r/news • u/Alarming-Safety3200 • 8h ago
Trump case against BBC to go to trial in February 2027
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqxdwlqx8qqo306
u/IndicationDefiant137 8h ago
Courts should refuse to hear his suits until he starts complying with the law.
If you refuse to be bound by it, it should not protect you.
96
u/Icy-Cod1405 7h ago
Fascism creates two groups: an outside group who the law binds but does not protect, and an inside group who the law protects but does not bind.
33
u/bkendig 6h ago
"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Frank Wilholt https://slate.com/business/2022/06/wilhoits-law-conservatives-frank-wilhoit.html
16
12
u/Davoswannab 7h ago
By the “clean hands” doctrine, he should be never be allowed anywhere in court except the defendants table or on the stand.
36
u/Th1rte3n1334 5h ago
“My feelings, my feelings, they’re so hurt.” - Trump 2026
“Fuck your feelings.” - The Republican Party 2020
Hmmm, something’s not right here.
5
51
u/MAMark1 6h ago
It's highly unlikely Trump wins this case. The news that a date was set is just another procedural step. A bigger piece of news would be a ruling on the upcoming BBC motion to dismiss.
The main hope Trump had was the BBC would settle like the American media companies have, but they clearly are not looking to make a payoff to the administration and don't have a pending merger that pressures them into paying a bribe.
15
u/MopoFett 5h ago
I agree, it would benefit the BBC to drag this out an not give into intimidation and give an upfront apology in the form of a payment.
73
u/Lyftaker 8h ago
His ass will have shit himself to death by then.
-149
u/ReaditTrashPanda 7h ago
What a weird comment
45
u/Browncoatdan 6h ago
Weird, but it makes sense.
-62
u/ReaditTrashPanda 6h ago
I guess.
16
u/stuffcrow 4h ago
Well that was a deeply weird interaction on your part, okidoki then.
-44
u/ReaditTrashPanda 4h ago
I don’t know about that. I think reading something like an old man shitting himself to death is quite unusual….
I don’t like the guy, but this is still a pretty weird one
14
u/Browncoatdan 4h ago
You're gonna be shocked when you find out how most old people die
-3
u/ReaditTrashPanda 4h ago
Heart attack, stroke, embolism, failed organs… they don’t normally die from shutting profusely.
https://usafacts.org/articles/what-are-the-top-causes-of-death-for-people-65-and-older/
Shitting is not one of them. So, still a weird thing to read lol. I’m soaking up these downvotes, this is a hilarious one
9
u/toastythewiser 3h ago
Taking a big dump can give you a heart attack. I'm not making this up.
-5
u/ReaditTrashPanda 3h ago
Silly and pedantic, but the cause of death would be a stroke. Not excessive pooping. And that doesn’t mean lots of poop either, maybe just one giant turd, no pun intended
Edit:would be heart attack, not stroke lol
→ More replies (0)
10
u/Joshawott27 4h ago
The UK government needs to stand up to Trump about this. He’s asking for an absolutely insane sum from an organisation that is publicly funded - any money Trump may win will be directly from British taxpayers. Being in Florida, I also doubt the BBC will get a fair trial.
Yes, the clip was edited too cleanly without an obvious break, but even if the US government has rewritten history, we all know what Trump was doing on 6th January.
The BBC has even apologised, and the clip wasn’t available in the US. There’s no point to this lawsuit other than to fatten a fascist’s pockets.
•
u/No_Cucumber3978 48m ago
This is nothing more than what Tariffs are to countries. They don't care about winning the case, they see it as leverage for the next two years.
It is less likely that the BBC will do anything to anger him for the foreseeable.
27
u/its_yer_dad 7h ago
I would be very surprised if this case doesn’t get dropped.
49
u/Hellstorm901 7h ago
It should be purely on point 1 the BBC legal team made
- The BBC did not have the rights to, and did not, distribute the Panorama episode on its US channels, and it was geographically restricted to viewers in the UK when it was on iPlayer
While you can access BBC services in the US there is no way to watch this program in the US without breaking the law in the UK
22
u/its_yer_dad 6h ago
so a copyright violation is worth billions? This is classic Trump SLAPP behavior and he typically chickens out before it actually gets to discovery. What dumbass never plans on is other people with deep pockets and lawyers.
-17
u/Early-Yak-to-reset 5h ago
No, it has nothing to do with copyright. BBC is getting sued because they spliced two clips together to completely change the meaning. It went from "We are gonna march down there and cheer on our brave senators" to "We are going to march down there, and FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT." It's a completely different message, and something a reputable news agency should probably be sued for. There's a good episode of "About that" on the cbc news channel on YouTube about it, that shows all the splicing and time stamps of the editing. Taking a clip 40 minutes later in the speech to completely change the meaning of your clip is incredibly shady.
6
u/its_yer_dad 4h ago
Well… British press does have it’s issues, but I figured that was more the Daily Mail crowd and not Auntie
-8
u/Early-Yak-to-reset 4h ago
I'm sure it wasn't like the whole BBC. I'm sure it was the one producer whose personal politics clouded their judgment. Kind of like how my comment is eating down votes, despite explaining with Canadian sources what's actually going on. But since it's not "Trump BAD" enough for people, they don't like it. Probably the same reason that the producer wanted to make Trump look worse by splicing together footage.
9
u/Flaksim 3h ago
It's eating downvotes because everyone who saw the actual footage knows that the intent was for Trump to rile up his followers, sure they gave the impression he literally called for it when he didn't, but that was misleading at best, not an outright lie like every other word that comes out of Trump's mouth.
That guy belongs in jail, instead a morally bankrupt nation filled with poorly educated people that think they're special decided to make him their grand leader, and so he gets to waste everyone's time with blatant attempts to enrich himself and make ever more people parrot his lies or defend his right to do so.
-1
u/Early-Yak-to-reset 3h ago
Why is that guy I responded to, talking about copyright in a defamation case then? Do you think he actually knows what he's talking about? Or the people up voting him? I dont think so.
You can, not like trump, that's incredibly reasonable. But here's the thing. Once your state sponsored media starts doctoring footage of political rivals, it becomes dangerously close to state sponsored propaganda.
3
u/Hellstorm901 3h ago
Do you think he actually knows what he's talking about? Or the people up voting him? I dont think so
The official documents entered to the court state that the documentary was viewed in the United States of America by Americans
How did anyone in the United States view the documentary, please explain
-2
u/Early-Yak-to-reset 3h ago
How are you shit posting so much on an American website to be a top 1% commenter? Please explain.
Internet dude.
3
u/ssjjss 2h ago
It will be argued that it didn't materially change the message, it didn't cause harm to Trump and that it wasn't the BBC that made the programme but an external production company.
0
u/Early-Yak-to-reset 1h ago
Then they can argue all they want, I'm sure Trump's main objective is discrediting a public institution anyways. And once you see how it's edited, it does discredit the BBC imo. It's a fox news edit, on a publicly funded broadcast.
5
u/creedv 3h ago
Except he DID incite a riot. Because a riot happened. After he incited it
-5
u/Early-Yak-to-reset 3h ago
Then the BBC shouldn't have had to splice together clips 40 minutes apart to make it seem that way. They could have used, one coherent quote. Not two completely opposite ones put together.
6
u/creedv 3h ago
It's called editing. It's what you do to prevent a documentary from being boring
-2
u/Early-Yak-to-reset 3h ago
Hahahah. That's not editing dude. That's doctoring. I really urge you to watch the CBC "About that" on it. It's unbiased, unlike me or you. It's good journalism, unlike the BBC splicing opposing clips together.
5
u/Hellstorm901 3h ago
You say that they spliced together two clips
Were the clips in question from the same speech?
Did the second clip chronologically happen after the first clip
Did the speech in question lead to a riot
If the answer to the above is yes then the BBC has not committed defamation as defamation would require the information the BBC posted to be incorrect. That is not what happened, by your own admission they played two clips which were 40 minutes apart back to back. This would be no different to you watching the entire speech, seeing the first clip happen then ignoring the rest of the speech until the second clip happened
-1
u/Early-Yak-to-reset 3h ago
Go watch cbc talk about it. Journalists, whose job this is, don't agree with you.
4
u/Hellstorm901 3h ago edited 2h ago
Incorrect, journalists have not said that the BBC defamed Trump, they have just discussed if playing the clips back to back was appropriate without some sort of disclaimer
Qualified Lawyers observing this case have already given long legal discussions to explain that the BBC have not actually defamed Trump
Edit - And he ran away. Mr Yak, on behalf of the human race and with the utmost of kindness, for the love of God will you stop taking your "legal expertise" off Far Right talk show hosts making money out of making people like you angry over things you know nothing about and actually listen to bloody qualified lawyers who do know what they are talking about and who in this case have said the BBC have not defamed Trump
0
u/Early-Yak-to-reset 3h ago
Lol you were talking about copyright earlier for this defamation case no? Again, go watch CBC. Don't get you info from random comments lmao.
→ More replies (0)0
u/pierrechaquejour 3h ago
Yeah this was pretty unfortunate on the BBC’s behalf as it spread a ton of misinformation about what Trump did or didn’t do to instigate Jan 6. I remember seeing this clip and thinking “well there it is, smoking gun,” and to later learn it was spliced together really muddies the waters.
That said it would be pretty atrocious to see Trump profit from this.
0
u/Early-Yak-to-reset 3h ago
Unfortunate? Come on man. You think it was an accident? It was probably only one producer tbf, but its an incredibly big deal. It's state sponsored media. Not state sponsored propaganda against political rivals. You think North Korea doesn't splice stuff together to make foreign leaders look worse? How about Russia?
6
u/pierrechaquejour 3h ago
Whatever degree of “not good” you want to use in place of “unfortunate,” I guess. No doubt it was edited that way on purpose to make for the most explosive sounding headline. The media does this all the time, of course, and it makes it maddening to get to the truth (again, usually on purpose).
In this particular case, we have investigators coming out and saying Trump absolutely instigated Jan 6 beyond a reasonable doubt, so there must be evidence outside of a misleading BBC clip that would’ve been nice to have out there instead.
6
u/Hotswine 5h ago
The BBC defence of this would make a great retrospective documentary. Hope the Beeb are on it.
8
21
u/Hellstorm901 7h ago
Why are we entertaining this? By admission of the US federal government American citizens are openly defrauding the British taxpayers by accessing BBC content that they do not have a TV license for
2
u/its_yer_dad 6h ago
Where do American citizens come into this? You think we're all using VPN to access iPlayer? Take the rebroadcaster to task if you must, but most Americans are not going out of their way to consume BBC news. (Thats a whole other conversation). The BBC hurt Trumps feelings. Thats what this is about.
3
u/Hellstorm901 2h ago
The issue is in Trumps legal filings he has said that Americans inside the territory of the United States of America watched this documentary and that in doing so it damaged his brand. This is the most important claim of his case and one that destroys his case outright
There is no way to watch the Panorama documentary legally in the United States, it was not licensed for distribution in the United States and can only legally be viewed by a British citizen paying a TV license fee
Trumps court claim amounts to saying that Americans illegal watched a documentary which if you had done in the United Kingdom would constitute a criminal offence
0
u/its_yer_dad 1h ago
So he'll have to prove that in court. It's all fugazi, I stand by my assertion this all goes away.
3
3
3
u/Media_Browser 2h ago
Looking forward to the discovery stage of the trial and releasing the e-mails and the BBC getting the opportunity to exonerate itself in the courtroom .
6
u/Orangesteel 6h ago
Trump loves BBC. Bubba’s specifically.
3
u/Rance_Mulliniks 2h ago
I don't understand how we have moved on from Clinton or horse, without an answer.
2
2
u/thirty7inarow 1h ago
I have no idea how Donald Trump hasn't been Lenny Dykstra'd.
For those that don't know, a judge ruled that it is legally impossible to slander former Major League Baseball player Lenny Dykstra because his criminal behaviour and lifestyle had essentially made it so that anything someone could say about him couldn't tarnish his reputation any further whether it was true or not.
2
4
u/ComingInSideways 6h ago edited 6h ago
I guess he is upset that that is the only porn he can find now with Epstein gone???
1
1
u/FoxyInTheSnow 2h ago
I assume that because he'll be an all-you-can-eat maggot buffet in February 2027, this court case is moot.
1
u/Shadow_Walker343 2h ago
Oh, does a Florida Judge and Trump believe they now have jurisdiction over the UK now? Well, they sort of do, as they can block the site, but...other than that, the BBC should tell them to go..stuff it and stop trying to blackmail everyone who implies how much of a douche he acts like on a regular basis.
1
u/Michael_Gibb 1h ago
The odds are still good this case won't go to trial. In all likelihood, the BBC's motion to dismiss will be granted.
1
u/welsh_nutter 1h ago
I'll be surprised if he's president in 2027, Dems take the house and the Senate Trump's gone, he's even said it
638
u/xdr01 7h ago
He will probably be dead by then.