What does your neighbor's pet (probably the only ----- you've ever seen) have to do with it?

"Not a lawyer but ain't that also opening up Trumpy to discovery requests?"

They would likely be limited the specifics of the lawsuit allegation, which has to do with two comments that he made about an hour apart being spliced together to give the impression that he something he didn't actually say in that specific speech.

^^^ Edit

"Not a lawyer but ain't that also opening up Trumpy to discovery requests?"

They would likely be limited the specifics of the lawsuit allegation, which has to do with two comments that he made about an hour apart being spliced together to give the impression that he *said something he didn't actually say in that specific speech.

The US president alleged the broadcaster "intentionally, maliciously, and deceptively" edited his 6 January speech before the insurrection, in an episode of Panorama just over a year ago.

The Panorama edit, taken from sections of his speech almost an hour apart, suggested Trump told the crowd: "We're going to walk down to the Capitol and I'll be there with you, and we fight. We fight like hell."

[The edited sections of his speech omitted words in which Trump also called for peaceful protest.]

In Trump's complaint against the BBC, his legal team writes: "The BBC, faced with overwhelming and justifiable outrage on both sides of the Atlantic, has publicly admitted its staggering breach of journalistic ethics, and apologized, but has made no showing of actual remorse for its wrongdoing nor meaningful institutional changes to prevent future journalistic abuses.

Since the allegations are specifically about public comments that Trump made, I think the BBC has a lot more to lose in discovery than he does.

" Trump never said that."

I just quoted your own words.

" Trump is
the UK Prime Minister"

Cool story, bro.

"the US should execute homeless people and bomb the UN Headquarters."

POSTED BY JOHNNY_HOTSAUCE AT 2025-12-09 05:37 PM

You actually wrote that.

On a related tangent, the BBC have apparently the lost the rights to the first four episodes of Doctor Who that were first broadcast in 1963, due to a dispute with the writer's estate. The writer's son was asking for an extremely high amount of money for them to be able to repeat or release the episodes on their streaming site. Not as much as what Trump is asking, but they said no. Now he's apparently threatening to sell (or maybe even give) the episode rights to Russia, to get back at the BBC.

"After all that is known about President Trump, how is it possible to defame him?"

There's a higher bar for public figures (as there should be), but it's not like they should have no protection at all against these types of torts, especially in egregious cases where completely fabricated evidence was broadcast as part of a "news" documentary.