President Trump’s $10 billion defamation lawsuit against the British Broadcasting Company is backfiring in his face, as a judge has greenlit the subpoenaing of his inner circle.

But on Tuesday, U.S. Magistrate Judge Enjoliqué Lett said the BBC can proceed with subpoenas for Trump’s closest advisers and confidants—including his family members, Stephen Miller, and Steve Bannon—to make the case on what Trump’s actual goals were on January 6.

Lett also ruled that Trump must hand over hundreds of financial records, as Trump argued in his lawsuit that the episode hurt his many businesses.

  • WhiskyTangoFoxtrot@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    39 minutes ago

    I just want future generations to remember one thing: The guy who defeated the American left twice and brought about the collapse of America’s worldwide power was an utter moron.

  • Etterra@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    49 minutes ago

    I can’t help but laugh whenever I see “Trump” and “BBC” in the same sentence.

  • BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 hours ago

    This is the strategy that I’ve been calling for with the reflecting pool prosecutions. Don’t ask the judge for a dismissal, go for a full on trial by jury, and then put the prosecution through a ruthless, ferocious discovery. By the time they’re done finding out all the details of how the contract was awarded, the budget was created, the materials purchased, the over-runs, the kickbacks, etc., the right people will be going to prison, not the “vandals.”

    • obviouspornalt@fedinsfw.app
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 hours ago

      while true, that’s how civil lawsuits work, and that’s a good thing. if he doesn’t comply and drops the suit, then we’re done here, although it was unfortunate the BBC had to pay for lawyers to defend themselves. hopefully this little maneuver costs Trump in a subsequent anti-SLAPP finding later.

      if he doesn’t comply and continues the suit for some dumbass reason, then the judge will instruct the jury that every bit of evidence that the defendant didn’t receive is to be assumed to be as damaging as possible for the plaintiff.

      the suit should be over now, but Trump is probably stupider than Alex Jones, so who knows.

      maybe Trump can figure out a way to parlay this suit that he initiated into a multibillion dollar judgement against himself somehow. I can’t possibly think of how this could happen, but I’ve lost every time I’ve made a bet based on ‘he can’t possibly be this stupid’.

  • Kirp123@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    95
    ·
    9 hours ago

    Guess Trump thought he could bully the BBC as he did the local stations. The thing he forgot was that the BBC doesn’t need his approval for mergers and it’s not owned by any of his billionaire buddies.

    Can they even drop the trial to avoid discovery at this point? Because some shit is about to come out in that discovery. Also I really hope they depose Trump.

    • BluescreenOfDeath@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      47
      ·
      8 hours ago

      They can just do what Alex Jones did in his defamation trail and refuse to cooperate with discovery. The court can’t make them turn over documents at gunpoint, but the court can threaten to tell the jury that one party refused to cooperate, and to assume the evidence would be very bad for the party refusing to turn it over.

      It’s basically giving the other party carte blanche to say whatever they want because you’re admitting you won’t back anything up. So the discovery has to be pretty bad for someone to refuse to cooperate.

      • Cris_Citrus@piefed.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Or you have to be really stupid and not understand how bad of a strategic choice it is, which would also be on brand given how his legal escapades have gone so far lol.

        I have no doubt they’re bad, but I’m pretty confident he would make a bad choice even if they weren’t cause he seems allergic to competent decisions, especially in the courtroom it would seem lol

    • fizzle@quokk.au
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      7 hours ago

      The problem is that the bullying works even if it isn’t really successful.

      Next time a producer is considering whether to publish something, they’re less likely to say something controversial about little-T because no one wants the bother of a lawsuit with POTUS even if it worked out ok last time.

  • Arancello@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 hours ago

    isnt it a bit alarming that usa folks are depending on a foreign government to hold drumpf to account? The BBC is doing what usa people are unwilling or unable to do. Where was the “land of the brave” again?

    • BassTurd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 hour ago

      If I had the funds that the BBC have and was given the golden ticket Trump’s idiotic actions gave them, I too would be able to take it to Trump. Alas, I’m but one of the poors. Best I got is protesting and voting, or quite literally throwing my life away getting physical.

      Comparing the BBC to the American people is an unfair comparison. However, it’s fair comparing them to major US businesses that could and can take action but haven’t. Particularly news organizations are the biggest failures, but when you take into account that all of the major news organizations are owned by conservative moguls, it makes sense. Also, only a couple of companies were given a legal path to pull off what the BBC is doing thanks to Trump’s short-sightedness. Not just anyone can subpoena Trump’s allies.

    • EntheoNaut@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      5 hours ago

      Alarming, not at all. Satisfying, absofuckinlutely.

      There’s been a coupe in US which has overrun all three branches of government.

      It’s up to global powers to shine a light and call the US out.

    • BassTurd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      6 hours ago

      It’s it possible for the BBC to countersue or do something to proceed so that they can subpoena? I feel that they could arguably sue for defamation given very public statements and actions from the Trump admin against them

  • FiniteBanjo@feddit.online
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    9 hours ago

    Yes! Finally! Fuck diplomacy with these thugs, give an inch and they take a mile, take away their immunity and charge them for every little crime.

    • kamenlady@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 hours ago

      It’s about time all of them get the Pulp Fiction treatment. A nice shot to the balls and let them stay put until the party starts.

      I’m just spitballing here.

  • unmagical@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    8 hours ago

    I’m guessing Trump’s involvement in January 6th was far more damaging to his businesses than reporting on it.