4 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.

extortion/blackmail/shakedown comes to mind

19 minutes ago, Mavideol said:

extortion/blackmail/shakedown comes to mind

Like groundhog day this. Why cant the left distinguish between major defamation cases and actual shakedowns like the one I showed above? For 4 years we never heard those words yet now, inappropriately, its the latest buzzword. Has it been on Maddow I wonder?

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

44 minutes ago, Mavideol said:

extortion/blackmail/shakedown comes to mind

You obviously don't know the difference, between what is illegal a 'shakedown' and legal 'defamation lawsuit', allow me to educate you!

 

A shakedown is typically illegal extortion—demanding money or concessions through threats, coercion, or abuse of legal processes without genuine merit,

 

Trump's approach involves filing legitimate (though aggressive) defamation lawsuits in court, claiming actual malice and harm from alleged falsehoods, resolved through judicial scrutiny or voluntary settlements—not extortion.

1 hour ago, mikeymike100 said:

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.

You tubers say all sorts of stuff for clicks.

 

 

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You tubers say all sorts of stuff for clicks.

 

 

 

True, plenty of You Tubers chase clicks with hot takes—but when the one in question is a practicing UK barrister (Daniel ShenSmith) with a track record of measured, sourced legal breakdowns, calmly citing case law instead of screaming into a ring light, it's a bit richer than the average "react" video.!!

3 hours ago, mikeymike100 said:

A shakedown is typically illegal extortion—demanding money or concessions through threats, coercion, or abuse of legal processes without genuine merit,

that's what Trump does, he's on it for the money only, he doesn't give a rats arssss about the defamation, thus my post stand correct, ( and you do have the right to disagree) he starts to threats, coercion and the final act when he collects the money it's extortion but you can call it something else, you already agreed with me

4 hours ago, Harrisfan said:

Medical records are private.

Not the President's, in which all Americans have a stake. Probably goes for officials and Congress, too.

11 minutes ago, Mavideol said:

that's what Trump does, he's on it for the money only, he doesn't give a rats arssss about the defamation, thus my post stand correct, ( and you do have the right to disagree) he starts to threats, coercion and the final act when he collects the money it's extortion but you can call it something else, you already agreed with me

 

 

We can keep debating respectfully, but I didn't agree with you—quite the opposite.

I distinguished legal defamation suits (judicially resolved claims) from illegal extortion (coercion without merit, often outside courts).

On "collecting the money = extortion": No, that's not how it works.

When parties settle a lawsuit—like Trump's $15M ABC deal (donation plus regret statement)—it's a voluntary agreement to avoid trial risks, overseen by courts.

Extortion requires unlawful threats or abuse; here, money flows through legitimate channels after alleging/proving harm.

If it were extortion, defendants could sue back or report it criminally—they don't because it's standard civil resolution. Calling it "something else" doesn't change the legal reality.

Got a case where Trump collected via actual coercion (not court)? Share it!

Finally the gander gets to goose Trump's many frivolous lawsuits! More coming. Hope they get him by the short ones before he croaks or retires.

2 minutes ago, unblocktheplanet said:

Not the President's, in which all Americans have a stake. Probably goes for officials and Congress, too.

How come we never saw Biden's then?

7 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

 

 

We can keep debating respectfully, but I didn't agree with you—quite the opposite.

I distinguished legal defamation suits (judicially resolved claims) from illegal extortion (coercion without merit, often outside courts).

On "collecting the money = extortion": No, that's not how it works.

When parties settle a lawsuit—like Trump's $15M ABC deal (donation plus regret statement)—it's a voluntary agreement to avoid trial risks, overseen by courts.

Extortion requires unlawful threats or abuse; here, money flows through legitimate channels after alleging/proving harm.

If it were extortion, defendants could sue back or report it criminally—they don't because it's standard civil resolution. Calling it "something else" doesn't change the legal reality.

Got a case where Trump collected via actual coercion (not court)? Share it!

ok let's try one more time.... if ABC didn't paid, Trump threaten to remove their media license/broadcasting rights, what's that called????

Trump is threatening broadcast station licenses — what that means, and how it all works

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/09/19/trump-threatening-broadcast-station-licenses-explained.html

 

 

47 minutes ago, Mavideol said:

ok let's try one more time.... if ABC didn't paid, Trump threaten to remove their media license/broadcasting rights, what's that called????

Trump is threatening broadcast station licenses — what that means, and how it all works

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/09/19/trump-threatening-broadcast-station-licenses-explained.html

 

 

As I stated earlier:

 

5 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Yes, shakedown.

 

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

 

’Nice media outlet you’ve got there…’

 

10 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

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

As it is the BBC is a “UK state propaganda outlet”. If you can't see this then you are blind to reality. My guess is you probably think MS Now (MSNBC) isn't a total progressive left biased news outlet.

1 hour ago, dinsdale said:

As it is the BBC is a “UK state propaganda outlet”. If you can't see this then you are blind to reality. My guess is you probably think MS Now (MSNBC) isn't a total progressive left biased news outlet.

Don’t waste what little brain power you have trying to guess what I think.

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Don’t waste what little brain power you have trying to guess what I think.

One doesn't need much brain power to know that the BBC, ABC in Australia and outlets like MSNBC are little more than mouthpieces for the woke left. This little amount of brain power would, however, seem to be more than you possess.

11 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?

"...what relevance do Trumps medical records have with the UK state propaganda..."

No relevance, at all, but then, no one claimed that they did!

11 hours ago, stevenl said:

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

None.

11 hours ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

11 hours 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?

 

The second line of the OP is the single word, "strategy"...

 

12 hours 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

                   

3 hours ago, unblocktheplanet said:

7 hours ago, Harrisfan said:

Medical records are private.

Not the President's, in which all Americans have a stake. Probably goes for officials and Congress, too.

Nonsense.  Their medical records are private unless released by the individuals concerned.

3 hours ago, Mavideol said:

ok let's try one more time.... if ABC didn't paid, Trump threaten to remove their media license/broadcasting rights, what's that called????

Try one more time - Trump did not threaten to revoke their licence "if ABC didn't paid" [sic].

15 hours ago, mikeymike100 said:

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.

 

ShenSmith is basically a Youtuber. He got his law degree from the Open University, which is a publicly funded University mostly aimed at mature students studying for a degree part time, eg night school.

 

He offers services.

 

Quote

 

Upon your first contact  with me, my clerks or I will discuss the problem with you in detail and ascertain what steps need to be taken and whether it is a matter suitable for my help. Here are some of the things I can do to help you:

Advising in Conference (both in person and by telephone decided on a case-by-case basis.) Corresponding with parties on your behalf. (Limited to the matter in which you instruct me and excluding the general management of your affairs.

Drafting or settling (finalising) witness statements and statements of case. E.g. Particulars of Claim, Defence, Defence and

Counterclaim, Reply, Defence Statements, Statement of Issues, Position Statements.

Drafting and reviewing contracts.

Negotiating on your behalf.

Representating you in court (Advocacy). E.g. Preliminary hearings; case management hearings; case and cost management hearings; fact find hearings; dispute resolution appointments; final hearings; trials including small claims, fast track, multi-track, family, inquest and criminal trials, and tribunals.

 

 

Barristers are basically solicitors with a few extra qualifications. The don't practice all forms of law. He doesn't practice International Law. He has 3 firms in his name. His Law office doesn;t report a lot in its accounts. He has an online barrister service, and a media company. With 4 Youtube Channels, he likely doesn't spend that much time practicing law. Hes not Rumpole of the Bailey. He spent an inordinate amount of time commentating  on the Johnny Depp story. He's probably right in his video that explained one shouldn't google for legal advice. Similarly, one should treat Youtubers judiciously.

 

The case hinges on whether the BBC has a physical presence in the US. The complainant believes they do. If the BBC has not voluntarily submitted to the Florida court’s jurisdiction and has no ‘presence’ there, it’s likely that an English court would not recognise the Florida court’s ‘long arm’ jurisdiction. What really matters is if an English court would decide under English private international law, were the Complainant try and enforce a US judgment in England.

 

The BBC could mount a challenge in Florida to the court’s jurisdiction. If it doesn't or loses, it could then choose to take no further part in the proceedings. Let them play out. The Americans would then need to enforce the Florida judgement in an English or Welsh Court. As there is no civil judgements treaty between the UK and US, fresh proceedings would need to be issued England to recover the Judgement Debt. The BBC could say a Florida Court has no jurisdiction in England, and that anyhow the damages sought were punitive and penal. The Americans could seize BBC assets in the US to settle the debt, but the BBC probably doesn't have much over there. Thats the difference with ABC and CBS, who settled; they have much more at stake, as US-based broadcasters.

 

At this point the BBC lowballs the Americans with a low settlement, who will shout and complain. And it will go on and on. Could take years. Some reporters say "the BBC might be forced to settle with President Trump", when it could equally be "President Trump will be forced to settle with the BBC". If there is a settlement, the President doesn't make any money. The lawyers do though. In an English Court, the losing side pays all the legal bills. Not so in US courts, where each party is responsible for their own costs.

 

The irony is if the case had been raised in an English Court, the Complainant would be much more likely to win (US Law does put a higher bar on the complainant to prove hurt), but the English put a strict time limit of 12 months. Apparently no one realised this defamation had happened until the near bankrupt Daily Telegraph published a story some time after the broadcast, and no one in the President's team had bothered to watch what was always likely to be a contentious documentary from a programme known for investigatory, and, often, controversial investigation (the recording was public domain, it didn't need a whistleblower to reveal the edit).

 

 

 

4 minutes ago, Mavideol said:

ok let's try one more time.... if ABC didn't paid, Trump threaten to remove their media license/broadcasting rights, what's that called????

Trump is threatening broadcast station licenses — what that means, and how it all works

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/09/19/trump-threatening-broadcast-station-licenses-explained.html

 

 

 

Fair point—Trump has repeatedly threatened to revoke or challenge broadcast licenses for networks like ABC (and CBS, NBC) over what he calls biased or "fake" coverage.

That's rhetoric many critics label as abusive, authoritarian, or a chilling attempt to pressure media,  the FCC can't revoke licenses purely for content, and presidents don't directly control the agency).

 

But on the specific ABC defamation settlement ($15M + regret statement over Stephanopoulos's inaccurate "rape" claim): There's no evidence Trump explicitly threatened ABC's licenses to force that payout.

 

The suit was filed in March 2024, settled in December 2024—Trump's public license threats toward ABC ramped up later (e.g., August/September 2025 over general bias/Jimmy Kimmel, November 2025 over reporter questions).

ABC chose to settle voluntarily (common to avoid trial risks/depositions), not under a direct "pay or lose your license" ultimatum tied to that case.

 

Threatening government action against critics raises serious First Amendment concerns—it's aggressive and intimidating. But it doesn't retroactively turn a separate, pre-existing court-resolved defamation claim into extortion.

The lawsuit stood on its own merits (judge let it proceed past dismissal), and settlement happened through legal channels.If those threats cross into provable coercion for a specific payout, that could be problematic—but facts don't show that here.

11 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Nonsense.  Their medical records are private unless released by the individuals concerned.

Or by court order.

 

In the interim, Trump’s medical records become a talking point. 
 

That might not matter other than his obvious failing health and history of lying about unscheduled hospital visits.

 

 

21 hours 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 **** up!

 

How nice it must be to have such an empty head that you can suck up nonsense from some youtube idiot and believe it. 

2 hours ago, Roadsternut said:

 

ShenSmith is basically a Youtuber. He got his law degree from the Open University, which is a publicly funded University mostly aimed at mature students studying for a degree part time, eg night school.

 

He offers services.

 

 

Barristers are basically solicitors with a few extra qualifications. The don't practice all forms of law. He doesn't practice International Law. He has 3 firms in his name. His Law office doesn;t report a lot in its accounts. He has an online barrister service, and a media company. With 4 Youtube Channels, he likely doesn't spend that much time practicing law. Hes not Rumpole of the Bailey. He spent an inordinate amount of time commentating  on the Johnny Depp story. He's probably right in his video that explained one shouldn't google for legal advice. Similarly, one should treat Youtubers judiciously.

 

The case hinges on whether the BBC has a physical presence in the US. The complainant believes they do. If the BBC has not voluntarily submitted to the Florida court’s jurisdiction and has no ‘presence’ there, it’s likely that an English court would not recognise the Florida court’s ‘long arm’ jurisdiction. What really matters is if an English court would decide under English private international law, were the Complainant try and enforce a US judgment in England.

 

The BBC could mount a challenge in Florida to the court’s jurisdiction. If it doesn't or loses, it could then choose to take no further part in the proceedings. Let them play out. The Americans would then need to enforce the Florida judgement in an English or Welsh Court. As there is no civil judgements treaty between the UK and US, fresh proceedings would need to be issued England to recover the Judgement Debt. The BBC could say a Florida Court has no jurisdiction in England, and that anyhow the damages sought were punitive and penal. The Americans could seize BBC assets in the US to settle the debt, but the BBC probably doesn't have much over there. Thats the difference with ABC and CBS, who settled; they have much more at stake, as US-based broadcasters.

 

At this point the BBC lowballs the Americans with a low settlement, who will shout and complain. And it will go on and on. Could take years. Some reporters say "the BBC might be forced to settle with President Trump", when it could equally be "President Trump will be forced to settle with the BBC". If there is a settlement, the President doesn't make any money. The lawyers do though. In an English Court, the losing side pays all the legal bills. Not so in US courts, where each party is responsible for their own costs.

 

The irony is if the case had been raised in an English Court, the Complainant would be much more likely to win (US Law does put a higher bar on the complainant to prove hurt), but the English put a strict time limit of 12 months. Apparently no one realised this defamation had happened until the near bankrupt Daily Telegraph published a story some time after the broadcast, and no one in the President's team had bothered to watch what was always likely to be a contentious documentary from a programme known for investigatory, and, often, controversial investigation (the recording was public domain, it didn't need a whistleblower to reveal the edit).

 

 

 

 

I see, you're dismissing Daniel ShenSmith (BlackBeltBarrister) as "basically a YouTuber" with a lesser degree, limited practice, and biased commentary, while his take on the Trump-BBC case is solid on enforcement hurdles but overlooks key strengths in the complaint.

 

ShenSmith is a fully qualified, practicing barrister in England and Wales (called ~2010s after top grades: First-class LLB, Distinction LLM for Barristers, Distinction BPTC).

His Open University roots?

OU law degrees are rigorous, respected qualifying degrees—thousands of solicitors/barristers start there, especially mature students. It's not "night school" in a pejorative sense; it's the UK's largest law program.

He runs ShenSmith (a barrister-led firm offering public access services: advice, drafting, negotiation, advocacy in civil/family/criminal/inquests/tribunals).

No, he's not a silk (KC) or high-court specialist, and his firm is small (low reported accounts typical for barrister entities), but he actively practices.

Multiple channels (main legal explainer with millions of views, plus off-record/politics/personal finance) mean content creation is big, and yes, he heavily covered Depp (pro-Depp slant, even petitioned to reopen UK case).

Treat YouTubers cautiously—fair point—but that doesn't invalidate reasoned legal analysis.

 

Your core point on jurisdiction/enforcement is fair and echoed by experts (e.g., Mark Stephens, media lawyers in Reuters/CNN/Sky):

Jurisdiction challenge likely: BBC can move to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(2)—program geo-blocked in UK, no US broadcast.

Complaint alleges publication via VPNs (common in Florida), BritBox (BBC content in US), Blue Ant licensing (North America rights, though disputed—Blue Ant says no US air, different version). BBC has US presence (offices, website, filming in Florida for doc). It's arguable but uphill—many say "fundamental flaw."

 

Enforcement in UK: If Trump wins big damages (punitive-heavy), English courts likely refuse enforcement—no US-UK treaty, punitive damages seen as penal (not enforced under common law). BBC assets minimal in US vs. ABC/CBS (US-based, more at risk—hence settlements).

Settlement dynamics: Could drag years; BBC might lowball or ignore (default judgment unenforceable in UK). Trump gets PR/win if BBC pays/apologizes; lawyers win either way. US costs rule (each pays own) favors deep pockets enduring. There lies the rub, who is paying BBC costs on this??? The UK license payer??

But the case isn't doomed yet—the complaint pleads publication/accessibility in detail to survive early dismissal (low 12(b)(6) threshold).

Actual malice alleged (election interference intent). BBC admitted edit error (apologized privately). Unlike pure foreign libel tourism,

Trump (Florida resident) alleges in-state harm.Irony on UK suit: Yes, 1-year limitation expired (Oct 2024 broadcast); English law more claimant-friendly on burden, but time-barred and no one watched closely initially.ShenSmith's analysis is balanced and accurate on practical obstacles—dismissive snark aside, he's a real barrister spotting real weaknesses.

 

Another point.

Filing in Florida (specifically the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida in Miami, assigned to Judge Roy Altman, a Trump appointee from 2019) gives the case a more favorable venue than, say, New York (where Trump has faced hostile juries and judges in past cases).

Florida voters strongly support Trump (he won the state by 13 points in 2024), and a local jury pool could be more sympathetic to his claims of media bias or defamation.

Venue choice is strategic—Trump's team emphasizes his Florida residency, alleged in-state harm, and BBC's contacts there (offices in Coral Gables, filming at Mar-a-Lago, website access).

You can look up his businesses on Companies House. They are not reporting a lot of revenue,

22 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

Florida voters strongly support Trump (he won the state by 13 points in 2024), and a local jury pool could be more sympathetic to his claims of media bias or defamation.

The 2024 Florida presidential election results map:

NB the blue areas from top to bottom represent Tallahassee, Gainesville. Orlando, and Miami area  although Miami-Dade County is in the pale Trump win column 

14 minutes ago, gargamon said:

How nice it must be to have such an empty head that you can suck up nonsense from some youtube idiot and believe it. 

Ah, the classic "ad hominem" retreat—when facts and legal analysis get too inconvenient, just insult the messenger and the people who find it persuasive.

BlackBeltBarrister isn't "some YouTube idiot"; he's a practicing English barrister with a qualifying law degree, professional qualifications, and real courtroom experience.

His breakdown of the Trump-BBC case was measured, cited the complaint directly, and highlighted both strengths (falsity, potential malice) and practical pressures (defense costs) without hysterical predictions.

Dismissing him because he makes YouTube videos is like dismissing any expert who communicates publicly—whether on TV, podcasts, or (gasp) writing articles.

The irony? You're repeating talking points that align more with UK media spin ("it'll be dismissed instantly!") than with the actual filing or US federal procedure.

If his take is "nonsense," feel free to point out the specific legal errors instead of sneering at people who listened thoughtfully.

Empty heads aren't the ones engaging with detailed arguments; they're the ones shutting down discussion with insults.

22 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 !

While ‘translations’ may have a small impact on the overall judgement, I believe the ‘Original Language’ of any statement or production and as submitted in an official transcript would be the primary evidence used by the court.