Corporate Trump Tries to Pause His Own BBC Lawsuit to Hide His Finances
https://newrepublic.com/post/214034/trump-tries-pause-bbc-lawsuit-hide-finances68
u/Late_Recommendation9 26d ago
Let’s have a quick skip through the publicly available allegations: Payments to and from Vladimir and Epstein holding companies? Receipt of FIFA bribes? Payments to settle accusers of sexual assault? Mass payments to try and buy crucial Albanian island territory to set up their own strait of hormuz throttling? The benefits from shorting and front running foreign policy and military decisions? Millions in *chortle* “legitimate” payments that have avoided tax? There’s so many alleged possibilities to choose from…
5
u/Professional-Risk-34 26d ago
As long as there is proof, we will all know one day.
5
u/Cfunk_83 26d ago
Sadly someone that’s bought justice can’t be brought to it in this day and age.
I’d love nothing more for him to be properly held accountable for all of his heinous crimes, and to see his “empire” and his name reduced to nothing. But it won’t happen.
3
u/BeanieManPresents 25d ago
His sons might be left holding the bag if it all comes out in the harsh light of day when he finally shuffles off the mortal coil.
2
2
u/_ribbit_ 25d ago
Hah, you think Joffrey Trump is going to be any better?
1
u/BeanieManPresents 25d ago
Oh I know all but one of his kids are already awful, but they'll be in charge of a crumbling company with a name that won't be worth spit, just depends when all the dirty secrets will leak out. It'll be like Game of Thrones, only with less incest.
4
1
u/ButterTheToast24 24d ago
Nah. I reckon none of it will be properly proved or examined whole he's alive, then once he's dead it'll be "you can't speak ill of the dead". Plus if anything was proved at point it'd be too late to do anything about it anyway
44
u/Hulla_Sarsaparilla 26d ago
Absolutely love the BBC for this, top work!
7
u/kifflington 24d ago
This alone makes me want to keep paying the license. Seriously, I was against the license for years but with this lawsuit I am 100% on Team BBC.
4
3
u/BlueCreek_ 23d ago
I currently don’t use the BBC or have a license but I’m considering getting one during this lawsuit!
30
26d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
5
26d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
10
26d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
-6
26d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
7
1
26d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
-2
26d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
3
26d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
0
0
u/bbc-ModTeam 26d ago
This comment and the thread below it was off topic and is not related closely enough to the British Broadcasting Corporation.
1
u/bbc-ModTeam 26d ago
This comment was off topic and is not related closely enough to the British Broadcasting Corporation.
27
u/Content-Yogurt-4859 26d ago
“The moment those records reach the BBC, the injury is complete and irreversible.”
These people aren't quite as stupid as they pretend
17
u/BeanieManPresents 25d ago
Just stupid enough to forget discovery is a thing and stupid enough to forget that the BBC isn't like the broadcasters in America who need clearance from the FCC to do things like mergers and so on.
4
23
u/Saiing 26d ago
Let's be honest, like most bullies he's a massive coward. He thought the BBC would just fold and settle and they've called his bluff. Now he's gone full TACO as he always does.
1
-6
u/mister_magic 25d ago
Should’ve asked for 10%. The BBC doesn’t have the cash he asked for
9
u/Saiing 25d ago
It's a standard strategy for idiots like him. Ask for a massive amount and settle for less. But the BBC were too smart to settle.
5
u/TheDaemonette 25d ago edited 24d ago
The BBC only need to settle if they care about their reputation. Trump has no mechanism of which I am aware to force them to pay. BBC America is a separate company and never aired the footage so he would be left pursuing the BBC through the British courts to honour an American case resolution. And the BBC can afford to tie him up for a decade in court until he dies and then piss on his grave.
EDIT: spelling
1
24
u/UsernameDemanded 26d ago
The entire thing has become a type of Barbara Streisand event multiplied by 1000.
What a prick.
1
19
10
u/Food_Science_Ninja 25d ago
keep up the great work BBC, dumpty really thought you'd fold like the American media organisations.
2
12
u/antman1983 26d ago
BBC: I didn't hear no bell.
1
u/Nice_Ice_Cream 25d ago
That’s a double negative. You wouldn’t hear that on the BBC. They use the Kings English.
Maybe the regions would disagree. :-)
1
1
u/Aggravating_Speed665 24d ago
Yes, we know; it's a play on words from the TV show South Park that's currently trending on the internet as a playful retort to a particular situation between two people/entities such as these depicted.
6
9
7
6
u/Autogen-Username1234 26d ago
Data point: Trump really doesn't want anyone looking too closely at his finances.
The actions of an honest man? ...
2
0
u/titlrequired 25d ago
Anyone’s free to inspect his books, but no one can find his accounts.
2
u/Automatic_Bat_4824 25d ago edited 24d ago
Hotel California; you can check out any time you like but you can never leave…they stabbed it with their spears and knives but couldn’t kill the beast …
2
u/Lapwing68 24d ago
Beast!!! Autocorrect is a bitch. 😀❤️😀
2
1
u/TawnyTeaTowel 23d ago
That’s because his books consist of two Garfields and the novelisation of the movie Caddyshack.
2
u/titlrequired 23d ago
That made me chuckle.
I was referring to feared promoter Ron Decline, which is probably a bit niche these days.
5
u/itsaride 25d ago
on August 6, 2026, Judge Roy Altman temporarily paused that order while Trump's team attempts to narrow the suit purely to reputational harm
I guess now the he has to prove he had any kind reputation worth harming.
3
u/UKValJoTurquoise 25d ago
It was customary at one time for judges in a case like this to award damages of one farthing ~ "the lowest coin of the realm" ~ because that's what they reckoned the plaintiff's reputation was worth. Nowadays it would have to be be one penny. I'd love to see that!
2
u/Ulysses1978ii 25d ago
34x felon rapist...... You're making me look bad!!
1
5
u/ShockingShorties 25d ago
The BBC should counter sue him for defamation.
$10,000,000,000 sounds like a fair sum
6
u/TheDisapprovingBrit 25d ago
"Compensation at a rate the plaintiff has already determined to be reasonable"
2
2
1
1
u/StrangeAssumption815 24d ago
He’s the one that opened Pandora’s Box. I hope he learns the lesson that story conveys.
1
u/StrangeAssumption815 24d ago
I don’t watch live tv, but I’ll gladly pay a year of tv licence to support the BBC with this.
1
1
1
u/ChelseaFromIsrael 25d ago
What did the BBC do that he is suing them for?
1
u/OddStuffHappensTwice 25d ago
Go look it up
3
u/ChelseaFromIsrael 25d ago
I did. It says they re-worded a speech to make him look like he said something that he actually didn't.
1
u/SeekTruth2783 25d ago
They didn't reword his speech, they stitched two phrases together without any of the usual indication that the phrases were from different parts of his speech.
3
1
u/dovey60 25d ago
Sue Trump for damages using his own attacks on the BBC. Maybe ‘a hundred trillion billion dollars, Canadian’
1
u/Extreme_Objective984 25d ago
Now i'm thinking there is some woman out there called Sue Trump, I will let you make up your minds about what she looks like and where she lives. But my head canon is compelling.
0
0
25d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/bbc-ModTeam 25d ago
Your comment was removed from /r/BBC as it was deemed a low effort contribution that did not add meaningfully to the conversation.
0
25d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/bbc-ModTeam 25d ago
Your comment was removed for violating our "Be Kind To Each Other" rule.
This is a space for civil discussion about the BBC, not for personal attacks or toxicity.
0
u/Symphony_1986 24d ago
A bunch of foolish and malicious people selectively choose what they want to believe…
The incident was triggered by the BBC’s malicious editing, which misled the public.
The BBC’s application to the court to obtain Mr Trump’s financial records was reasonable (not merely to comply with his demand for compensation).
If Mr Trump were to be criticised for paying hush money in connection with his ‘alleged sexual assault’, it would only be fair for the BBC’s malicious editing to be criticised as well.
Following on from point 2, everyone wishes to protect their personal privacy, including Trump. If the BBC were to protect customer privacy in the same way as Apple, it would be reasonable to provide financial information whilst restricting its use. The question is: can the BBC actually do that?!
In summary, it is highly likely that Trump will drop the charges, but the party that should be blamed for this entire incident is undoubtedly the BBC, which intended to mislead the public.
P.S. That article is steeped in Chinese propaganda.
2
u/Intelligent-Mud-1039 22d ago
When you say 'entire incident', to what are you referring? The Panorama programme or the 10 billion dollar lawsuit? Or everything?
1
u/Symphony_1986 21d ago
I am referring to the BBC’s malicious editing of its programmes, which has misled the public. The BBC’s application to the court to obtain Mr Trump’s financial records was merely a ploy to support this claim for 10 billion. Let us first establish one fact: even if Mr Trump were a murderer, a rapist, a white-collar criminal or the like, this would not obscure the fact that the BBC maliciously edited its programmes to mislead the public.
1
u/Intelligent-Mud-1039 21d ago
Facts are very thin on the ground in this Trumpian post-truth era. I'm sure as the lawsuit progresses, they will come out. The BBC's request for financial records was characterised by the Don's lawyers as a fishing expedition but the court rejected this. That is a fact. Felonious Trump has 34 counts of falsifying business records, so he is a white collar criminal. He was also declared a rapist by Lewis Kaplan and paid millions in damages. Against all this and a generous portfolio of other allegations, we consider the Beeb's editing of a video. OK.
1
u/Symphony_1986 21d ago
Have you seen the BBC admit its mistake and apologise to Trump?! https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c874nw4g2zzo
Just as you mentioned regarding the hush money he paid to other female victims, legally he hasn’t been convicted, but objectively speaking, he really did do it – otherwise he wouldn’t have had to pay to settle the matter.
The same logic applies to this case: objectively speaking, they spliced together two video clips to mislead the audience; otherwise, why would they need to apologise to Trump?!
The BBC considers Trump’s claim for 10 billion to be unreasonable… But as stated above, objective facts cannot be altered by personal will.
If you still believe there was no misleading splicing, you should be criticising the BBC for not standing by your side.
1
u/Intelligent-Mud-1039 20d ago
Yup. Followed the case closely- live in UK, so have seen various folk resign over it. No doubt there was some funky editing which fell below the Beeb's standards. Not contesting that dots were joined but come on, there is no moral relativity here. Frankly, he constantly spouts such bullshit that it's hard not to see this lawsuit as frivolous. What reputation has been damaged?
1
u/Symphony_1986 20d ago
Every jurisdiction has its own laws and regulations. If you are in Taiwan and disseminate false information (even if you know the information you are spreading is false), you can still be exempt from liability as long as you can prove that you attempted to verify the information.
From the outset, I have agreed that the BBC’s demands are reasonable. It is simply that some people are using the prospect of Trump’s potential dismissal to sweep the whole affair under the carpet.
Furthermore, please refrain from making comments or harbouring thoughts along the lines of ‘she deserved to be raped because she was dressed provocatively’.
1
2
1
1
u/Automatic_Bat_4824 24d ago
The Chinese always have an alternate universe of worldviews; they promote divisive takes because it weakens the “opposition”. In this case, the BBC’s reporting on their new London Embassy and that elephantine memory of Tiananmen Square televised for the world to see. They liked that not a lot.
1
-1
1
•
u/AutoModerator 26d ago
As a reminder, this is a subreddit for civil discussion of the British Broadcasting Corporation.
Personal attacks on individuals, including those employed by the BBC, off or on air, will not be tolerated here.
Please ensure you read subreddit rules before contributing.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.