President Trump’s $10 billion defamation lawsuit against the British Broadcasting Company is backfiring in his face, as a judge has greenlit the subpoenaing of his inner circle.
But on Tuesday, U.S. Magistrate Judge Enjoliqué Lett said the BBC can proceed with subpoenas for Trump’s closest advisers and confidants—including his family members, Stephen Miller, and Steve Bannon—to make the case on what Trump’s actual goals were on January 6.
Lett also ruled that Trump must hand over hundreds of financial records, as Trump argued in his lawsuit that the episode hurt his many businesses.
In other news… TELL US ABOUT THE TRUMP-EPSTEIN FILES ™
I don’t understand. Do you not consider the literal coup attempt on the US government to be important?
I just want future generations to remember one thing: The guy who defeated the American left twice and brought about the collapse of America’s worldwide power was an utter moron.
The guy who defeated the American left twice
Hahahaha as if this is a difficult thing to do.
The American left (to the extent that it even exists) has been defeating itself over and over since the end of WW2.
I’m very curious to know what you guys think “the left” is in the US
Yeah Trump singlehandedly planned all of this lol he’s a mastermind but also a moron.
B/Millionaires and corporations have been making this happen for 50 years.
Look up The Business Plot. It’s far closer to 90-100 years.
I always think how how dumb the average American and get sadder knowing there are 140 million more that are dumber than that.
A very useful idiot…to some…
“left”
“Trump gets fucked by bbc”
Its all planned so this story pops up when someone searches this phrase.
/s maybe
This is why I opened the comments
nottheonion
Took me a second but I see what you did there.
Guess Trump thought he could bully the BBC as he did the local stations. The thing he forgot was that the BBC doesn’t need his approval for mergers and it’s not owned by any of his billionaire buddies.
Can they even drop the trial to avoid discovery at this point? Because some shit is about to come out in that discovery. Also I really hope they depose Trump.
They can just do what Alex Jones did in his defamation trail and refuse to cooperate with discovery. The court can’t make them turn over documents at gunpoint, but the court can threaten to tell the jury that one party refused to cooperate, and to assume the evidence would be very bad for the party refusing to turn it over.
It’s basically giving the other party carte blanche to say whatever they want because you’re admitting you won’t back anything up. So the discovery has to be pretty bad for someone to refuse to cooperate.
That’s not usually what happens. Participating in discovery is NOT optional. A judge that lets a trial go ahead without enforcing discovery is basically asking to lose his bench. It could happen if the discovery seeking side fails to file the proper motions, but if Trump refuses to cooperate in this case there is a 100% guarantee to be massive sanctions involved.
Sure, the court can threaten sanctions and fines against the party not turning over documents, but this is a civil case. It’s not like the judge will file a warrant and send police to collect the documents.
Discovery is, where the rubber meets the road, a voluntary process. Alex Jones refused to cooperate with discovery in his defamation trial, and the plaintiffs just didn’t get any documents from him during the trial. At all.
It went very poorly for him, because refusal to cooperate means you’ll lose very badly (Alex Jones is now liable for billions in damages to the Sandy Hook plaintiffs because of his refusal to cooperate) but the court cannot force you to produce documents in a civil case. They’ll just give the other party exactly what they’re asking for.
It’s just almost always in your best interest to comply.
Which is why refusing to cooperate is so rare.
The running theory is that he refused to cooperate because the trial wasn’t sealed, so documents would end up in the public eye, and we assume that those documents getting published would be more damaging to him than the billions he is now liable for.
And that’s my theory of what will happen here. The specific things the BBC is wanting in discovery could be very damaging to Trump politically, and it could be that losing this court case in spectacular fashion like Alex Jones did is the less damaging outcome for him.
We shall see, but I can’t wait for Mango Mussolini to fall back into spray tan obscurity.
Or you have to be really stupid and not understand how bad of a strategic choice it is, which would also be on brand given how his legal escapades have gone so far lol.
I have no doubt they’re bad, but I’m pretty confident he would make a bad choice even if they weren’t cause he seems allergic to competent decisions, especially in the courtroom it would seem lol
The problem is that the bullying works even if it isn’t really successful.
Next time a producer is considering whether to publish something, they’re less likely to say something controversial about little-T because no one wants the bother of a lawsuit with POTUS even if it worked out ok last time.
Alternatively, big players can take note that poking the orange pig around a bit and wait for the lawsuit so they get judicially mandated access to a bunch of information trump would fight tooth and nail to hide is a possible strategy.
No journalist or agency wants to be involved in a lawsuit with POTUS.
Its a civil trial and he can drop it at any time
I’d be shocked if the BBC’s defence didn’t include a countersuit to the effect that his original suit calling them liars amounted to defamation. Trump can drop his suit but has no control over whether the BBC can file or continue a countersuit.
I’m not sure they could justify the cost to licence fee payers.
If Trump refuses discovery it would be a huge payout for the BBC, not from them
Legal costs
Yep.
This is the strategy that I’ve been calling for with the reflecting pool prosecutions. Don’t ask the judge for a dismissal, go for a full on trial by jury, and then put the prosecution through a ruthless discovery. By the time they’re done finding out all the details of how the contract was awarded, the budget was created, the materials purchased, the over-runs, the kickbacks, etc., the right people will be going to prison, not the “vandals.”
Rich people don’t go to jail in America lol.
No one will comply, and no one will be punished for failing to comply.
I don’t think he’ll drop it, and if he doesn’t, he will lose the case fairly soon. This of course would embolden others.
while true, that’s how civil lawsuits work, and that’s a good thing. if he doesn’t comply and drops the suit, then we’re done here, although it was unfortunate the BBC had to pay for lawyers to defend themselves. hopefully this little maneuver costs Trump in a subsequent anti-SLAPP finding later.
if he doesn’t comply and continues the suit for some dumbass reason, then the judge will instruct the jury that every bit of evidence that the defendant didn’t receive is to be assumed to be as damaging as possible for the plaintiff.
the suit should be over now, but Trump is probably stupider than Alex Jones, so who knows.
maybe Trump can figure out a way to parlay this suit that he initiated into a multibillion dollar judgement against himself somehow. I can’t possibly think of how this could happen, but I’ve lost every time I’ve made a bet based on ‘he can’t possibly be this stupid’.
I should have worded it differently lol I am assuming they will ride this pony and not put it to pasture. Honestly I thought they would have dropped it long before the judge had a chance to make the ruling. I know the BBC wants to go all the way.
They still have the rule 72(a) deadline and the BBC is still waiting on their Jurisdiction ruling so maybe they are just riding it as far as they can before discovery really kicks into high gear? Idk this is pure clown world so anything could happen lol
Finally. Someone who fuckin gets it
TACO will back down bigly before discovery. His followers will claim victory.
It’s it possible for the BBC to countersue or do something to proceed so that they can subpoena? I feel that they could arguably sue for defamation given very public statements and actions from the Trump admin against them
isnt it a bit alarming that usa folks are depending on a foreign government to hold drumpf to account? The BBC is doing what usa people are unwilling or unable to do. Where was the “land of the brave” again?
If I had the funds that the BBC have and was given the golden ticket Trump’s idiotic actions gave them, I too would be able to take it to Trump. Alas, I’m but one of the poors. Best I got is protesting and voting, or quite literally throwing my life away getting physical.
Comparing the BBC to the American people is an unfair comparison. However, it’s fair comparing them to major US businesses that could and can take action but haven’t. Particularly news organizations are the biggest failures, but when you take into account that all of the major news organizations are owned by conservative moguls, it makes sense. Also, only a couple of companies were given a legal path to pull off what the BBC is doing thanks to Trump’s short-sightedness. Not just anyone can subpoena Trump’s allies.
Alarming, not at all. Satisfying, absofuckinlutely.
There’s been a coupe in US which has overrun all three branches of government.
It’s up to global powers to shine a light and call the US out.
coupe
It’s coup, right? Or am I confused at which one is a sporty car?
Right right!! Coup
Land of the fee, home of the slave.
Yes! Finally! Fuck diplomacy with these thugs, give an inch and they take a mile, take away their immunity and charge them for every little crime.
It’s about time all of them get the Pulp Fiction treatment. A nice shot to the balls and let them stay put until the party starts.
I’m just spitballing here.
This makes me downright giddy…
BBC is going to rearrange his guts.
I’m guessing Trump’s involvement in January 6th was far more damaging to his businesses than reporting on it.
I can’t help but laugh whenever I see “Trump” and “BBC” in the same sentence.
I’m happy if 100% of my licence fee is going to this.
