630
Trump Makes Last-Minute Bid To Hide His Finances From BBC
(www.forbes.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 05 Aug 2026
630 points (99.7% liked)
News
38679 readers
2179 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Wouldn't someone in the US with a passing familiarity of lawsuits and who has been in court innumerable times have an inkling about the discovery phase?
I recognize President Pedophile is incredibly stupid, in addition to being a horrible human being. But I'm struggling to see how he could have made this mistake. Additionally, he has lawyers. This is incredible.
Good on the BBC for fighting this.
It's not a mistake.
He's a bully. He thinks he can get away with it, so he does it...because he usually gets away with it.
He will drop the case before he has to submit evidence for discovery.
If he does BBC should be allowed to counter sue as it was clearly a fraudulent claim in the first place.
He thought the BBC would roll over like when he sued ABC and they just paid him 15 million and apologized to him. Or when he sued CBS and they paid him 16 million. The issue is that BBC is funded from taxpayer money and I don't think the British taxpayers would be very happy with them paying Trump.
ABC did that on purpose. They knew they could use the settlement as a disguised bribe to get preferential treatment from Trump. That was worth more than the legal battle that would drag on for years and net them nothing. He still hasn't paid E. Jean Carroll. He certainly wouldn't have paid out the ABC case.
What they did is the equivalent of paying a crooked cop. It's textbook racketeering. "Pay me and we'll protect you." -every one of the 5 families.
ABC is owned by Disney, there's an equally likely chance they were afraid Trump would retaliate by blocking a merger or something. I don't know what merger it would have been, but it feels like there's a pretty good chance Disney is trying to buy some other company at any given time.
Well yeah because Trump could get their license revoked.
He does not have that leverage with the bbc
He could have tried to get their license revoked, but would have lost the ensuing lawsuit on first amendment grounds. ABC was never at risk of losing their license. They willingly chose the bribe. A lawyer that just passed their BAR exam could have won that case.
I don't agree. They could revoke it and drag it through the courts, but it could take years. They also could make up any reason they wanted to distance itself from free speech rules.
I agree that the result is the same, but they saw the carrot AND the stick.
Also, as a foreign broadcaster the Trump-controlled FCC can’t threaten the BBC’s license. I think this is a factor in the US-based broadcasters rolling over.
Don't you mean the "land of the free"-based broadcasters? Lol
There's also a stark difference between 15 mil and 10 bn
It's not quite tax payer money, we pay a licence fee to be able to watch live broadcast which funds the BBC (they also get a vast amount of money from licensing shows overseas). But your point is true that the public would be pissed if they just rolled over and paid without fighting Trump
Yep.
I'm a licence payer and not only would I be very upset if the BBC just paid the raging orange paedo, I also want to offer my services to fight that fat cunt.
I mean physically. I don't have the money to win in court, however I'd be verrrrry happy to throw hands.
Very happy.
You have no way to gauge how happy I'd be to punch that useless pile of wobbling dementia riddled barrel of rape and corruption.
Eh, he's got some heft to him. You're better off trying to sweep the leg.
Have you seen his calves though? I'm not sure that a leg sweep is moving one of those. I suppose you might pop it instead which would still be interesting at least.
Goodness, this was brilliantly stated and I salute you. I think many would want to follow in your lead. An orderly line of eager participants, each wishing to have their turn, might be required.
How does the old licensing fee go these days ? It was a pretty poor payment at the best of times wasn't it? Can't imagine since streaming arrived anyone pays for tv?
I'm sure you have seen this, but he hires based on loyalty, not competence.
This. Competent lawyers won't touch him with a ten foot pole. The ones he's used up to now have generally failed. He usually squirms his way out of lawsuits in other ways.
Very good point, thank you.
I'm hoping the beeb wins and gets everything they want. It will signal to other entities he's threatened with lawsuits that he's a stuffed shirt (and how!) that has more dirt to hide than they do.
UK law is much more open to discovery than the US, and losers pay. Betcha Trump didn't know that.
Oh, if that's the case, when he loses, he'll be chewing what's left of his hair.
Trump HATES paying for anything.
I've been in the Trades since 1980 and for years, the running snarky aside about him went "If you want to know whether Trump pays his bills, ask any electrician in New Jersey.."
Apparently he's gone through a lot of them and stiffed quite a few over the decades.
This case is in the US courts.
Yep. That's one of the BBC's many arguments, that this case is being heard in the wrong place (Florida Southern District, Miami):
It's worth a skim for anyone interested in these things; the number of ways he's trying to cheat, play dirty, and just manipulate the process are overwhelming.
Oh a Florida Southern District court? Wonder why they chose that location.
As the plaintiff, Trump chose it. As the BBC notes, the offending documentary was never shown in the US. Presumably they've chosen the venue where the supposed harm occurred, but as he's scrambling desperately to avoid having to prove that harm occurred, who fucking knows, lol.
Afaik it's typical in the US to file in a court that's known to take the side of people or organizations similar to the plaintiff, or resolve similar cases in a manner beneficial to the plaintiff.
Yes, absolutely. There's even a name for it. That certainly played no small part in the choice of venue when the plaintiffs were deciding where to file.
EDITED to add: I hadn't known who the judge was when I wrote the above comments, but it turns out that this judge, who is a Trump appointee and a member of the Federalist Society, has now granted the emergency stay.
This is the order:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.703382/gov.uscourts.flsd.703382.116.0.pdf
Mar a Lago. Mar a Lago lost 10 billion dollars of valuation due to the documentary!
Hah, yeah. Today, anyway. Tomorrow it'll be something else. It's the magical $10 billion: if you skim through the linked filing what it amounts to is the BBC pointing out that for all the twisting and turning and various statements on the part of the plaintiff, they can't or won't produce the first bit of evidential documentation. He sued over this and that claim, but now everyone is just supposed to take his word for it.
At this point the plaintiff's case basically comes down to, "Well it's not this anymore but it's still that so we don't have to produce evidence for this, and we thought it was caused by this but no it's really that so you don't need to see that either, and we thought the harm was this but no it's absolutely that, we mean it this time so you should just take our word for it," but that magical $10 billion damage amount mysteriously stays exactly the same throughout. It's a shell game on paper played by his lawyers.
In reality, if Mar-a-Lago lost $10 billion dollars, it's just because it's management was just that extraordinarily shitty. Same goes for the rest of that putrefying fuck's "businesses" he's managed to turn into black holes that suck cash with zero return. He did that to a fucking casino, lol. I think it's his superpower (that, and clearing out the Oval Office with a shart on demand, no other president has shown that skill). He made the White House look like a goddamn Taiwanese buffet (nothing against Taiwanese buffets, just not what one wants to see in the halls of government). Dude can't manage his own way out of a greasy Mickie D's bag -- but sure, it was all the BBC's fault, lol.
Indeed. And I mean, the editing they used wasn't even misleading except in small details. He said everything they quoted him saying, and his speech was a call to arms, it's just he didn't say it quite so directly.
But sure, ten billion in damages.
So few of these bullshit cases go to court, I hope the judge fucks Trump for abusing the process after coming to understand he isn't using the court in good faith.
What in the US the loser doesn't pay?
Not unless the judge rules that one side must cover the cost incurred by the other. Even then, they could drag out the payment over the course of years due to appeals or bankruptcy filings.
That's insane
Nope. And there is no mediation, which is why the US is full of ambulance chasers and everyone sues everyone.
Despite what he may claim, not the biggest, brightest lawyers. We're talking Rudy Giuliani, Pam Bondi, Kenneth Chesebro, and Alan Dershowitz.
None of whom are allowed to practice law any more.
Lawyers he refuses to listen to because he thinks he's "smarter than them".
Also I have a feeling the smart ones tend to avoid working for him.
They just know they'll be replaced if they disagree with him
He doesn't file lawsuits to actually win them, he files them as intimidation. He expects the other side to cave, and to settle. I tried to search for lawsuit Trump actually won on their merits, without a negotiated settlement, and could only find one that was a default judgement (so the other side didn't even show up).
He's burned through many lawyers and there are few reputable or intelligent lawyers left who might be willing to light their careers on fire. Sure, he might find one willing to trade their career for whatever benefits they might get (or maybe they just have a hard on for fascism, which often means they are fucking stupid too), but most of his lawyers have, eventually, been left holding a flaming bag of shit while Trump transparently lies and pretends he has never heard of them or has heard they aren't very good.
It's happening to pretty much the entire fucking justice department. It used to be a very sought after career. Now they are giving fresh grads signing bonuses and then shuffling them into the meat grinder and sacrificing their reputation to further the administration's nakedly corrupt agenda. "Hey, new kid, I need you to take this case." Turns out the case is about some poor immigrant that been detained for months and then deported despite having court orders protecting him from deportation... that were clumsily bypassed with unsigned orders or some other bullshit. New kid sits in front of a frustrated judge yelling at him and the kid can only say "I don't know what happened" and go home and cry into his pillow.
He's banking on the news not making it over here since he pretty much controls all of the media now.
That's why I go to the BBC for my local (American) news.
ANY news agency except American is better. We did it to ourselves.
The BBC gets most of its US news from its US news partner… CBS
I have seen a fair amount of parroting from them. Still better than the propaganda machines here.
He probably assumed it wouldn’t go anywhere, and he didn’t need to do anything, because he’s president.