Discovery cuts both ways

Written by

Ophelia Benson

in

MeidasTouch writes:

TOTAL BACKFIRE: BBC makes Trump PAY for $10 BILLION defamation lawsuit.

Trump just opened the door to discovery over his actions around January 6th, and the BBC decided to walk right through it.

Donald Trump sued the BBC for $10 billion over its coverage of January 6. Now, the BBC is making it clear that discovery cuts both ways.

The broadcaster has asked the court to require Trump to turn over his phone records, private schedules, daily diaries, and other communications spanning the period from the 2020 election through January 20, 2021.

The BBC argues that if Trump claims its reporting damaged his reputation, then the facts surrounding January 6 are directly relevant. In other words, they’re asking whether Trump’s reputation was harmed by the BBC, or by his own conduct surrounding the Capitol attack.

Gosh, that’s a tough one, isn’t it. No, it isn’t. Yes, it was his own conduct that harmed his reputation. The fact that the American people in their wisdom re-elected him anyway is a separate matter.

Trump’s lawyers are accusing the BBC of trying to turn the defamation lawsuit into a January 6 trial. But that’s how discovery works: when you file a lawsuit seeking billions in damages, you open the door to scrutiny of the claims you’re making.

Trump wanted a $10 billion payday. Instead, his lawsuit could force him to produce records that shine a new spotlight on one of the darkest chapters in presidential history.

Let’s fucking hope so.

Comments

6 responses to “Discovery cuts both ways”

  1. Your Name's not Bruce? Avatar
    Your Name’s not Bruce?

    How many years has it been since Trump had any kind of positive “reputation” that somebody else could possibly “ruin”?

    Wouldn’t it be ironic if the BBC were to succeed where Merrick Garland failed? Bend over backwards too far, for too long, and you end with your head up your ass.

  2. The Whimster Gap Avatar
    The Whimster Gap

    There is so much about this case that I don’t understand.

    Leave aside the First Amendment stuff, and the very high bar that any complainant would have to clear under US law for that reason. Leave aside the question of whether US courts have any right to rule about, and to enforce a ruling about, a programme that was not broadcast in the US. Even if we put all that aside (at least under English law, which I assume is at least similar to US), Trump would have to show that he suffered harm as a result of the broadcast – and not just harm, but harm that could only be made good by a $10bn payout.

    That is: he’d have to give a bloody good reason to show that, but for that edition of Panorama, he’d now be the equivalent of $10bn better off.

    Yeah, but mainly no.

  3. Francis Boyle Avatar
    Francis Boyle

    US media companies caved. Why can’t the BBC do likewise? Trump’s still trying to work that one out.

    Seriously, the discovery twist is the sort of thing that happens when you don’t do your homework and Trump never even did his own schoolwork.

  4. Athel Cornish-Bowden Avatar
    Athel Cornish-Bowden

    US media companies no doubt caved because they are subject to US law and in some sense under the authority of the US President. The BBC isn’t, and isn’t. I waste a great deal of my time reading the inane questions and discussions at Quora (don’t do it, it’s not worth it, but can be addictive). One thing that is clear is there are lots of US citizens who think that US law applies everywhere (including the 2nd amendment) and that all of us must obey the whims of His Orange Highness. I suspect that Trump himself has difficulty understanding that that isn’t so.

  5. Sumi Avatar
    Sumi

    Trump’s been involved in more lawsuits than I’ve had hot meals. He knows all about discovery.

    He sues media outlets that are critical of him to chill reporting generally. The lawsuits typically get tossed out before discovery, like when he sued the Wall St Journal for $10b for their coverage of the Epstein birthday card. Or, the shakedown works and the media outlet pays him off in a lawsuit they could easily have won, like when CBS threw in the towel over edits to their 60 Minutes interview.

    Either way, these cases rarely get to discovery, and I doubt the BBC lawsuit will go much further. Trump doesn’t want his family and former aides questioned under oath over what they observed leading up to J6.

  6. iknklast Avatar
    iknklast

    Or, the shakedown works and the media outlet pays him off in a lawsuit they could easily have won

    Which is unfortunate, because some of these big-pocket guys who can afford to fight it are needed to stand up and take the heat. When they cave, it leads the MAGA types to insist they were guilty, and to believe more than ever that it is illegal for anyone to question Trump and his actions.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

More posts