Trump to sue BBC for $5bn (£3.7bn)

It has been announced The BBC are not going to back down and settle out of court as they do not think that they have a case to answer. I know that some GNs won't agree but in my opinion the BBC is quite right to take this stance. It is about time that somebody stands up to the unhinged, orange baby.

This matches the theme of "they are full of BS but want to pretend they didn't say the things they did" on this thread.

Susie Wiles just learned that she can't trust a Vanity Fair journalist who, thank goodness, did his job of reporting.

I am leaving the long links because I am gifting this article from The Atlantic for those who don't subscribe. If it works like it is supposed to.

www.theatlantic.com/politics/2025/12/trump-susie-wiles-white-house/685287/?gift=kYV8mZWjw7R-0HxEZcTnYZAa6lRF_RrZQLsEXP5Igy4&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share

There is a big announcement tomorrow apparently. And Venezuela is blockaded at the moment. He threatened to start ground strikes last week.

Starting a war with Venezuela to divert attention from Epstein maybe?

Two troublesome words for King of the World Trump:

Jeffrey Epstein.

And he's reaching out from beyond the grave........

Lots of pushback happening from several different angles right now. But we absolutely need the BBC and Pulitzer to not cave. Just like Canada didn't.

Every day is one day closer until he is gone.

Imaround, I think that once one or two, be they countries or companies, start to say "no" the tide could turn quite quickly.

Yes that is his MO DaisyAnn. he knows that these corporations will settle and he can claim that he was victorious. In many of these cases (I cant say all), settling in court means there was no claim of wrongdoing, they settle because it is cheaper to make it go away. He then gets to tell MAGA that he "won" the case to make himself look like he was wronged.

He actually claimed that the words broadcast in the Panorama programme were generated by A I and that he would never have said them in his "beautiful speech". Is he completely gaga?

Trump has launched 3 cases where he did not obtain a court judgment after trial, but the lawsuits were resolved in his favor via settlement payments.

Many of Trump’s other lawsuits such as his suits against The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, CNN, and others, are ongoing or have been dismissed by courts, struck down, or otherwise not yet resulted in a victory. For example, his defamation lawsuit against The New York Times was thrown out by a judge (with a chance to amend) - not a win.

There seem to be at least half a dozen notable Trump lawsuit losses or dismissals that have also been reported.

I know less than nothing about American law but my question would be, is his modus operandi simply to chance his arm? I wonder where the money keeps coming from to do that?

Maremia

Trumps threatens to sue lots of people and organisations. They often 'cave' before any trial takes place.
Against whom has he actually sued and won?
Does anyone know?

That's why I thought the Pulitzer Prize Board information so important Maremia. It seems as though they are not caving. It would be great if the BBC followed suit.

I just hope we are moving on from the "appeasement" stage with Trump and begin to move toward the economic and moral fightback, just as Canada has had to.

'Reputational damage' will be interesting.

"2) VPN use in US enabled access to The BBC documentary"

For those asked about detail of actual claim lodged- article available today 17.53 by Haroon Siddique, Legal Affairs Correspondent, on Guardian website. Sets out claim as listed and what BBC has said so far- with some analysis:

1) BBC was malicious and defamatory
2) VPN use in US enabled access to The BBC documentary
3) BBC Lack of objectivity
4) Cites Liz Truss's views on BBC malicious bias (i.e. "no less an authority than the UK's former Prime Mister)
5) Caused Trump overwhelming reputational harm

Why indeed. Patronage from Trump? Reform Donations from Trump and/or other personal financial reward? To undermine the BBC? (i.e. one of the most partial, factual, least biased media outlets in UK. Evidence- see comparisons on website: mediabiasfactcheck.com). To promote a bigger market share/dominance of right wing UK media outlets? Particularly those that pay Farage large sums of money? I could go on.....

Now, why would Farage, the patriot, do that?

Trumps threatens to sue lots of people and organisations. They often 'cave' before any trial takes place.
Against whom has he actually sued and won?
Does anyone know?

Can he sue a foreign company? I had read somewhere on twitter that the amount he would get would be minimal. However this is all supposition on my part.
I try to avoid all mention of him in the MSM because I have high blood pressure as it is.

Bring the discovery on.

Exactly DAR. US courts have very significant powers of discovery- this will work very much in the BBC's favour, hence why they should not settle.

I mean- Trump only became aware of the BBC's Panorama programme after Farage tipped him the wink about the Telegraph's leak story and attack on the BBC. Farage, TheTelegraph and others had no problem with the BBC's broadcast at the time and also each made statements about same Trump speech.

Also begs the question why Trump now chooses to solely sue the BBC when other media outlets, including The Telegraph edited same speech similarly. It's disproportionate, or political, or both...

Discovery opportunities abound.

I would suggest that the BBC take note of the following. As part of court discovery in a lawsuit, the defendants (including members of the Pulitzer Prize Board) have filed legal documents asking a Florida court to compel Trump to produce his medical and psychological records, along with other personal information. This comes after Trump’s defamation lawsuit against them over Pulitzer awards given for reporting on the Russia investigation.

The records requested include Medical and psychological health records from January 1, 2015 to the present.
Prescription medication history.
Annual physical exam documents.
Also tax returns and financial records, as part of a broad discovery request tied to Trump’s claims of harm and damages in the lawsuit. (Law & Crime)

In a civil lawsuit, both sides can request discovery, evidence that might support or refute claims. The Pulitzer defendants argue that to prove emotional or physical harm (which Trump alleges), they need access to relevant records. Trump’s suit claims defamation and reputational injury related to the board’s defense of awards to major newspapers.

And he does it so well doesn't he.

The 'terrible words' came out of his own mouth. The BBC didn't change them. I hope they don't back down on this as they didn't defame Trump. He has done that all on his own.

Good point Maybee70.

On his first full day back in office this year Trump held a press conference and granted full reprieve and pardon to all 1,500 plus people charged with insurrection that was sparked when he refused to accept his election loss in 2020 and made the speech he did that his supporters march.... Strongly suggests Trump fully condoned their marching on the Capitol and seditious insurrection.

I can't for the life of me see what evidence Trump has that the BBC and other media outlets who reported on and edited same speech, defamed Trump.

My thought exactly

What he said wasn't changed. They were his words and they came out of his mouth kandinsky.