Well Mr. President, if you have a big mouth, with all the time only garbage coming out of it, do not be surprised when also garbage is put into the big mouth.

13 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

If the case reaches jury stage  the amount may be higher than 10 billion USD as the juries in the infowars case awarded higher costs that what the plaintiffs were requesting

The case is in Miami division Southern Florida which ain't exactly like Pensacola and  counties went 80+% for Trump 2024.

1 hour ago, jerrymahoney said:

Discovery is a 2-way street.

 

As to it not getting that far, it may not get any farther than Team Trump not being able to PROVE anyone in Florida a saw the doco prior to the 2024 election.

 

"Immense likelihood" won't cut it.

Agreed it is a 2 way street!

Your argument about jurisdiction is discussed by the Blackbelt Barrister in a utube video i posted already.

 

Key points from his discussion (starting around the 11:09 timestamp):

U.S. and UK defamation laws are broadly similar, with parallel standards, so cross-border arguments hold up despite slight differences in handling.

 

The BBC has a substantial U.S. presence (e.g., offices in Florida and reporters based there), meeting the "minimum contacts" test for personal jurisdiction.

 

The Panorama documentary, while aired in the UK, was accessible to U.S. audiences (e.g., via VPN or other means), and allegedly caused harm in Florida, supporting the case's venue.

 

He concludes: "whilst there are jurisdictional arguments, I think President Trump will be okay on that point."

I don't think the above hypothetical who-saw-it argument will cut it.

 

'Publication' was mentioned in one the earlier BBC lawyer letters:

 

AI Gemini

In Florida, a defamation claim requires proving a defendant published a false statement of fact about the plaintiff to a third party, causing reputational harm or damages, with the appropriate level of fault (negligence for private figures, actual malice for public figures), all within a two-year statute of limitations, with "publication" meaning any communication, including online

1 hour ago, Summerinsiam said:

Legal experts across the board concur that Trump has little chance of success with his absurd arguments and financial demands, but of course it has nothing to do with money. He is sueing the BBC for the same reason he is taking a number of news organisations (incluing the New York Times) to court: so that he can intimidate the media and alongside the likes of his pal Musk, subvert information and take control of the narrative. To its immense credit the BBC is having none of his self-serving bluster, narcissism, and bullying tatics.

 

The notion that these lawsuits (including against The New York Times and others) are solely about intimidation or "subverting information" overlooks their basis in alleged factual distortions—here, the BBC's admitted "error of judgment" in editing Trump's January 6 speech to create a misleading impression of incitement.

Defamation laws exist to hold media accountable, and Trump's use of them mirrors actions by others across the political spectrum; framing it as bullying ignores that outlets like the BBC have faced similar scrutiny and settlements for journalistic lapses in the past.

As for Elon Musk, there's no evidence of his involvement in this lawsuit or a coordinated effort to "take control of the narrative"—that's a speculative leap, as Musk's ownership of X (formerly Twitter) is separate from Trump's legal strategies against broadcasters.

2 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

Defamation laws exist to hold media accountable, and Trump's use of them mirrors actions by others across the political spectrum; framing it as bullying ignores that outlets like the BBC have faced similar scrutiny and settlements for journalistic lapses in the past.

Both the ABC and CBS settlements involvement entities  with broadcast licensees subject to FCC regulation.

 

The current NY Times and Wall Street Journal suits aren't going as smoothly.

1 hour ago, Summerinsiam said:

Yes, indeed. The House of Representative's January 6th committee alredy concluded that Trump used his speech to incite a riot.

While the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol did indeed accuse former President Trump in its December 2022 final report of engaging in a "multi-part conspiracy" to overturn the 2020 election results, including actions that "incited" the Capitol riot through his speech and subsequent tweets, these findings were political recommendations from a congressional body, not legally binding conclusions or a criminal conviction.

26 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

The case is in Miami division Southern Florida which ain't exactly like Pensacola and  counties went 80+% for Trump 2024.

From 2010 to 2019, Florida produced the most nuclear verdicts (213) of any state in the country according to a recent study by the U.S. Chamber. The 213 verdicts totaled $35 billion.

U.S. Chamber report, “Florida is also more prone to punitive damage awards than other states. Forty per- cent of nuclear verdicts in Florida included a punitive damage element compared to 26% nationally.”

https://judicialhellholes.org/florida-legislature/#:~:text=Florida

On 12/16/2025 at 11:27 AM, Emdog said:

Telling the truth about Trump would seem to be defamation if said about anyone else. Trump is record setting liar, grifter, adjudicated rapist, felon, uses the office of President to illegally enrich himself but since has lapdogs in 'justice' department, isn't prosecuted. He is a yet to be charged war criminal (or crimes against humanity), lapdog of war criminal Putin. And he smells awful and <deleted>s his pants.

So sue me.

Seems you know little about the truth?

 

Many of your claims are exaggerated, distorted, or outright false:

 

Liar: High volume of misleading statements (30,000+ per WaPo tally), but includes hyperbole and repetitions—unprecedented scale, yet not all deliberate lies.

 

Grifter: Emoluments lawsuits dismissed as moot by SCOTUS; no convictions or criminal charges.

 

Adjudicated rapist: Jury found liable for sexual abuse and defamation in Carroll case; explicitly rejected rape claim under NY law. Appeals ongoing.

 

Felon: Convicted on 34 counts in NY hush-money case (sentencing Jan 2025); appeals pending. Other indictments dismissed/paused post-election.

 

Illegal enrichment: No prosecutions; prior claims unresolved legally.

 

War criminal/crimes against humanity: Baseless speculation—no charges, investigations, or evidence from any tribunal regarding recent Venezuela strikes or otherwise.

 

Putin's lapdog: Policy disagreements (e.g., NATO, Ukraine aid) contradict this; rhetorical claim, not fact.

 

Personal insults (smell, incontinence) are juvenile and unsubstantiated.

5 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

From 2010 to 2019, Florida produced the most nuclear verdicts (213) of any state in the country according to a recent study by the U.S. Chamber. The 213 verdicts totaled $35 billion.

U.S. Chamber report, “Florida is also more prone to punitive damage awards than other states. Forty per- cent of nuclear verdicts in Florida included a punitive damage element compared to 26% nationally.”

https://judicialhellholes.org/florida-legislature/#:~:text=Florida

Yes but a jury in Infowars saw harm to the plaintiffs. But right now I am sticking to the pretrial and you guys are way past start of trial.

On 12/16/2025 at 12:34 PM, Palatus said:

The Panorama program was a 60 minute edit that was spliced for a few seconds of footage clumsily. The BBC has put out billions of hours of broadcasts over a 100 year lifespan and you and Trump want it sue it out of existence overnight as it doesn't fit your opinion? Do you gave a damn about anyone else's opinion that does not align with yours?

 

No, the lawsuit isn't about Trump's or anyone's "opinion"—it's about the BBC's admitted "error of judgment" in selectively editing Trump's January 6 speech to omit key phrases like "peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard," creating what the BBC itself conceded was a "mistaken impression" of incitement.

This wasn't a fleeting clumsy splice in a 60-minute program; the Panorama documentary repeatedly juxtaposed the edited clip with riot footage to imply direct causation—a choice the BBC later apologized for, pulled the program from rebroadcast, and triggered internal resignations and a major credibility crisis.

A single $10 billion claim is aggressive (and likely symbolic), but it's not an attempt to "sue the BBC out of existence." The corporation is taxpayer-funded with £5+ billion annual revenue and has survived far worse scandals (e.g., Savile, Bashir/Diana).

Defamation suits are a legal mechanism to challenge alleged falsehoods, not censorship of opinions—opinions are protected speech.

Criticizing Trump or portraying January 6 critically is fair game and happens daily across global media without lawsuits. The issue arises when editing distorts verifiable facts in a way the broadcaster later admits was misleading.

Respect for differing opinions cuts both ways: the BBC routinely airs sharp criticism of Trump (and others), which is its right. Holding it accountable for conceded inaccuracies isn't intolerance—it's demanding the same journalistic standards it applies to everyone else.

No one is above scrutiny, including a century-old institution.

Name change coming....BBC is now TBC.  Gotta good snap to it, Trump Broadcasting Corporation.  Now I'm understanding why so many in this group have <removed>...that's the only straw they had to drink from. 

22 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

Defamation suits are a legal mechanism to challenge alleged falsehoods, not censorship of opinions—opinions are protected speech

AI via Gemini:

 

Key Elements of a Florida Defamation Claim
To establish a cause of action for defamation in Florida, a plaintiff must allege the following elements: 

A false statement about the plaintiff.
Publication or communication of the statement to a third person

 

(and they left off maybe to a third person)

 

They say that the documentary was  'in fact viewed' several times but never say what is the 'fact'.

 

Their strongest words are "immense likelihood".

 

22 hours ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

    The BBC can be funded some other way , rather than a licence fee

Absolutely, its a dinosaur in this day and age,

The could do a subscription model, or allow ads or pay per view, there many alternatives!

21 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I thought Brits were forced to pay the license fee, it is that another rightwing myth?

 

Disingenuous leftist consistently and vehemently defends BBC that he claims is actually a right wing organization. 

1 hour ago, FritsSikkink said:

Thera are 876000 hours in 100 years.

You didn't include leap years.

Not a problem how much the Don will sue the BBC  for 💰 🤑 

The British tax payer will foot the bill 

Personally I used to respect the news the BBC was putting out

now not so😱

 

On 12/16/2025 at 1:01 PM, jerrymahoney said:

Great. And President Trump can be deposed as to why he thinks the BBC has caused him $10 billion worth of damage.

It's gonna be settled before any of that happens!

11 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

It's gonna be settled before any of that happens!

And before that there will be a motion to dismiss

 

AI Gemini (in part).

 

Arguments in a Motion to Dismiss (MTD)
A defendant can file a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, which, if successful, can end the lawsuit early. Common arguments for dismissal related to the publication claim and other elements include: 

Failure to sufficiently plead "publication": The defendant may argue the complaint does not plausibly allege the statement was actually communicated to a third party

2 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

Thanks for the correction. Those amount a far cry from 5 billion USD. 

You are correct, this is why President Trump has filed in the USA, plus the statute of limitation claim on a defamation suit had run out, in the UK!

8 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

And before that there will be a motion to dismiss

 

AI Gemini (in part).

 

Arguments in a Motion to Dismiss (MTD)
A defendant can file a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, which, if successful, can end the lawsuit early. Common arguments for dismissal related to the publication claim and other elements include: 

Failure to sufficiently plead "publication": The defendant may argue the complaint does not plausibly allege the statement was actually communicated to a third party

 

No, failure to sufficiently plead "publication" is unlikely to be a strong argument for the BBC's expected Motion to Dismiss (MTD) in Trump's $10 billion U.S. defamation lawsuit.

In U.S. defamation law (under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim), "publication" simply requires alleging that the defamatory statement was communicated to at least one third party other than the plaintiff.

Trump's complaint easily meets this low bar by claiming the Panorama documentary—aired on BBC platforms and allegedly accessible in the U.S. (via BritBox, VPNs, or other means)—was viewed by audiences, causing reputational harm.

 

As of today, 17 Dec,  no MTD has been filed (case too new), but experts predict jurisdiction and merits as primary grounds for potential early dismissal. "Publication" itself isn't contested here.

 

The problem for the BBC here is the high litigation costs, the clock has already started ticking on this!

 

Even if jurisdiction/merits favor dismissal (experts predict strong MTD on those grounds), defending in U.S. court is expensive for a foreign, taxpayer-funded entity like the BBC (£5B+ annual budget but under scrutiny amid charter review and internal crises).

Reputational and political pressure — Ongoing BBC turmoil (executive resignations, bias allegations) plus UK government consultation on funding reforms; settling could minimize damage, avoid bad headlines, and prevent escalation with a sitting U.S. president.

7 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

In U.S. defamation law (under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim), "publication" simply requires alleging that the defamatory statement was communicated to at least one third party other than the plaintiff.

Fine. To at least one third party other than the plaintiff.

 

But that's not what is in the complaint.

Posts with derogatory nicknames, intentional misspellings, or personal remarks will be removed. Spell names correctly for all sides of the debate.

2 hours ago, josephbloggs said:

You didn't include leap years.

True, won't get it to a billion though, let alone billions.

1 hour ago, jerrymahoney said:

Fine. To at least one third party other than the plaintiff.

 

But that's not what is in the complaint.

 

Actually, the complaint does explicitly allege publication to third parties.

 

Excerpts from the filing (33-46 pages, depending on reports) describe the Panorama documentary as a "published" work that "gained substantial traction and republication across various media in the United States and elsewhere globally," with the BBC using its "false and defamatory publications" to damage Trump's reputation.

It further claims the program was accessible in Florida/U.S. via VPNs, BritBox streaming, licensing deals (e.g., Blue Ant Media for North America), and notes massive viewership potential—clearly communicating the statements to third parties (viewers) beyond just Trump.

This easily satisfies the low pleading threshold for "publication" under Rule 12(b)(6).

The real battles are potentially elsewhere: jurisdiction, actual malice, and whether the edit was substantially true or protected speech.

 

They use the words: ... establishes the immense likelihood that citizens of Florida
accessed the Documentary before the BBC had it removed. 

 

Whether that satisfies the Publication rule or not, that was the first thing mentioned by the BBC outside attorneys NOV 13 in response to the Trump letter.

 

So now BBC has 20 days to respond after (somewhere) being served a summons.

On 12/16/2025 at 6:42 AM, Chomper Higgot said:

Trump is frequently laughed out of US courts.

 

Laughed out of any venue where reasonable people congregate.

 

Noone in history has done so much to denigrate and trash what was once perhaps the most important and powerful office in the world. It will probably never recover from this abuse.

 

On 12/16/2025 at 11:14 AM, JonnyF said:

Great news.

 

Drag them through the mud Don. They deserve it, the morally bankrupt, left wing, state funded, Propaganda wing of the Welfare Pa..., sorry I meant the Labour party.

 

You mean run by the tories for god knows how many years , you really are quite slow aren't you .

On 12/16/2025 at 4:26 AM, Palatus said:

Such an unhinged response. The BBC isn't propaganda for anyone except in the eyes of people who's views are extremist and do not align. It operates under a royal charter mandating impartiality and balance, without favoritism toward any party. Those wearing Reform UK glasses will struggle to see this however.

You obviously have zero knowledge or your morally bankrupt and care nothing for truth. The BBC has done reprehensible blatant lies. From their reporting of Syrian chemical attacks (doctored footage, using child actors, old footage reused). They were caught in a double sting when they tried to set up and tried to bribe someone from Tommy Robinson team to lie about him in the worst kind of lie. They are anti semitic and even anti British using slurs of far right and Natzi when describing normal every day  protesters who merely protest because they are scared of what is going on in their communities. I could go on all day but lastly what they did to Donald Trump by splicing a speech to make him look like he was ordering attacks at the capital when infact he was calling for calm. I hope the BBC gets destroyed by this law suit. Maybe you should watch the speech and then watch what the BBC did!!!