An example of why Trump’s defamation law suits are a risky strategy.

 

BBC, and others, Take Note:

 

“Responding to President Donald Trump’s defamation lawsuit against them, the Pulitzer Prize Board has asked a Florida court to compel Trump to hand over his tax returns, financial records, and full medical and psychological files in a sweeping discovery request aimed at testing his claims of reputational and emotional harm.”

 

 

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trumps-medical-records-lawsuit-pulitzer-prize-11220818

And what relevance do Trumps medical records have with the UK state propaganda outlet editting and splicing his words to create a defamatory false narrative?

Still, wouldnt mind seeing Michelle Obama and Brigitte Marcrons next time they sue for defamation 🤣 But as usual with different rules for the left , oh no you can't see those because (insert preposterous nonsensical bs excuse)

3 minutes ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

And what relevance do Trumps medical records have with the UK state propaganda outlet editting and splicing his words to create a defamatory false narrative?

Still, wouldnt mind seeing Michelle Obama and Brigitte Marcrons next time they sue for defamation 🤣 But as usual with different rules for the left , oh no you can't see those because (insert preposterous nonsensical bs excuse)

What is the connection between the Pulitzer prize board and the 'UK state propaganda outlet '?

4 minutes ago, stevenl said:

What is the connection between the Pulitzer prize board and the 'UK state propaganda outlet '?

2nd line of Chompers OP. You did read it, right?

9 minutes ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

And what relevance do Trumps medical records have with the UK state propaganda outlet editting and splicing his words to create a defamatory false narrative?

Still, wouldnt mind seeing Michelle Obama and Brigitte Marcrons next time they sue for defamation 🤣 But as usual with different rules for the left , oh no you can't see those because (insert preposterous nonsensical bs excuse)

But but but Michelle Obama, Bridgette Macron..

 

 

5 minutes ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

2nd line of Chompers OP. You did read it, right?

My OP refers to the BBC, not your imaginary “UK state propaganda outlet”.

 

You did read it, right? 

53 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

An example of why Trump’s defamation law suits are a risky strategy.

 

BBC, and others, Take Note:

 

“Responding to President Donald Trump’s defamation lawsuit against them, the Pulitzer Prize Board has asked a Florida court to compel Trump to hand over his tax returns, financial records, and full medical and psychological files in a sweeping discovery request aimed at testing his claims of reputational and emotional harm.”

 

 

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trumps-medical-records-lawsuit-pulitzer-prize-11220818

 

New cases like the BBC's fresh $10B monster stick to Trump's proven formula:

They've already groveled with apologies, yanked the Panorama doc from all platforms, and admitted the sloppy Jan. 6 edit was an "error of judgment"—handing him massive PR wins on a platter.

Meanwhile, Newsweek fixates on one creaky 2022 Pulitzer relic limping into discovery, pretending it's a fatal flaw. It's not—it's the rare exception where a stubborn defendant won't cave.

The real scoreboard? Trump bulldozed ABC into coughing up $15M (2024) and CBS into $16M (July 2025), both folding like cheap suits before any personal records surfaced.

Media giants panic, pay up, and vanish to dodge juries and headlines.

This "risky" tactic isn't backfiring—it's a precision strike that racks up capitulations and cash while shielding his secrets.

Newsweek's hyping an ancient dud ignores the towering heap of recent media surrenders. Proof positive: The strategy flattens most foes outright.

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

An example of why Trump’s defamation law suits are a risky strategy.

 

BBC, and others, Take Note:

 

“Responding to President Donald Trump’s defamation lawsuit against them, the Pulitzer Prize Board has asked a Florida court to compel Trump to hand over his tax returns, financial records, and full medical and psychological files in a sweeping discovery request aimed at testing his claims of reputational and emotional harm.”

 

 

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trumps-medical-records-lawsuit-pulitzer-prize-11220818

You can ask for anything, what you get and under what terms depends on what the court says.

43 minutes ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

And what relevance do Trumps medical records have with the UK state propaganda outlet editting and splicing his words to create a defamatory false narrative?

Still, wouldnt mind seeing Michelle Obama and Brigitte Marcrons next time they sue for defamation 🤣 But as usual with different rules for the left , oh no you can't see those because (insert preposterous nonsensical bs excuse)

You should put yourself forward as Trumps prosecution lawyer in this farce.

48 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

My OP refers to the BBC, not your imaginary “UK state propaganda outlet”.

 

Potato, potato.

The BBC  translates into 43 languages.

Mistakes and bias do occur.

Fox translates into 2 languages , I can

barely understand one of them

Truth Social .....let's not go there !

4 hours ago, Jim Blue said:

The BBC  translates into 43 languages.

Mistakes and bias do occur.

Fox translates into 2 languages , I can

barely understand one of them

Truth Social .....let's not go there !

Agreed, mistakes and bias do occur, but in this case, was it a 'reckless disregard of the truth' ??

The BlackBelt Barrister goes into this in some detail at 8.30,

Whatever happens win or lose its gonna cost the BBC, ie the UK license payer, an awful lot of money for the BBC's total **** up!

 

3 hours ago, mikeymike100 said:

 

New cases like the BBC's fresh $10B monster stick to Trump's proven formula:

They've already groveled with apologies, yanked the Panorama doc from all platforms, and admitted the sloppy Jan. 6 edit was an "error of judgment"—handing him massive PR wins on a platter.

Meanwhile, Newsweek fixates on one creaky 2022 Pulitzer relic limping into discovery, pretending it's a fatal flaw. It's not—it's the rare exception where a stubborn defendant won't cave.

The real scoreboard? Trump bulldozed ABC into coughing up $15M (2024) and CBS into $16M (July 2025), both folding like cheap suits before any personal records surfaced.

Media giants panic, pay up, and vanish to dodge juries and headlines.

This "risky" tactic isn't backfiring—it's a precision strike that racks up capitulations and cash while shielding his secrets.

Newsweek's hyping an ancient dud ignores the towering heap of recent media surrenders. Proof positive: The strategy flattens most foes outright.

You’re describing the behavior known as ‘shake down’.

 

 

 

3 hours ago, Yagoda said:

You can ask for anything, what you get and under what terms depends on what the court says.

Erm yes, but starts with the basis first the request.

 

When Trump claims injury the corespondent asks for proof of injury.

 

Don’t ask, don’t get.

1 hour ago, mikeymike100 said:

Agreed, mistakes and bias do occur, but in this case, was it a 'reckless disregard of the truth' ??

The BlackBelt Barrister goes into this in some detail at 8.30,

Whatever happens win or lose its gonna cost the BBC, ie the UK license payer, an awful lot of money for the BBC's total F**k up!

 

Not yet it isn’t.

6 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You’re describing the behavior known as ‘shake down’.

 

 

 

Nah it's known as the "FAFO".

 

You make it sound like the BBC accidentally spliced his speech from an hour apart into one sentence, which again accidentally completely changed the narrative from the reality of Trump urging peace to a wild call to kickass.

 

They will pay. I will laugh.

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Erm yes, but starts with the basis first the request.

 

When Trump claims injury the corespondent asks for proof of injury.

 

Don’t ask, don’t get.

 

So, how exactly were the Sandy Hook families injured by Alex Jones?  What monetary damages did they incur?  Lawsuits and damages may not work exactly like you think.

Just now, theshu25 said:

They will not have to pay a dime. As soon as the jury hears the idiots reputation is on the line ,case will be over. The grifter has the reputation of a slime con hustler trying to con the people.

Thanks to all the fake news lies. Hence the lawsuit. Gotta bring irrational haters back down to earth, after multiple assassination attempts. 

7 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Not yet it isn’t.

Well I rely on what a legal expert says, not a random poster!!

13 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You’re describing the behavior known as ‘shake down’.

 

 

 

No, describing Trump's defamation lawsuits as a "shakedown" mischaracterizes legitimate legal actions aimed at holding media accountable for alleged falsehoods or deceptive practices—actions that have yielded settlements when outlets chose to resolve claims rather than litigate.

11 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

No, describing Trump's defamation lawsuits as a "shakedown" mischaracterizes legitimate legal actions aimed at holding media accountable for alleged falsehoods or deceptive practices—actions that have yielded settlements when outlets chose to resolve claims rather than litigate.

When I think of a shakedown I think of something like

 

 

Yet the left seems to view that as good clean business.

The based and the left may as well be living on a different planet.

Medical records are private.

 

 

29 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

So, how exactly were the Sandy Hook families injured by Alex Jones?  What monetary damages did they incur?  Lawsuits and damages may not work exactly like you think.

Jones was found liable.

 

Case closed.

29 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

No, describing Trump's defamation lawsuits as a "shakedown" mischaracterizes legitimate legal actions aimed at holding media accountable for alleged falsehoods or deceptive practices—actions that have yielded settlements when outlets chose to resolve claims rather than litigate.

Yes, shakedown.

 

In the foreground a legal case, in the background the power of the Presidency.

 

’Nice media outlet you’ve got there…’

35 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

Well I rely on what a legal expert says, not a random poster!!

That’s fine, being a random poster yourself you’ll perhaps not accept that cuts both ways.

6 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Jones was found liable.

 

Case closed.

 

And that wasn't a shakedown? 

 

You didn't answer the question.  What financial harm was done to them?

 

42 minutes ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Nah it's known as the "FAFO".

 

You make it sound like the BBC accidentally spliced his speech from an hour apart into one sentence, which again accidentally completely changed the narrative from the reality of Trump urging peace to a wild call to kickass.

 

They will pay. I will laugh.

 

They will not pay, you will not laugh.

Just like the case against Comey.

Just like the case against James.

 

Get it now, buddy?

1 minute ago, impulse said:

 

And that wasn't a shakedown? 

 

You didn't answer the question.  What financial harm was done to them?

 

No, it was justice.

 

Did I say the damages awarded against Jones by the court were recompense for ‘financial harm?

 

Did I make any statement at all on what basis the court awarded damages against Jones?

 

Or are you inserting a strawman?!

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

That’s fine, being a random poster yourself you’ll perhaps not accept that cuts both ways.

Fair enough—I'll defer to the legal expert over the random poster.

But when that expert happens to be a qualified barrister breaking down the case on YouTube, and the "random poster" is just repeating talking points from the same media outlet being sued... well, let's just say the irony is thicker than the BBC's license fee defense fund.

4 hours ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

And what relevance do Trumps medical records have with the UK state propaganda outlet editting and splicing his words to create a defamatory false narrative?

Still, wouldnt mind seeing Michelle Obama and Brigitte Marcrons next time they sue for defamation 🤣 But as usual with different rules for the left , oh no you can't see those because (insert preposterous nonsensical bs excuse)

Do you fear they will check up on the bone spurs......😬