The bbc, again.

[silvertop]

Trump has panicked.

Does not want to give disclosure to the BBC of all his financial records.

Really?

To achieve that he is drastically reducing his claim to one of personal hurt only.

The $10B claim was always a bullsh1t headline, attention-seeking claim to extort money and make the BBC another compliant news outlet.

The balance of the claim is also likely to fold as (a) the broadcast was not shown in Florida and (b) he actually did support an insurrection.

I suspect he will face a rather large cost bill for both sides.

I know you guys hate the BBC. However, I am rather proud of them standing up to that feckin tyrant.

 

[chris123]

Trump has panicked.

Does not want to give disclosure to the BBC of all his financial records.

Really?

To achieve that he is drastically reducing his claim to one of personal hurt only.

The $10B claim was always a bullsh1t headline, attention-seeking claim to extort money and make the BBC another compliant news outlet.

The balance of the claim is also likely to fold as (a) the broadcast was not shown in Florida and (b) he actually did support an insurrection.

I suspect he will face a rather large cost bill for both sides.

I know you guys hate the BBC. However, I am rather proud of them standing up to that feckin tyrant.

Not how I read it entirely

 

[silvertop]

Not how I read it entirely

Really? How do you read it?

 

[chris123]

Really? How do you read it?

A US Federal Judge stopped the order to hand over financial records I thought.

 

[silvertop]

A US Federal Judge stopped the order to hand over financial records I thought.

Trump was ordered to produce the documents. He can't fight that. He claimed he lost $10B after and because of the broadcast. The BBC are entitled to see the documents that prove that.

Trump then came before the court and told them he was paring down his claim to next to nothing so most of the disclosure no longer meets the relevance bar. That is, he is no longer claiming consequential financial loss.

I am not sure if he has actually filed his draft new claim.

He has made an application to oppose much of the disclosure based on that drastically reduced claim.

The court's decision will be made at the end of this month or early September. I suspect they will agree that he does not have to produce the documents and allow his amended claim; but he should have to pay all the BBC's wasted costs of the disclosure exercise, and their cost of having to file an amended defence.

Of course, he is still stuck with the need to prove malice in the defamation. The BBC are bang to rights on doctoring this particular piece, but the court will see this piece along with the totality of all the other pieces, social media messages etc. and the 70 odd people (then) closest to him who have all had subpoenas to attend as witnesses. Given the way he churns staff and cronies, not all of those people will still be loyal. Some may, some may not. Expect to hear stories of illegal pressure being placed on witnesses to tow the line.

 

[Badger11]

Trump was ordered to produce the documents. He can't fight that. He claimed he lost $10B after and because of the broadcast. The BBC are entitled to see the documents that prove that.

Trump then came before the court and told them he was paring down his claim to next to nothing so most of the disclosure no longer meets the relevance bar. That is, he is no longer claiming consequential financial loss.

I am not sure if he has actually filed his draft new claim.

He has made an application to oppose much of the disclosure based on that drastically reduced claim.

The court's decision will be made at the end of this month or early September. I suspect they will agree that he does not have to produce the documents and allow his amended claim; but he should have to pay all the BBC's wasted costs of the disclosure exercise, and their cost of having to file an amended defence.

Of course, he is still stuck with the need to prove malice in the defamation. The BBC are bang to rights on doctoring this particular piece, but the court will see this piece along with the totality of all the other pieces, social media messages etc. and the 70 odd people (then) closest to him who have all had subpoenas to attend as witnesses. Given the way he churns staff and cronies, not all of those people will still be loyal. Some may, some may not. Expect to hear stories of illegal pressure being placed on witnesses to tow the line.

Pretty standard tactics for people suing each other. You start with the nuclear option and then pair it back if the other side doesn't back down (See Blake Lively case).

Trump's lawyers are now going to focus on what he can prove. I don't think you can read anything into this at this stage, it's still too early for other side to claim victory.

 

[silvertop]

Pretty standard tactics for people suing each other. You start with the nuclear option and then pair it back if the other side doesn't back down (See Blake Lively case).

Trump's lawyers are now going to focus on what he can prove. I don't think you can read anything into this at this stage, it's still too early for other side to claim victory.

Standard tactic in the US. Here, you bring a grossly exaggerated claim you pay for it big time in costs; and you may damage the credibility of the good points that remain.

Of course, you are correct on your main point. Cases do not always go the way you expect them to, and he may win or else partially win.

However, he is walking in to unchartered territory. This time he is not bringing a claim against a network in the belief that a headline grabbing claim can garner support on the "me v the establishment" ticket (sound familiar?); while extorting cash and compliance from a company who's board has weighed up the cost of paying over the cost of defending. He will have (once again) ignored sage close advisers that the BBC are not like those networks. He is actually going to have to go all the way to trial and prove defamation.

Imagine?

 

[Badger11]

Standard tactic in the US. Here, you bring a grossly exaggerated claim you pay for it big time in costs; and you may damage the credibility of the good points that remain.

Of course, you are correct on your main point. Cases do not always go the way you expect them to, and he may win or else partially win.

However, he is walking in to unchartered territory. This time he is not bringing a claim against a network in the belief that a headline grabbing claim can garner support on the "me v the establishment" ticket (sound familiar?); while extorting cash and compliance from a company who's board has weighed up the cost of paying over the cost of defending. He will have (once again) ignored sage close advisers that the BBC are not like those networks. He is actually going to have to go all the way to trial and prove defamation.

Imagine?

If it goes to trial he always was going to have to prove defamation. Nothing has changed in that sense, all that has happened is his lawyers threw the kitchen sink at the BBC who have not backed down so now they are pairing back the case to what they feel they can prove.

I mentioned Blake Lively, the stuff her lawyers threw at the other guy to start with, most of which was then thrown out by the judge or withdrawn by her lawyers.

Trump still has to prove his case, twas ever thus.

 

[silvertop]

If it goes to trial he always was going to have to prove defamation. Nothing has changed in that sense, all that has happened is his lawyers threw the kitchen sink at the BBC who have not backed down so now they are pairing back the case to what they feel they can prove.

I mentioned Blake Lively, the stuff her lawyers threw at the other guy to start with, most of which was then thrown out by the judge or withdrawn by her lawyers.

Trump still has to prove his case, twas ever thus.

Yes, save the last part highlighted where we part ways.

I genuinely believe Trump thought this network would behave as all other networks have where he stuck the legal boot in. Cave and grant him another victory for "justice" etc.

That the BBC have told him to FO is laudable (regardless of what you might think of them); and I think a complete shock to him (but not his ignored advisers).

The BBC only has to prove an absence of malice (easily done) and the case folds. The question is, will they also seek to disprove defamation as he actually did incite an insurrection based on the totality of the evidence and not just this speech?

 

[Stirlingsays]

Yes, save the last part highlighted where we part ways.

I genuinely believe Trump thought this network would behave as all other networks have where he stuck the legal boot in. Cave and grant him another victory for "justice" etc.

That the BBC have told him to FO is laudable (regardless of what you might think of them); and I think a complete shock to him (but not his ignored advisers).

The BBC only has to prove an absence of malice (easily done) and the case folds. The question is, will they also seek to disprove defamation as he actually did incite an insurrection based on the totality of the evidence and not just this speech?

If the BBC get away with this then it's an injustice.

Trump's amount claim is outrageous and should be properly paired back, however the BBC can't air lies and then shrug their shoulders and say sorry.

Actual defamation and dishonesty went on here.

The BBC have walked into this situation because they have employed too many activist staff when it comes to Trump. All the media companies they contract are just their mirror image. I doubt there's anyone there who says, 'hang on a minute'....it's like that Bob Villian concert situation, it was aired because it's basically what they all believe anyway.

This is a fault of the BBC, like all left wing institutions it stopped employing the other side.

 

[silvertop]

If the BBC get away with this then it's an injustice.

Trump's amount claim is outrageous and should be properly paired back, however the BBC can't air lies and then shrug their shoulders and say sorry.

Actual defamation and dishonesty went on here.

The BBC have walked into this situation because they have employed too many activist staff when it comes to Trump. All the media companies they contract are just their mirror image. I doubt there's anyone there who says, 'hang on a minute'....it's like that Bob Villian concert situation, it was aired because it's basically what they all believe anyway.

This is a fault of the BBC, like all left wing institutions it stopped employing the other side.

Yes, but it could equally be argued that the very opinion I am now replying to is informed by your view of the BBC!

The point you are either ignoring, or discounting as incorrect, or outweighing against other factors is stated in my earlier posts. This particular transmission was undoubtedly doctored. Mea Culpa, an apology and high profile sackings. But...

Was it really a "lie". Those who stormed the Capitol have repeatedly claimed they were responding to his call to arms. And that call was - they claim (i.e. not the BBC or me or lefty activists or lawyers) - made in various speeches and posts by him personally. That is, not just this speech.

If the BBC can prove that Trump actually incited an armed insurrection against a central pillar of the American democratic system, not only will their ill-edited transmission be proven to have been abridged e.g. to establish within the confines of a condensed documentary an actual fact (i.e. the truth), but Trump may end up behind bars for treason.

On the other hand, if he can prove defamation, he will win a lot of money.

My view for what it is worth. He will abandon the case rather than risk running it to trial.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

If the BBC get away with this then it's an injustice.

Trump's amount claim is outrageous and should be properly paired back, however the BBC can't air lies and then shrug their shoulders and say sorry.

Actual defamation and dishonesty went on here.

The BBC have walked into this situation because they have employed too many activist staff when it comes to Trump. All the media companies they contract are just their mirror image. I doubt there's anyone there who says, 'hang on a minute'....it's like that Bob Villian concert situation, it was aired because it's basically what they all believe anyway.

This is a fault of the BBC, like all left wing institutions it stopped employing the other side.

This is yet more evidence of your prejudices overwhelming reason.

If Trump drops the case, which always seemed likely as all he really wanted was the publicity, then the BBC won’t have “got away” with anything. They made a mistake, which was admitted and apologised for. Senior executives lost their jobs. There was no malice involved. The story that was told wasn’t about Trump, it was about the rioters and what motivated them. Bolting those clips together told that story, even if it should have included a pause, to indicate they weren’t contemporaneous.

This had nothing whatsoever with your obsessive conviction that the BBC’s staff are so unprofessional as to allow their personal politics, whatever they might be, to interfere in the way they do their job.

The bottom line being that the rioters were motivated by Trump’s words. Panorama told the truth, but were careless in the way they did so.

 

[Spindle]

Oh so rioters aren't to blame. Why are we locking them up then?

 

[cryrst]

Trump was ordered to produce the documents. He can't fight that. He claimed he lost $10B after and because of the broadcast. The BBC are entitled to see the documents that prove that.

Trump then came before the court and told them he was paring down his claim to next to nothing so most of the disclosure no longer meets the relevance bar. That is, he is no longer claiming consequential financial loss.

I am not sure if he has actually filed his draft new claim.

He has made an application to oppose much of the disclosure based on that drastically reduced claim.

The court's decision will be made at the end of this month or early September. I suspect they will agree that he does not have to produce the documents and allow his amended claim; but he should have to pay all the BBC's wasted costs of the disclosure exercise, and their cost of having to file an amended defence.

Of course, he is still stuck with the need to prove malice in the defamation. The BBC are bang to rights on doctoring this particular piece, but the court will see this piece along with the totality of all the other pieces, social media messages etc. and the 70 odd people (then) closest to him who have all had subpoenas to attend as witnesses. Given the way he churns staff and cronies, not all of those people will still be loyal. Some may, some may not. Expect to hear stories of illegal pressure being placed on witnesses to toe the line.

So how can it be proven He didn’t lose money? The status quo of income is not proof!

 

[silvertop]

So how can it be proven He didn’t lose money? The status quo of income is not proof!

The onus of proof is on trump to prove his loss not on the BBC to prove there wasn't loss.

Anyway no longer relevant.

He has abandoned the money claim.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Oh so rioters aren't to blame. Why are we locking them up then?

Of course they are! People can be motivated by many things but they are always responsible for their own actions. Trump doesn’t though escape the blame because those bozos rioted believing the stolen election nonsense. He was the one spreading the nonsense. He shares the responsibility.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

So how can it be proven He didn’t lose money? The status quo of income is not proof!

How can it be verified unless his accounts are examined? Something he seems obsessed with avoiding. Which raises the obvious question about why.

He must be sh*t scared of what’s in there to go to such lengths to stop them being made public.

 

[HKOwen]

I am not bothered about the financial settlement if any, more important is the behaviour of the BBC funded by the taxpayer .

 

[silvertop]

How can it be verified unless his accounts are examined? Something he seems obsessed with avoiding. Which raises the obvious question about why.

He must be sh*t scared of what’s in there to go to such lengths to stop them being made public.

Quite.

The action has proven to be a botched attempt at extortion and free speech suppression.

He must be staring in disbelief that the BBC did not fold like all the others.

 

[Spindle]

Looks like the BBC struggled with this one.

Arrests after anti-immigration and counter protests in Bristol

Police arrest 10 people after "pockets of disorder" in Bristol city centre.

www.bbc.co.uk

No mention of the arrests of fascist far right thugs, just those with face coverings, and one group trying to break through police lines to attack the other group, and for attacking the other group. The left with the violence, HAD to be or it would all be about the far right.