them.
Fifty-five minutes later, Trump stated:
[B]ut I said ‘Something’s wrong here, Something’s really wrong, can’t have happened.’ And we fight, we fight like hell, and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.
Notably, less than a minute later, Trump told his supporters to remain peaceful:
I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard[.]
Judge Jeffrey Kuntz found that the BBC not only recognized its violation of journalistic ethics but actively sought to guarantee that the misleading segment would be heard before the election in states such as Florida.
This decision is notable because Trump must meet a higher standard under Supreme Court precedent. Under New York Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court crafted the actual malice standard that required public officials to shoulder the higher burden of proving defamation. Under that standard, an official would have to show either actual knowledge of its falsity or a reckless disregard of the truth. That standard was later extended to public figures.
The court found sufficient evidence of actual malice at BBC:
“For purposes of the defamation test, ill-will is different from actual malice. An intention to portray a public figure in a negative light, even when motivated by ill-will or evil intent, is not sufficient to show actual malice unless the publisher intended to inflict harm through knowing or reckless falsehood. However, ill-will or motive, when combined with other evidence, may be taken into account for actual malice….
Here, Trump alleges that BBC has a history of unfair or improper coverage toward him. In addition to the Documentary itself, Trump highlights the Prescott Memorandum, a 2022 BBC Newsnight episode, and the “2024 BBC News Shooting Hoax.” As an important reminder, the state of mind required for actual malice must be “brought home” to the person in the BBC’s organization responsible for the publication of the Documentary. This principle is relevant as it relates to the 2022 Newsnight episode and the 2024 “Shooting Hoax.” Again, Trump has not alleged that either of these incidents involved the creator(s) of the Documentary. That said, these incidents are not merely portrayal in a negative light, but examples of BBC playing fast and loose with the factual accuracy of their media content. With respect to the Newsnight episode, the BBC seemingly did not care about the falsity of the portrayal until the later Documentary became an issue. Such examples can be said to be probative of BBC’s state of mind as it pertains to recklessness in light of BBC’s non-action toward false statements about Trump.
Thus, Trump paints a picture that demonstrates the BBC has a record of allowing the publication of false statements in their portrayal of Trump. BBC asks the Court to put on blinders and treat the Panorama team as if they were blocked off from the rest of the organization, ignorant of everything else going on at BBC. At this procedural stage [i.e., a motion to dismiss, where plaintiff must merely plausibly allege facts that could lead to liability, rather than proving them -EV], the Court simply cannot ignore the circumstantial evidence presented. To do so would make it extremely difficult to ever prove a defendant’s subjective state of mind in any defamation case….
Trump alleged that BBC’s editing of the speech was an “intentional and malicious effort to falsely and deceptively portray President Trump as having called for violence.” In support, Trump alleges that it “would have been impossible for BBC’s journalists and producers to splice together two distinct parts of the [s]peech from nearly fifty-five minutes apart unless they were acting intentionally.” On its face, the editing may independently establish the plausibility of actual malice. BBC tries to frame this editing as ordinary editing done to condense a seventy-minute-long speech into twelve seconds. But the Court is not persuaded.
Editing is often required. However, given the time disparity between the two statements, the distance itself tends toward a plausible inference that BBC knew or should have known that the segment they were creating would not and could not have been a truthful statement. This was not trimming around the edges but creating something different than what was stated in the speech. BBC also had the entire speech available to them for nearly three years by the time of the Documentary.”
Judge Kuntz adds an interesting twist to the record. The BBC Chairman previously issued an apology:
“The way the speech was edited in the documentary gave a misleading impression of what you said. The editing unintentionally created the impression of a single continuous section of your speech, rather than excerpts from different points in the speech. This gave the mistaken impression that you had made a direct call for violent action. That was an editorial error and it should not have happened.”
However, the court notes that “BBC now appears to disagree with the apology issued by the Chairman:
“BBC’s Chairman admitted that the documentary gave a misleading and mistaken impression that Trump made a direct call for violent action. Strangely enough, BBC strays from that position in the Motion to Dismiss, referring to statements made by January 6 defendants as evidence that the speech may be interpreted as a call to violent action. But BBC’s own Chairman acknowledged the editing was misleading in his letter to Trump….”
The court also notes:
“BBC then argues that allegations that BBC omitted portions of Trump’s speech are also insufficient to establish actual malice. Alterations of quotes that “materially alter” the meaning of Trump’s statements could support a finding of actual malice…. BBC did not just alter the quote but created a new quote by splicing two statements together and passing them off as a single continuous sentence. To the extent that there was no material alteration to the meaning of Trump’s speech, that simply cannot be the case. The Chairman’s letter makes it very clear that BBC acknowledges there was a material change of meaning when they edited the speech to create a single continuous segment that did not exist.
BBC then argues that the apology “militates against a finding of actual malice.” … Today, retractions can be issued near instantaneously for online publications thanks to the internet. The Court acknowledges that media entities, like The Washington Post, or BBC, are not perfect, and make mistakes. However, it cannot be said that a retraction the next day is in the same ballpark as a retraction over a year later, and only after being threatened with legal action. The temporal distance here makes the retraction a weak indicator as to BBC’s state of mind at the time of publication.
Further weakening BBC’s argument, BBC was aware that such editing created a false impression as early as 2022. Former Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, in relation to the 2022 Newsnight episode, stated on-air: “Your video actually spliced together the presentation.… [Y]our video makes it look like those two things came together.” As BBC’s own Clive Coleman stated “[t]he first lesson … you’re taught as a broadcast journalist is that you do not joint two bits of footage together from different times in a way that will make the audience think that it is one piece of footage.” Considering these facts, BBC’s ultimate retraction in 2025 reads less like a readiness to retract, and more like a reluctance to retract.”
While the Court acknowledges that some of the evidence from decisions made after the segment aired might not directly bear on the state of mind at the time of publication, it finds that “Trump’s allegations regarding BBC’s departure from journalistic standards are more than enough to plausibly alleged more than mere negligence.” The key question is whether Trump is allowed a trial to prove such allegations:
“Of course, all of this does not prove BBC acted with actual malice. But it does make it plausible. And Trump need only allege facts sufficient to give rise to a reasonable inference that the BBC edited and published the Documentary ‘with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.’ Trump has done so here…”
It is a comprehensive and informative opinion. While I have criticized some past lawsuits, I believe the court is right to set this case for trial.
Jonathan Turley is the best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.” He teaches torts and defamation. For full disclosure, Turley previously worked as the BBC’s legal analyst.
Here is the opinion: Trump v. BBC
Turley forgets to mention that Trump must submit for deposition. The BBC has the right to request one. So this case may not be a win for Trump. In fact, the deposition might be the first Trump answers under oath for January 6th.
Why would you say that? As if a deposition will somehow … what?
Jan. 6th? Are you stupid or sumptin?
The article is about seating a competent jury in a politically mixed district. In addition, can a jury understand the difference between “ill will” and “malice”? In the Linsay Clancy trial a jury thought homicide is a symptom of PPD. Do I have a lawyer, she asked.
Judge Enjolique Lett, Magistrate, wants the President of the United States to sit for deposition on December 11, 2026. He’ll pencil in the date. Is a proxy acceptable? He has a conference call with Putin, Xi, King Salmon and King Charles unexpectedly. Iran is acting up again.
Happy holidays
Judge Kuntz is correct. The editing and splicing are intentional acts. Someone pointed out the Kamala Harris editing as a positive. The BBC might say this is what the journalists heard and cleaned it up in both cases.
Judge Enjolique Aytch Lett was educated at the American University in DC and received her JD from Georgia school of law. Her name is rare and held by a few African Americans in the US, South. Aytch is a pronunciation of the letter H in the southern portions of the US. Her first name is Angelique, Angel H.
Happy holidays
I identify as a toaster. I was born that way.
Estovir, if Trump can’t call Putin on December 11, that might be good for Ukraine. Because every time Trump talks to Putin, Ukraine suffers horrific attacks.
just reading the leftards comments here I can see Trump is going to stomp the BBC and the cope is delicious.
Let’s not lose sight of the fact that the BBC is not the BBC. The BBC are is a group of individual human beings (owners, editors, writers), who have individual financial and political interests, and who have individual relationships with individual political big-wigs and power-brokers.
When those individuals say whatever they say under the banner “BBC”, they’re all still individuals motivated by whatever motivates them … not necessarily journalism or truth.
Stephen B Benisch Esq is ESTOVIR.
Anonymous,
Thanks for increasing attention to my Comment.
Estovir, if you want, we can call attention to all your other puppets. Like:
Old Man From Kansas, James, Upstate Farmer, Sam, Vicente, Diogenes, Whimsical Mama, Guy Ventner, Stitch From Hawaii, Dr Zee and ‘all’ those stupid names.
Anonymous,
Thank you, again.
PSYCHO MORON ANON!!!
That’s ESTOVIR above as Kirk and below as Carpe Diem.
PSYCHO MORON ANON thinks everyone is Estovir. ANON is a DF!!
Definitely not the old world anymore. The “powers” aren’t for the great masses of people. In fact, they see human life as detrimental to the earth and its other life forms. Most likely the powers are going toward a reduction in humans. It’s not your best world. Condolences to all who knew the world as it once was in the US.
Scale back and join a gardening club, woodworking etc. The masses truly believe they can rob the very wealthy. They haven’t any idea what the very wealthy actually do.
Trump Knew About Chinese Spy
Back in May, Marco Rubio, in his role as National Security Adviser, briefed Donald Trump on Alice Huang, the Chinese spy at the heart of the Nvidia scandal. Trump, who has a close friendship with Nvidia’s chairman and CEO David Huang (no relation to Alice), chose not to do anything about it. Both Huang’s have been having a longterm affair in which Nvidia technologies were most likely compromised.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cqg7x7dpvym8o
How would you know if he did/did not do anything about it? Do you have evidence for your claim?
JFK, Monster
By Timothy Noah
“I knew that John F. Kennedy was a compulsive, even pathological adulterer, given to taking outlandish risks after he entered the White House. I knew he treated women like whores. And I knew he had more than a few issues with his father about toughness and manliness and all that. But before I read in the newspaper that Mimi Alford’s just-released memoir, Once Upon A Secret: My Affair With President John F. Kennedy And Its Aftermath, described giving Dave Powers a blow job at JFK’s request and in his presence, I didn’t know that Kennedy had an appetite for subjecting those close to him to extreme humiliation.
This part of Alford’s story doesn’t really add anything to what we already know about Kennedy. Nor does it really change my opinion of the 35th president. But this part does:
Dave Powers was sitting poolside while the President and I swam lazy circles around each other, splashing playfully. Dave had removed his jacket and loosened his tie in the warm air of the pool, but he was otherwise fully clothed. He was sitting on a towel, with his pants leg rolled up, and his bare feet dangling in the water. The President swam over and whispered in my ear. “Mr. Powers looks a little tense,” he said. “Would you take care of it?”
It was a dare, but I knew exactly what he meant. This was a challenge to give Dave Powers oral sex. I don’t think the President thought I’d do it, but I’m ashamed to say that I did. It was a pathetic, sordid, scene, and is very hard for me to think about today. Dave was jolly and obedient as I stood in the shallow end of the pool and performed my duties. The President silently watched.
Afterwards, Alford says she was “deeply embarrassed,” and as she climbed out of the pool she “could hear Dave speak in as stern a tone as I ever heard him use with his boss. ‘You shouldn’t have made her do that,’ Dave said. ‘I know, I know,’ I heard the President say.
Later, a chastened President Kennedy apologized to us both.” Alford believes that Kennedy showed “his darker side … when we were among men he knew. That’s when he felt a need to display his power over me.” Kennedy didn’t just have a thing for Social Register girls; he had a thing for humiliating Social Register girls. He also had a thing for humiliating his fellow Irishman, Dave Powers.
It is truly pathetic to see a routine denial of a motion to dismiss portrayed as a “major ruling” or “victory”–it is not. Trump will ultimately lose this case because he has the burden to prove actual malice–which he cannot do. He would also need to prove damages–how can he show he was damaged? He LOST in 2020 because he did a terrible job–COVID out of control, schools, businesses and restaurants closed down, and he pushed quack cures. More people got ill and died because of him and his incompetence. With his historically low and persistent approval ratings, how can he show that he was damaged? Not possible.
But, because Trump almost always loses in court, in MAGA world, anything that is not a loss is celebrated as a “victory”. This is just a preliminary ruling that allows the case to proceed.
Hey Gigi, what do you call it when a judge rules a denial of a motion to dismiss? That would be a loss. Pretty amazing how you seem to know Trump’s lawyers will not find evidence of wrong doing on the part of the BBC. Or that if they call witnesses to the stand, they will not admit to wrong doing.
Estovir, has Trump ever won in court? The BBC can rightfully demand Trump’s presence in the court. This may not be a win.
Hey Airam (Maria backwards), do Gigi and Natacha wear falsies and really bad wigs so that X feels just like a womyn like Shania Twain?
X you are no Shania Twain. Pee Wee Herman maybe but definitely not Shania
The hateful name calling and petty insults on this blog from the MAGAs and Trump naming Steven Miller as Chief of Staff and Republicans voting Jordan as minority leader prove that Trump, Republicans and MAGA are either slow learners or they just don’t care WHY the American people overwhelmingly voted them out of office.
Miller and Jordan are two of the most divisive political figures in the Republican Party. It’s proof that Trump and Republicans aren’t interested in healing the divisiveness that Trump and MAGA have created and still don’t get the message sent by the American people. The mean spirited rhetoric on this blog is just more of the same. It’s apparently not possible in MAGA world to have a civil debate about anything without the abusive behavior exemplified by Trump and MAGA.
Trump can’t even answer a question from non-MAGA media without insults and name calling. He goes on late night rants, with childish insults and AI generated memes about anyone and everyone with whom he disagrees.
Ohio Governor Elect Dr. Amy Acton gave a speech the other day that summed up the reasons why Democrats trounced the Republicans, even in what Republicans thought were safe states—Democrats even won in many of the recently gerrymandered districts.
Dr. Acton said that Americans are sick and tired of the hatefulness and vitriol. They want government to work for the good of the American people, to make our lives better, to bring down inflation, and for housing, groceries, healthcare, energy and education to be more affordable. That’s why so many Americans showed up in record numbers in the midterms—to make sure that Democrat victories were so overwhelming that Trump couldn’t claim election fraud (even though he is claiming this anyway).
Trump and MAGA don’t care that Americans oppose tax dollars going to pay for vainglorious tributes to Trump, a gilded ballroom, a vainglorious arch, or to pay for an unnecessary war that is going nowhere. Most Americans oppose tariffs and the childish spats with Canada and our other allies. We mostly oppose tax cuts for the wealthy paid for by cutting SNAP benefits, cutting veterans benefits, and cutting funding for cancer research and health insurance subsidies.
Trump and MAGA apparently want to keep up the insults, to keep supporting Trump’s failed policies, keep up the policies that have led to widespread corruption, and keep fighting with Democrats, just like the usual MAGAs on this blog want to keep up the insults and name calling.
You MAGAS have apparently learned nothing from the beating you got on November 3rd.
Slow learner Karen. “MAGAs on this blog want to keep up the insults and name calling.”??
What did you just do DF KAREN???
What about the foregoing post in any way constitutes name calling or insults? The American people sent a clear message — they want change —so why didn’t the message take with Trump, Republicans and especially MAGA? This country cannot succeed with such divisiveness.
Americans want government to work for the greater good of all of us and are tired of the constant negativity. WHY can’t you understand this and let go of the hatefulness?
Constant negativity from the Dem party. WHY can’t you understand this and let go of the hatefulness? KAREN??
What’s wrong with Steven Miller? You hate him Karen??
And yet it still wasn’t the loss the halfrican took in 2010, or many others. Quiet Neville piggy, your CCP propaganda is laughable, and embarrassing.
Hi Karen, got anything else to add? Oh, what?
Estovir, Karen S hasn’t commented. It’s just ‘you’, as usual. Most of the conservatives here rarely show up anymore. All your puppets have crowded them out.
PSYCHO MORON ANON shows up daily with total BS!
Says the groomer who wishes Estovir would let him blow him
ANON=CCP PUPPET!! AND A PSYCHO MORON!!!
And the hits just keep on coming.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/trump-rips-new-york-times-as-fake-news-after-1-am-with-a-15-billion-lawsuit-and-reporter-subpoenas-already-underway/ar-AA2hdZSL?ocid=U521DHP&pc=U521&cvid=1cd5c63210ad40d7c5a9ee4928fce4bc&ei=75
What an intellect! Post links makes you an genius?
What an intellect! Did you mean “Posting links makes you a genius?”
Clown is back.
The BBC had the freedom of speech and of the press to publish its statements, and Trump had the freedom of speech to challenge, expose, and refute what he considered errors and deception in the BBC’s reporting.
The Constitution establishes no independent constitutional right of defamation. It expressly establishes and protects freedom of speech and of the press under the First Amendment. No subordinate body of law or judicial doctrine can supersede those constitutional protections.
No judge or Supreme Court justice possesses the authority to amend, rewrite, or otherwise alter the Constitution. That authority and the prescribed procedure for amendment are expressly established in Article V.
The singular American failure is the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
“…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”
“…men…do…what their powers do not authorize, [and] what [their powers] forbid.”
“[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
– Alexander Hamilton
“…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”
“…men…do…what their powers do not authorize, [and] what [their powers] forbid.”
“[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
– Alexander Hamilton
And that nonsense has what applicability?
“It’s the [‘manifest tenor’ of the Constitution as ‘Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech or of the press…’], stupid!”
– James Carville
___________________
1st Amendment
Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press….
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Defamation laws are unconstitutional, null, and void.
well anon that’s silly. The Constitution doesn’t state an explicit right against most torts. It does, however, specify that govt can institute laws to protect citizens. I’d think that covers defamation/slander/libel laws.
So no 1st Amendment?
Re:
The Anonymous Traveling Circus: Seven Aliases, One Ringmaster, and Absolutely No New Material
There is something almost awe-inspiring about the Anonymous TDS phenomenon at Res Ipsa Loquitur: not awe-inspiring in the sense of intellectual achievement, professional accomplishment, or meaningful contribution to public discourse. More in the way one might admire a raccoon that has figured out how to open a dozen garbage cans but still hasn’t figured out why it keeps finding garbage, and why he sustains blood loss from lacerations due to sharp edges on used metal cans.
Meet Anonymous. Or perhaps today we should say Svelaz. Tomorrow, Natacha. Perhaps Gigi will make an appearance in the afternoon, followed by George, Wally, Esquire, or Yellow X. The possibilities are endless, at least until the next username gets added to the payroll funded by Media Matters
It must be exhausting maintaining an entire imaginary social circle, especially when all the characters seem to have the same obsession, the same targets, the same talking points, replying to self, and the same inexplicable amount of free time. A fulfilled, meaningful life is not found in this dude nor for that matter a significant other! Only a perpetually single incel can generate this much discombobulated content.
One almost expects to see a roll call:
Svelaz, present.
Natacha, present.
Gigi, present.
George, present.
Wally, present.
Esquire, present.
Yellow X, present.
Anonymous, present.
And somehow, remarkably, all have the same opinion, the same grudges, same grammar deficiencies, same 5th grade content, and the same inability to resist attacking the blog owner.
What a coincidence! Somewhere, a statistician just fainted.
The alleged sock-puppet operation is particularly amusing because it seems to rest on the assumption that changing a screen name changes the audience’s intelligence. Apparently, Anonymous TDS believes that if he puts on a different hat, nobody will recognize the empty prefrontal cortex underneath it.
A word of advice: changing usernames is not the same thing as changing personalities. And creating ad infinitum online identities does not create independent witnesses to your own brilliance. It creates the impression of one very megalomaniac talking to himself.
Then there is the résumé. Ah, the résumé! Apparently, this is a person whose professional accomplishments expand in direct proportion to the number of times he tells strangers about them. One wonders whether his career history is maintained by a dedicated fiction department. If all the alleged credentials, professional triumphs, and impressive life experiences were assembled in one place, LinkedIn might have to create an entirely new category: Distinguished Career in Self-Reported Greatness.
Perhaps Esquire can authenticate the credentials. Perhaps George can provide references. Maybe Wally can serve as a character witness. Concerned citizen can notarize the content. And if all else fails, Anonymous can ask Svelaz to depose Peter Hill for a testimony of …something something.
The reference checks should be fascinating.
But the most remarkable feature of this traveling production is its compulsive inability to stay on topic.
A discussion concerns a court ruling, a legal controversy, or the subject Professor Jonathan Turley actually wrote about that day. Naturally, Anonymous arrives to explain why the real issue is something else entirely. The host’s article is merely a convenient launching pad for another episode of the Anonymous Variety Hour. No wonder he has no significant other. He is one self-absorbed party of one.
The blog owner is attacked, the discussion is hijacked, and the original topic is treated like an inconvenient relative who showed up uninvited.
Apparently, the unwritten rule is that whatever Professor Turley writes about must immediately become secondary to whatever Anonymous wants to talk about. The blog belongs to the host, but the agenda apparently belongs to the self-appointed master of ceremonies.
And now we have the latest performance: a lecture about Donald Trump’s cognitive abilities, complete with a transcript of a verbal stumble and the solemn declaration that a teleprompter does not prevent a cognitive glitch.
The irony is positively Olympic.
Here is someone whose online routine allegedly involves multiple identities, endless self-promotion, relentless personal attacks, and an almost supernatural ability to identify commenters with an inability to remain focused on the topic under discussion, suddenly positioning himself as the internet’s resident authority on cognitive coherence.
One is tempted to suggest that before issuing neurological report cards to politicians, he might consider conducting a brief inventory of his own online behavior, or check to see if he a pair of cojones under his underroos.
After all, if the standard is the ability to maintain a coherent train of thought, stick to the subject, and distinguish one identity from another, this comment section is already providing a rather extensive case study in the difficulties of the assignment.
And the time commitment! Morning, afternoon, and evening. Anonymous is always there. If Svelaz isn’t posting, Concerned Citizen is apparently warming up. If Gigi takes a break, George is ready to pinch-hit. Wally and Esquire are presumably on standby, while Yellow X handles special assignments.
Perhaps the entire enterprise is simply one person with an extraordinary amount of time, an inexhaustible supply of usernames, and a seemingly bottomless need for attention. Whatever the explanation, the audience is not exactly struggling to identify the recurring act.
The funniest part is that this fellow continues returning to a blog whose proprietor he so energetically attacks. Imagine spending virtually every waking hour in someone else’s establishment, insulting the proprietor, disrupting the conversations, and then congratulating yourself on your independence.
There is a word for that kind of relationship: obsession.
There is also a word for repeatedly showing up in someone else’s house, insulting the homeowner, rearranging the furniture, and insisting that everyone discuss what you want to discuss.
That word is not scholarship.
It is trolling.
And the usernames? They are costumes, not disguises. Nobody needs a detective, a forensic linguist, or an investigative committee to appreciate the comedy of the revolving-door cast. That Anonymous traveling circus practically writes its own material.
The audience has seen this show before. It knows the script. It recognizes the recurring characters. And it is getting increasingly difficult to pretend that Svelaz, Natacha, Gigi, George, Wally, Esquire, Yellow X, and Anonymous TDS are an international intellectual consortium rather than what the performance suggests: a collection of aliases orbiting the same very persistent personality.
So here’s to Anonymous and his distinguished supporting cast: infinite sockpuppets , one ringmaster, a thousand alleged accomplishments, and one endlessly recycled routine.
He has mastered the art of being everywhere in the comment section while contributing remarkably zilch to the actual conversation.
Perhaps someday one of these identities will surprise everyone by discussing the article, addressing the legal issue, and refraining from attacking the host.
Until then, the show must go on.
And if the entire cast happens to agree with itself again tomorrow, please, let’s not mistake that for a standing ovation.
It’s just Anonymous applauding Anonymous.
the best punchline? The audience already knows who’s behind the Media Matters curtain in mommy’s basement.
🤡
Better have a lie-down, dear. Or drink less.
What a heap of psycho sickness.
Estovir,
HA!! A most excellent take down of the entire cast of . . . one annony!!!
It was rather amusing to see him try to change his Gigi rants to Maria Ramsey rants yesterday like everyone did not see through that.
agreed. No wonder X hates Estovir
You stupid pig farmer. Uneducated low life troglodyte.
You desperately want a man, any man, to bed you: Estovir, UpstateFarmer, Stephen B Benisch Esq, Diogenes, hullbobby, James…..any male gets your juices going. Euuuuuwwwwww. Yuk! you are a
womantroll scorned in the worst way.jajajajajajajajajjaajajajajajjaaja
BAN FOR LIFE!
ESTOVIR, no read this! It’s just an AI generated rant to bury something further down.
Media Matters failed Journalism 101.
Why bother. There is no justice in DC.
Trump is undoubtedly showing signs of major cognitive impairment.
At his Veteran’s Day speech he was reading directly from the teleprompter. He was talking about Ryan Hendrickson, a Green Beret who wrote a book about his wartime experiences after he retired after receiving injuries when he stepped on an IED.
This is what he said, “Green Beret Ryan Hendrickson was leading his team through a Taliban-held village in Afghanistan at 3 in the morning when he was stepped on by enemy. I mean, he was the enemy, the enemy was all over. He made the mistake. A mistake that people understood when they were in the battles, jungles.”
Keep in mind he was reading from the teleprompter.
He obviously had a cognitive glitch.
It was later reported that he, DJT, lost a contact lens without a backup pair, anon.
Your excuse is?
And you believe that… bless. The man makes Sleepy Joe seem lucid and coherent.
And to think the GOP mocks Kamala Harris’ “word salads”.
What a crock!
If he lost a contact lens and had no backup, that’s a sign of poor planning. He is surrounded by staff who should be able to respond to any difficulty. Having glasses and a spare pair of contact lenses should be at the top of the list.
Perhaps he would rather look a fool than have a backup plan.
Until then we can only await him trying to make his way down stairs he cannot clearly see.
Everyone impressed with the brilliance^^^
A metaphor?