Things are looking up
Trump is suing the BBC for Ten Billion USD.
- Thread starter Notch7
- Start date
I doubt the BBC or their lawyers are exactly quaking.
- Joined
- 17 Mar 2011
- Messages
- 832
- Reaction score
- 224
- Country
As an aside if anyone sees this man could they message me
- Joined
- 22 Aug 2006
- Messages
- 7,640
- Reaction score
- 1,396
- Country
The BBC F*d up.
Trumpf has dropped the financial loss part of the claim, about half. That's just so he doesn't have to provide financial documents. [ed: as Brig said]
Judges don't like it when plaintiffs decide to drop claims for reasons like that.
The new judge is one J. Kuntz, really.
" the BBC's admission that the editing was wrong sounds potentially very damaging to the BBC, but it doesn’t necessarily establish defamation under US law"
Ongoing.
..................
Trump claimed defamation against ABC news when their Anchor said on air that Trump had been been found liable for rape in the E. Jean Carroll case, where he was only found guilty of Sexual Abuse, not rape.
ABC settled the case, paying 15million (not billion) + 1m in legal fees, in a contribution to his library.
I see no wholesale rolling over by Networks.
****z is a Trump nominee who has previously ruled to allow a case of his to continue. It will be telling, to see how ****z deals with the BBC's motion to dismiss.
He may decide that the error helps or hinders trump. There's no automatic link between a mistake, and defamation.
Under rigorous established US defamation standards, the Beeb has substantial arguments.
T has to prove malice, or recklessness. BBC documents may illuminate that - they will certainly be called. What did hey know when, and what did they do about it?
I think getting a court to agree it was just a clumsy edit, will be hard.
An arrow in BBCs quiver is that there is doubt that the case should be tried in Florida.
Trumpf has dropped the financial loss part of the claim, about half. That's just so he doesn't have to provide financial documents. [ed: as Brig said]
Judges don't like it when plaintiffs decide to drop claims for reasons like that.
The new judge is one J. Kuntz, really.
" the BBC's admission that the editing was wrong sounds potentially very damaging to the BBC, but it doesn’t necessarily establish defamation under US law"
Ongoing.
..................
Trump claimed defamation against ABC news when their Anchor said on air that Trump had been been found liable for rape in the E. Jean Carroll case, where he was only found guilty of Sexual Abuse, not rape.
ABC settled the case, paying 15million (not billion) + 1m in legal fees, in a contribution to his library.
I see no wholesale rolling over by Networks.
****z is a Trump nominee who has previously ruled to allow a case of his to continue. It will be telling, to see how ****z deals with the BBC's motion to dismiss.
He may decide that the error helps or hinders trump. There's no automatic link between a mistake, and defamation.
Under rigorous established US defamation standards, the Beeb has substantial arguments.
T has to prove malice, or recklessness. BBC documents may illuminate that - they will certainly be called. What did hey know when, and what did they do about it?
I think getting a court to agree it was just a clumsy edit, will be hard.
An arrow in BBCs quiver is that there is doubt that the case should be tried in Florida.
Similar threads
