The BBC has demanded that Donald Trump hand over his personal text messages in a £10bn (£7.5bn) defamation lawsuit over his alleged involvement in the January 6 riots in Washington.

The broadcaster’s lawyers are seeking to prove in court that the US president should be held responsible for encouraging his supporters to storm the US Capitol following his 2020 election defeat.

In their legal document, the BBC said: “In [his] lawsuit, President Trump claims that the BBC defamed him by editing his speech at the White House Ellipse on January 6, 2021 in a manner that he claims conveyed the allegedly false implication that he fomented the violence that followed at the Capitol.

“Thus, as the BBC explained and the government does not dispute, President Trump cannot prevail in his case if he cannot establish the falsity of that alleged implication.”

top 33 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 110 points 3 months ago (6 children)

so the BBC is more effective than Biden's DoJ

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 69 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    My cat is more effective than Biden's DoJ, and I don't even have a cat.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 60 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    Calling it now! He changed his cell phone plan just like the secret service did right at the most convenient time ever wiping all messages.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 3 months ago* (1 child)

    Yes but his use of a cell phone to send text messages on the day of 1/6/21 is well known and documented. He cannot claim he didn’t and his inability to produce them may result in a default judgement.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 13 points 3 months ago

    He cannot claim he didn’t and his inability to produce them may result in a default judgement.

    A default judgment is a step beyond what happens. A default judgment relates to a complete failure to engage in the process in any way (like failings to enter an appearance, failing to prescribe to the time periods for filing responsive pleadings, etc.) What a failure to produce because the document(s) (intentionally or negligently) no longer exist would be to create an adverse inference/presumption. This could lead to special jurry instructions, if it was material to the case, that weight against the bad actor.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 74 points 3 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 46 points 3 months ago* (2 children)

    🥹👉👈

    Whoa! What the hell are you doing? Are you trying to get your self out on a list?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 3 months ago

    This is how you stand up to a bully, especially Trump and his legal threats. Call him out on it. He'll waffle

  • source
  • [–] 56 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Taking a page from Trump himself, the BBC is going to bury Trump so deep in discovery he drops the lawsuit. If this case does make it to trial, there are so many interesting details that can come out publicly, including all of Trump’s businesses’ financials.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 19 points 3 months ago

    BBC is still waiting on a ruling for their Jurisdiction challenge. If the Altman grants it, it is over. Also the trump team still has the 14 day Rule 72(a) objection to Lett's order. I have a feeling if they lose the 72(a) and Altman has not ruled on Jurisdiction they will drop it. Otherwise the trump camp has already said they will narrow the scope and drop the financial claim to avoid turning all of that over.

    I haven't been following it very closely so I may have some things wrong but I really can't see anyone on the trump side wanting to take this all the way if Altman doesn't give them a big wet kiss on the lips and grant their 72(a).

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 21 points 3 months ago

    lol. The BBC being a moral compass.

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 3 months ago

    Consequences?

  • source
  • [+] 6 points 3 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Who even saves messages for years?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    How does one "hand over" "personal" text messages?

    Aren't all texts "personal"? And do people keep them on something else than their phone?

    Or does someone like POTUS have a special phone with forensic-level text message backups?

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago

    Or does someone like POTUS have a special phone with forensic-level text message backups?

    You’d hope so, but this moron probably uses a BlackBerry he refuses to give up and, as with everything else, they all just said “fuck it” and let him do what he wants so he shuts the fuck up.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    typically (and in a system with people acting in good faith) a public servant of high enough office to require record keeping would have a public phone and a personal phone. the public phone would have all its messaging recorded, and all the emails and texts and phone calls for the public servant's office would go through that, not their personal phone. haven't had a system full of people acting in good faith in a while.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -18 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    BBC brought it upon themselves. After they maliciously redacted his speech, got sued and now they have to weasel out of this somehow.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment