I don't need to stand up to him. It makes absolutely no difference what I think. The case simply won't work in the way you're describing here. You're being drawn into some kind of justice crusade against Trump. Which isn't going to work.
What's so hard to understand that the BBC did the edit, despite their own chief watchdog highlighting its inaccuracy and have now doubled down? Their own watchdog resigned due to not being listened too - apparently over several things. He has since whistleblown. Pretty sure you can look it up.
You're barking up the wrong tree completely. Trump will win the case and be awarded costs, but I suspect nominal damages. What tweets he sent are irrelevant to a case against the BBC and I'm pretty sure his lawyers and the judge will not have them admitted into the case. Everyone in the US makes extortionate claims. It's what they do. If they're rich and will get away with it. Once again, this is just because it's Trump. Which you're admitting. Social justice may work that way but the US legal system won't.
We'll see on the outcome.
But we are both repeating ourselves on certain points and stunned the other is not accepting them.
Thus, I completely agree your points about the edit, the cover up, the socially liberal bias (Stirling that one's for you), even the innate bias of that broadcast.
However, I believe you (and Stirling) conflate this obviously poor journalism with genuine defamation. And given the various other comments you both make that demonstrates your antipathy to the Corporation, it also seems fair to suggest that your opinions are at least partly informed by that.
It is not and never was defamation in the sense understood over there.
If over here, it would be a matter for the media watchdog (whatever they are now called) not the courts. A fine and a broadcasted retraction.
Fact. People stating on oath they saw the broadcasts (plural!), read the truth media posts and acted on them. Case closed.
But if insufficient, the BBC have subpoenad his family and closest people around him to properly examine the President's intentions when he made these speeches and posts.
Malice. Unconscious bias and even a deliberate edit to make a point is way short of the bar to leap for Trump to prove malice.
And for the last time, drop the point about a crusade. They are DEFENDING this claim. Trump has the carriage of the matter. Unless the BBC surrenders and pay him off all they can do is continue to defend.
Unless you are suggesting they should have admitted the claim and paid him US 10 billion? Aggressively defending the claim has already reduced it to US a few million. At least commercially the defence has been justified to date.
Trump will not want this evidence aired in public (not least as it can be used in criminal prosecution in a couple of years). They are already lining him up for massive tax fraud and insider dealings on an eye watering scale. He will also not want his family dragged through this. I would be amazed if he doesn't withdraw the claim on confidential terms I.e each party pays their own costs and he then makes some bollox statement that he got what he really wanted leaving us all to guess what actually happened.
England
