Oh my… the pile-on here is predictable as usual... BBC splices a speech, gets sued, and somehow that’s “fighting extortion.” Can any of the anti-Trump crowd actually defend the edit as accurate and fair? Or is the entire argument just “Trump bad, so anything goes”? Financial records of the family have zero bearing on whether the BBC’s cut distorted what was said. That’s a discovery tactic, not a defence of the journalism but what you can expect from BBC. Desperate BS to somehow stay afloat. Easy for BBC. If the edit was clean, stand by it. If it wasn’t then it's time to pay up and learn a lesson.