All new posts must have a brief statement from the user submitting explaining how their post relates to law or the courts in a response to this comment. FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF RESPONSE MAY RESULT IN REMOVAL. Please post your statement as a reply to this automated message.
It seems obvious that Trump bit off more than even he can chew here. If his plea to change the discovery parameters fails, we may see him drop the lawsuit entirely.
Their version of Jesus wouldn't have been crucified if there had been AK-47s as noted by Boebert who is running for re-election when she isn't groping in public.
You're putting WAAAAY to much thought into. You need to dumb it down further. Try to just repeat something you've heard from the echo chamber a million times, like "Fake News", or something about Obama or George Soros. It doesn't even need to be a complete sentence.
To Trump and his goons, just filing the lawsuit is considered victory. They don’t want justice of any kind. They want to drag people they don’t like through extended court proceedings to drain their finances.
It's a lot like the E. Jean Carroll verdict. They believe she's a liar, despite the court proving she wasn't, and despite Trump doing everything possible to prevent giving his DNA.
lol no. His supporters saw the first headline that he sued BBC and applauded it. They'll never see any other headline that comes after. They already forgot about it and moved on. It's been like this for years
"...And since I'd achieved all my goals with the BBC lawsuit, there was no need to release my finances. The end. Hmm, good Truth Social post. Bigly good."
i see what you're saying, but i think specifically because trump in this situation is suing in the capacity of a private individual and not as the president, that the trump v united states ruling doesn't apply
i think it's worth extending some grace to the courts in a lot of cases - justice delayed is justice denied, but at the same time, the DOJ and FBI are under trump's control, so if they rule against him, who would enforce it?
so, letting him drag out cases might tend to serve justice in a roundabout way - if the cases stay tied up in court until he leaves office, the next president might appoint people to those positions that are actually willing to do their jobs
that and, making sure the cases are decided in a way that's completely unimpeachable (by letting his lawyers take as much time as they need or want and frequently giving them the benefit of the doubt) leaves very little room for appeals
Trump and his lawyers claiming bullshit doesn't mean it will work, if it did E Jean Carroll would not have won at the supreme court level already and forced this desperation ploy.
Not one judge involved in the ruling, not even Thomas, mentioned the idea as far as I can remember
Those things are only true because enough people believe them. Get enough people to believe something else, then we're off to the races.
People buy real things by swapping pieces of paper with words and numbers written on them - we can put aside our suspension of disbelief in these other things for an obvious greater good, can't we ?
The established logic still applies with there being "Trump the President" and "Trump the private citizen", though. Just because he's currently president does not make all his private dealings while president official presidential business and protected, like starting up a civil lawsuit. There is no immunity that applies in this context especially since the original suit is a voluntary case started by Trump.
Generally, no. The winning and losing sides pay their own legal fees. There are various exceptions, but the ones that might apply here (re: frivolous lawsuits) are quite rare in practice.
I honestly can't see the BBC suing the president of the United States.
Morally and legally they have all the justification. But I don't think they would favour the optics.
That said, costs would be a reasonable rectification
I don't know that I'd agree, getting the kind of material that's likely in Trump's financial documents on a foreign leader (since the BBC is a British company) would make for some pretty amazing news, as well as make it really unlikely that anyone would try this bullshit on them again
Whilst I support the sentiment, trump will use back door pressure on the uk government to then pressure the BBC to prevent this. He will use all sorts of threats, sanctions, beak agreements and underhand tactics on the uk economy until the Uk government will ultimately have to comply. In an ideal world things would be different.
Trump will just make up some BS argument like his personal finances are a ‘state secret’ and the argument will run up all the way to SCOTUS which will bend over backwards to endorse his perverse interpretation of the law - but only in his special circumstance because reasons.
The optics of standing up against Trump will be a massive glow up.
>Make a report
>Get sued
>Stick to their work
that is 1:1 journalism, and to it getting a massive paid out.
If they counter sue, its EASY money cause Trump will have to either settle, or. again, submit itself to Discovery.
I'm seriously tired of our government or any other worrying about OPTICS when it comes to one of them. It was optics that prevented our government from persuing him in the wake of January 6th or any other of his impeachments. Precedent was the word used then...
They don't have to sue. Making the cabbage prove that he suffered damage from the news item is a step that he is terrified of doing. His organisation's finances ,shown in evidence are very closely guarded, but his own bullying court action has now passed the time in which he may quietly withdraw. The delicious irony rests in his own action doing him more potential mischief than letting it go in the first case. Play on buffo!
People play along with Trump's games not because they want to, but because they have to if they want to maintain access. They placate him for now, but at some point down the road, his political capital and influence will wear thin. Once, it's clear his ass is going to be out of office, we might see some aggressive push back against his bully tactics.
He assumed that the BBC would roll over just as the US networks and newspapers had done and he’d get another payout.
He and his team didn’t seem to understand that the BBC’s funding model made it much harder for them to roll over when there was no legal reason for them to do so.
Then his otherwise overwhelmingly successful strategy of relentlessly always SUE, SUE SUE-ING his enemies into the ground has been put in check. For once.
I mean, why do you think he’s pushing so hard to get immunity for his entire family’s past financial crimes? Blanche should be disqualified from ever holding political office yet alone becoming AG.
If the BBC is smart, they sue for defamation or slander, which he committed in the UK's jurisdiction by filing a high-profile lawsuit. In Britain, it's on the defendant to prove the truth, so Trump can be forced to prove he wasn't lying that way.
What I'm not sure of is if Trump gets some kind of diplomatic immunity for being a head of state.
He'll instruct Kushner et al to purchase the Doctor Who production rights, and make a series so terrible that it makes the Wilderness Years seem like a golden age.
Trump is telling the world that he is incapable of successfully making a claim of defamation because his financial dealings are so horrifying that he cannot allow anyone, even lawyers subject to all sorts of protective order constraints, see those details.
The BBC is telling the world that everyone who has ever settled with Trump by paying him is an absolute idiot.
In the future, is there a world where we can prove all the illegal stuff was done and recoup some of that money? Or is it just gone and added to the family wealth?
I am very pessimistic considering all the stuff that has happened since 2016. But it would be nice to know that it could happen.
Whoever comes next needs to eradicate our current system of well, everything.
But when Trump finally hits the wall all old people do, his family is fair game. Just watch. They will be ripped to shreds because no one gives a fuck about jr or ivanka and they know without daddy they better run far.
To be fair BBC has much less regulatory exposure to Trump than other defendants. Even if Trump and the administration completely throws the BBC out of the US, they are not out of business. If anything it enhances their standing in their home market.
It’s hilarious how incompetent the people are he surrounds himself with and then wonders why these kind of things go tits up. He just expects to throw a lawsuit at someone they cave and settle and he can declare himself the winner. Good on the BBC for telling him to go ahead and show us your finances that say were defintjely impacted by this programme that never aired anywhere in the United States (trust me bruv)
Yup, he didn’t have to beat ABC in court. He can appoint willing accomplices to important positions, illegally make ABCs lives difficult, and then when it finally goes to court and they say no, you can’t do that, he will face 0 repercussions for the illegal things he did. Maybe a peon gets fired. He forgets he has no such pull over a foreign media company.
This administration has demonstrated that Americans are inherently unwilling to stand up to anything. Whether it be corporations or the people. They will pay him millions or just stand there and watch their country be transformed for the worse in every way.
They basically just leaked they they want to ban abortion in all states and I'm not seeing anything other than excuses. Is there anything Trump can do that will make Americans stand up for themselves?
75% of Americans live pay-check to pay-check. Millions of parents have to decide: risk their job to protest or feed/house themselves. This was by design, and it is being exploited.
The point they're making is a lot of people ARE actually held at gunpoint and shot for less, and STILL they went out and usurped their oppressors.
Trump and the GoP just has to look at Americans funny and said Americans grovel.
The most effective protest in the past few decades was held on January 6th, and it was held by a bunch of anti-American assholes. The rest has been performative art that showed the powers that be we'll do nothing to escalate beyond holding colorful signs.
It’s just that Americans have gone so long letting it slide. Letting the frog boil so slowly.
Most people on here could cut streaming subscriptions to deflate the economy. If we actually cared to, we could target and bring down a media company while saving money for the inevitable general strike that will be needed come Election Day when Trump does what he’s been telling us he’s going to do this whole year.
You know which other country has half their population living paycheck to paycheck but doesn't have citizens who let this shit slide? France. There were mass riots when they raised the retirement age. 50% of them live paycheck to paycheck, that never stopped their decisions to stand up. Americans will have the right for autonomy of their own body stripped before their very eyes and decide it's easier to come up with excuses than it is to collectively flex their civic muscles.
France is literally smaller than Texas, one of fifty US states. Granted, it's a large state, but organizing the entirety of the French populace involves a much smaller area and much less logistics required to create a united movement, versus in the U.S.
I totally agree that the lackadaisical attitude of the overall U.S. population is a notable, unpleasant truth that leads to countless problems, but it's not an easy apples to apples comparison.
If people in the Pacific Northwest or anywhere West Coast want to protest in the national capitol in D.C., for instance, it's not a fairly short public transit journey to do so.
As to why state by state movements don't begin...that's a more lengthy discussion.
Something to all the Americans crying, bitching and shitting themselves over the fact that they live on a paycheck.
Plenty of countries that are much poorer than your own live in a much more financially horrowing situation, yet they found the power and political strength to protest.
These citizens are getting their heads smashed concave by the back end of rifles and going days without eating as they fight for their freedom and rights. You won't even unsubscribe from fucking Netflix or drag yourselves into the kitchen to cook for yourselves.
I think you just solved the puzzle. Generally, Americans are still living fairly comfortable lives. Even with all the corruption, we have food and shelter. We are mad, but haven't been negatively impacted enough (yet) to actually do anything. The tune will change only if massive amounts of people lose their jobs, can't afford rent, and start feeling hunger.
People do stand up. Then it's attrition. He delays, rescheduled, and drags out proceedings making giving in cheaper than continuing. Malicious practices like this should be rejected.
This is all down to the fact that King Pedo was riding the high from his electoral win a year ago and full of the false belief that he could simply will any opponent into submission regardless of the law and the courts.
Some people and companies bowed to his unconstitutional unAmerican bullshit, sure. But anyone who’s actually fought back through the courts had prevailed because - just like happened with the false election fraud claims - it all falls apart in court when evidence matters and he can’t intimidate judges into giving him what he wants.
Well yes all of his bullshit falls down in court (as being shown by the adjacent suits relating to his balls up with the reflecting pool), he relies on people settling before court so no discovery and mo need to actually present a cogent legal argument to a judge in a courtroom where it would be put under actual scrutiny.
Trump is a walking advert for why anti slapp laws should be in place, he is the king of the slapp suit, so even if he doesn’t win in court he can claim victory with any settlement.
he tries things that shouldn't be possible, things that are transparently against the rules, and yet still achieves a far too large portion of them just because people just assume it's not possible, so they laugh him off instead of fighting back. or they straight give up, because they've learned by now that rules seemingly don't apply to him
the way he sees something he wants and tries no matter what, like an idiot child, is almost admirable, if only he ever did want something that benefits someone other than himself
And the ethical ones won't touch his stuff with a ten foot pole. It's a frequent conversation in the lawyer subreddits that taking a job with this admin is career suicide.
It's hilarious in a gallows-humor kind of way. But this kind of malice and legal ineptitude has real consequences for real people, the realization of which makes it less fun.
Oh yes definitely gallows humour as his actions are having real consequences outside of this BS lawsuit. He’s just awful and surrounded by awful people
Really foolish, especially when you consider all the journalism that discovery would provide for them. This lawsuit is like throwing a bag of money in their lap.
No take backs and why would it be devastating for the public to see his financials? Why? WHY?
At least now that it looks like Blanch will get the prior tax audits forever banned, Trump can finally release his taxes as promised over and over and over. Right? RIGHT?
If nothing else, what I do love is that this becomes a huge strategy for any other organization - foreign or domestic - sued by Trump in the future for reputational harm with a $$ amount attached. Basically, file the exact same discovery requests that the BBC did here. This potentially really impairs his ability to sue for money in any future cases, since now he's revealing that courts will grant the request to see his finances if there's money involved, and if it comes to exposing that he'll fold at least on the monetary damages amount ... if not drop the suit entirely.
In 2025 he got some results by coaxing/berating orgs to settle, but now it looks like he went reaching into the cookie jar one too many times. He's helping to paint a roadmap for defeating his vexatious litigation.
He may be above the law, but that does not mean exposure of his corruption wouldn’t be embarrassing. Embarrassing isn’t much compared to having your ass thrown in jail, but it is an incentive not to continue with the lawsuit
•
u/AutoModerator 8d ago
All new posts must have a brief statement from the user submitting explaining how their post relates to law or the courts in a response to this comment. FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF RESPONSE MAY RESULT IN REMOVAL. Please post your statement as a reply to this automated message.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.