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
In a bold attempt to alienate their few remaining voters, on Tuesday congressional Republicans elected as minority leader Rep. Jim Jordan, the nation’s foremost human repellent.
If you needed any evidence that MAGA is a death cult that has captured the GOP, look no further than the election of Gym Jordan as minority leader. This is unbelievable. They are doubling down on MAGA insanity after an historic defeat.
And here you are, doubling down on abject stupidity.
Flipping the coin, I am reminded of the case against CBS for splicing and editing its interview with presidential candidate Kamala Harris.
But in that case, it was done to create a pre-election more favorable opinion of her. As pointed out, there is a distinction between non-actionable “intention to portray a public figure in a negative light, even when motivated by ill-will” -and actual malice. In the Trump v. CBS Broadcasting case, the media intentionally edited the Harris interview with “good-will” or “healthy will” -to produce a better-than-reality perception of Harris. CBS’s defenses were similar to those in this case. Both CBS and ABC (george stephanopoulos) settled with Trump in the $ millions.
Notwithstanding violation of journalistic standards, and notwithstanding that the judge in this case certainly identified some compelling facts pointing toward malice, -still, I believe MOST (and unrelenting) other negative coverage of Trump falls into the non-actionable “ill will” category (which is sometimes actionable under “common law malice” of non-public figures).
So if “ill will” and “good will” manipulation and creative editing of the news remains benignly non-actionable, we truly need to continue to edify these realities and the concomitant response thereto with better educating and development, especially for our students, of critical thinking and comprehensive skills and “consider the source and motive” approaches, instead of reliance on lawsuits and censorship. That’s the price we have to pay for our freedoms.
sorry in advance for length.
Dear Mr. Turley, I, one of many, am glad President Trump is going after these “news” organizations. Their narrative against the President is slowly but surely coming apart. The false accusations against him have been repeated so often that poor minded folks will keep on believing these lies. I am waiting for the E. Jean Carol account to fall apart.
At least do Ms Carroll the courtesy of spelling her name correctly. The only account that has fallen apart is Trump’s, as shown repeatedly by his failures in court to contest successfully her accusation of rape on his part.
Why? She is a fraud. She could not name the date or year. She posed for a magazine cover wearing a outfit she claimed was the one she wore when she was supposedly sexually abused but that outfit was not made till several years later. Even the NYT confirmed it. She is not credible and does not deserve to have her name spelled correctly.
Even if all that is true, she is still 1000% more honest than Trump. Even his first wife said he was a rapist.
1000% honest fraud. Got it.
Anon @11.46
Like most of the MAGA morons, you are confused about the E. Jean Carroll cases.
The cases were not about what Trump DID years ago, they were about what he SAID about Carroll in 2019 and again in 2022. He made multiple public statements, and lengthy accusations about her on Truth Social. Those statements were found to be defamatory, and she was able to prove actual harm, because she had been subject to a wave of public harassment and death threats from MAGA morons like you. She had also suffered professional damage, including the loss of her long-running advice column at Elle magazine.
And O.J. is innocent. 🙄 This is what happens with a biased jury.
Scott, we’ve never seen you before. Just popped out of nowhere?
Another Estovir puppet.
Gene Carroll is senile. Good grief. lol
It’s a DEI world, anon, and anything a female says is true. There is that trans thing otoh.
The Greeks, Romans, and Founders rationally required voters, generally, to be, or to effectively be, male, European, 21, and 50 lbs. Sterling, or 50 acres.
Their goal was efficient government, not a raucous party—a savage orgy.
The communists allow everyone to vote because they know that the resulting chaos will lead to their subjugation of the population and their dominion.
@Anonymi
You are not just ignorant, but a kind of stupid that almost beggars belief. I am now convinced that you are not only paid, but are absolutely in service of a country that is anything but free. You are also likely under 35. Go blow, kiddo.
If not, and you are just cantankerous and bored – wow. Seek help immediately.
Thanks Prof. I have been thinking recently about whether Scott Galloway’s assertions of treason against Elon Musk could be an opportunity to once again examine the NY Times v. Sullivan standard re whether it makes malice too difficult to prove. This column and the attached court opinion are helpful.
Deception and guile have become the proud hallmark of the Fourth Estate. Sad.
It’s not the “Fourth Estate,” it’s the propaganda and indoctrination arm of the communist party.
I am just going to leave this here, Caped nutjob in wizard hat attacks TPUSA group at Texas university event
https://nypost.com/2026/11/11/us-news/caped-loon-in-a-wizard-hat-attacks-turning-point-tpusa-group-at-texas-uni-event/
“Nutjob attacks nutjobs” would have been shorter.
What does it have to do with Trumps’ suit? I guess yo can’t understand the article, therefore the stupid link.
Understood the good professor article just fine. BBC edited the video to make Trump look like he said something he did not say splicing two parts of a speech 55 minutes apart. The judge ordered the case can proceed. If it does go to trial, Trump’s lawyers could find some very interesting emails, or make some people squirm when they take the stand.
Oh, the link was just another example of unhinged leftist violence. They sure are adding up.
@Upstate
Saw this in real time where I am, though minus the wizard hat. I am not someone that ascribes to TPUSA in any way, but in this case, the girl was not bothering anyone. I am sure I would have disagreed mightily with her fundamentalist perspective, and I doubt very much there would be any getting through to her, but she didn’t bother anyone, and I just walked on by.
Just one hateful leftist angered by her mere existence was all it took for her to be assaulted, and she was, and this was just a kid, hit in the face by a supposedly grown adult. We are no longer dealing with sane or stable people on the modern left.
Violence on the left creates terror. It’s serious. It’s noted that the current entropy in politics and economy entered forcefully in Obama’s hoax second term.
Journalism hit the floor. The BBC should air a correct video without splicing and editing with an apology. Consumers of news sources don’t have time to verify every news item, but they can understand a full video apology to the public. It’s better than money. It discredits the BBC and people will stop using it as a source. imo
My ~60 year adult experience with the media suggests that “journalistic ethics” often do not align with the common concept of ethical behavior. The movie line about “When the facts differ from the legend, print the legend” isn’t entirely fiction. “Truth” can become a malleable concept.
Americans really dislike being duped by any sources. If journalism has one mistake it’s out. Americans are 99% honest people. They expect the same of journalists. Journalism today is what Americans consider tabloid. Tabloids carry Gene Carroll and UFO photos in the same rag. fyi
First – all splicing should be considered ‘tampering with the evidence’ and illegal. Let them tamper on their own reporting. The BBC should also worry about its own backyard. Will there be a Britain left to comment on unless the Brits take a good look at their laws and immigration policies. They have no business in our political system so that splicing was done to affect our politics.
This should be a words of caution to our country because during our last election, so many miss truths were thrown out that people voted on more misinformation that reality. This is a dangerous game for everyone.
Have you ever been to the UK, “Karen”? The BBC actually HAS no place in your precious political system (you have corrupted it without any outside help) and the programme was never shown in the USA. I mean, cunning plan by the BBC – let us affect US politics by producing a programme that will never be seen by a US audience… Genius, pure genius.
Yes, there is a problem with immigration, but you know what? Successive governments have sought to address that problem.. What the UK will never do is allow untrained thugs with guns to run around arresting anyone who looks a different colour and murdering citizens in the process. There will be a United Kingdom long after your little experiment in Republicanism has crashed and burned.
Karen (how difficult to have that name at this moment in time), slicing that cuts through extraneous verbiage is not unreasonable any more than the written ellipsis , , , Both can be sensible editing that will be valuable to readers. The key is that the splice or . . . must NOT alter the general meaning of the speaker.
Chances are that this case will not proceed to trial because Trump has still not sat for deposition. “He is too important to do that, might have to miss a golf game or not lower the GOP’s election chances with a rally, don’t you know.” Still, even Kuntz has said that if wants to bring a case, he still needs to meet the obligations of so doing. Of course, if DJT suddenly finds the time for deposition, he does not want to be caught out in his own habitual lies when accusing the BBC of lying 🙂
In other news, Trump Jr is complaining about Russell Brand being jailed for rape. Apparently a member of the Trump family and friend of Epstein thinks people should not be punished for rape…
17 year old complaints, no physical evidence.
Just more dissident suppression maybe?
Sufficient evidence to convict him of rape, whatever you might wish. By the way, you do know that politically Brand supported the Labour Party, and wrote for the Guardian, so it is the left wing of politics now pretending they never met him? How is this “dissident suppression”, oh genius?
Brand has long been viewed in popular opinion in the UK as an untalented, unfunny, toxic turd, inexplicably accorded “celebrity” status.
The BBC will most certainly argue that whether Trump said the lines 55 minutes apart or back-to-back, the overall message of his January 6 speech—urging a crowd to march to the Capitol and “fight like hell”—was accurately reflected in the documentary.
Courts generally grant journalists wide latitude in how they condense long speeches. Even though the BBC apologized for an “editorial error,” an apology for bad journalism is not a legal admission of defamation.
What Trump will have a real hard time getting past is the actual malice standard. Turley has been big fan of lowering the bar on the standard for a long time.
Trump’s lawyers must get inside the heads of the specific Panorama producers through internal emails and depositions to prove they deliberately intended to fabricate a lie, rather than simply making a sloppy, negligent, or rushed editing mistake while condensing a 70-minute speech into 12 seconds. In U.S. courts, gross negligence or anti-Trump bias is not enough to prove actual malice.
Also, Judge Kuntz specifically noted in his ruling that Trump will have to prove he suffered “actual damages” from the broadcast. What did he lose? How was he harmed?
Welcome to the X comedy show. Starring George the Clown who has zero legal training or experience and steal content from others or just makes up obvious lies.
Use AI much George X? Its obvious that you have no legal background. And neither does your AI.
Most AI is far better at law than X
Hmmmm!!
If most AI is better at law, and if X is always using AI, as you MAGA morons constantly complain, then what X says must have some degree of validity.
MAGA prefer NS to AI – Natural Stupidity…
MAGA = NS = Natural Superiority. Fixed it for you.
Not an argument
Regardless Trump and his attorney’s have been good enough at the law of defamation to get past the fairly high hurdles that typically prevent a public figure from being able to get past motions to dismiss and start towards a trial.
Not MAGA, Never claimed X uses AI.
There are many reasons not to post as anonymous – one is to have a history.
It is not wise to accuse others of being morons in a post were you Clearly either stupid or deicptful.
Separately – no you can logically jump from X is or is not using AI to X is making claims that are valid.
AI is a good source for legal information – but as with other domains AI is never any better than the quality of the questions it is asked.
X
I would eliminate Defamation entirely. It is too easily abused, and the difference between successful cases and unsuccessful ones is arbitrary and capricious. Trump’s case against Clinton regarding the Steele Dossier which was dismissed had far more merit than this.
The Steele dossier was false clearly defamatory, and clearly done with malice.
Still I would dismiss that – along with This, The Alex Jones suits, the covington kids suit, the EJC suit, … ALL defamation cases.
I do not know if Defamationtorts ever had value – but they do not today.
As I said decisions regarding them are arbitrary and caprecious.
This case is headed for Trial – even though it is weaker than the Clinton case. That alone should be proof that defamation torts no longer have value.
Societally we are better off without the False presumption that people will not lie publicly because they would be punished for doing so – because in fact they are nearly never punished for lying in public. We are better off knowing that anything said could be a lie and excercising our own judgement than assuming that public remarks are likely true because if they were not there would be punishment.
But I do not rule the world, and while defamation lawsuit results are arbitrary and caprecious – they are still permitted.
“The BBC will most certainly argue that whether Trump said the lines 55 minutes apart or back-to-back, the overall message of his January 6 speech—urging a crowd to march to the Capitol and “fight like hell”—was accurately reflected in the documentary.”
If that is what they do – they will lose. But they are free to do as they please.
“Courts generally grant journalists wide latitude in how they condense long speeches.”
This is no longer about “courts” – The courts allowed this case to proceed, this is now about juries.
“”Even though the BBC apologized for an “editorial error,” an apology for bad journalism is not a legal admission of defamation.”
Sorry – the BBS admission is an admission of defamation – that ship sailed. It was also wise to do so, but they should have done so far earlier – or not erred in the first place. Regardless the apology is per see an admission of defamation – Actually read it, they admit creating a false impression.
What it is not is proof of Malice.
“What Trump will have a real hard time getting past is the actual malice standard.“
Correct, but what this ruling means is that Trump has proven sufficient evidence of Malice to get the issue infront of a jury.
A judge has decided that the threshold needed to put this to a Jury has been met
The standard in Florida is preponderance of the evidence, Civil juries must be unanimous and have atleast 6 and no more than 12 jurors.
“Turley has been big fan of lowering the bar on the standard for a long time.”
I have seen no evidence of that.
“Trump’s lawyers must get inside the heads of the specific Panorama producers through internal emails and depositions to prove they deliberately intended to fabricate a lie, rather than simply making a sloppy, negligent, or rushed editing mistake while condensing a 70-minute speech into 12 seconds.”
There is a fair amount of evidence of that already. No Trump’s lawyers need not “get inside their heads”,
With respect to YOUR argument – there is compelling evidence already the edit was INTENTIONAL.
I would suggest a BETTER argument – would be that the BBC edit DID NOT create he impression that Trump issued a call to violence. Only a single sentence is the basis of the claim that Trump sought violence and only a single word in that sentence “fight” which is CONSTANTLY used in political and other context as meaning Oppose by all legitimate means available, rather than “engage in violence”
But BBC may have lost the ability to make that argument – just as YOU have by actually claiming Trumps remarks were a call to violence.
” In U.S. courts, gross negligence or anti-Trump bias is not enough to prove actual malice.”
Anti-Trump bias is literally the same as Malice.
“Also, Judge Kuntz specifically noted in his ruling that Trump will have to prove he suffered “actual damages” from the broadcast. What did he lose? How was he harmed?”
How was EJC actually harmed ? How were the election workers in GA Actually harmed ? How were the Covington Kids actually harmed ?
How was the sandy hook parents actually harmed – or an FBI agent Jones never mentioned actually harmed ?
I would get rid of Defamation entirely – it no longer serves a purpose. But proof of actually harm is as nebulous and arbitrary and capricious as defamation itself.
Say, take the day off and go feeds the pigeons.
John Say writes as I would expect a Russian psyops group would write. Paid by the word but with spelling and grammatical errors, punching out huge amounts of rambling writing, signifying nothing.
John Say, as always…you keep showing us how badly you understand how the law works.
John, for someone who claims to understand the law, you just got almost every single legal standard in this case completely backward.
1. Wrong Burden of Proof: You claim the standard in Florida is “preponderance of the evidence.” Wrong. Under binding U.S. Supreme Court precedent (New York Times v. Sullivan), the First Amendment mandates that a public figure prove actual malice by clear and convincing evidence—a vastly higher constitutional bar, regardless of what state the trial is in.
2. Confusing Bias with Malice: Your claim that “Anti-Trump bias is literally the same as Malice” directly contradicts decades of Supreme Court rulings (Harte-Hanks v. Connaughton) and Judge Kuntz’s own written order, which explicitly stated that “ill-will is different from actual malice.” Hating a politician is protected by the First Amendment; actual malice requires proving they knowingly fabricated a lie.
3. Misunderstanding Civil Procedure: Trump has not “proven” anything to get in front of a jury. Judge Kuntz ruled on a Motion to Dismiss, where the court is legally required to assume the plaintiff’s allegations are true before discovery even happens. The BBC still gets to file for Summary Judgment after depositions to have the judge throw the case out before a jury is ever seated.
4. Your Own Argument Contradicts Itself: You argue that the BBC didn’t even create the impression of violence because the word “fight” is standard political rhetoric. If the words aired by the BBC don’t imply violence, then the broadcast wasn’t defamatory in the first place! You can’t argue Trump was defamed by an implication of violence while simultaneously arguing the words don’t mean violence.
Then……, comparing a billionaire who won the presidency a week after a geoblocked British TV show aired to the Sandy Hook parents and Georgia election workers—who were forced into hiding, lost their jobs, and faced years of violent death threats—is completely detached from reality. You don’t have to like defamation law, John, but you should at least learn how it actually works.
You’ve shown us time and time again you have absolutely no idea how the law or the courts work.
The burden of proof for civil trials is preponderance of evidence.
You are correct that SCOTUS raised the burden for defamation of a public figure – but only with respect to proving actual malice.
The language that brenanan used is “convincing clarity” specifically with respect to mailice. What that means is that a jury must find evidence of malice. NOT merely conclude that there PROBABLY was malice.
Yes the burden for proving actual malice is higher – but that is not “vastly higher”. It is midway between more likely than not, and beyond a reasonable doubt.
The judge has already found that there is sufficient evidence of malice to proceed. While all he must find is that evidence exists to proceed malice is pretty close to binary. If evidence exists at all – then it is likely proven – even beyond a reasonable doubt.
You either act with malice or your dont. Please provide a scenario in which a judge can find enough evidence of malice to proceed to trial but a jury will find that it is not proven with “convincing clarity” ?
“2. Confusing Bias with Malice: “
Ill will and bias are not the same thing.
Regardless, you are off in lala land. Yes you have the right to hate others. You even have the right to speak with hate towards others.
You have the right to make false claims regarding public figures. But you do not have the right to make knowingly or recklessly false claims about a public figure that you hate.
You clearly did not read Harte-Hanks v. Connaughton which YOU raise 9-0 SCOTUS decided that Journal News exhibited actual malicemerely by running a story they could have easily verified was false.
The HOLDING – again you like to ignore the only part of a decision that was binding found that Reckless disregard for the truth was ALONE sufficient to prove ACTUAL MALICE
OOOPS – in this case we have MORE than “reckless disregard” – we have INTENTIONAL DECIEPT.
The very case YOU cite makes it crystal clear that ACTUAL MALICE has already been proven.
While the COMBINATION of strong BIAS and Error is sufficient to prove actual malice – and that certainly exists in this case.
SCOTUS has said that Regckless disregard for the true – that is a LOWER standard than the INTENTIONAL DECPETION we have with the BBC is sufficient.
And again YOUR case went 9-0 AGAINST YOU.
“Hating a politician is protected by the First Amendment;”
Correct
” actual malice requires proving they knowingly fabricated a lie.”
Knowlingly fabricating a lie is ONE way to prove actual malice
But as YOUR case notes, merely recklessly repeating a lie is sufficient.
Intentional is even stronger proof that reckless disregard.
“3. Misunderstanding Civil Procedure:“
Again – error on your part.
A motion to dismiss is a claim by the defendant that the case made by the Plantiff in their petition does not have sufficient evidence for each of the legally required elements of the claim.
The judge is required to evaluate the plantiffs filings. The standard of proof for facts alleged is very low, but there is still a standard of proof that must be met. The remainder of the judges evaluation regards whether those facts are suffficient to meet each of the required elements – otherwise the case is dismissed.
In defamation cases – particularly defamation of public figures – surviving a motion to dismiss is where most defamation claims fail.
Get past that hurdle and the rest is downhill.
“The BBC still gets to file for Summary Judgment after depositions to have the judge throw the case out before a jury is ever seated.”
Correct, but their case will be weaker not stronger.
“4. Your Own Argument Contradicts Itself:“
“You can’t argue Trump was defamed by an implication of violence while simultaneously arguing the words don’t mean violence.”
Of course you can. First the deceptive editing is only one part of this case – the entirety of what BBC aired and said will be before the jury.
Defamation (in the US) is publishing knowingly or recklessly false claims regarding another that harm their reputation.
There is no defense of “I lied in a different way than the plaintiff claims”.
======
The geoblocking is AT BEST relevant to venue. It is irrelevant to whether there was defamation of not.
Frankly it is barely relevant to venue. Anything BBC publishes is eventually available world wide.
YOU are free to argue that because few in Florida saw it BEFORE the election that it was not election interferance – but you can not argue that it was not defamation. There is no defence to defamation of I only published this in a village in tibet.
Further every single time something is republished – that is another instance of defamation (and it restarts the clock on statutes of limitations).
BBC is free to file a motion to change venue. I doubt they will get anywhere. So long as this was ever published in FL and it was foreseable that it would eventually be published in FL, Florida is an acceptable venue.
“Sandy Hook parents and Georgia election workers—who were forced into hiding, lost their jobs, and faced years of violent death threats”
And yet none of that was true. No sandy hook parents were defamed or forced into hiding. Claiming that martians committed the shooting at Sandy Hook does not defame the parents.
All false claims are not defamatory – the false claim must damage the plantiffs reputation – specific Sandy Hook parents were not identified. Nothing Jones claimed damaged their reputations – he did NOT claim that the parents shot their own kids.
Jones remarks were stupid and false, and as to your Venue nonsense – the Sandy Hook parents did not live in TX – Trump does live in FL – that is where the damage to his reputation was greatest.
I am no fan of Jones – he might be as evil as Hassan Piker. But that does not change the fact that no matter how wrong his claim that he aired ONCE was, it was not defamatory.
With respect to GA – Gulini showed a video – he did not edit the video. The video appears to show election workers retriving ballots from suitcases not ballot boxs from under the table. – there are other videos of suitcases not ballot boxes being wheeled into the counting room.
Gulliani did not name the election workers and in fact almost no one would have known who they were had they not sued him.
Further Gulliani’s actions were in the context of multiple lawsuits – Everything related to a court proceding is immune from defamation claims.
This case never should have seen the inside of a court.
Your death threat nonsense would be relevant as proof of actual harm – had Guiliani identified the election workers, had he made a specific claim about them personally, and had that claim been knowingly false.
Like the Jones case – the courts Skipped the required actual defamation trial and jumped straight to damages.
If Judge Kunst had just claimed BBC obviously defamed Trump lets empannell a jury to determine how much they woe, and BBC does not get to make a defense that there was no defamation – then these would be similar.
Neither Guiliani nor Jones got due process. In fact the Guiliani case was another case of the lefts lawfare denying ANYONE the chance to prove to ANY standard election fraud. We were all suppose to accept as biblical truth that US elections are sacred and no matter how easy you make it to commit Fraud it still will not happen.
Those of us paying the slightest attention new in 2021 that hundreds of thousands of ballots in Fulton County had no chain of Custody. Subsequently that has been established to nearly everyone satisfaction – except possibly yours FC has admitted it under oath in court.
For all we know the Ballots these election workers pulled out of suitcases from under their desks are among those with no chain of custody – and in fact it is highly likely as 315K ballots is a substantial portion of All Fulton County Ballots.
But even merely from the video – it is not defamation to show unedited what people are actually doing.
There is a reason that court proceedings are immune from defamation claims – aside from the fact that they are subject to sanctions by the courts and possibly criminal charges – the reason is no one would ever go to court – if you make a claim you risk facing a defamation claim – in theory even if you prove the claim.
Even directly accusing people of crimes – as part of the legal process – criminal and civil procedings is protected from defamation as we WANT people to come forward even if they are not sure.
With specific respect to death threats – are those who reported the leak of dobbs subject to sanctions because their reporting resulted in death threats ?
As a matter of ancient law we do NOT hold people accountable for the actions of third parties.
In the specific issue before us – SCOTUS has a very tough standard to meet for inciting violence. Fall short of that standard and you can not hold speakers responsible for the acts of 3rd parties – the same is true in the Guilini case.
The people who make death threats are responsible for those death threats – find them and prosecute them.
I would further note that the GA election workers were government employees – they are automatically subject to criticism for how they perform their job, they do not have protection from claims – even false claims. The video cameras existed for many reasons – secutiry – both of the workers and the election process itself.
I want body cameras on the police – I also want everyone done regarding elections on video and the video made public. Just as the Capital video from J6 was which dispelled the vast majority of lunatic left claims.
I do not know if the two election workers in question committed a crime.
I do know that it is beyond suspicious to have ballots pulled out of suitcases under tables.
We have election laws – detailing procedures for good reason. Deviate and you shoudl EXPECT people to be suspicious even accuse you of misconduct.
“is completely detached from reality.”
You CLAIM there were “death treats” – There are multiple actual assassination attempts of Trump.
If “death threats is your standard for defamation – BBC is on he hook for Trillions.
Regardless we do NOT hold third parties accountable for the criminal acts of others.
BBC is not responsible for the death threats and assassination attempts of Trump
Nor is Guliani responsible for threats made to election workers he did not identify who chose to identify themselves.
And he would not have been had he identified them.
” You don’t have to like defamation law, John, but you should at least learn how it actually works.”
I do you, do not.
“You’ve shown us time and time again you have absolutely no idea how the law or the courts work.”
ROFL – as usual even the cases YOU cite never prove what you claim and often the opposite.
John, you keep proving you have absolutely zero understanding how this works. None.
Your claim that “if evidence exists at all, then malice is likely proven—even beyond a reasonable doubt” shows you still don’t understand the difference between alleging a fact before discovery and proving it at trial.
First, Judge Kuntz did not find “sufficient evidence” of malice, you didn’t provide evidence he did—he ruled on a Motion to Dismiss before discovery even started. At that stage, a judge doesn’t look at evidence; they simply assume everything written in the plaintiff’s complaint is true to see if it states a valid legal claim. Surviving dismissal just opens the door to discovery; it proves nothing.
Second, the scenario you asked for happens in federal courtrooms all the time. Here is how it works:
Sloppy, biased editing is negligence—not actual malice. Having enough circumstantial smoke to get past a motion to dismiss is miles away from proving knowing falsehood with convincing clarity.
All you’re proving is you have no idea what you’re talking about.
The rest of your long running BS diatribe has absolutely nothing to do with this issue. You lost that argument a long time ago. Rephrasing, and quibbling over semantics is not going to change the facts John. You’ve always been wrong about how the law works.
“” You don’t have to like defamation law, John, but you should at least learn how it actually works.”
I do you, do not.
“You’ve shown us time and time again you have absolutely no idea how the law or the courts work.”
ROFL – as usual even the cases YOU cite never prove what you claim and often the opposite”
No John, you’re clearly in denial of the facts. You absolutely don’t know how the law works. I’ve pointed out how multiple ways and provided statutes and actual cases. You’ve provide zero evidence to support your claims. You either practice willful denial, or just don’t want to admit you don’t understand how these things work. You. Don’t. Understand. It’s as simple as that.
We can get rid of defamation torts just as soon as we reinstate legal dueling, because that is where it will lead, to a lot more duels. Abolishing defamation is a super stupid idea. The idea is not new and it is not smart.
“We can get rid of . . .”
Spot on!
Because you say so ?
This is nonsense.
Words are NEVER a justification for violence.
Free markets work everything out far better than anything else in those domains where that is possible.
This is one of those.
As Brandeis said – the response to bad speech is more speech.
Lie and you become known as a liar.
When people lie about their ability to repay what the borrow – their credit rating goes to h311 and people refuse to lend them money and do not trust them.
That is the proper way to punish liars.
While the NYT appears to atleast slightly be trying to rebuild its reputation – its leading the collusion delusion and the hunter biden laptop nonsense and myriads of other left wing conspiracy theories has lead to many many people not trusting it – or lots of the rest of the MSM.
That is the correct remedy for bad speech.
Not dueling,
not defamation lawsuits.
People posting RIGHT HERE engage in defamation all the time.
Are we all in court ?
No.
We respond to liars by knowing they are liars and devaluing what they say.
X – so YOU are arguing that the BBC should win because there was no Actual Call to violence.
But you have over and over and over said there was.
Jack Smith sought to Jail Trump atleast in part over exactly the same statements essentially framed in the same way.
Why aren;t you arging that BBC should win because the edit is NOT deceptive, that it truthfully portrays a call to violence ?
Why are you telling the BBC to claim negligence rather than Truth as a defense ?
Have you finally grasped the claim that Trump incited violence is B$ ?
John, your poor attempt to manufacture a false dilemma because you don’t understand how civil defense strategy—or basic libertarian free-speech principles—actually work is hilariously stupid.
First, in civil litigation, a defense attorney doesn’t take on a harder burden of proof just to satisfy an internet commenter. Under the First Amendment, the BBC does not need to prove that Trump committed criminal incitement under Brandenburg v. Ohio to win this lawsuit. They only need to show that Trump cannot prove “actual malice” by clear and convincing evidence. Proving that an edit was merely rushed, sloppy, or negligent while condensing a 70-minute speech into 12 seconds is an absolute, airtight constitutional defense. Why climb Mount Everest when you can walk through an open door?
Second, your “gotcha” ignores the Substantial Truth Doctrine. The BBC can easily argue that while splicing two clips without a transition was a sloppy editorial mistake, the overall gist of the documentary—that Trump urged a crowd to march on the Capitol and “fight like hell” to stop the certification—was substantially true. As a self-proclaimed libertarian, you should know better than anyone that journalistic hyperbole, editorial framing, and political commentary are protected speech, not actionable torts. But Trump who always likes to bully others into submission through lawsuits demanding billions for some perceived “harm” only works when those he’s bullying eventually cave. The BBC is not caving they are going through till a trial date is set. But it’s guaranteed Trump will drop the case or settle long before a trial date is set. Especially when the BBC gets it’s depositions and discovery documents from Trump.
Third, your claim about Jack Smith is pure revisionism. LOL! Smith’s indictment wasn’t built on a 12-second soundbite; it was built on a months-long paper trail of fake elector schemes and pressure campaigns on state officials and the Vice President. The fact Judge Cannon made it impossible to access the full report speaks volumes about the evidence within and Trump is deathly afraid the public will see evidence he’s been trying to hide for years now.
Frankly, for someone who claims to oppose defamation laws and value liberty, you are bending over backward to cheerlead a sitting President using the coercive power of the state courts to punish a press outlet over a 12-second video edit. That isn’t libertarianism—it’s crazy authoritarian speech policing.
While you as usual have a number of errors in your post – the biggest error is that your whole post is a giant red herring.
Even the parts that are close to right – are mostly not relevant.
You are falsely claiming I have disagreed with them – Beat that straw man to death.
First – the BBC does not have to prove anything.
The plantiff always has to prove their case.
Yes the standard FOR ACTUAL MALICE is slightly higher than preponderance of the evidence.
But you completely misread your own Case on that – Reckless disregard is more than sufficient to prove actual malice,
and the BBC has essentially admitted INTENTIONAL deception – that is FAR BEYOND what is required.
If BBC edited the speech and unintentionally bet recklessly created a false impression – ACTUAL MALICE is proven.
That is Justice Stevens HOLDING in Harte-Hanks – YOUR case.
with specific respect to civil defense strategy – lawyers and their clients are free to have whatever strategy they wish.
I have NEVER made any represetantions regarding strategy – I am personall in favor of strong protections for Jury nullification – including allowing lawyers to DIRECTLY argue for jury nullification – even though in the US today that will get you sanctioned and even potentially prosecuted.
I support Defense counsel in civil and criminal cases being as free as possible to employ ANY strategy they please.
So stop this nonsense about not understanding civil defense strategy. There are only two kinds of civil defense strategy – winning and losing.
BBC is free to persue any strategy it wishes.
With respect to your claim here.
Brandenberg is at best marginally relevant – this is not a criminal case.
What Trump must show is that BBC Falsely portrayed his peech in a way that makes him look bad.
He does not have to prove they alleged a crime. Again – this is a civil case – brandenbrerg is irrelevant.
Next – BBC does not NEED TO SHOW anything – Trump does, the burden of proof is on him.
But YOU shoudl actually examine Harte-Hanks – YOUR case, Trump will have little difficulty meeting the standard in that
“Proving that an edit was merely rushed, sloppy, or negligent while condensing a 70-minute speech into 12 seconds is an absolute, airtight constitutional defense.”
NOPE. While you are correct that rushed sloppy and negligent are not defamation – Reckless disregard for the truth is ABSOLUTELY defamation.
Negligence plus bias is sufficient to prove recklessness.
This case will settle – because BBC is toast.
In a vaccuum – BBC could argue truth as a defense.
But they have already publicly admitted that the documenteary created a false impression.
With near certainty the Judge will preclude BBC making a truth defense as they have already publicly admitted creating a false impression.
There are three major aspects to this
Actual malice – bias + negligence gets you there – but this is worse – this was not rushed, sloppy or negligent – or even reckless, it was intentional.
That is likely already proven – but even if it isnt it will be easy to prove – that is what discovery is for.
But edits are presumed intentional. Rushed is not a defense for lies. BBC could have delayed and done the job truthfully. Deadlines the media sets for itself are NOT legitimate excuses for negligence or sloopy work. Deadlines that are completely external MIGHT be – probably not.
Rushing is not a defense for a lie. Negligence is not a defense for a lie.
False impression – BBC has already publicly admitted that – while I would allow them to present a truth defense – they court is unlikely to.
Regardless if they did they will be facing the standard “are you lying now, or were you lying then” cross and that is nearly always damning.
It is an inescapable logic trap that just makes things worse. ONE of the reasons I would allow the defense to argue anything they want – even argue for jury nnullification, is that most of the time the arguments the courts will not allow you to make are more likely to harm than help you.
If BBC argues the truth of the clip – then Trump’s attorneys will have fun getting everyone from BBC defending one lie or another under cross.
The 3rd issue is damages. Litle has been said there – but contra your claim the potential damages are astronomical.
defamation damages cover ANYTHING that MIGHT have negatively impacted you later.
The election, his businesses, personal relationships, ……
” As a self-proclaimed libertarian, you should know better than anyone that journalistic hyperbole, editorial framing, and political commentary are protected speech, not actionable torts.”
False – I beleive they SHOULD be, that does not mean they are. Guliani created an impression that might be true as part of multiple legal challenges – those of you on the left decided that was so clearly defamatory you could skip a tril on the merits and jump directly to damages,
The same regarding Jones.
“The BBC is not caving they are going through till a trial date is set. But it’s guaranteed Trump will drop the case or settle long before a trial date is set.”
I absolutely agree the case will settle – because BBC is not going to risk trial.
“Especially when the BBC gets it’s depositions and discovery documents from Trump.”
You keep thinking that BBC gets broad discovery – they do not. They are the defendant – not the plaintiff.
As noted – they have already abandoned the truth defense. I beleive that these types of litigation have separate phases for dmages – if so BBC will not get any consequential discovery until the lose the defamation portion.
“Smith’s indictment wasn’t built on a 12-second soundbite; “
Correct – Brandenburg is ABSOLUTELY relevant in the Smith case and Smith fails BADLY making his processution a violation of civil rights under color of law.
“it was built on a months-long paper trail of fake elector schemes”
There are no fake elector schemes there are alternate electors are required in any challenge to an election in congress and every single case related to electors was LOST or dropped by prosecutors – in many cases state supreme courts have ruled the cases dead because there is no crime.
These were nver close cases this is all left wing manufactured nonsense. You do not get to create crimes frim thin air.
“pressure campaigns on state officials”
Even if proven perfectly legal. The president of the United States has no power over state officials.
As is typical those of you on the left use words like pressure as substitutes for the actual words in criminal statutes which are specific.
Did trump have actual power over any of these people ? No. Did he offer them money ? No! Did he threaten them with violence ?
No! While Trump did NOT threaten to have any of them primaried – and that would be a reason to vote against him if he had – that would be perfectly legal.
ALL Threats are not crimes. Threatening to do something that you have the right to do is not a crime.
Obama issued political threats all the time, so did Biden.
“the Vice President.”
There is no threat to the VP.
He was presented with a plan that was perfectly constitutional.
He incorrectly claimed it was not and refused to do it.
Bad judgement on his part but not a crime on anyones.
“The fact Judge Cannon made it impossible to access the full report speaks volumes about the evidence within”
Nope – this is no different that the Epstain files. Prosecutors make their cases in court through indictments motions and trials.
If ANYTHING thwarts them from getting to a conviction they are DONE. They do not get to go out on the courtroom steps and defame anyone they investigated.
We are debating defamation law here – There is no defamation invovled with Court cases. One of the reasons is because you get to make your case in court under the control of the Judge – not in the Washington post.
Even leaking investigative material in criminal cases is illegal.
Regardless with respect to Smith – Judge Chutkan was dealing with the case regarding J6 – and she could have granted smith the ability to release his report. That would have been appealed and Smith would have lost.
“Trump is deathly afraid the public will see evidence he’s been trying to hide for years now.”
Really ? Once again – Trump is the most investigated person on the planet ever. He is the most leaked about.
We all KNOW everything about all of these cases – EXCEPT the spin Smith would have put on it.
There was no secret government plot to protect Trump during the Biden presidency.
“Frankly, for someone who claims to oppose defamation laws and value liberty, you are bending over backward to cheerlead a sitting President using the coercive power of the state courts to punish a press outlet over a 12-second video edit. That isn’t libertarianism—it’s crazy authoritarian speech policing.”
We are debating the law.
I want our immigration laws changed.
I want our defamation laws changed or tossed entirely.
I also want all laws enforced – even ones I do not like – UNTIL they are changed.
That is how “the rule of law, not man works”
I doubt this case goes to Trial.
There will be a settlement – as the punitive damages in this case could easily bankrupt BBC.
While I think there will be a significant monetary settlement, that is NOT Trump’s primary goal.
The big goals are vindication, and putting the press on notice they can not continue to make lunatic claims about him without consequence.
The goal is to get the media as a whole – not just BBC to check their reporting for Bias before air.
Trump will not succeed perfectly in that – but he will succeed.
There will be a settlement.
John Say
There will be no settlement.
Trump has to sit for a deposition. He has no choice. And he has to prove ACTUAL damages. The case cannot proceed until he does so.
If he refuses to sit for a deposition, the case is dismissed.
If he does sit for a deposition, he will inevitably lie.
Either way, the case will be dismissed.
In addition, the BBC has already stated that they will aggressively seek all his financial records in discovery in order to disprove his claim of actual financial damages. There is no way that Trump will turn over financial records.
The case will be dismissed.
“There will be no settlement.
“Trump has to sit for a deposition.”
Someone’s never heard of a pre-deposition settlement.
If you desire is to blow smoke, you’ll need to do so elsewhere.
Why would the BBC settle when they can bet with some confidence on deposition either not happening or Trump shooting himself in the foot, even the head, if he does sit for deposition?
Because they do not have any basis for any broad ranging deposition of Trump.
Civil cases are not fishing expeditions.
Given BBC’s public appology they will likely be very limited in discovery related to Trump and J6.
Even if they made a truth defense – which they likely can not having admitted that the reporting created a false impression, they would still be limited to the speech at the ellipsis.
They will certainly be allowed discovery related to damages – but that is a later phase of the procedings and contra the left – defamation is about damage to reputation.
If you falsely accuse someone of being a murderer – do you tink they need to prove their electric bill went up.
What were the 1B in actual damages in the Alex Jones case ? What were the actual damages in the Guliani case ?
Who did Jones and Guliani get to depose ?
Defamation cases rarely involve dignifivsnt discovery of the plaintif by their very nature, and ths would be less than most.
“Trump has to sit for a deposition. He has no choice.”
At some point correct – and he will have to provide discovery – but that deposition and discovery are limited to contested issues where Trump could have evidence in support of the BBC”
BBC has already ceded that the report created a false impression – they have no “truth” defense.
They will not be able to depose Trump on events regarding J6. They likely will not even be allowed to present evidence.
The other issue is “actual malice” – that is pretty well established – regardless – there is no evidence regarding the actual malice of BBC journalists that can be derived from Trump.
Trump must prove actual damages. Likely that is a separate phase of the trial. Discoveryrelated to Trump may not occur until AFTER the conclusion of the defamation portion of the trial. Even then – Trump will likely have to provide the defense and the court the damages he intends to claim – and discovery will be limited to those damages.
Discovery is not open ended, it is specific to the claims and counter claims in the trial.
“And he has to prove ACTUAL damages. The case cannot proceed until he does so.”
To survive the motion to dismiss Trump had to prove atleast ome damage – that gets him to the trial.
He will not likely have to provide his entire damages claim until after BBC is found to have defamed him and the case proceeds to damages.
Regardless, Actual damages in cases like this are easy defamation is about reputation – any oportunities that MIGHT have been lost or reduced are damages.
“If he refuses to sit for a deposition, the case is dismissed.”
True, but BBC will not get to go on a fishing expedition. The only basis they have for discovery is damages and that likely will come later, and that is not a huge deal. Further Trump will not likely sit for that – accountants will likely be deposed for that.
“If he does sit for a deposition, he will inevitably lie.”
ROFL about what ?
This case is about the BBC – they have ceded Truth as a defense – read the apology above – they admit creating a false impression. That is per see defamation. What is left is Actual malice – that will not involve any discovery of Trump, and demages – and that discovery will be limited to harm to Trump. Trump may or may not be deposed – but the primary dicovery will come from accountants.
“Either way, the case will be dismissed.”
Sidhful thinking.
“In addition, the BBC has already stated that they will aggressively seek all his financial records in discovery in order to disprove his claim of actual financial damages. “
They will be limited to records specific to Trumps damage claims.
“There is no way that Trump will turn over financial records.”
Of course he will in discovery and that discovery will be sealed except what is presented in court and if it is leaked – BBC will face a newer bigger lawsuit.
.
But Trump makes lunatic claims every day. The BBC, more accurately the production company that made Panorama, was stupidly careless. However, they have never made Pirro attempt to imprison innocent people to cover up the fact that Trump is utterly incompetent at painting the bottoms of ponds. Or label US citizens murdered by ICE as “domestic terrorists.” Or boast that they have ended eight wars (most of which never actually happened) so should get the Nobel Peace Prize for murdering Iranian schoolchildren by using AI for targeting. Nor has the BBC ever allowed Noem, Hegseth, Kennedy or Mullin anyway near a position of authority.
“But Trump makes lunatic claims every day.”
And yet you have not been in court proving that.
” The BBC, more accurately the production company that made Panorama, was stupidly careless.”
ROFL It is possible they were careless. It is not likely.
“However, they have never made Pirro attempt to imprison innocent people “
Your “innocent person” had to break through baricades and no tresspassing signs late at night and used an knife to cut part of the pnd coating and was arressted with peices of that coating.
You can try to debate parts of this – but the fence was their and he climbed over it. He went into the reflecting pool itself
Do you think if you go wandering arround in the Town fountain that you are not going to be arrested ?
The man is not innocent.
The reflecting pool was in bad shape and had not had consequential repairs in years.
It has subsequently been fully repaired and if you try to climb in you will be arrested.
“to cover up the fact that Trump is utterly incompetent at painting the bottoms of ponds”
It is a pool not a pound. It is over 100 years old, you do not just “paint it” The old dgreaded coating was removed as was rotted concrete
It was then cleaned, special boding agents used and the concrete patched, Then different bonding agents and a special coating applied.
Recoating a normal pool is a difficult job – it is not just “painting”. Preseving a 100 year old pool is a very complex and difficult undertaking.
Not helped by people disrupting it during repairs of slicing the coating while it is curing (or after),
This is called vandalism.
Please tell me any good reason that anyone should be in the water in the reflecting pool on the other side of chain link construction fences late at night with a knife ?
Only a left wing nut would pretend that is ok.
Whether you like Trump or not – The Reflaecting pool belongs to the country – Do NOT F#$K with it.
If you do expect to be arrested.
“Or label US citizens murdered by ICE as “domestic terrorists.” “
It is illegal to interfere with ANY law enforcement officer in the course of their job – whether you like what they are doing or not.
If you do not like US immigration law – go to Congress and get it changed.
You are free to protest ICE officers – though doing so is stupid -0 again go to congress. The officers are doing their job – LAWFULLY.
“Or boast that they have ended eight wars (most of which never actually happened)”
Just as we are not in a War now – If Iran is a war, then so are the conflicts Trump ended.
“so should get the Nobel Peace Prize for murdering Iranian schoolchildren by using AI for targeting.”
No one murdered Iranian schoolchildren. A few were killed in a conflict – that happens.
More so when one side violates international law and uses schools, hospitals etc for IRGC and Basij training facilities.
Regardless, US casulaties have been unbeleivablly low. Iranian civilian casualties have been incredibly low.
Deaths in this conflcit have been about 99.99% Iranian combatants
“Nor has the BBC ever allowed Noem, Hegseth, Kennedy or Mullin anyway near a position of authority.”
The BBC is a communications network – it has no authority.
John Say, why are you lying so much. The amount of BS you spew on this post is absolutely insane.
John, it is remarkable how you manage to get every single factual detail wrong even after the government’s own prosecutors and military investigators admitted the truth.
You aren’t defending law and order, John. You are just blindly repeating BS talking points that even the administration’s own legal and military records have already disproved.
John Say, I agree with you that this won’t get to trial. If Trump can’t avoid a deposition under oath or turn over documents exposing the real intents behind the speech and his conduct he will definitely settle.
A settlement IS Trumps primary goal. Trump wants the BBC to settle so he can gloat about being ‘right’.
The problem is the BBC has already made clear they are willing to go all the way and they know Trump won’t stand the idea of being deposed or any of his other cronies being deposed under oath.
Trump made a mistake picking a fight with the BBC. He can’t threaten their broadcast license like he does here. The BBC has larger resources at their disposal and they are determined to go all the way to trial. It’s not going to bode well for Trump, especially now that he’s in a weaker position after the election.
X
those of you on the left keep fixating on getting Trump under oath.
The judge will allow the BBC to depose Trump NARROWLY on things that are directly relevant to their defence.
At this moment I can not see ANYTHING that would meet that criteria.
Absolutely if this gets to the damages stage – BBC will be able to engage in discovery related to the SPECIFIC damages claims Trump makes – but again that likely will not involve Trump.
Trump has been deposed before. While I do not think that will happen here, even if it did – this is a ZERO risk deposition for Trump.
There is nothing BBC will be allowed to get into that is within 10,000 miles of anything Trump would like to avoid.
The CORE issue defamation here is the 12s video. BBC has already admitted that created a false impression – that is per see defamation.
Thaat leaves the issue of Actual Malice – Trump has ZERO to do with Malice in the BBC’s publishing choices. The judge would laugh at any BBC attempt to Depose Trump on BBC Malice – and even if he allowed it – Trump is going to say “BBC hates me” – and opinion and that is the of that.
Absolutely Trump must prove actual damages – but actual damages in a defamation lawsuit are extremely broad. Defamation is damage to reputation, Regardless Trump can decide what actual damages he wishes to claim and BBC’s discovery is limited to the damages Trump claims.
It is common for plantiffs to curate damage claims to avoid discovery. That reduces potential awards. but Avoids some discovery.
Regardless Trumps finances have already been anally probed by James – there is nothing financial he is hiding.
Further it is accountants that would be testifying regarding that.
But lets say that the Judge allows discovery related to the Truth of BBC’s assertions – that is discovery limited to only what is in the 12s video – that is all.
“John Say, I agree with you that this won’t get to trial. If Trump can’t avoid a deposition under oath or turn over documents exposing the real intents behind the speech and his conduct he will definitely settle”
You left wing nuts keep claiming this – what is it that you think that he will be required to turn over that he will refuse ?
Your off in lala land.
BBC is not going to get to relitigate jan 6 – this is purely about BBC misrepresenting the speech at the ellipse.
If you accuse me of being a pedofile and I sure you – you get to depose me about your claim I am a pedofile – not my entire life.
Discovery is not a fishing expedition. Have you ever sought discovery or been asked for discovery ? I have.
It is limited – at very most to the narrow issues in the lawsuit. And even then only to things that the person the discovery is requested of could possibly answer.
“A settlement IS Trumps primary goal. “
No winning is Trump’s goal – a settlement is the FASTEST and most CERTAIN way to that.
“Trump wants the BBC to settle so he can gloat about being ‘right’.”
Correct – about a hostile media. He also wants a win to send a message to the MSM to cover him more objectively.
“The problem is the BBC has already made clear they are willing to go all the way and they know Trump won’t stand the idea of being deposed or any of his other cronies being deposed under oath.”
The BBC is not itching for a fight – they are terrified. A bunch of random parents won a $1B award against Alex Jones for a stupid but not defamatory claim.
Trump is multimillionaire – the damage award could be colossal, and the punitive s many times that.
You keep ranting that discovery is a threat – there are cases where discovery can be a weapon for the defendant. This is not ever close to one.
Actual malice is determined SOLELY by evidence from the Defendant.
BBC has waived a truth defense – but even if the judge allows them to make that – which I doubt they will ask because Trump’s lowyers will eat everyone from BBC alove on Cross – “were you lying then or are you lying now”
BBC F#$Ked up with their appology – it was WAY too late and VERY BADLY Written. They appologized in the hope of avoiding a lawsuit or mitigating damages – but demage mitigation must come FAST – not a year later. And they way you mitigate damages is to admit error and correct. That precludes you from later saying we did not err.
If the judge gives BBC the benefit of everything – they will be allowed to depose Trump about what he said in their 12s video. Maybe what he said at the ellipse
There is not going to be a fishing expedition.
“Trump made a mistake picking a fight with the BBC. He can’t threaten their broadcast license like he does here. The BBC has larger resources at their disposal and they are determined to go all the way to trial.”
Have no idea what you are smoking – Fox settled for a Billion in an easily winnable case – you likely have not heard – but Smartmatic has LOST the case against other defendants who did not settle. This was near Certain. The Quote from the a high member of management “that they would assure that Trump did not win” – really ends the case. It does not matter whether They actually rigged the election – reporting that they might have when they said things allowing people to beleive they might have ands any hope at defamation.
They have also admitted that they Rigged the elections in Venezeula – that their software Does have the ability to weight votes – That the software used in the US contains that feature. Their defense is they were required to do this by Maduro – and that is perfectly fine.
But it means they can not claim to have been defamed when people say they had the ability to do so.
BBC is technically a private corporation with a Royal charter that is paid by Television Fees collected by the Government.
This is slightly more closely coupled to government than PBS or NPR were. Regardless, It is not the British government and it can not count on the British government for any more funding than was agreed to.
BBC’s current cash reserves are 127M lbs. They are very weak financially – there is zero chance they could afford 1/4 of the settlement that Fox paid.
Even the legal fees on this case could be crippling to them.
Trump’s current net worth is about $7B Even YOU should know that Trump was able to finance the $1/2B award that Enmoron granted prior to the appelate courts tossing it. Trump has or can easily get MASSIVE cash reserves.
BBC may be big – but like pretty much the entire EU they are incredibly weak and fragile.
I have not seen this claim that they are itching for a fight – but frankly if it is true – it is posturing.
If they could get out cheap now – they would in an instant.
This is NOT a normal media defamation Case – BBC has F’d this up by the numbers. First they presumed Trump would, or would have to sue in the UK – UK defamation laws are actually friendlier to plantiffs, But no UK jury is going to vote to have their TV fees skyrocket.
They STUPIDLY waited a year to mitigate damages, Which is a collosal legal error – it leaves them admitting publicly to defamation AFTER the damage is already done.
As docmented over and over – No Trump is not affraid of discovery.
No BBC does not get to go on a fishing expedition. Any discovery they are allowed must be germain to the contested parts of the case.
Without the admission – the case is limited to the 12s video or maybe the entire speech – that is it.
Again – no one can be deposed about the malice of someone else – and even if Trump were – I am sure Trump would be happy to express the OPPINION under oath over and over that BBC acted with Malice.
Damages are about finances and finances are established by records, and those requords are certified by accountants.
Trump will not be required to testify – though he might choose to as contra you left wing nuts he has no risk here.
If BBC’s lawyers try to go fishing – Trump’s will shut them down.
Next – there is a REAL judge handling this case – not Merchan or Enmoron or Kaplan.
Discovery of the BBC will be limited to the communications of those involved in this news segment and limited to that segment.
Some disovery of Trump’s finances and BBC’s finances will occur.
Beyond that there will be little discovery.
” It’s not going to bode well for Trump, especially now that he’s in a weaker position after the election.”
The election SOMEWHAT weakens him politically – SOME of that would occur whether republicans won or lost.
Regardless the election slightly weakens Trump as King Maker for the GOP
It radically improves DeSantis’s position for 2028 and weakens Vance and Rubio.
Regardless ALL are better than any democrat.
The Major issues related to 2028 will be those exposed by the election.
Getting men back to the polls and restoring GOP minority votes.
Some of that will occur naturally – because it will be a presidential year – likely nearly 50M more people will vote.
Republicans have been adding abotu 1M additional voters NET/year or nearly 20yrs – that likely will continue.
But some of it will require fixing he perceptions that tipped the election.
Ending the Iran war on US terms. That is purely a matter of time.
I GUESS the election means it is more likely for Trump to continue economic strangulation of Iran rather than return to Kinetic action – but that also depends on what Iran does.
Regardless no matter what you think – The US is not just walking away – and Democrats in congress may well rail about the war, but they are not going to do anything, because they would be blamed for any bad result.
The same is true regarding Canadian Tariffs. Canada is 10 times more fragile than the US, further as I have said MANY times.
in ANY crisis involving supply and demand, given time supply chains shift.
Every month that goes by Canada loses jobs that will never come back.
Every month that goes by US rust belt companies find alternative ways to contnue production and bring workers back to their jobs.
Time is Carney’s enemy and Trumps friend.
The election likely means that Trump will be less agressive regarding Cuba – which was most certainly next on Trump’s list.
Though I doubt there were ever plans for kinetic action in Cuba. Cuba has alleged we are blockading them – The US claims we are not.
Voters do not care. We are not FIGHTING Cuba.
I think it is likely though not certain the Cuba Regime collapses before 2028 – While that will not boost the GOP with ALL hispanic voters – it will with alot of them.
Slowly Venezuellan oil will enter the market driving prices down further.
AS I noted before – starting in Jan 2027 projections – NOT US Government projections are for the largest historical surplusses in Energy for atleast 9 months. Even Right now the Global deficit in Oil is TINY – Global production is the same as 1 year ago. Global consumption is 0.6mbbl/d greater than supply – that is about 0.5% Nationwide Gas went below $4, Brent is $93/bbl.
And even if NOTHING else happens all of that will improve over the next 24 months.
There is still a debate over the impact of Immigration on the election – it was the 5th ranked issue with only 14% of voters saying that matters.
Further 56% of American still want ALL illegal immigrants deported.
Regardless from his remarks Trump appears to be seeking to find a sweet sport regarding deportations.
He has to find a balance between the votes he will lose if he scales back deportations with those he will gains.
“mass deportations” will continue – there are way to many voters who will abandon the GOP if they do not.
But it is likely Trump will reduce the proportion of deportations of familes or those with no criminal record.
This has never been the majority of deportations – despite left wing nut claims.
More recently Trump shifted to stopping H1B visas and allowing existing ones to expire – that is likely to continue and to be popular.
If your H1B visa expires you can not legally be employed. Microsoft is not going to pay you under the table.
This is also important as AI grows in impact – the workers who will be displaced are exactly the people who will be able to replace H1B employees.
My guess is the Senate will rush as many judicial confirmations as it can in the next 2 months and Democrats will confirm almost no one for the next two years.
That will make the news – but voters will not actually care.
Between the deportations that have already taken place plus self deportations, and the fact that thre have been almost zero new illegal immigrants in the past 2 years a significant portion of the Biden tsunami has been completely mitigated.
The Budget is close to locked for the next 9 years. That does not mean Democrats can not try to weaponize the budget – but it means they need 60 votes to get any change through the senate.
They can also try to hold the government hostage over debt extensions – but Contra your claim Dems won with no mandate,
That means trying to use the debt ceiling to increase spending will be an uphill battle.
WaPo has essentially told Democrats they are at a crossroads – embrace bipartisanship and possibly consolidae their winnings,
or return to warfare – and get wiped out in the future.
YOU claimed that Dems were NOT running as socialists – now we get to see whether you are lying.
I do not think it is in the nature of modern democrats to engage in bipartisanship, like the scorpion riding across the river on a frog, Dems can not avoid pushing for more socialism, nor can democrats avoid open warfare with Trump for the next 2 years.
Put simply it is in your nature to screw things up.
YOU claim this was a massive YOUTH election – if so those voters are going to demand that dems in Congress do ALL the things that will assure that you lose in 2028. As YOU agree and Turley notes – that segment of the electorate is massively SOCIALIST.
I highly doubt anything in Europe improves in the next 2 years. US votes will get regular doses of European socialist failure.
You can try to play label games – but the FACT is that what you want is to change the US into Europe.
Voters will get regular messages about why that is a bad idea.
You need to Pray that the economy goes to h311 before 2028 – which requires an act of god or nature.
On autopilot americans will be just under 10% better off than today. Possibly even more.
That is if NOTHING improves.
One of Trump’s big midterm problems is that he had 4 years to prove to the world he was “the greatest” – to do so he has made myriads of changes – mostly returning to sanity, acorss the entirety of what govenrment can impact. That is somewhat chaotic and people do not like Chaos, But those changes once accomplished become the norm and those changing them become the agents of chaos.
Further some of those changes only take effect gradually and even as they take effect – people do not perceive the benefits until months later.
Contra exit polls the Economy is doing well, it is just short of booming, But voters did not “feel” that yet.
They will.
You say Trump is weakened. Trump will not be able to get anything done legislatively for the next two years.
But MOST of what he had done/is doing is not legislative.
So what BBC did is OK in your mind under the laws of defamation? Next BBC will get to splice segments spoken a month or year apart by your reasoning. Let a trial occur. Let’s find out if there was any malice.
Let Trump sit for deposition first. Then, somehow not lie as is his usual wont. Then, maybe, a trial will occur. Chances are that it will not, because TACO faced with having to be honest and submit to discovery… In any case, he or at least his minions will be facing their own trials in Congress in a few months 🙂
Wanna try that gain and this time – be coherent.
It is coherent. You are obviously illiterate or incapable of comprehension. Oh, and no such word as “wanna”. I presume you mean “want to”?
Please tell me what discovery the defendant in a defmation case that has already admitted to deciept can ask for ?
You have had discovery in the enmoron case, in the EJC case, in the Merchan/Brag case.
Even though Smith;s lawless prosecutions were halted – there was significant discovery.
Even if this court gave BBC carte blanche – there is nothing that has not already been anally probed.
Why would Trump be afraid of being deposed for the bazillionth time about things he has already been deposed about ?
Regardless, there is no legal justification for significant discovery regarding the plantiff.
This case will hinge on actual malice – which is pretty much proven. Discovery for that will be ENTIRELY of the BBC and limited to this particular program.
There will be financial discovery – Trump’s participation will be minimal.
You seem to think that discovery is unlimited. It is very limited.
Trump would not have filed the lawsuit if he had concerns about discovery.
BBC will ask for things they are not entitled to.
Trump’s lawers and the judge will likely say no.
But Trump might opt to give it to them anyway to speed this along.
The statements were made as part of a single, continuous, rambling speech to a single crowd who did splice them together before heading to ransack the Capitol building, attack police, literally climb walls, and shatter windows to force access to unlock doors for the main flood of rioters to enter the building, forcing members of Congress to flee ahead of the wave of invaders.
There was no malice BL. That’s the point. The BBC’s apology and acknowledgment of the journalistic error. Proves there was no malice. But if Trump still wants to pursue the lawsuit, he’s gonna have to prove with absolute certainty the BBC’s editing was intentional malice.
It’s incredibly difficult to prove. By continuing to pursue this Trump is exposing himself to more problems than he would like. He would have to sit for a deposition under oath and he would have to produce financial records showing he was financially harmed by the BBC’s alleged defamation. Trump won’t do that. If he refuses the judge can simply dismiss the case. Or…Trump could settle with the BBC and pay them to drop the case.
“The BBC will most certainly argue that whether Trump said the lines 55 minutes apart or back-to-back, the overall message of his January 6 speech—urging a crowd to march to the Capitol and “fight like hell”—was accurately reflected in the documentary.”
They can’t argue that – the apology ceeded that.
They made the worst possible choices – they deceptively edited, they were quickly caught and they waited more than a year to admitted error.
That puts them in worse shape legally than if they had admitted nothing.
Jeez John, apparently you don’t seem to have the capacity to learn or pay attention.
You are repeating one of the oldest armchair-lawyer myths in the book. Issuing an apology for sloppy journalism does not forfeit a defendant’s legal defenses, nor does it put them in “worse shape legally.” In fact, the exact opposite is true.
First, look at how retraction laws and evidentiary rules actually work—something any libertarian like you who supposedly values voluntary dispute resolution over state coercion should appreciate. Under Florida’s defamation retraction statute (Fla. Stat. § 770.02), the law actively incentivizes publishers to apologize and correct mistakes by stripping plaintiffs of the ability to seek punitive damages. Even more importantly, an apology for an “editorial error” is an evidentiary shield, not a surrender. By admitting they made an unintentional mistake, the BBC is reinforcing their strongest First Amendment defense: that it was ordinary negligence, not “actual malice” (a deliberate, knowing lie).
Second, your claim that they would be better off “admitting nothing” gets Supreme Court precedent completely backward. You always get things backward. Always. Pay attention, Under Harte-Hanks Communications, refusing to pull or correct a disputed segment after being notified of an error can be used by a plaintiff as evidence of “reckless disregard for the truth.” By pulling the documentary and issuing a correction, the BBC actually cut off Trump’s ability to claim ongoing malice.
Think of it like a private contract or a property dispute: if a contractor accidentally damages your fence, apologizing and fixing it limits their liability to actual, provable harm—it doesn’t mean they forfeit their right to argue in court that your $10 billion damage claim is absurd. Here, the BBC can simultaneously say, “We made a sloppy editing error and apologized for it, AND the overall gist of the broadcast remains substantially true, AND you suffered zero quantifiable damages in Florida because the show was geoblocked and you won the election.” Saying “sorry” doesn’t erase the First Amendment.
BUT JOHN SAY’S WIFE IS A LAWYER! thus his authority on the topic
Actual malice requires knowing or reckless disregard of the falsity. Here, they fabricated a sequence of statements. They deliberately spliced sentences separated by nearly an hour. That meets the standard.
Daniel, ok. So how does Trump prove the action was intentionally deliberate? It’s Trump’s burdens to prove it in order to win this lawsuit. Saying the emails said mean things about him and showed bias is not proof.
He would have to find an email or text from someone making the editing literally saying something to the effect, “lets make this so trump looks bad.” “Let’s splice these sentences into a claim Trump wants violence.” That’s what would need to be shown in court.
“The way the speech was edited in the documentary gave a misleading impression of what you said.”
That is an admisssion that the editing was deceptive. That near certainly ENDS any truth defense.
It is also an admission that the misleading impression could be considered defamatory.
Even if it does not – then Trump’s lawyers pepper BBC witness with questions about why they lied in their apology.
Subsequently the BBC Chair claims that the “”misleading impression” was unintentional.
Pretty hard sell to claim that impression created by editing is unintentional. BBC is free to try, but do you really think that discovery is going to lead to “unintentional editing” ?
I do expect that discover will lead to communicatiosn that say – how can we edit this to creat the impresion trump sought violence.
That is not necescrary – The case that X cited set the standard as reckless disregard for the truth.
Bias + negligence exceeds that.
To paraphrase Harry Reid “He lost didn’t he?”. Deceptive editing to produce a “news” piece aired in close proximity to an election certainly indicates an intent to damage. If your point is that in the heat of an election ascribing a specific damage, in this case loss of votes, could be difficult but if that is the standard —- proof of a specific loss of votes in order to show damage — is the standard then no news org can ever be held liable. In cases like this I would think that intent could lead a jury to infer damage. If so, what would the financial damages assessed be to compensate for loss of a presidential election? Defamation of a public figure is one of the most complicated and amorphous areas of tort law. Definitely interesting.
I cannot figure out a way to retract my comment, because obviously Trump didn’t lose, I regret my error. By the way, THAT is the way you make a genuine honest retraction and apology. You don’t spend several months defending the indefensible before being “forced” to retract.
It does not matter whether Trump lost. Even if he received less votes, or if financial or other oportunities were more restricted.
The Best argument that BBC has regarding damages is that everyone knows or thinks they know Trump – they already hate him and our peace does not change that. Or they already do not beleive US and our peice does not change that.
But if that is the best argument they have in court – they are in trouble,.
Any damage counts, the BBC waited over a year to appologize – that is what is called a BAD FACT.
Defamation of a public figure is no different from ordinary defamation EXCEPT that Actual malice must be proven.
That does NOT require specific malice in the defamation – it merely requires proof of malice toward the plaintiff.
Prooving media malice against Trump is nearly a slam dunk – they are open about their malice.
It’s funny: way back in the 90s I used to like the BBC news for their broader geopolitical coverage and *general* statement of facts on the ground; today, they are nothing but another globalist mouthpiece, and I sincerely hope they have to pay every penny. This is not that, and these times are not those times. I wouldn’t trust the modern left as far as I can throw them with my pinky finger now, and the lies have got to stop, or at least be mitigated with pushback.
Guess my concern is that there is a very real possibility this will all be moot in the near future under the modern left’s interpretation and/or changing of law, and with their stated purpose of further corrupting our courts. These people are insane.
You’ve been living in your MAGA silo way too long James. Waaaaay too long.
And you, still living under that rock?
Ankle-chained to a radiator in his grandma’s basement.
And your TDS is apparent in everything you write.
@George
I’m not maga, George. Nor am I a Conservative. Try to wrap your tiny little brain around that fact.
X needs AI to understand that.
Sure James, whatever you need to make yourself more comfortable. You’re not MAGA, sure.
MAGA is big on bashing the “modern left” too. But yeah….sure.
X – you prove James remarks every day
It is interesting that James never has a comment about the actual facts of Turley’s diatribes.
James simply engages in generic whining about the “modern left”, without actually addressing the substance of Turley’s comments, or anyone else’s comments
Since his comments incessantly refer to the alleged shortcomings of the “modern left”, it is becoming more and more obvious that he is nothing more than a poorly programmed AI bot.
Thank you George X. We always welcome George X and his multiple deranged personalities.
LOL! That was not me.
But anonymous was not wrong.
I agree. I have also noticed that about James. His comments are nothing more than a word salad of generic gibberish about the “modern left”. He uses this phrase “the modern left” multiple times in every single comment.
He also claimed in a recent post that he is “one of those who has to work”, and yet he is here all day, every day, obsessively commenting about the “modern left”. Obviously he cannot be working if he spends all his time here.
Whoever is managing this bot should take note and correct these obvious programming errors.
@Anonymous
The only thing more pathetic than schilling for $$$ is replying to yourself in the comments for more $$$. You are a clown, and everyone can see it. You are a living example of a head that would explode if an original or unpaid thought entered your tiny head. Go blow.
James
You have commented 8 times in the last 2 hours, and it is not even lunch time.
You are obviously reading every comment here today, as well as adding your own inane gibberish. And yet you claim to be “one of those who has to work”.
What exactly is the “work” you do that allows you spend all day here???
Olly is all about “formation”. James is all about the evils of the “modern left”. LOL! Nothing wrong with that, but it’s funny still.
The modern left is the greatest danger facing not just this country but the world.
X and other left wing nuts have openly sought to move the US closer to Europe.
Look at Europe – decades of sub 1% growth. The socialists rioting against socialists, stagnation, failure, no future.
That is what this country should aspire too ?
John Say, Oh, the horror! Imagine the sheer, apocalyptic terror of the United States becoming more like… Switzerland, Denmark, or Ireland. Truly, the end of Western civilization is upon us.
John, for a self-proclaimed “libertarian,” you seem remarkably allergic to actual free-market data. Your claim about “decades of sub-1% growth” in Europe is pure BS— World Bank data shows EU growth averaging well above that for decades, with countries like Ireland, Poland, and Denmark regularly outpacing U.S. per-capita growth. Second, if you actually checked the Cato Institute’s Human Freedom Index or the Heritage Foundation’s Economic Freedom Index, you’d see that Switzerland, Ireland, Denmark, and Estonia all rank higher than the United States in economic and personal freedom.
Calling thriving, high-income capitalist democracies “socialist failures” while ignoring that the U.S. runs far worse budget deficits and has lower life expectancy than almost all of them is pure comedy. Yes, John, having affordable healthcare, higher social mobility, and not dying five years earlier than our peers is definitely the “greatest danger facing the world.” Somebody alert the UN—we’re at risk of becoming a functional developed nation! LOL! Good grief John. I mean, really.
X
The other major point that John Say does not seem to understand is the importance of education and healthcare in a thriving economy. He routinely says the government has no role in education and healthcare, but the government is important in managing the economy.
What he does not understand is that a thriving economy relies on an educated and healthy workforce. It is in the government’s interest to ensure the people are healthy and educated in order to have a good economy. Every other developed country on the planet understands this.
That is why Europeans are happy to pay higher taxes in return for good healthcare and education. They are incentivized to spend more time being productive citizens, rather than worrying about being bankrupted by healthcare costs, and worrying about how to afford educating their kids.
Anonymous.
“The other major point that John Say does not seem to understand is the importance of education and healthcare in a thriving economy.”
Correct.
A good example of government playing a major role in education and FUNDING it is…China.
They emphasize education as a way to improve their society and standard of living. All you need is look at their impressive progress in engineering, architecture, and technology improvements over the last couple of decades. China has the most advanced car manufacturing processes in the world making cars much cheaper to build and improve quality.
We are quickly falling behind China because they focus on education and higher learning. We are still fighting over how to best teach our children and the right is losing its mind over wokism, transgender issues, and other culture war nonsense that has nothing to do with focusing on education. That’s my two cents anyway. Thanks.
Wrong.
What is actually interesting is when the good professor points out how Democrats or leftist MSM gets caught doing something unethical, like the BBC editing what Trump said, 55 minutes apart, to deceive the public into believing something totally NOT true or aka a hoax, how you annonys make lame attempts to comment bomb the good professor’s blog.
And, James is simply pointing out the facts. And we should point them out, time and time again as not to forget exactly how leftist MSM is not to be trusted and are not credible.
ATS – TDS is a very realy thing – the BBC’s hit pece is evidence of that.
We do not need to speculaate what the left will do with power – you have had power – in the US and elsewhere and we all see what you have done.
Many of us have addressed directly Turley’s post – and gotten idiotic nonsense from those of you on the left that
Trump well settle or drop this to avoid being deposed.
To the limited extent he may be subject to discovery – he knew that when he filed the lawsuit.
Trump is after a win – a Big one, and he wants it sooner rather than later, and that is why he is likely to Settle.
BBC is facing a potentionally bankrupting judgement – and very little hope of avoiding it in a trial, and they are so cash poor they can barely afford lawyers. Worse still this is being fought on Pro Trump turf, that is likely not freindly to the BBC.
Absolutely they could win or there could be a small award.
But they will settle because a 1/3 chance of a multi-billion dollar judgement is the kiss of death.
Trump will settle because he can use this as precident against the rest of the media, or just to cow them into honest journalism.
James,
Agreed.
CNN was the same back in the day. They were, past tense, hard hitting news organization. Then they became the DNC mouth piece like so many other leftist MSM. That is why the public has so little trust in MSM and independent media is doing so much better. That is why I am a paying subscriber to The Free Press. By their own admission, their news room is 1/3 liberal, 1/3 conservative, and 1/3 independent. The difference is, they are, with exception to opinion pieces, objective journalists first. Bari Weiss is TRYING to do the same at CBS news, but is getting a lot of resistance from advocate journalists who still work there. In the latest 60 Minutes scandal, she was not informed of the biased slant of the article.
@Upstate
All true. We really, honestly do have Pravda going on. This is not hyperbole, it is not a joke, it is not sarcasm. No, really: the modern left’s media is pure propaganda, and even though I don’t watch any cable news of any kind, it’s JUST the left. Period.
What does that have to do with the article? Are you stupid or sumptin?
PBS/BBC put out an EXCELLENT multipart peice decades ago “The Commanding Heights: The Battle for the Global Economy” that is still available free that everyone should watch.
It is also an incredibly good primer on macro economics, and the rise and failure of Keynesian economics.
This suit is really about advocacy journalism. The ethics component for many reporters is simply absent. Probably, the BBC didn’t even think that this sort of influence is wrong. Why? Because they believe everyone is doing it. They may be right. Therefore, the term mob journalism may be a better descriptor for election time news outlets’ reporting.
Together, in the full flush of rage, hate, and revenge in modern life, we see the slow destruction of ethics, slower but still deadly.
@gdonaldallen
Sorry, I disagree: I think they know and have known precisely what they are doing. You give to much credit to reticence and naivete. I don’t think either of those things have been a factor. This is straight up manipulation, and we need to talk about it quite openly as such. The censorship and manipulation apparatus is already in full swing in wee Britain. It’s likely coming here again in a couple of months.
gdonaldallen,
I have to agree with James on this one.
I think they are fully aware of what it is they are doing, their biased reporting and are likely proud of it. The mask really came off when NPR fully endorsed their journalists to participate and advocate for their biased points of view.
I agree, I do not think this case goes to trial – because the BBC will lose – there will be weeks of BBC witnesses unable to hide their own malice and having to admit to nasty emails and other communications. I doubt this goes to trial.
All that said – while I fully beleive in journalism that is as neutral as possible – with clear lines between opinion peices and straight reporting,
I oppose ALL the defamation lawsuits.
I used to follow NPR news for a number of things – they leaned left but they were not completely looney.
Today they are beyond bias and deep into crazy and therefore of no value.
Let the market decide.
No government funding or subsidies – and if left wing nuts want to keep NPR afloat – so be it.
John Say,
Well said and I agree.
As I have stated in the past, I used to, past tense, listen to NPR from morning to dinner. I would even listen while out in the fields. I had more than a few driveway moments. They had their leftist slant but you could dismiss it and still get the news and interesting articles. Then 2016 happened. They ditched their premise of non-bias and endorsed full on advocacy journalism. They became CNN like panel-O-pundits, linking anything and everything bad to Trump. It was nauseating. So, I switched them off. I will, occasionally, tune in, in the truck to see if they had changed. Nope. After the NYT bombshell report of the conspiracy of the Democrats to seek, and recruit the decoy Dan scandal, I did listen to the NYT podcast, The Daily for the audio report. I was mildly shocked at how it was factual and even when the host of the podcast tried to put some spin on it, the reporter pushed back.
Our taxpayer dollars should not be funding leftist propaganda. If leftists want to support NPR with their money, have at it.
Are you stupid or something? The article is about Trump. You’re the guy who thinks The “Magna Carter ” was penned by Jimmy Carter, ex pres. eh?
John Say,
As usual you show how bad you are at interpreting law. In this case defamation law: confusing “nasty emails” and political bias with constitutional “actual malice” is hilarious.
Even Judge Kuntz explicitly stated in his ruling that “ill-will is different from actual malice.” Trump cannot win at trial simply by showing BBC producers disliked him or wanted him to lose. Under New York Times v. Sullivan, he has to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the editors deliberately intended to fabricate a lie, rather than making a rushed editing error while condensing a 70-minute speech. More importantly, because the broadcast was geoblocked in the U.S. and Trump won the election days later, he has virtually no way to prove quantifiable financial damages.
Also, the BBC is not a private corporate network that can quietly cut a check to make a PR headache go away. It is funded by British taxpayers via a public license fee. Using British public funds to pay off a foreign politician is politically toxic in the UK, which gives the BBC every incentive to force Trump to sit for his court-ordered sworn deposition rather than settle. That’s why I’ve said the BBC is not the same as media companies in the U.S.
Then there’s your rant about NPR subsidies which ignores basic math. Direct federal funding accounts for less than 1% of NPR’s budget. The network is already funded almost entirely by corporate sponsorships, foundations, and individual listener donations. The market has already decided.
Yes. The market has decided. And that is why NPR has lost corporate sponsorships, declining listen audience, has had to have lay offs, canceled shows.
Prove PBS has lost corporate sponsorships. Show your evidence.
I have no idea about Corporate Funding – but Federal Funding in 2025 was 535M – the largest ever and more than half of PBS’s budget according to their own financial statement – which had 924M in total revenue.
In 2026 their Federal Funding is $0 – so they have alot of money to make up.
I do not care whether PBS private funding rises or falls. If you wish to fund PBS that is your business, just as you can contribute to Alex Jones. I do neither.
As YOUR case stated – Reckless disregard for the truth is proof of actual malice – while that USED to be a very difficult standard to acheive – today it is in nearly every hour of every MSM TDS story.
John Say,
“I agree, I do not think this case goes to trial – because Trump will lose – there will be weeks of Trump unable to hide his own malice and having to admit to fraudulent finances, nasty emails, and other communications. I doubt this goes to trial.”
Fixed for you, free of charge.
“there will be weeks of Trump unable to hide his own malice”
Trumps malice is irrelevant and inadmissible. You are free to hate anyone you wish. BBC is free to hate TRump.
They are not free to hate Trump and publish deceptive stories about him. They are toast.
“having to admit to fraudulent finances”
Trumps finances are admissible ONLY to the extent they are related to the damages he claims,
In defamation claims the Norm is that damages are lost oportunities – and that is not documented by finances.
If Trump restricts his actual damages claims to lost oportunities there will be no discovery of his finances.
There was little discovery of EJC’s finances in her lawsuit. She actually made money off being insulted by Trump.
“nasty emails, and other communications.” If that exists none of it will get in.
Defamation has nothing to do with how much the plantiff hates the defendant.
It is about whether the defendant published false information about the plantiff – and if the platiff is a public figure whether they did so with malice. According to the Case that X cited – a 9-0 SCOTUS decision – reckless disregard for the truth is sufficient.
In that case a reporter never interviewed any available sources that would have proven the story false.
The court did not require hate mail from the defendant, just a complete abdication of journalistic standards.
We already have that here.
This will settle – because BBC is toast.
This from a guy who without a high school diploma. Ask him. We got receipts. Lots of em.
You have nothing but lies. Lots of them. We see it every time you make a comment.
Please. I know they knew full well what they were doing. They simply didn’t regard it as wrong insofar as not to do it.
Professor Turley points out that BBC did what it did purposefully before the presidential election. The primary, if not sole, purpose being to influence the outcome of the election.
Or to put it another way, to marginalize the right to vote of the citizens of the United States of America.
May President Trump’s attorneys seek to amend the Complaint against BBC … to add We the People as a Plaintiff … and to seek damages against BBC on behalf of the citizens of the United States of America.
Add we the people huh? Really? And what exactly is your cause? Marginalize voters? Redress? Knowing your proclivity for spreading BS Steve, you’re more like a 3rd rate ambulance chaser than a patriot.
Anon=BS Proclivity for spreading BS=Anon
ATS – left wing nuts make the claim Steve is making all the time.
This is a far bigger attempt to influence a US election than some crappy Social Media adds no one saw from Russia in 2016.
Where I part with Steve is that while the US constitution does not give Foriegn actors free speech int he US.
It should. The value of free speech does not go away because the speaker is foreign.
John Say,
You focus on “free speech”. Please consider this. ‘Free speech” allows you to say what you want to say (in other words, “free speech” means “no censorship”). But “free speech” does not give you freedom from the consequences of your speech (in other words, consequences for damages that you cause by what you say). If “free speech” freed you from consequences for what you say, there would not be any such thing as a lawsuit for defamation. Please, think about it.
Stephen – I agree – with one Caveat – the Consequences for your bad speech may not be imposed by GOVERNMENT.
That is why I reject Defamation as a tort.
In myriads of otehr areas – your bad speech and/or conduct result in consequences like – no one will loan you money, no one will hire you, no one trusts you, no one will rent to you.
I am 100% supportive of that.
Defamation as a tort gives a FALSE sense that we can trust what the media says – otherwise they would be sued.
But inreality, defamation suits are arbitrary and capriecious. Winners and losers are random or worse still determined by politics.
Go after Trump in a blue state and win. Trump goes after others in a red state and wins.
Where the tort is filed matters more than the facts.
I would be opposed to Defamation even without that.
But today the value of defamation is less than the Harm.
Expect Trump to win this easily. This is a legal slam dunk.
And as I supprot the rule of law I am mostly OK with that.
But I would trade all the defamations suits that have been won that should have been to get rid of all the ones that have been lost that should not have,
and to return the determination of whether someone should be trusted to each of us as individuals.
Stephen B. Benisch,
Ummm….that’s very unlikely and not really a thing you can legally do for three reasons.
First, “We the People” is a phrase from the Preamble, not a legal entity that can file a lawsuit. In federal court, the collective public is represented solely by the “United States of America” through the Department of Justice—never by a politician’s private tort lawyers.
Second, you cannot morph a personal defamation claim into a collective voting rights lawsuit. Defamation is a strictly personal tort that measures alleged damage to one individual’s reputation. A foreign broadcaster airing an edited documentary—which was geoblocked in the U.S. anyway—does not legally “marginalize the right to vote” or violate the Voting Rights Act.
Finally, under Article III of the Constitution, federal courts strictly forbid “generalized grievances” on behalf of the general public. Every plaintiff must prove a concrete, personal injury. Trying to claim 330 million Americans suffered quantifiable financial damages from a British TV show—especially after the candidate in question won the election—would get laughed out of court and likely result in sanctions against the lawyers who filed it.
Hope this cleared some misconceptions.
Personal tort huh? Dominion Voting Systems suing Fox News is a personal tort huh?
“generalized grievances huh? Forbid? You stupid liar. Courts may refuse to hear such cases because they are better suited for resolution by political branches rather than the judiciary. Article 3 huh?
Calling someone a “stupid liar” while publicly demonstrating you don’t know what corporate personhood or Article III standing actually are is quite a choice.
First, yes—Dominion Voting Systems suing Fox News is a textbook private tort. Under basic American law, a corporation is a single legal “person” suing for specific, quantifiable financial damage to its own business reputation. Dominion did not try to add “We the People” as a co-plaintiff or sue on behalf of 330 million Americans. A private company suing for its own lost contracts is the exact opposite of a politician’s personal lawyers trying to sue a foreign TV network on behalf of the entire country.
Second, you should actually read Article III of the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent (Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife and Spokeo v. Robins). Prohibiting “generalized grievances” is not a polite suggestion where courts merely “may refuse” a case. Under Article III’s Case-or-Controversy requirement, federal courts constitutionally lack jurisdiction when a plaintiff fails to allege a concrete, particularized, personal injury. A federal judge literally cannot entertain a lawsuit filed on behalf of “We the People”—doing so violates the Constitution.
Next time you want to throw insults around, at least learn the difference between a private corporate plaintiff and the Preamble to the Constitution.
Man, you walked right into that one didn’t you. Talk about stupid.
X – you sought to put Trump in Jail for exactly this speech, You were practically ready to go to war with Russia over very stupid social media adds.
“First, “We the People” is a phrase from the Preamble, not a legal entity that can file a lawsuit. In federal court, the collective public is represented solely by the “United States of America” through the Department of Justice—never by a politician’s private tort lawyers.”
Correct – and in such Cases we typically frame the case as “The People vs. X”
“Second, you cannot morph a personal defamation claim into a collective voting rights lawsuit. “
Likely correct – but DOJ can sue the BBC for violating US election laws regarding foreign interferance.
“Defamation is a strictly personal tort that measures alleged damage to one individual’s reputation. A foreign broadcaster airing an edited documentary—which was geoblocked in the U.S. anyway—does not legally “marginalize the right to vote” or violate the Voting Rights Act.”
Good to hear that from you. So they collusion delusion was not only a Hoax – but if Russia “interfered” in US elections through Social Media Speech – that is OK will you ?
“Finally, under Article III of the Constitution, federal courts strictly forbid “generalized grievances” on behalf of the general public.”
Do not see that anywhere in Article III
“Every plaintiff must prove a concrete, personal injury.”
That is correct – but it is not in Article III
“Trying to claim 330 million Americans suffered quantifiable financial damages from a British TV show—especially after the candidate in question won the election”
Would be called a Mass Tort, or a class action.
“would get laughed out of court and likely result in sanctions against the lawyers who filed it.”
Nope.
“Hope this cleared some misconceptions.”
What YOU whole set of arguments clears up is that you are Janus – two faced – arguing for what you were against yesterday because you make decisions based on who you want to prevail – not the law itself blindly applied
There is no difference between what BBC did and what you allege Russia did in 2016.
Jesus John, your poor understanding of law really shined through on this post. Let’s break it down shall we?
Glad you agree with the “we the people” point. To further the distinction here’s a bit more in depth explanation for those who may like to know the difference in how it’s applied.
1. “The People vs. X” is State Criminal Law: Federal courts never caption cases as “The People” or “We the People.” Only a handful of specific states (like California or New York) use “The People” when state prosecutors bring criminal charges. In federal court, the public is represented exclusively as “United States of America,” and private tort lawyers cannot hijack that caption for a civil defamation suit.
But you are incorrect about the DOJ’s ability to sue the BBC.
2. The DOJ Cannot Sue the BBC: Under the Federal Election Campaign Act (52 U.S.C. § 30101), bona fide news organizations have an explicit press exemption. Airing an edited documentary—even a sloppy one—is protected press activity, not an illegal foreign campaign contribution.
3. The Absurd 2016 Russia Comparison: Equating a publicly aired, geoblocked British TV documentary to a covert Russian military intelligence operation is pure nonsense. In 2016, Russian agents hacked private servers, committed felony identity theft to open fraudulent U.S. bank accounts, and ran covert influence campaigns masquerading as Americans. Openly broadcasting a TV show under your own network banner is journalism, not criminal conspiracy and cyber-espionage.
This was just plain stupid.
4. You Don’t Understand Article III or Class Actions: The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the ban on generalized grievances comes directly from Article III’s “Cases and Controversies” clause (Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife). Nor can you turn 330 million voters into a “mass tort” or “class action” under Federal Rule 23, which strictly requires every class member to suffer a concrete, quantifiable injury. Claiming Americans suffered financial damages from a geoblocked UK broadcast—after their candidate won the election—is the textbook definition of a frivolous filing that earns lawyers Rule 11 sanctions.**
There is nothing “two-faced” about applying the actual law consistently. You’re just upset that the First Amendment and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure don’t bend to fit your partisan talking points. It’s as simple as that.
X,
I don’t disagree with you. I published my Comment for the purpose of drawing attention to the fact that election interference (even by the so-called “Press”) is more harmful to We the People and our nation, than merely harmful to President Trump or any one person. I didn’t intend my Comment to be a legal thesis … if anyone thought otherwise, I apologize.
👍
X says, “Defamation is a strictly personal tort that measures alleged damage to one individual’s reputation.”
Class action lawsuits for defamation are common. Consider the successful suit against Alex Jones by parental victims of the Sandy Hook massacre.
Now watch X “move the goalposts.”
LOL! Nothing has moved. What is true is I’ve stayed consistent with my arguments all day long.
ha ha ha ha you clown. Consistently WRONG. You also failed to respond to my CORRECTION of you yesterday when you stated that other SCOTUS members never practiced courtroom law. Such a HUGE lie, so I understand why you did not respond. You were also consistently wrong yesterday with your hilarious arguments about Section 102 of the IIRIRA, despite being corrected several times.
We know your MO. When confronted with a correction, you create arguments never made by someone, then pretend to correct them. Truly laughing stock, old man or young student you are, I don’t know which but we will CONSISTENTLY correct you.
X is envious of a few commenters here and tries to argue with them. Fool. He doesn’t even come close to them
Defamation is not commonly a mass tort – but it can be – see the Sandy Hook Parents against Jones.
Hah! Do journalists actually have any ethics these days?
To a certainty, not any of them in the legacy mainstream media. Their all-consuming drive is to get Trump, by any means necessary.
Their all-consuming drive is to get Trump, by any means necessary…. and like Trump never gave them reason?
And what reasons would that be ? Why do you hate Trump ?
You need not like him. You need not agree with him. But hating a person is extreme and we generally do not hate people merely because of political disaggreements.
If Trump prevails in this lawsuit hopefully a verdict against the BBC will result in liberal and conservative media alike to temper their political biases and do going forward what they should always be doing all along, that is, objectively reporting the facts. I won’t hold my breath considering that journalism schools now teach that is acceptable, even expected, that journalism graduates inject their personal bias into their reporting.
Ummmm….that’s not good for Trump. Trump has been fighting the BBC over discovery and depositions under oath. He’s not going to win this if he is forced to provide the documentation BBC needs for its argument and face a jury.
Trump is more likely to try to force a settlement like he has on other cases, but it’s more likely the BBC will not be as easy as the other media conglomerates to cave to the pressure. Especially after the elections put Trump on a weaker position.
This “victory” was essentially a low bar in terms of legal wins. The hard part for Trump is still going to be the depositions and discovery materials.
Yeah this is bad for Trump, he will now probably have to settle for multi-million dollar settlements like he did against other lying media groups. X is a fool.
Hullbobby, no. The BBC is different. They are not as easily cowed like the U.S. media companies.
Trump will have to spend a LOT of money fighting depositions and discovery. He’s fighting an uphill battle in this case.
Easily cowed huh? Seriously? Then why are they fighting it? They’ve already admitted to the facts and apologized. Tried settling too.
You have never been involved in a defamation case and have zero understanding of law and procedures. You’re not a lawyer. You just lie. Oh, without your AI crutch you sure do sound stupider than usual.
Why are they fighting it? Because they can. Unlike most U.S. media companies, the BBC refuses to bow to a bully.
Yes, they apologized, and Trump should have been satisfied with that. Instead of accepting a free apology and declaring victory, he insists on “punching back hard” to punish the network as harshly as possible. The problem with that approach is that he has put himself in a terrible legal position.
In order to move forward with this lawsuit, Trump will have to sit for a sworn deposition and hand over personal and business documents during discovery. He clearly does not want to turn over those records, because doing so will expose years of other falsehoods he has been peddling. Remember, he’s claiming he’s been harmed. In order to prove that he needs to show his financial records to prove he’s been harmed. We both know Trump is never going to allow anyone to pore over his business records. There’s probably a whole bunch of crimes hiding in there anyway.
I have been following this case closely, and you do not need to be a lawyer to understand the basic legal mechanics and procedures. required for it. You haven’t been able to prove a single thing I’ve said is wrong. You are just flailing around and parroting nonsense out of frustration because you don’t actually have a legal argument. Much less one with actual substance. But do carry on.
You are a complete fool and idiot to think that you, the local blog idiot, has the wherewithal to analyze legal issues.
It’s better than what you do….which is nothing but whine and moan.
Using poorly written AI to analyze legal issues is not better. It just makes you look like an idiot.
Agreed. When a debate is lost, insults become the loser’s tool.
Bless your heart.
Some of the other media groups were owned by conservatives. Settling meant their payments to Trump were tax-free (to Trump) gifts.
Other groups were extorted by suggesting their licenses to broadcast would be taken away.
The BBC has neither motivation. The BBC is motivated to go to discovery to see what evidence Trump has that he was harmed as he claims he was. This means giving the BBC access to all of his private financial records.
The BBC created an accurate synopsis of Trump’s bloviation. The worst part is, if Trump continues to press, that a jury will be forced to listen to an hour or more of Trump stirring a crowd to rage and then pointing them at the Capitol building and telling them he would meet them there. It’s inhumane to force a jury to listen to that.
You sure do know how make an a$$ of yourself. You have know idea how this will play out. You’re not a legal analyst X. You’re obviously too stupid for that.
ROFL!!
You barely understand what is going on. I bet you haven’t been paying attention to the case until now.
I’m not a legal analyst, sure. But that doesn’t mean I can’t provide my take on it. At least I am following the case. The only thing you offer is limp-wristed twaddle. LOL!! Carry on.
Oh… limp wristed twaddle? Get that from AI? At least I’m following the case. Where to begin… And that makes you an expert legal analyst. You sound like a senile old fat desperately seeking attention in a ocean of midwits with pseudo-intellectual opinions.
LOL!!!! I didn’t need AI for that. I’ve used that insult on occasion.
Didn’t say I was an expert. You don’t need to be one in order to understand what is going on. But it does take some pretty good reading comprehension skills and some intellectual curiosity to learn how the case is progressing.
You sound jealous over the fact you cannot make a coherent argument about the case so you focus on belittling my opinions because…you just can’t. That’s pretty sad.
“Didn’t say I was an expert.” You don’t have too, it obvious. “That’s pretty sad.” You said it you clown.
Agreed
@Anonymous
An ass is an ass; it doesn’t have to try to make an ass of itself – it can’t be anything else, no trying is required. 🤷🏻♂️
X this is a defamation lawsuit.
YOU (and BBC) are NOT arguing the editing was not deceptive – They could argue that, Truth is always a defense in a Defeamation case, but BBC has already ceeded that the editing was deceptive – that means FALSE.
You can not say – we erred creating a false impression AND the impression were created was true, concurrently.
So the Truth defense is long gone.
With the Truth defense is any bassis for the defendant in a defamation lawsuit to depose the plaintif.
“Ummmm….that’s not good for Trump. Trump has been fighting the BBC over discovery and depositions under oath. He’s not going to win this if he is forced to provide the documentation BBC needs for its argument and face a jury.”
Of course he will – BBC is entitled to discovery specifically related to its defense. It has admitted deception – it is not making a Truth defense.
It has no basis for discovery Likewise Trump’s discovery is limited to seeking evidence of Malice.
Discovery is not a fishing expedition.
“Trump is more likely to try to force a settlement like he has on other cases”
You keep abusing words – Trump has no power to FORCE a settlement.
But this case will settle because even a small risk of a loss would likely bankrupt BBC
,”but it’s more likely the BBC will not be as easy as the other media conglomerates to cave to the pressure.”
ROFL
BBC’s best shot was to stop this from going to Trial – that has been the most effective means of stopping other Trump defamation lawsuits.
They lost, they are in huge trouble – the risk is staggering. The Puntaives could be the largest ever awarded.
” Especially after the elections put Trump on a weaker position.”
The one bright spot in the elections is that the GOP did very very well in FL – that may result in significantly rising DeSantis’s political fortunes and reducing those of Vance and Rubio – but it also means the election is pretty much irrelevant to this lawsuit.
Trump will likely have a very favorable jury pool.
“This “victory” was essentially a low bar in terms of legal wins. “
Nope, this is really the end of the case – BBC’s best shot was getting the case dismissed.
They lost. Now they risk going infront of a hostile with potentially multiple billions in punative damages.
“The hard part for Trump is still going to be the depositions and discovery materials.”
The defendant has not made a Truth defense – there is very little basis for Discovery on the part of BBC – yes Trump is fighting FOR his own discovery and against BBC discovery. The court will limit ALL discovery to the issues at trial. Those are SIMPLE – proof of malice on the part of the BBC, proff of damages on the part of Trump. Even the latter may not result in discovery – the burden to prove damages is on the plantiff
You really have no understanding of the law or civil procedure.
Most civil lawsuits involve claims and counter claims. One of the reasons you make a counter claim is that the defendant in a civil case has very limited basis for discovery. A counter claim is a basis for discovery.
The primary possibly only counter claim in defamation is Truth. BBC has waived Truth as a defense, they have no basis for discovery.
John, it is genuinely impressive how you manage to get every single rule of federal civil procedure completely backward while lecturing other people about the law. Your wife is lawyer. Perhaps you should run your arguments by her before posting.
Here’s why you’re wrong:
1. “Truth” Is Not a Counterclaim: Truth is an affirmative defense, not a counterclaim—you don’t “sue someone back” for truth. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), a defendant does not need a counterclaim to conduct discovery. Because Trump is suing for defamation and claiming $10 billion in damages, the BBC has an absolute right to depose him under oath and subpoena his business and financial records to test whether his reputation was actually harmed. In fact, a federal magistrate judge has already ordered Trump to sit for his sworn deposition by December.
2. You Don’t Know Rule 8 or Retraction Law: Under Federal Rule 8(d)(3), defendants can plead alternative defenses all day long. An out-of-court apology for sloppy editing does not forfeit the Substantial Truth Doctrine—the BBC can easily argue that while splicing two clips was an editorial error, the overall gist of Trump urging a crowd to march on the Capitol and “fight like hell” was substantially true.
3. Your “Multi-Billion Dollar Punitive Damages” Fantasy is Illegal: Under Florida Statutes § 768.73, punitive damages are strictly capped at three times compensatory damages or $500,000. Combined with the U.S. Supreme Court’s Due Process caps (State Farm v. Campbell), a plaintiff who won the presidency a week after a geoblocked British TV show aired isn’t getting “billions in punitive damages.”
4. Surviving a Motion to Dismiss Isn’t “The End of the Case”: At the Rule 12(b)(6) stage, the judge is legally required to pretend every word in Trump’s complaint is absolutely true. Summary Judgment—after depositions—is where public-figure defamation suits actually go to die.
Honestly, John, watching you invent fake legal rules like “truth counterclaims” and “multi-billion dollar Florida punitive awards” is entertaining, if a bit sad. You haven’t learned a single thing about how federal court works—you’re just writing legal BS at this point.
“X, it is genuinely impressive how you manage to get every single rule of federal civil procedure completely backward while lecturing other people about the law. Is your alter ego a lawyer?. Perhaps you should run your arguments by it before posting.”
And tell your AI to stop excerpting favored responsive quips by other posters that you learned here, like Nope and Yup and Thanks and WOW and Oh Please and “reading comprehension” I’ll never forget “ROLF!” How many times did you use that dismissive take before someone corrected you that the word is ROFL! Is that why you were never in the military?
try to be a little more original.
Maliciously spreading lies should be punished whoever does it. Being the media is no excuse. Snopes the premier liberal fact checker woke up when President Trump started suing the media for their lies. For seven years they said President Trump said “white supremacist were good people”. A total lie, President Trump was talking about the statues and said people on both sides were good people. He was actually complementing is political opposition and they turned it into a slander.
Then with no explanation they change that from true to false. No apology to their readers for lying to them for seven years, no apology to President Trump for lying about him for seven years. This is disgusting behavior and should come with a cost.
One man’s lie is another man’s truth.
And, since when is an apology an apology?
@Anonymous
No, there are big T truths and little T truths – we can believe gravity doesn’t work all we like, it won’t stop gravity. The modern left, at best, deals in little T truths, if they aren’t outright lying, which most of the time, they are. they know they are unpopular, but they are tyrants, so they always bring the fist when the lies don’t suffice.
An apology is an apology because they are the same word! Just as 2 + 2 = 4 no matter which 2 goes first.
You’re mixing up the reflective property of equality (a = a) with the commutative property of addition (a + b = b + a).
Adding extra terms to each side of an equation doesn’t change the fact that they are identical. It’s not 3 + 1 = 2 + 2
“. . . reflective [sic] property . . .”
If you wish to sound impressive, use the right words. It’s “reflexive,” not “reflective.”
Anonymous at 7:39 AM: And that’s why the liberal media is not trusted. BTW, have the New York Times and/or the Washington Post reporters and staff returned their Pulitzer Prize for “(their) deeply sourced, relentlessly reported coverage in the public interest that dramatically furthered the nation’s understanding of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and its connections to the Trump campaign, the President-elect’s transition team and his eventual administration”? You know, the political operation devised and paid for by the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, the one that the Mueller Commission, Congressional hearings, and other reporting found no credible Russian interference.
If you wanted to punish media for lies. Fox News would be in big trouble.
Lying is not a crime. Ironically it was Fox News who made that point in court years ago when it was accused of presenting false claims.
And now we have the stupidest comment of the day: False claims? Lying is not a crime? How delusional can you be?
You go George X. What medications are you on?
LOL!!! Wow, you’re really not in the loop are you. Do some research man. Use that noggin of yours for once.
But just for giggles and your reading pleasure,
Under the First Amendment, lying or airing false claims on the news is not a crime. The U.S. Supreme Court explicitly ruled in United States v. Alvarez that false speech is constitutionally protected unless it involves a specific legal violation like perjury under oath or financial fraud. Defamation is a civil tort, not a criminal offense.
Three times Fox News successfully argued its case that false claims are not a crime.
In WASHLITE v. Fox News (2020), Fox’s lawyers successfully got a COVID-19 misinformation lawsuit dismissed by arguing that the First Amendment protects the right to broadcast false statements on the news.
In McDougal v. Fox News (2020), Fox’s attorneys successfully argued that no “reasonable viewer” believes Tucker Carlson is stating literal facts.
New World Communications v. Akre, (2003): The lawsuit brought by two investigative reporters against a Fox affiliate in Florida, a state appeals court overturned a whistleblower verdict after Fox’s attorneys argued that the FCC’s policy against “news distortion” is merely a policy—not a binding law or regulation.
Thanks 👍
Mostly correct. Though I would note that lawyers will argue that lying is not a crime – in fact lying is not even usually defamatory, not because they defendant is Lying, but because it i perfectly valid and legal to get a case dismissed by arguing that
EVEN if everything the plantif claims is true, there still is no case.
The BBC has admitted their reporting was false. They are no longer able to argue “IF” As Fox did.
They now are left with “no damages” or “no malice”
A misstatement of fact is (1) an error or (2) a lie. It’s an error if made with a good faith belief the statement is true, even if someone else says it’s not. A lie is a statement in which the maker of the statement knows it’s not true but makes it anyway. Then if a plaintiff can show the misstatement is of genus 2, then a court can address whether the lie was intended with malice. THIS is where I think the malice standard needs tightening. For a defendant to argue that it has lied about a person but had no malicious intent seems like sophistry to me.
John, the BBS has NOT admitted the reporting is false. Don’t start making things up you can’t back up.
The BBC has admitted to making a journalistic error.
They apologized and acknowledged the error. But Trump chose to keep pursuing the lawsuit and now he’s in a pickle because he’s going to have to either submit to a deposition under oath and provide financial documents proving he was harmed or settle the case instead of getting deposed under oath and making his financial records public.
He’s going to settle or drop the suit.
Gee, three times today you were accused of making things up. Monkey see, monkey do.
What was made up?
It has literally admitted it was misleading. Turley quoted their “apology”
You do not apologize for telling the truth. You do not apologize a year later if you wish to avoid damages.
What Trump will have to provide regarding damages is dependnet on the specific damages he claims. And ONLY those damages.
It is quite common in civil lawsuits to make only a few specific damage claims to limit discovery.
While X is incorrect that Fox would be in the most trouble, there are very few instances – such as lying under oath, where lying is a crime.
Trump did not say “statues” in that context.
The key problem is that the conservatives did not attack the neo-Nazis. The conservatives see the neo-Nazis as being on the side of the conservatives.
What an idiotic statement! There were good people protesting the vandalising of statues. Haters love to leave out the rest of Trump’s comments. “And you had people — and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists — because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists.”
No one is obligated to attack anyone else.
There were a large number of groups at the Unite the Right rally.
As I recall this started when a handful of KKK members showed up to protest the removal of a statute.
But the KKK did not show up for the Rally which was AFTER the KKK protest.
Various other right and alt right groups showed up.
Surveying the Getty immages of the rally – there did not appear to be Any KKK present.
There were two Nazi flags and one Confederate flag. Nothing as offensive as Platner’s toten Kopf tattoo.
There were also so very racist signs and banners from the left.
Were there “bad people on both sides” – certaintly.
The “liberals” did not denounce Antifa – which is an oxymoron – there is almost no difference ideologically between antifa and fascists – aside from symbols and the fact that most Fascists could beat the pulp out of antifa members.
On “policies” they are virtually the same – Teh left constantly forgets that National Socialism is SOCIALISM.
“Maliciously spreading lies should be punished whoever does it.”
So let us start with Trump, a man who lies every single day. Vandals damaged his precious pond – no, they did not. Citizens murdered by ICE were domestic terrorists – no, they were not. Iranian school children were blow up by Iranian, not US, missiles – no they were not. The economy has never been better – no, it is not. He has ended eight wars – no, he has not. Pete Hegseth is competent – no, he is not. Zelensky is to blame for the Russians invading Ukraine – no, he is not. Putin is a great guy – no, he is not. The 2020 election was stolen – no, it was not.
“Vandals damaged his precious pond – no, they did not.”
Right – good people with knives climbed over chainlink fences at 2am with knives, walked into the reflecting pool and carved peices out of it – because that is just what good people do.
This is all on video. They were caught on security cameras and arrested by park police.
“Citizens murdered by ICE were domestic terrorists – no, they were not.”
If you interfere with law enforcement – you are a criminal. If you threaten anyone with loss of life of serious boddily harm – that is agrevated assault. and the use of deadly force is justified.
If you reseist arrest and a gun goes off – any gun – Law enforcement is going to start shooting. If it is YOUR cheap gun that misfired as the police tried to take it from you while YOU were resisting arrest – all the more so.
Were these domestic terrorists ? That might be a small stretch. Are these Darwin awards winners – Absolutely.
If you do not like the enforcement of US immigration laws – Go to congress and get the laws changed.
When Law Enforcement actually goes outside the law – I will stand with you in seeing them punished.
But when they are doing their job – STAY OUT OF THE WAY. Smart people do not FAFO with mens with guns under difficult circumstances.
“Iranian school children were blow up by Iranian, not US, missiles – no they were not.”
I am not sure that is clear – regardless when you are in a conflict with an oponent that hides in churches, mosques, schools – someime innocent people die.
Obama killed atleast 2500 innocent people with Drones to get a far smaller number of terrorists.
Nor was that an accident. Biden killed an entire family carrying water to refugees in Afghanistan. That was an accident and a major failure as it was clear they were carrying water.
Regardless the Drone strike on the family and the strike on the church were at the very worst accidents in the fog of war.
Soldiers made an innocent error – neither Biden nor Trump did.
Conversely Obama killed civilians DELIBERATELY – in order to get terrorsts – not an accident the actual intentional murder of civilians in order to get a bad guy.
“The economy has never been better – no, it is not. “
Yes, actually it is,
Rise in standard of living by QTR
2026 Q3 3.40%
2026 Q2 2.20%
2026 Q1 2.50%
2025 Q4 0.20%
2025 Q3 3.90%
2025 Q2 4.00%
Y/Y average under Trump 47 – 3% AFTER Inflation.
Y/Y average under Biden 0% – after 22% inflation.
Y/Y rise Trump 45 2%
Y/Y rise Trump 45 not without 202 which was 0% because of Covid – 2.5%
Y/Y rise under Obama 1.48%
“He has ended eight wars – no, he has not.”
Depends on what you call a war.
“Pete Hegseth is competent – no, he is not.”
Done very well so far – caputured a criminal drug lord and tyranical leader – zero casulaties.
Stopped Iran from getting Nuclear weapons when they were less than 2 weeks from a Nuke zero casualites.
Destroyed the navy, airforce, and defensese of a country of over 90M people while eliminating about 400 of their top leaders and virtually neutralizing their military – all without invading, total casualties about 18 LESS than the same casualities for the same forces in peacetime.
You can like what the US military has done, you can hate it.
But it did exactly what the president asked of it.
YOu can beleive that There was another choice – aside from Nuking or invading iran there was not.
But hegseth has done Exactly what Trump promised in Agenda 47 – made the US military back into a feared and respected fighting force.
That is their job – not shilling rainbow unicorn farts.
“Zelensky is to blame for the Russians invading Ukraine – no, he is not.”
No Biden is. Russia has been EXPLICIT for the past 45 years – Do not even talk about any country bordering Russia joining NATO.
They have made it clear that is an act of war and a national security threat.
When Hilleray fomented the Orange reveolution – Putin Took Crimea.
When The Bushies started talking about Georgia joining Nato – Russia invaded.
When Biden talked bout Ukraine joining Nato – Russia invaded.
Russia has been clear that they will respond with military force to any attempt to place a NATO country on their border.
You can like that or not – it was no secret. Russia did exactly what they promised.
Conversely the US promised 45 years ago that NATO would never come within 1000km of Russia’s borders – that was part of the deal to resolve lots of sticky issues regarding the collapse of the USSR. The US Lied – Bush LIED, Obama LIED, Biden LIED.
Every president that pushed Russia on NATO ended up starting a war. Trump did not and has not done that.
Democrats OWN the Ukraine conflict – YOU Caused it.
Russia will eventually fail on its own. There is no need to do anything Stupid.
DO NOT POKE THE BEAR
“Putin is a great guy – no, he is not.”
Putin is a bad guy -= Zelensky is corrupt – pretty much everyone in Ulraine is corrupt.
Finding good guys among world leaders is nearly impossible.
Xi is a Bad guy. Erodegan is an ally and a bad guy. MBS is an ally and a bad guy. Kim Un is a bad guy.
The Iranian leaders are suicidal theocrats and very dangerous bad guys.
“The 2020 election was stolen – no, it was not.”
Because you say so ?
Trump lost by 44,000 votes – there were almost 50,000 votes cast by only 13,000 people in AZ – read the audit.
There were 315K ballots with no chain of custody counted in GA – so say the Fulton County Democrat Election Chair under oath.
That is a few of a long long long list of very serious problems. We magically had over 10M votes in 2020 that we never had before and never since.
In an election were a demented fool ran out the basement against the only president in the 21st century to average over 2% rise in standard of living.
10% of democrats admitted they would not have voted for Biden had they known the Hunter Biden laptop was Real.
I can go on and on.
2020 was not the Crookedest election in US history – it may not have been the 10th crookedest.
But it was the crookesest int he 21st century.
And those of you on the left not only stood by and did nothing – but you Actively thwarted any effort to look into the fraud.
Most of what I noted above was known to people with a brain BEFORE J6 – today only far left wing nuts debate any of it.
“…but actively sought to guarantee that the misleading segment would be heard before the election in states such as Florida.”
Except that the programme was never broadcast or available in Florida. So how can the BBC be said to have actively sought to guarantee that the segment would be heard there before the election?
Honestly Turley, given the daily lies pumped out by Faux News, someone like you living in a glass house really ought to drop the stones. That is before we even consider the daily mendacity from your beloved deranged shitgibbon on social media. I am no fan of the BBC, but Trump should just have settled for the apology. Any true statesman would have done so.
Man are you behind on the times.
Make no mistake—billionaires James and Kathryn Murdoch are coming for conservatives, and they are using their liberal allies and the Aspen Institute as means to that end. As is typically the case with these powerful and connected liberals who write society’s new rules, we can safely assume that they have no intention of living by them whatsoever. Sins are only sins if committed by a conservative.
Hypocrisy and self-righteousness are typical traits of today’s woke limousine liberal. These attributes in the young Murdochs, as reported in the CNBC story, indicate a larger point—that while the average American voter may still associate wealth and privilege with the Republican Party, these traits, in truth, are now inextricably linked with the elites who peddle cultural Marxism, at least when they donate their money or speak in the public square.
https://www.newsweek.com/woke-billionaires-keep-their-hypocrisy-opinion-1602591
“Except that the programme was never broadcast or available in Florida.” Location, dispersal are not intrinsic to defamation, that it was created maliciously is the crux of the case.
Statesman you say? They all perished in the 90’s when the internet took hold.
And this, “never broadcast or available in Florida” What about the entire USA, the world? Florida is Trump’s legal residence.
“Except that the programme was never broadcast or available in Florida.”
There’s your wishful thinking. Then there’s Judge Kuntz, who looked at and cited the actual evidence:
“U.S. District Judge Jeffrey T. Kuntz noted that to ensure the BBC documentary was seen in Florida, the network emailed U.S.- and Florida-based commenters with instructions on how to view the video.
“Additionally, the court pointed to evidence that:
We live in the information age – anything broadcast anywhere is available everywhere. Regardless, by now nearly everyone – including in FL has seen this.
I would eliminate Defamation as a tort.
Regardless those of you on the left had no problem Denying Alex Jones any right to put on a defense, and Fining him $1B for a 10 second Remark he aired only once and later corrected an apologized for – which is not inherently defamatory.
Those who live by the sword die by the sword.
I am happy to see defamation deweaponized.
But so long as it is used as a political tool by the left – turnabout is fair play.
“Internal analytics disclosed by the BBC in August 2026 revealed that its 2024 Panorama documentary was streamed at least 34 times in Florida and 285 times across the United States. This data directly contradicted earlier claims by BBC lawyers that the program was never aired or accessible in the state, a factor that contributed to a federal judge denying the broadcaster’s bid to dismiss Donald Trump’s defamation lawsuit.”
Scott, BBC lawyers never denied that someone in Florida could technically use a Virtual Private Network (VPN) to mask their location and bypass geoblocking. Instead, the BBC truthfully stated that the program was never broadcast on U.S. television and was not officially available on its U.S. streaming platforms (like BritBox or BBC Select). In fact, Trump’s own lawyers had to concede earlier in the case that they had zero evidence the documentary was ever officially offered in the U.S., forcing them to drop the BBC’s commercial arm (BBC Studios) from the lawsuit.
During the August 2026 deposition where these numbers came out, BBC digital distribution director Richard Cooper explicitly testified that the 34 “play-starts” logged over an entire year (out of 570,000 global streams) were heavily skewed. They did not represent ordinary Florida residents tuning in; they included traffic routed through corporate networks (such as Carnival Corporation, which is headquartered in Miami and routes global cruise ship internet traffic through Florida IP addresses) as well as users deliberately spoofing UK locations via VPNs. Furthermore, those 34 streams occurred over a 12-month period—meaning even fewer occurred in the single week between the October 28 broadcast and the November 2024 election.
The standard BBC tries to assert there would make defamation law virtually null. You seem to be using it to assert that Trump cannot prove damages. But you ignore (or are unaware of) defamation per se. If the first prongs of defamation are proven — false statement published to a third party (note that the 3rd party need not be a person directly affected by the statement) with malicious intent — then harm can be established either through special damages or defamation per se. Defamation per se exists when a person is falsely accused of a crime (or one of a few other things). Plaintiff can assert at trial that BBC concocted its witches brew of the 55 minute address to accuse Plaintiff of inciting to riot or any of the other crimes that Trump was accused of in the aftermath of the J6 riot. He might not win but it certainly is plausible enough to defeat a MTD. The court’s ruling was correct.
Defamation merely requires publishing.
The person defamed can file pretty much anywhere – but the state they reside in is the norm.
BBC is fee to try to change venue. They will lose. While publishing in FL is not a requirement for Venue – they fact that it was makes changing venue likely impossible. Further after the date of publication the clip was available even on Youtube and was republished on other News sites with permission. With or without permission – if you defame someone – you are liable for ALL subsequent publications until you actively stop them. BBC waited over a year to do anything – that is a HUGE problem. Every single time the Panaorama segment was republished anywhere that is an addition Defamation claim.
You are completely clueless as to how deep this hole is for BBC.
You rant that Trump is going to settle to avoid discover – logic is not your forte.
When Trump filed the lawsuit – he KNEW exactly what is risk of discovery was.
It is likely he specifically picked the BBC – because they waited a year and then admitted deception,
and because the scope of the case is a 12s video. Discovery is limited to things directly related to that 12s video and the precise damages Trump claims.
And what will the discovery process reveal?
Why do you ask?
Famous last words?