It’s a fair question. But in response to the tweet within the tweet, I don’t see the BBC doing that, either. Because the burden of proof is on Trump, not the BBC. Not only does he have to prove their documentary (which never played in America) damaged his reputation in America; but he also has to prove the BBC acted with actual malice. And then he has to prove actual damages. $1 billion is purely speculative.The guy was impeached twice. He paid a porn star hush money. He tried to overturn a democratic election. He was held legally liable for sexually assaulting a woman and then repeatedly defaming her. He was convicted of fraud. What reputation did he have left to damage? https://t.co/ds5X9IN6Fh
— James Surowiecki (@JamesSurowiecki) November 15, 2025
He’ll never get that far.
Trump isn’t bringing these actions, or forcing prosecutions, because he wants to win. He may think the BBC will settle because CBS did (they shouldn’t have).. Mostly, he’s doing this because he’s bored. And angry.
Due to the Epstein files, Trump doesn’t know whether to shit, or go blind. So he needs a hobby to distract him. He’s such a stunted human being, all he can think to do is to make someone else miserable.
The only shocking thing about this is that anyone who works at the BBC would have made such a stupid edit when not even a full sentence between them would have been entirely proper journalistic practice. Though those kinds of things will happen when you depend on people who have a background in TV production instead of journalism or who have the diminished respect for accuracy that will come with infotanement being the standard or, which is ironic considering Trump is the mendacious messiah of it, you get used to shaving the truth. The BBC does it all the time when it comes to coverage of Israel as they used to when covering Northern Ireland.
ReplyDelete