Donald Trump’s $10bn lawsuit against the BBC will go to trial next year, judge rules

https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/donald-trump-10bn-lawsuit-against-the-bbc-next-year-5HjdSH5_2/

Posted by tylerthe-theatre

36 Comments

  1. He sued everything and everyone for everything except those who called him a paedophile. Discovery phase of legal proceedings is a bitch, n’est-ce pas?

  2. Why does the BBC have to engage with this? What are the consequences if they don’t?

    And under what authority can they be forced to pay?

  3. Mobile-Stomach719 on

    Dear BBC,

    We formally notify you that we do not want a single penny of our licence fees to go to this thundercunt.

    Yours sincerely,

    Everyone in the UK who isn’t Nigel Farage

  4. This will never see the inside of a courtroom, he does this regularly and it’s extremely rare any get this far.

  5. 99thLuftballon on

    > The BBC previously filed a motion to dismiss, claiming the Florida court lacks “personal jurisdiction” over the corporation, the court venue is “improper” and that Mr Trump has “failed to state a claim”, according to court documents.
    >
    > The corporation argued that it did not create, produce or broadcast the documentary in Florida and that Mr Trump’s claim that the documentary was available in the US on streaming service BritBox is not true.

    That all sounds plausible, so what was the judge’s argument for why they do have jurisdiction over the case?

  6. I’ll be amazed if this doesn’t get thrown out by the BBC’s motion to dismiss, as Florida has no jurisdiction to try this.

    This being Trump’s lawfare judiciary though, everything’s possible.

    Judge Roy Altman is a Trump appointee and a member of the Federalist Society so you couldn’t get a judge more likely to bend to Trump’s authoritarian whim.

  7. If he’s suing for $10bn because of how they made him look, how much will he sue himself for due to how he makes himself look every time he opens his mouth?

  8. One-Positive309 on

    He has to prove it has caused him hardship in order to be successful, the documentary was never shown in the US, he was elected soon afterwards so what kind of hardship did he suffer ?
    He is trying to claim that he didn’t use those words and that the BBC faked his speech, all the BBC did was edit a long and rambling load of hogwash into a few seconds of ‘highlights’ to show his mood !
    He is literally trying to intimidate every news outlet to prevent them showing him in a bad light so what he actually wants is for news outlets to fake reports about him to show he is good and doing a good job !
    He is the most fake person ever !

  9. urbanspaceman85 on

    After they win the BBC should counter sue him for £20bn. He’d be funding Doctor Who for decades. 

  10. Absolute waste of time the BBC won’t be paying anything & if it does go to court they can whip out the unredacted Epstein files they have on the Peter File

  11. DecayAnimation on

    Does that mean we can sue them for all of the blatant lies that the US media has spread about the UK? FOX news would go bankrupt

  12. i_enjoy_silence on

    A year away. One wonders if he’ll still be alive then, given his age and reports of his health in decline?

  13. jennifersaurus on

    What happens if he dies between then and now? He is quite old and clearly unwell, so there is a non zero chance.

  14. Why stop at $10bn? Why not $100 or a trillion?

    These American lawsuits are stupid. It’s just think of a number and double it 10 times.

  15. BBC should countersue for 15 million for slander for all the insults he throws at the BBC.

    in fact every single person he has attacked should sue him for 10 billion when he leaves office

  16. so, I work in (UK) law. I said that the only way this case gets to trial is if Trump gets a friendly judge (he was hoping for Aileen). He got second best, Altman, who owes his current position to the plaintiff

    How is this allowed? This is corrupt.

    I expect that the BBC’s legal team will be filing multiple motions on this factor alone.

  17. Hasn’t got a leg to stand on, the BBC can and should make a mockery of him, hope the exploration is as nasty as possible.

  18. SexDrugsAndPopcorn on

    Thank god I never needed a TV licence as I’d hate to think my money was part of it (I know this makes no sense and the reality is all tax payers will be footing the bill in some way)

  19. Neither_Computer5331 on

    This could get very petty, with journalists banned from The White House and so on.

    Hopefully the BBC hold their nerve and don’t go for a quick out of court settlement.

  20. The BBC should just keep delaying and appealing for long enough until he is out of office then tell him to fuck off. Nobody will care at that point as all his sycophants will have abandoned him for the next leader of their cult.

  21. Interesting: Part the the BBCs defence to reduce damages can be to show that the plaintiff already had a bad reputation and can proceed to list sexual assault findings, racism, Jan 6 conduct, impreachment, felonies, the plethora of on camera lies, impressions of a disabled man etc etc. This could massively backfire when it’s all debated in court and watched by the global media.

    Bring popcorn.

  22. Tbf he’s only suing the Beeb because it’s the one media organisation that operates over there that isn’t scared to call out this muppet for what he truly is

  23. The BBCs editing of the footage was utterly incompetent. It’s allowed a grifting paedophile room to sue it. Trumps a liar and abuser and when reporting on him only the facts are needed he’s so bad.
    To edit footage in order to change the narrative was criminally negligent. I think the BBC will have a problem defending this and we’ll pay the cost.

  24. PinacoladaBunny on

    I’d be surprised if DT even makes it to 2027. Presumably they can’t pursue a legal claim if the person filing it has.. expired?

  25. This lawsuit is straight out of the late Roy Cohn playbook who happened to be Trump’s former lawyer. Another frivolous lawsuit without merit designed solely to tie up the BBC in litigation for years.

  26. How can someone say in going to sue you..even though that person is clearly in the wrong ..but that said person gets to benefit from it. At what point does common sense prevail?