Let the countdown begin. There are now 888 days until the term of the one with the little brain and fat behind will be out of office and restoration can begin and the release of the Epstein files can happen.
Let the countdown begin. There are now 888 days until the term of the one with the little brain and fat behind will be out of office and restoration can begin and the release of the Epstein files can happen.
I hope this is so. You never know with Trump. Remember he already has the hats and T-shirts ready.
FWIW, James Carville is predicting that Trump will resign before his term ends—possibly as early as Easter 2027 if Democrats win the House and the Senate, and in any event before his last day in office. Carville also predicts that part of his resignation will be a deal that Vance pardons him of all possible federal crimes. The resignation, Carville thinks, will happen because it’s unclear whether Trump’s can pardon himself.
I have a hard time seeing Trump walk away from the opportunity to add more billions of dollars to his bank account.
As do I. But I guess there could come a point where the downside from a hostile and investigating Congress may win out. Or I could see resigning with only days left if a full pardon followed.
I saw a video on youtube today suggesting that Trump's BBC lawsuit is in trouble, owing to the BBC lawyers quite reasonably asking to see full financial disclosure of the entirety of his business dealings. He wanted to establish in court that these dealings had suffered reputational damage to the tune of several billion dollars. In order to prove this large sum, it seems necessary to detail how large these dealings are, and how the damage has been sustained.
I must say I am finding this rather funny.
Apparently Trump's lawyers are claiming now that they want to reign the whole thing in massively and only discuss his personal, reputational damage. The legal opinion I listened to suggested that a judge might take the view, that having filed a suit, that suit would be the one that would be pursued (he used a line of discussion 'once you open the door'...). I'll be interested to see what happens next.
I saw a video on youtube today suggesting that Trump's BBC lawsuit is in trouble, owing to the BBC lawyers quite reasonably asking to see full financial disclosure of the entirety of his business dealings. He wanted to establish in court that these dealings had suffered reputational damage to the tune of several billion dollars. In order to prove this large sum, it seems necessary to detail how large these dealings are, and how the damage has been sustained.
I must say I am finding this rather funny.
Apparently Trump's lawyers are claiming now that they want to reign the whole thing in massively and only discuss his personal, reputational damage. The legal opinion I listened to suggested that a judge might take the view, that having filed a suit, that suit would be the one that would be pursued (he used a line of discussion 'once you open the door'...). I'll be interested to see what happens next.
The judge is presumably unlikely to be impressed by the attempt to narrow the scope of the claim while leaving the amount sought unaltered.
Apparently Trump's lawyers are claiming now that they want to reign the whole thing in massively and only discuss his personal, reputational damage.
Would that not require proving that Trump had a reputation to damage? Every sensible person knows that not only does Trump routinely lie, but I'm not even certain that he understands that truth is an actual thing independent of "whatever Trump wants to happen".
I am finding the Trump v BBC lawsuit deliciously hilarious, BBC lawyers are hanging him out to dry. It is only confirming my opinion that Trump & his whole administration are a bunch of complete bottom wipes. And as a BBC licence holder, I am behind the BBC 100 percent. Go BBC...
And as a BBC licence holder, I am behind the BBC 100 percent. Go BBC...
I mean, all BBC really did here is do an editing job that they've already apologized for, and then get themselves unwillingly sued by Trump over it and hired lawyers to defend themselves. If they win, it's gonna be entirely because of arguments made by those lawyers, in accordance with established American law.
But, sure, I want them to win, too. What I'm wondering is if Trump's lawyers foresaw the eventuality of a lawsuit alleging financial damage requiring proof of the alleged damage. I would assume that's a given in such cases, but I really don't know.
And as a BBC licence holder, I am behind the BBC 100 percent. Go BBC...
I mean, all BBC really did here is do an editing job that they've already apologized for, and then get themselves unwillingly sued by Trump over it and hired lawyers to defend themselves.
Most people and entities who are sued are sued unwillingly.
What I'm wondering is if Trump's lawyers foresaw the eventuality of a lawsuit alleging financial damage requiring proof of the alleged damage. I would assume that's a given in such cases, but I really don't know.
It’s definitely a given. If they didn’t see it, they committed malpractice.
I assume that both Trump & his lawyers thought that the BBC would fold & pay a few million in damages as some other media companies have done. Otherwise I think it is given that the defence would ask for proof of financial damages ( but IANL)
I assume that both Trump & his lawyers thought that the BBC would fold & pay a few million in damages as some other media companies have done. Otherwise I think it is given that the defence would ask for proof of financial damages ( but IANL)
I would assume Trump thought that. As for his lawyers, I would assume they do as they’re told, even when they know better. That seems to be the pattern.
I assume that both Trump & his lawyers thought that the BBC would fold & pay a few million in damages as some other media companies have done. Otherwise I think it is given that the defence would ask for proof of financial damages ( but IANL)
I'm not sure the BBC could do that, given it is not a private company; I don't know how financial settlements with the BBC (which do happen from time to time) are arrived at. Ian Hislop et al will know - I expect this to turn up in the Eye fairly soon. I'll post here about it if it does.
(Looking back I also note I used 'reign' and not 'rein' in my post upthread. Well, at least it wasn't 'rain'.)
And as a BBC licence holder, I am behind the BBC 100 percent. Go BBC...
I mean, all BBC really did here is do an editing job that they've already apologized for, and then get themselves unwillingly sued by Trump over it and hired lawyers to defend themselves.
Most people and entities who are sued are sued unwillingly.
Heh. Yeah, it was rhetorical redundancy, like eg. "I, myself..."
What I'm wondering is if Trump's lawyers foresaw the eventuality of a lawsuit alleging financial damage requiring proof of the alleged damage. I would assume that's a given in such cases, but I really don't know.
It’s definitely a given. If they didn’t see it, they committed malpractice.
Or they had a client who didn’t want to hear it.
The latter would be my guess, assuming required financial disclosure is a universal in lawsuits alleging financial damage.
Gee, it worked on American media, should work on the BBC too.
Actually, the BBC isn't doing much more than what Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Jounal is doing in regards to a Trump defamation suit, ie. fighting it in court.
It’s definitely a given. If they didn’t see it, they committed malpractice.
Or they had a client who didn’t want to hear it.
The latter would be my guess, assuming required financial disclosure is a universal in lawsuits alleging financial damage.
Rather than say it’s “universal” as such, I’d say it should be assumed that if you allege financial damages, you absolutely should anticipate that discovery requests will include lots of requests about finances and about evidence actually showing financial damages.
It’s definitely a given. If they didn’t see it, they committed malpractice.
Or they had a client who didn’t want to hear it.
The latter would be my guess, assuming required financial disclosure is a universal in lawsuits alleging financial damage.
Rather than say it’s “universal” as such, I’d say it should be assumed that if you allege financial damages, you absolutely should anticipate that discovery requests will include lots of requests about finances and about evidence actually showing financial damages.
Thanks Nick. I have been picturing myself (were I in that line of employment) at the BBC thinking 'oh no, we're all doomed' while much cannier news operators rub their hands at the opportunity they have just been presented with!
Comments
I hope this is so. You never know with Trump. Remember he already has the hats and T-shirts ready.
Time will tell.
I must say I am finding this rather funny.
Apparently Trump's lawyers are claiming now that they want to reign the whole thing in massively and only discuss his personal, reputational damage. The legal opinion I listened to suggested that a judge might take the view, that having filed a suit, that suit would be the one that would be pursued (he used a line of discussion 'once you open the door'...). I'll be interested to see what happens next.
The judge is presumably unlikely to be impressed by the attempt to narrow the scope of the claim while leaving the amount sought unaltered.
Would that not require proving that Trump had a reputation to damage? Every sensible person knows that not only does Trump routinely lie, but I'm not even certain that he understands that truth is an actual thing independent of "whatever Trump wants to happen".
I mean, all BBC really did here is do an editing job that they've already apologized for, and then get themselves unwillingly sued by Trump over it and hired lawyers to defend themselves. If they win, it's gonna be entirely because of arguments made by those lawyers, in accordance with established American law.
But, sure, I want them to win, too. What I'm wondering is if Trump's lawyers foresaw the eventuality of a lawsuit alleging financial damage requiring proof of the alleged damage. I would assume that's a given in such cases, but I really don't know.
It’s definitely a given. If they didn’t see it, they committed malpractice.
Or they had a client who didn’t want to hear it.
I'm not sure the BBC could do that, given it is not a private company; I don't know how financial settlements with the BBC (which do happen from time to time) are arrived at. Ian Hislop et al will know - I expect this to turn up in the Eye fairly soon. I'll post here about it if it does.
(Looking back I also note I used 'reign' and not 'rein' in my post upthread. Well, at least it wasn't 'rain'.)
Heh. Yeah, it was rhetorical redundancy, like eg. "I, myself..."
It’s definitely a given. If they didn’t see it, they committed malpractice.
Or they had a client who didn’t want to hear it.
The latter would be my guess, assuming required financial disclosure is a universal in lawsuits alleging financial damage.
Actually, the BBC isn't doing much more than what Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Jounal is doing in regards to a Trump defamation suit, ie. fighting it in court.
Heh. Yeah, it was rhetorical redundancy, like eg. "I, myself.
The latter would be my guess, assuming required financial disclosure is a universal in lawsuits alleging financial damage.
Thanks Nick. I have been picturing myself (were I in that line of employment) at the BBC thinking 'oh no, we're all doomed' while much cannier news operators rub their hands at the opportunity they have just been presented with!