The jobs already done. It wasn’t about the lawsuit (which was silly) it was cowling the media into favourable reporting.
Considering the terminology and reporting they use to describe Greenland, Venezuela, Nigeria, Iran etc it’s worked
Gentle_Snail on
Its an utterly insane suite, to quote legal analysis by the Financial Times:
>How strong is the case?
>
>Several lawyers are sceptical about the prospects of a courtroom victory for Trump.
>
>Jeffrey Smele, head of media and communications disputes at Simons Muirhead Burton, said the claim was “extravagant” and that the BBC had “some good grounds on which to fight”.
>
>The president “is going to face a challenge establishing real damage”, Smele said, adding that Trump “wasn’t even aware of the edited clip at the time” and it “clearly didn’t interfere too much with the [2024] election because he won”.
>
>.. Dominic Crossley, head of dispute resolution at Payne Hicks Beach, said that “to a UK lawyer’s eye”, the claim seemed “ludicrously overstated and unlikely to withstand serious legal scrutiny”.
0ttoChriek on
Trump is the master of frivolous lawsuits. The goal is never to win, it’s to make a big, loud. face-saving point then distract people with something else while he loses or settles.
And the goal of his entire administration is to flood the zone with bullshit, misinformation and threats to anyone who is critical of them. The BBC lawsuit was just another bit of shit, thrown at the wall.
Gentle_Snail on
The lawsuit isn’t about winning, its about discrediting the BBC, thats why they went so far back to find this slip up.
The BBC is the most trusted news media in the UK, and thats a threat to Maga.
SpottedDicknCustard on
Good. Fight it to the end, dont cave to this megalomaniac.
limeflavoured on
Not exactly surprising that they would use the argument that it wasn’t officially available in the US
Prisoner3000 on
It was never about winning for Trump. It was about appealing to the confirmation bias of Reform idiots that the BBC is “left wing” even though it’s run by tories
Womble_Rumble on
He’s filed in Florida, probably in the hope of getting his pet judge Aileen Cannon. The same one who thwarted any attempt for Jack Smiths classified documents case to get to trial.
JBobSpig on
I mean wouldn’t they need to prove they didn’t do it? When they actually did?
They clipped up a speech to make it say something it wasn’t. That’s not getting thrown out.
They could win in court or the court claim the amount is way too high but I can’t see them winning either.
They actually did the thing they were accused of.
JGG5 on
The BBC’s only mistake was preemptively apologising to trump. That closed off what would have been the *really* fun defence for them: to claim that the edit was completely accurate to the spirit and intention of trump’s speech, demand document discovery and depositions from trump (perjury trap!) and every single other senior person in his 2020 campaign and administration, and force trump and his cronies to choose between giving BBC the journalistic treasure-trove of a lifetime or dropping the lawsuit and running away with their tails between their legs.
The lesson here: Apologising to degenerates like trump is premature capitulation. Never give them even an inch. Panorama and the BBC did nothing wrong in the edit, and even granting the fascists their presumption that they did make an error was far too generous to them.
xParesh on
How? Wouldn’t the trail be held in a pro-Trump courthouse in Florida? Do the BBC think they have a cat in hells chance of winning there?
It would be like taking on Putin in a Moscow court or Xi in a Beijing court.
If it all goes wrong for them I really hope they don’t expect a bailout.
hime-633 on
Is the threat of this stupid lawsuit behind “Acquire Greenland”?
God what a complete waste of time and, inevitably, money.
Can’t we just class him as a vexatious litigant and ignore the sad little man. Please?
Cynical_Classicist on
Or will Starmer rush to tell them to bow down to Trump.
13 commenti
The jobs already done. It wasn’t about the lawsuit (which was silly) it was cowling the media into favourable reporting.
Considering the terminology and reporting they use to describe Greenland, Venezuela, Nigeria, Iran etc it’s worked
Its an utterly insane suite, to quote legal analysis by the Financial Times:
>How strong is the case?
>
>Several lawyers are sceptical about the prospects of a courtroom victory for Trump.
>
>Jeffrey Smele, head of media and communications disputes at Simons Muirhead Burton, said the claim was “extravagant” and that the BBC had “some good grounds on which to fight”.
>
>The president “is going to face a challenge establishing real damage”, Smele said, adding that Trump “wasn’t even aware of the edited clip at the time” and it “clearly didn’t interfere too much with the [2024] election because he won”.
>
>.. Dominic Crossley, head of dispute resolution at Payne Hicks Beach, said that “to a UK lawyer’s eye”, the claim seemed “ludicrously overstated and unlikely to withstand serious legal scrutiny”.
Trump is the master of frivolous lawsuits. The goal is never to win, it’s to make a big, loud. face-saving point then distract people with something else while he loses or settles.
And the goal of his entire administration is to flood the zone with bullshit, misinformation and threats to anyone who is critical of them. The BBC lawsuit was just another bit of shit, thrown at the wall.
The lawsuit isn’t about winning, its about discrediting the BBC, thats why they went so far back to find this slip up.
The BBC is the most trusted news media in the UK, and thats a threat to Maga.
Good. Fight it to the end, dont cave to this megalomaniac.
Not exactly surprising that they would use the argument that it wasn’t officially available in the US
It was never about winning for Trump. It was about appealing to the confirmation bias of Reform idiots that the BBC is “left wing” even though it’s run by tories
He’s filed in Florida, probably in the hope of getting his pet judge Aileen Cannon. The same one who thwarted any attempt for Jack Smiths classified documents case to get to trial.
I mean wouldn’t they need to prove they didn’t do it? When they actually did?
They clipped up a speech to make it say something it wasn’t. That’s not getting thrown out.
They could win in court or the court claim the amount is way too high but I can’t see them winning either.
They actually did the thing they were accused of.
The BBC’s only mistake was preemptively apologising to trump. That closed off what would have been the *really* fun defence for them: to claim that the edit was completely accurate to the spirit and intention of trump’s speech, demand document discovery and depositions from trump (perjury trap!) and every single other senior person in his 2020 campaign and administration, and force trump and his cronies to choose between giving BBC the journalistic treasure-trove of a lifetime or dropping the lawsuit and running away with their tails between their legs.
The lesson here: Apologising to degenerates like trump is premature capitulation. Never give them even an inch. Panorama and the BBC did nothing wrong in the edit, and even granting the fascists their presumption that they did make an error was far too generous to them.
How? Wouldn’t the trail be held in a pro-Trump courthouse in Florida? Do the BBC think they have a cat in hells chance of winning there?
It would be like taking on Putin in a Moscow court or Xi in a Beijing court.
If it all goes wrong for them I really hope they don’t expect a bailout.
Is the threat of this stupid lawsuit behind “Acquire Greenland”?
God what a complete waste of time and, inevitably, money.
Can’t we just class him as a vexatious litigant and ignore the sad little man. Please?
Or will Starmer rush to tell them to bow down to Trump.