The lawsuit was supposed to be another exercise in the familiar Trumpian playbook: File a claim, demand an astronomical sum, bury the target in legal expenses, force a humiliating settlement that gets marketed as a political win. That strategy has worked before. In 2024, ABC News agreed to pay $15 million after network anchor George Stephanopoulos inaccurately said Trump had been found liable for rape. Paramount later paid more than $24 million over CBS News’ handling of an interview with Vice President Kamala Harris that took place during the 2024 presidential race. With that track record, Trump had every reason to expect the BBC to fold in the same way.Oops. (Paramount and ABC also had regulatory/DOJ reasons to settle. But no one’s ever accused Trump of being too bright for his own good. )
He miscalculated badly. As a public service corporation, the BBC operates under a royal charter that explicitly bars it from entering into out-of-court financial settlements to make litigation disappear. It cannot cut a check to sweep away Trump’s claims. The corporation is legally bound to fight until a verdict is reached — or until Trump himself gives up. And its defense team, anchored by the First Amendment firm Ballard Spahr, has used that obligation to go straight at the people closest to Trump on Jan. 6.
Maybe you have to be a lawyer to appreciate this, but it’s a perfect example of why lawsuits are not superpowers or secret weapons, and why Roy Cohn wasn’t really that bright, or, in the end, a good example.
The BBC has asked for alternative service on Jared and Ivanka; odds are they get it. And shortly thereafter, Trump drops this suit. Being the biggest asshole in the courthouse is not always the golden ticket.
No comments:
Post a Comment