This is from the complaint:

29. The Panorama Documentary’s publicity, coupled with significant increases in
VPN usage in Florida since its debut, establishes the immense likelihood that citizens of Florida accessed the Documentary before the BBC had it removed. 

 

So per the word in  Rule 12(b)(6:

 

It is possible someone saw it not plausible as the  complaint makes no reference that anyone 'actually' saw it in Florida in the 10 days it ran prior to the NOV 2024 election.

October 28, 2024 Toms Guide 

 

How to watch 'Trump: A Second Chance?' online — stream documentary online from anywhere

News

By Bill Borrows last updated October 28, 2024

https://www.tomsguide.com/entertainment/streaming/how-to-watch-trump-a-second-chance-online-from-anywhere

6 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

October 28, 2024 Toms Guide 

 

How to watch 'Trump: A Second Chance?' online — stream documentary online from anywhere

News

By Bill Borrows last updated October 28, 2024

https://www.tomsguide.com/entertainment/streaming/how-to-watch-trump-a-second-chance-online-from-anywhere

So you are still in the grounds of MAYBE and Trump's legal team as in the complaint realized they can't go beyond that

 

Maybe they will find someone in Florida who will claim they actually did see it  pre-election.

13 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

This is from the complaint:

29. The Panorama Documentary’s publicity, coupled with significant increases in
VPN usage in Florida since its debut, establishes the immense likelihood that citizens of Florida accessed the Documentary before the BBC had it removed. 

 

So per the word in  Rule 12(b)(6:

 

It is possible someone saw it not plausible as the  complaint makes no reference that anyone 'actually' saw it in Florida in the 10 days it ran prior to the NOV 2024 election.

23. The Panorama Documentary was available to be viewed by citizens of Florida and was, in fact, viewed in Florida by citizens of Florida, notwithstanding the BBC’s anticipated, and inaccurate claims that the Documentary was unviewable in the United States due to purported geolocking. As disgraced, and now former BBC Director General Tim Davie (“Davie”) stated in his recent resignation letter: “Despite a hugely competitive market, I am proud that the BBC remains the most trusted news brand globally. We have continued to ensure that it is used by almost everyone in the UK as well as hundreds of millions of people globally.”10

24. The Panorama Documentary was available to BritBox subscribers in Florida and was in fact viewed by these subscribers through BritBox and other means provided by the BBC.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.703382/gov.uscourts.flsd.703382.1.0_5.pdf

This link is the full 33 pages COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL filed with the 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Miami Division

 

They had a month since the NOV 13 BBC response letter. All their convoluted responses as to how someone MIGHT  have seen it are BS compared to finding someone who actually saw it.

 

Their 'in fact' maybe means statistically likely as their summary response is IMMENSE LIKELIIHOOD.

 

It seems you may be claiming a higher level certainty than do Trump's own attorneys.

 

As with the ABC complaint above, Attorney Brito claimed people actually saw the ABC news item.

 

He doesn't use the word 'actually' in this one.

1 minute ago, vinny41 said:

 “Despite a hugely competitive market, I am proud that the BBC remains the most trusted news brand globally. We have continued to ensure that it is used by almost everyone in the UK as well as hundreds of millions of people globally.”

 

 

The BBC needs to stop living in cloud cuckoo land. For some time I would not trust a word that they say. Try making a complaint about an inaccurate or completely wrong item and see where it gets you.

52 minutes ago, Geoff914 said:

The BBC needs to stop living in cloud cuckoo land. For some time I would not trust a word that they say. Try making a complaint about an inaccurate or completely wrong item and see where it gets you.

Interesting read here

cliff-richard-v-bbc-judgment.pdf

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/cliff-richard-v-bbc-judgment.pdf

The phrase "BBC over a barrel" refers to a controversial internal email written by a BBC journalist, Dan Johnson, in which he claimed he had the police "over a barrel" while coordinating coverage of a 2014 police raid on Sir Cliff Richard's home. 

The "Blackmail" Allegation: The then-Chief Constable of SYP, David Crompton, told MPs that if the force did not cooperate with the BBC, the broadcaster was "likely to publish the story anyway," which would have harmed their investigation. He described this as the BBC putting them in a "very difficult position," a situation which some MPs on the Home Affairs Select Committee called a "blackmail attempt".

The BBC nominated its controversial coverage of a police raid on Sir Cliff Richard's home for the "Scoop of the Year" award at the Royal Television Society (RTS) journalism awards, but the entry did not win. 

 

"“Despite a hugely competitive market, I am proud that the BBC remains the most trusted news brand globally." I forgot about the shameful Cliff Richard incident.

Then there was this https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-57163815

Now Bashir is a fraudster.

11 hours ago, stevenl said:

Nice examples where the threat was discovery, so the truth coming out. The threat eas not the cost of litigation compared to a settlement.

The threat of discovery is inseparable from the cost of litigation—discovery is the single most expensive phase of U.S. civil suits (often 50-70% of total fees).

Defendants settle precisely because they can't afford to let discovery run its course: depositions, document production, privilege fights, expert battles—all costing millions while potentially exposing embarrassing (or damning) truths.

 

The core reality of the U.S. civil justice system: It structurally incentivizes settlement over trial, making settling almost always "better and cheaper" for both sides in high-stakes cases.

 

As I have said  already, In a case like Trump v. BBC, just getting to/full discovery could cost the BBC $50-100M+ in U.S. lawyers, e-discovery, depositions, travel—regardless of merit.

 

Maybe if  the BBC had tighter editorial oversight, a 12-second splice from a 57-minute documentary wouldn't have snowballed into resignations and , a public apology admitting it created a "mistaken impression" of inciting violence, and now a $10B lawsuit.

 

Sloppy journalism is expensive—whether "mistake" or not, it handed Trump leverage on a silver platter.

 

Basically the BBC messed up big time, not for the first time incidentally.

 

The BBC has a long history of facing libel actions, mostly in UK courts (where defamation laws were historically more claimant-friendly before 2013 reforms), and occasionally elsewhere. The historical big one, i believe already mentioned by another poster Cliff Richard v BBC (2018)—BBC paid £2M+ in damages/settlement over false sex abuse raid coverage.

 

This is the first major defamation suit against the BBC in a U.S. court.

 

It comes down to of all the high-profile figures they've covered controversially over the years (politicians, royals, celebrities), they picked the 'wrong' guy this time!

 

8 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

 

This is the first major defamation suit against the BBC in a U.S. court.

AI via Gemini

 

Why this matters
To win a defamation case in Florida, Trump must prove jurisdiction—that the "sting" of the defamation was felt by people in that state. If his team cannot produce specific evidence or witnesses (beyond just "increased VPN usage") who watched the documentary in Florida before November 2024, the case may be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

2 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

Maybe if  the BBC had tighter editorial oversight, a 12-second splice from a 57-minute documentary wouldn't have snowballed into resignations and , a public apology admitting it created a "mistaken impression" of inciting violence, and now a $10B lawsuit.

 

The editors certainly messed up but I am amazed that the programme makers thought that they would get away with this in the first place. BBC employees need to remember who they are. They can't cart blanche do what the hell they like. There are certain standards that they must maintain. Seems like the BBC management need to exercise a bit more control. If this had been for a satirical comedy it would actually have been quite good. But it was supposed to be the news not satire.

18 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

The threat of discovery is inseparable from the cost of litigation—discovery is the single most expensive phase of U.S. civil suits (often 50-70% of total fees).

Defendants settle precisely because they can't afford to let discovery run its course: depositions, document production, privilege fights, expert battles—all costing millions while potentially exposing embarrassing (or damning) truths.

 

The core reality of the U.S. civil justice system: It structurally incentivizes settlement over trial, making settling almost always "better and cheaper" for both sides in high-stakes cases.

 

As I have said  already, In a case like Trump v. BBC, just getting to/full discovery could cost the BBC $50-100M+ in U.S. lawyers, e-discovery, depositions, travel—regardless of merit.

 

Maybe if  the BBC had tighter editorial oversight, a 12-second splice from a 57-minute documentary wouldn't have snowballed into resignations and , a public apology admitting it created a "mistaken impression" of inciting violence, and now a $10B lawsuit.

 

Sloppy journalism is expensive—whether "mistake" or not, it handed Trump leverage on a silver platter.

 

Basically the BBC messed up big time, not for the first time incidentally.

 

The BBC has a long history of facing libel actions, mostly in UK courts (where defamation laws were historically more claimant-friendly before 2013 reforms), and occasionally elsewhere. The historical big one, i believe already mentioned by another poster Cliff Richard v BBC (2018)—BBC paid £2M+ in damages/settlement over false sex abuse raid coverage.

 

This is the first major defamation suit against the BBC in a U.S. court.

 

It comes down to of all the high-profile figures they've covered controversially over the years (politicians, royals, celebrities), they picked the 'wrong' guy this time!

 

The issue with discovery is the truth coming out.

23 minutes ago, stevenl said:

The issue with discovery is the truth coming out.

And it seems that the Trump legal team is going with the contention that a $5 billion defamation claim should rest on the notion that MAYBE someone in Florida saw the video before the 2024 NOV election.

10 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

And it seems that the Trump legal team is going with the contention that a $5 billion defamation claim should rest on the notion that MAYBE someone in Florida saw the video before the 2024 NOV election.

Wouldn't that also require that one person leading to a 5 billion damage? 

Extortion is all it is.

7 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Wouldn't that also require that one person leading to a 5 billion damage? 

Extortion is all it is.

The BBC attorneys NOV 13 responded to Trump's that the term 'published' would be an issue. And in that time it seems it has not occurred to Trump's lawyers to find that one 'third person' in Florida who saw by whatever means the doc prior to the election.

 

... or that it did occur and they tried but they couldn't.

25 minutes ago, stevenl said:

The issue with discovery is the truth coming out.

On that I agree!

15 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

And it seems that the Trump legal team is going with the contention that a $5 billion defamation claim should rest on the notion that MAYBE someone in Florida saw the video before the 2024 NOV election.

Before the 2024 Nov election or after doesn't matter the timeline is from when the BBC published the Panorama program until the date that they removed the program from publication

50 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

AI via Gemini

 

Why this matters
To win a defamation case in Florida, Trump must prove jurisdiction—that the "sting" of the defamation was felt by people in that state. If his team cannot produce specific evidence or witnesses (beyond just "increased VPN usage") who watched the documentary in Florida before November 2024, the case may be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

 

Yes, but.....

President Trump's team could rally supporters in Florida to submit sworn affidavits attesting they watched the Panorama documentary (via VPN, clips, or other means) and felt it defamed him.

His lawyers/allies could easily put out a public call (via Truth Social, Fox, Newsmax, or MAGA influencers) asking Florida residents who saw the episode pre-election to come forward with affidavits.

Given the publicity around the suit and BBC's admitted edit, motivated people would likely step up—even if viewership was low overall.

His team has solicited/used supporter declarations in election challenges and other suits. Crowdsourcing affidavits from fans isn't unheard of in polarized cases.

 

Bolsters Jurisdiction: Concrete affidavits (e.g., "I, a Florida resident, watched it on [date/method] and it harmed my view of Trump") turn "immense likelihood" into specific evidence of in-state publication and "sting."

This strengthens the Calder "effects" test (express aiming + brunt in Florida), making dismissal on 12(b)(2) much harder.

Survives Early Motions: Provides factual support for publication/damages, pushing past 12(b)(6) and into discovery (BBC's cost nightmare).

Amplifies Leverage: Even a handful (or dozens) of affidavits signals widespread harm, pressuring settlement (like ABC/CBS).

Affidavits from obvious partisans could be attacked as biased/self-serving, but for jurisdictional fact-finding, courts often accept them at face value early on.

 

Its gonna be very interesting, whatever happens!

1 minute ago, mikeymike100 said:

President Trump's team could rally supporters in Florida to submit sworn affidavits attesting they watched the Panorama documentary (via VPN, clips, or other means) and felt it defamed him.

Yes but they haven't thought to do it so far or have tried and not been able.

Just now, jerrymahoney said:

Yes but they haven't thought to do it so far or have tried and not been able.

You are correct.

No reports of any affidavits filed or publicized—the complaint relies purely on circumstantial pleading (VPN stats, publicity). Case is brand-new; if they exist/happen, it'd emerge soon (e.g., in opposition to a dismissal motion).

13 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Wouldn't that also require that one person leading to a 5 billion damage? 

Extortion is all it is.

Just like that, the lefts obsession with combatting "disinformation" is over, as they realized they were the beneficiaries of this disinformation. They now call moves to challenge vile foreign state sponsored disinformation aimed at gaming US elections as "extortion".

Hilarious, yet predictable🤣

4 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

You are correct.

No reports of any affidavits filed or publicized—the complaint relies purely on circumstantial pleading (VPN stats, publicity). Case is brand-new; if they exist/happen, it'd emerge soon (e.g., in opposition to a dismissal motion).

Maybe it just never occurred to them with their big discovery budget to find someone. who can PROVE they saw it.

 

But with respect Mikey here we are discussing something which seems plainly obvious to us -- that is a in the flesh third person -- but somehow Brito hasn't thought of it or is willing to reveal it in their complaint.

3 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

Maybe it just never occurred to them with their big discovery budget to find someone. who can PROVE they saw it.

Maybe?😅

But his team would be foolish not to try it if they sense weakness on viewership proof. It could transform a shaky jurisdictional hook into a credible one.

7 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

Maybe?😅

But his team would be foolish not to try it if they sense weakness on viewership proof. It could transform a shaky jurisdictional hook into a credible one.

All to say is that they mention 'immense likelihood' that it was viewed when they indeed have proof. 

10 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

Doesn't matter its from the doesn't matter the timeline is from when the BBC published the Panorama program until the date that they removed the program from publication

And maybe you not aware forum rules state you need to provide a link for any material that is copied from the internet

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.703382/gov.uscourts.flsd.703382.1.0_5.pdf

I know the forum rules. But in general I'm tired of proving links to persons who then use it to contradict me. That's fine but they can find the damn links themselves. I don't have to help them.

 

It matters. Those are Trump's words both via attorney as above and on Truth Social that the video was an attempt to influence the election.

Unattributed post and reply has been removed

AI Gemini:

 

The Trump communications team did not publicly notice or raise concerns about the edited BBC Panorama video before an internal BBC memo detailing the error was leaked to The Daily Telegraph in November 2025. 

The documentary, titled Trump: A Second Chance?, was originally broadcast in the UK on October 28, 2024, shortly before the U.S. presidential election. It was geographically restricted to UK viewers and not widely distributed in the U.S. at the time, which is cited as a reason it did not draw immediate attention from the Trump team or the general American public. 

The controversy only erupted into a public firestorm after a confidential memo from Michael Prescott, a former independent external adviser to the BBC's editorial standards committee, was leaked to The Daily Telegraph and published on November 3, 2025. This memo explicitly highlighted concerns that the program had misled viewers by splicing two separate parts of Trump's January 6, 2021 speech to make it appear he was explicitly encouraging the Capitol Hill riots. 
 

4 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

AI Gemini:

 

The Trump communications team did not publicly notice or raise concerns about the edited BBC Panorama video before an internal BBC memo detailing the error was leaked to The Daily Telegraph in November 2025. 

The documentary, titled Trump: A Second Chance?, was originally broadcast in the UK on October 28, 2024, shortly before the U.S. presidential election. It was geographically restricted to UK viewers and not widely distributed in the U.S. at the time, which is cited as a reason it did not draw immediate attention from the Trump team or the general American public. 

The controversy only erupted into a public firestorm after a confidential memo from Michael Prescott, a former independent external adviser to the BBC's editorial standards committee, was leaked to The Daily Telegraph and published on November 3, 2025. This memo explicitly highlighted concerns that the program had misled viewers by splicing two separate parts of Trump's January 6, 2021 speech to make it appear he was explicitly encouraging the Capitol Hill riots. 
 

That doesn't help trump's case.

6 minutes ago, stevenl said:

That doesn't help trump's case.

Yes -- the video was so damaging to Trump's post-election reputation that his whole communications team was unaware of it until the Telegraph internal BBC memo leak.

31 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

AI Gemini:

 

The Trump communications team did not publicly notice or raise concerns about the edited BBC Panorama video before an internal BBC memo detailing the error was leaked to The Daily Telegraph in November 2025. 

The documentary, titled Trump: A Second Chance?, was originally broadcast in the UK on October 28, 2024, shortly before the U.S. presidential election. It was geographically restricted to UK viewers and not widely distributed in the U.S. at the time, which is cited as a reason it did not draw immediate attention from the Trump team or the general American public. 

The controversy only erupted into a public firestorm after a confidential memo from Michael Prescott, a former independent external adviser to the BBC's editorial standards committee, was leaked to The Daily Telegraph and published on November 3, 2025. This memo explicitly highlighted concerns that the program had misled viewers by splicing two separate parts of Trump's January 6, 2021 speech to make it appear he was explicitly encouraging the Capitol Hill riots. 
 

BBC was aware from January 2025

The programme at the heart of the dispute had been broadcast in 2024, one week before the US Presidential Election. When the claim of deception was brought to the attention of the BBC’s Editorial Guidance and Standards Committee (“EGSC”) in January 2025, they did not take decisive action. They asked for the matter to be investigated.

According to the evidence of the BBC’s Chair at the Select Committee, the result of the investigation was reported back to the EGSC in May. But still they didn’t take action.

https://inforrm.org/2025/12/02/splicing-and-dicing-the-bbcs-reputation-simon-carne/

2015 BBC News article

BBC iPlayer 'watched by more than 60m outside the UK for free'

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-33620341