Said Trump, yesterday, quoted in "Trump sues BBC for $10bn over ‘fake news’/The broadcaster has apologised for a misleading edit of the president’s speech before the Capitol riot, which Trump said put ‘terrible words in my mouth'" (London Times).
From the complaint filed in the Southern District of Florida:
In the BBC Panorama documentary titled “Trump: A Second Chance”... first broadcast on October 28,2024, the BBC intentionally and maliciously sought to fully mislead its viewers around the world by splicing together two entirely separate parts of President Trump’s speech on January 6, 2021.... The Panorama Documentary deliberately omitted another critical part of the Speech in such a manner as to intentionally misrepresent the meaning of what President Trump said. The Panorama Documentary falsely depicted President Trump telling supporters: “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol and I’ll be there with you. And we fight. We fight like hell and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”...
President Trump never uttered this sequence of words. This fabricated depiction of President Trump during the Speech was false, deceptive, and defamatory given that President Trump’s actual and full remarks during the Speech were (a) “Now it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy. And after this, we’re going to walk down and I’ll be there with you. We’re going to walk down, we’re going to walk down. Anyone you want but I think right here, we’re going to walk down to the Capitol and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressman and women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them” (Remarks made on January 6, 2021, 12:12p.m. Eastern Standard Time, 14:52 into the Speech), and then, much later, (b) “[B]ut I said ‘Something’s wrong here, Something’s really wrong, can’t have happened.’ And we fight, we fight like hell, and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore,” (Remarks made on January 6, 2021 at 1:07 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, 69:30 into the Speech).
Moreover, the BBC purposefully omitted President Trump stating, less than one minute after urging supporters to cheer for their senators and congressmen, “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard” (Remarks made on January 6, 2021, 12:13 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, 15:48 into the Speech).
Posts
103 comments:
I think I have Trump fatigue.
Even a 10% settlement would be quite a bit of coin.
What are these media outlets thinking? Do they not read or watch the news?
He does seem to enjoy making things harder for his counsel.
Among his other transformational achievements, Trump is remaking the Legacy Media.
It isn’t that the left’s policies are terrible, it’s the messaging, you see…
…every whim of the Hawaiian judges is expected to be indulged. Turn the plane around they demand- all the recklessness and endangerment if that decision be damned. Trump makes a case for libel- no! That’s not something we do. Besides it’s hard to prove to pleasepleaseplease don’t bother and it’s Trump’s fault anyways…
counsel lives for this stuff…
If Trump's lawsuits result in the media outlets splitting into old-fashioned openly partisan publications, and results in true divisions between reporting and editorial content, then he's a net positive.
In contrast, if the media simply changes from being Democratic Party mouthpieces to being Republican Party mouthpieces...meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
They craft the news all the networks were doing it
It's not the suit that is most damaging, it's the discovery. What treasure trove of falsehoods and political manipulations will his lawyers discover? They will settle to avoid that.
Thats why abc settled to preveng discovery
"I think I have Trump fatigue."
Careful, or we might get back that lauded normalcy, also known as dementia, lawfare, invasion, grift, inflation, and the autopen.
another day of delulu Trump
Yah given the ABC outcome my lawyers would be emboldened to hit the other perps. Trump’s strategy makes sense and for the same reasons- they’re guilty as hell and don’t want people to know it…
I think it's also why Fox settled.
Media operations are dead set against reporting stuff.
Suit serves two purposes - it hurts the Beeb and it also sends an unmistakable message to the Maureen Dowds and Rachel Maddows of the world who have made big coin over the years from intentional distortions of what Trump and others say.
What is really disheartening is the fact that, for all of his many flaws, Trump has been the most effective president in recent memory, by a huge margin.
No murdoch settled to let the narrative set in
The 'evidence' was opinions about dominion,
“Literally, they put words in my mouth. They had me saying things that I never said coming out.”
It would seem that Trump has defamed the BBC, since that is not what they did.
"Careful, or we might get back that lauded normalcy, also known as dementia, lawfare, invasion, grift, inflation, and the autopen."
Leftists love that hot garbage. As long as they have their Trump-hate - and their deluded lies, any amount of damage done to the nation is OK with them.
Imagine if he hadn’t been so effective. Just say “NO!” to this knives out all the time horseshit. Get serious.
“ Literally, they put words in my mouth. They had me saying things that I never said coming out.”
In broader terms, that’s exactly what they did..
Once again I find myself recommending the British series The Capture..
The Capture is a BBC thriller centered on surveillance, deepfakes, and the manipulation of video and other evidence.
Strangely, it ran the BBC.
Strangely, it ran ON the BBC.
I really need to get myself an editor this early in the morning.
Left Bank of the Charles said...
“Literally, they put words in my mouth. They had me saying things that I never said coming out.”
It would seem that Trump has defamed the BBC, since that is not what they did.
How many leftists are going to fall into Trump's trap here?
Does Left Bank realize how stupid he is for doing exactly what Trump was trying to get him to do: Defend the BBC edits?
It is rather spectacular how Donald Trump can’t sue someone for lying without himself lying.
Of course, the defense of Trump’s defamatory statement against the BBC is his expert use of weasel words.
He’s got the second definition of literally:
“used in an exaggerated way to emphasize a statement or description that is not literally true or possible”
For “I guess they used AI or something” he’s got “I guess” and “or something” surrounding his claim that the BBC used AI to put words in his mouth.
After what he said about Rob Reiner, it might be hard for him to prove the BBC damaged his reputation.
Temujin said...
I think I have Trump fatigue.
Starting to see some conservatives already get tired of the fight and pine for the days when they could lose with dignity.
Some like the Republicans in congress were already there years ago.
Left Bank of the Charles said...
It is rather spectacular how Donald Trump can’t sue someone for lying without himself lying.
The retards really think they got Trump here.
bagoh20 said...
I think it's also why Fox settled.
Media operations are dead set against reporting stuff.
Fox settled because Fox is on the other side.
Achilles said...Starting to see some conservatives already get tired of the fight and pine for the days when they could lose with dignity.
False choice fallacy (also known as the excluded middle).
There's nothing incompatible about saying "Trump's my guy" and voting for him every chance you get while also wishing he didn't embarrass us so much by saying ridiculous embarrassing things.
Sure, Lefty. Are you saying that the BBC did not literally alter the sequence and context of words uttered by Trump to change their meaning? Because that is precisely what they did--and have publicly apologized for doing. Literally.
And the emails show that it was done with intent.
He's a jerk. But he's unquestionably the smartest jerk who ever lived. And the only one committed to restoring our freedoms one-by-one, exposing and punishing the fraud in our media and our government, and relentlessly protecting the country against its real enemies instead of its imagined ones.
And that's why I'm not fatigued. Not one bit.
He's transitioned from prioritizing America First to Trump First and you people are swallowing it whole.
Yeah i dont care at this point
Achilles- the fight will go on long after Trump. It’s not the fight I tire of, though that does wear one down by the 7th decade. It’s the messenger. I love most of his accomplishments and wanted him there to shake things up. I just can’t listen to him. Never could.
I’m not persuaded the objection is to the ‘embarrassing’ language, if it isn’t civility bullshit it is something that looks exactly like it. Instead I think it’s a fundamental misunderstanding of how the mockery and the attention it garners are an important element of why he’s effective. In fact some have said mockery is man's most potent weapon because it's hard to counter, infuriates the opposition, and destabilizes them, making them overreact to your advantage, often by making them look foolish or antiquated.
This isn't a fight worth having, Achilles. He has abandoned the fight against the Administrative state and has embraced the billionaire moneychangers. As soon as Doge was met with resistance, he caved in. Classic bully behavior.
Howard’s tired old “you people” trope/excrement.
…without it more people would still relish the comfort of hanging on Rachel Maddow’s every word, basking in the sensible opinions of the ladies on The View, worshipping the gospel of St. Stephanopoulos. We’d be a sorrier civilization for it. I’ll continue with the disruption, thank you…
He’s a judge who wears a skirt, not a robe.
Screw $10 billion. Just declare war. If our MPs clean up the rape gangs after we finish conquering Old Blighty then our troops will be hailed as liberators! Shouldn’t take more than 4 or 5 days — a week, tops.
Riddle me this: who else has stood up to and so effectively exposed the pervasive fraud and evil intent of the collusion between the fake virtue-signaling media and the elites in governments everywhere? Is he a fool, or just playing the fool? Who else has been able to draw them into such self-exposure?
Trump does like to step on his own dick - and he does it when he has a winning hand. Nothing new.
I wonder if his inner circle contains someone who should be guiding him a bit - and isn't?
The idea that we can impose OUR laws on another country is laughable. Our courts have zero jurisdiction in another country.
I don't see how suggesting AI was used helps the case. It is an unnecessary and misleading statement going into a defamation case.
[Trump] has abandoned the fight against the Administrative state …
I wouldn’t bet January’s mortgage payment on that, sonny.
Howard- 8:43No he hasn't Trump is just being Trump.
He does need to stay focused, tho.
The BBC cut and paste Trump's words -creating a different context and narrative. That alone is media malfeasance
Trump is just being Trump. dick stepper extraordinaire.
Someone in his inner circle should be whispering in his ear that he is not helping himself. Where is this person?
I FormerLawClerk said...
The idea that we can impose OUR laws on another country is laughable. Our courts have zero jurisdiction in another country.
But US Courts do have jurisdiction in Florida, where this is filed. The BBC has a significant presence in the United States, including Florida, through its activities on US television, both cable and PBS. Whether Trump can establish harm in Florida is a more interesting question. But I can see him getting both personal and subject matter jurisdiction in Florida.
It's just a pussy detector, Iman. We all appreciate you setting it off.
You tripped that alarm a long, long time ago, Howie!
They used this lie to proscribe loads of trump supporters to force him off facebook
If you think Trump has abandoned draining the swamp and fighting the administrative state, you’re gonna be in for a shock after he wins Trump v. Slaughter in SCOTUS..
@Bob, who wrote: The BBC has a significant presence in the United States ...
I would argue that they do not. They maintain websites in the UK, which US citizens are granted access to.
Secondly ... you seem to be suggesting that YOU are subject to laws in the United Kingdom that you never voted on and you are not a citizen of that country. Because if US laws apply to them, then you can be dragged into a UK court and made to suffer their laws and restrictions.
Which I don't think you would agree to. And neither should they.
Trump may sue. US courts may CLAIM jurisdiction. They may even decide cases against UK citizens. It's fucking meaningless. No UK person ever got representation in the passing of US laws, nor due process in their application.
Such legal antics are repugnant to the concepts of sovereignty.
One of the facebook directors nick clegg who was th grand nephew of lenins mistress who he shared with sidney reilly
Additional focus on Trump’s role in the Day of Peace is always a good thing. BBC may have improperly edited the speech but that doesn’t alter the underlying facts and Trump’s leadership role in the insurrection.
Good for Trump, although shouldn't he be suing in England, which has much stricter libel laws? Anyway, any MAGA/Conservative expecting the Liberal/left to side with Trump on this hasn't been paying attention.
To the Left its irrelevant if the BBC lied about Trump. All that matters is.... Get Trump. And God the ridiculous Judicial legal mumbo-jumbo. Oh, Trump is making it harder for his lawyers. Oh, he said this wrong and that was wrong, and blah blah.
The Judiciary has gotten too powerful and too left wing and needs to be reined in.
Left Bank said…"It would seem that Trump has defamed the BBC, since that is not what they did."
I can't believe you're making this claim. That is exactly what they did. Those were his words, but they changed the order in which they were spoken.
Former Law Clerk I think you made a smart career move. Clearly law is not your thing
Its in a florida courtroom learn to read
Cable network BBCAmerica
Online streaming thats advertising supported too.
And licensed content to PBS
Always press charges,always sue.
Those were his words, but they changed the order in which they were spoken.
Trump claims the BBC made up the words, using AI. Here, let me read it for you:
"I guess they used AI or something."
That is a lie and Trump knows it.
The BBC edited two video scenes. To some, it appeared to change the meaning of what Trump said on two different occasions (i.e., the sentences were not said back to back, the way the edit may have appeared to some people).
They put no words in his mouth and did not use AI to create words he never said.
Trump is lying, and defaming the BBC in doing so. They should sue him. But do it in a UK court, which has no jurisdiction over Trump in the same way that Trump is going in the US.
Trump isn't going to get a dime from the BBC.
Being reported some places Trump sued for $10B. Sued for $5, but with 2 legal counts seeking to recover same claimed damages.
And of course lots of BBC stuff is on Netflix
"The Crown", "The Last Kingdom", "Peaky Blinders", etc.
All highly recommended btw.
Trump may want to keep the memory of J6 alive for the midterms. To his base, J6 exemplifies the two-tier justice the Dems imposed on us for so long. Remember, electoral strategy nowadays consists not f making converts, but of making sure all your already-converted vote. CC, JSM
"Trump is lying,"
You're an idiot. "AI" is a red herring. They changed what he said and they did it maliciously.
The argument seems to be that if a person states "I did not have sex with that woman" and the BBC modifies it to "I did have sex with that woman", the BBC did not change what he said.
That argument can not be made in good faith.
Trump is lying, and defaming the BBC in doing so. They should sue him.
We are back to COVID level gaslighting.
Trump is not lying. The BBC switched the words around to alter the context.
Period.
"That argument can not be made in good faith."
I think the argument is that the words did, in fact, come out of his mouth. As indeed, they did. Whether it is made in good faith is another matter.
Trump has made spurious legal claims against media but this case is not one of them. Arranging what someone said in a manner that creates a false and damaging impression is textbook defamation.
Weird that the Times is calling it a "Capitol riot" - they were calling it an "insurrection" for years.
I cant believe that former law clerk. Just said "I am a liar".
While the word order is in question. He cant deny he wrote them.
“The BBC edited two video scenes. To some, it appeared to change the meaning of what Trump said on two different occasions (i.e., the sentences were not said back to back, the way the edit may have appeared to some people).”
To _some_ ? Bwahaha. Fool. It DID change the meaning.
"It DID change the meaning."
That is one opinion. Others have other opinions. Sophisticated viewers of news content have the ability to watch the news and understand that video must be edited for time, which is limited.
Nevertheless, US laws and courts have no jurisdiction over the UK government, which owns the BBC. These matters are left to diplomats; not courts.
So what? What does any of this have to do with the actual job of the president? Trump spends time on this personal bullshit while the congress does exactly nothing about the nation’s issues. Everything Trump has accomplished will be eradicated on the first day of a Democratic administration because it’s nothing but executive orders; neither he nor congress is interested in doing the work to create a legacy that will last.
Trump has built his accomplishments on sand, and they will be blown away within two hours of the next inauguration. Spend time on what is important. Sue the goddamn BBC after you’ve left office.
@Peachy, who claimed: "Trump is not lying."
Trump said, and I quote from this very post:
"They had me saying things that I never said coming out. I guess they used AI or something."
That is a lie. The BBC did not use AI to simulate Trump saying something he did not say. The may have edited his comments unfairly, but that is not the same thing that Trump is alleging.
The claim they used AI to alter his words is a lie and defamatory towards the BBC.
Free speech protects the BBC. Case closed. 9 to 0.
jim at 9:32. They lied, but it for my cause so it is ok. Conclusion: jim is nothing more than a useful idiot who has no credibility and is undeserving of respect.
bagoh20 said...
"I think I have Trump fatigue.
Careful, or we might get back that lauded normalcy, also known as dementia, lawfare, invasion, grift, inflation, and the autopen.”
We’ve gone from the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse to the Six Donkey Riders of Modern Politics
These media lies do have consequences. I had a conversation at a Christmas party (maybe two years ago?) with a left-leaning friend who swore Trump had instructed the crowd to storm the Capital. "Trump said it, I saw it on TV!" he claimed. I couldn't refute that, because I didn't watch Trump's speech (and wasn't going to, I have a life). But to say I was skeptical is an understatement. And now it comes out what he saw was a media lie.
It's Charlottesville all over again.
The BBC is a government owned commercial entity, like a government oil company or an electric utility. Those a sued all the time.
AI Prompt: how do we cut up Trump's words on January 6 to make it look like he was calling for an insurrection? I'm reasonably sure that didn't happen but we'll need discovery to make sure.
Imagine a world where you say, “Joe Biden is a moron and he couldn’t put two sentences together.” And the U.S. government sues you for $1 million. And Joe Biden gets up on the stand and puts two sentences together.
Do you like this world? Is this our world?
Free speech protects the BBC. 9 to 0.
That's a bad analogy, Saint Croix. There's no lie in it.
I'm not a fan of the lawsuit, and don't care much if Trump wins or loses. But it does make what the BBC did public in a manner which would not have happened otherwise. I think that's a good thing.
Tbey dont have anything resembling a first amendment
I would adopt a rule, formally or informally, that U.S. presidents cannot sue for defamation.
You might not want to announce it. But they get defamed all the time. Nazi. Dictator. Moron. Asshole. These are all defamations. To open up all these speakers to lawsuits is crazy. No thanks.The president cannot have a power to silence his critics. Full stop.
You people take this topic so seriously. That is hilarious. It's like you're arguing about the logic within a Marx Brothers movie.
That's a bad analogy, Saint Croix. There's no lie in it.
The lie is, "He couldn't put two sentences together." Also, "moron."
Would you like to live in a world where you had to prove everything you said was true? The lawsuit itself is the threat and the punishment.
Free speech. 9 to 0.
False light.
There's a gap between your analogy and what the BBC did as wide as the Atlantic Ocean. You have to factor in intent.
Hustler magazine v. Falwell.
Another one that was 9 to 0.
That one was "drunken incestuous sex with his mother in an outhouse."
National Review was dragged through ruinous litigation because someone on their staff forwarded a blog post that accused Michael Mann of "molesting the data." After spending several years and more than a $1 million dollars, the court of appeals finally slapped down the lawsuit and now Mann has to pay $500,000 in court fees. The leftist courts that allowed that stupid litigation to go forward did him no favors at all.
Sorry Mr. Trump didn't like the edits. No case here at all. 9 to 0.
And I do not think this is a good faith lawsuit, frankly. Trump is impervious to reputation damage. He's been called a rapist, for fuck's sake. This is a get-rich-quick scheme.
Free speech. 9 to 0. Go home.
"Sorry Mr. Trump didn't like the edits."
That just so trivializes the matter.
"This is a get-rich-quick scheme."
This is a "throw a spotlight on the matter". I don't care if he loses.
Tbey dont have anything resembling a first amendment
He's suing in the US and our laws would apply. (I think). Damn if I would apply UK law, holy shit. In the UK they arrest people and charge them with crimes for saying stuff online.
We don’t know how the case will turn, but it’s legal to sue them.
That just so trivializes the matter.
The arrest of Mr. Trump, the multiple prosecutions, the attempt to portray him as a rapist, the attempt to keep him off the ballot, these were all extraordinarily anti-democratic and evil as shit.
All of that bad stuff was done by the government. Right?
And you want to give the government the authority to judge whether or not speakers have the right to say things about our president?
Fuck that.
Free speech, 9 to 0.
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.