I HAVE THE FULL TRANSCRIPT OF THE SPANKING THAT TRUMP GOT: YES, YOU DO HAVE TO TURN OVER YOUR FINANCIALS TO THE BBC
by Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. – attorney, law professor emeritus, and author of Federal law
As some of you know, over the weekend I purchased the transcript of the Trump v. BBC hearing that happened last week. (In fact, I paid a total of $237.83 for it, which you also know because I posted the receipt to shut up the people who complain about the $5 a month membership for Notes from the Front because, they ignorantly claim, “those are free documents”. No, they are not free. You have to pay for them, by the page, and I gladly do it to make them available to Notes from the Front members, who, you know, get it.)
Anyways, this is another of those cases where Trump sued a media outlet claiming that the outlet had done damage to his reputation (snort). His claim is that the BBC had stitched together various clips of what happened on Jan6 to make Trump look bad (double snort).
But unlike other media outlets in Trump’s cross-hairs, the BBC did not capitulate, they are standing up to Trump. And also unlike other media outlets, the BBC is *not in the U.S.*, and so, among other things, not under the purview of or beholden to Trump’s FCC. Which means that they don’t have to worry about their license to broadcast being threatened by Carr.
As those of you who have been with me for a while know, I’ve often said that there is a line against which Trump pushes, and that eventually he will cross that line. The IRS case is a case in point, that little escapade crossed the line. And this case against the BBC crossed another line. I’m sure that Trump thought that by filing the case in Florida, he’d have a friendly court. I’m also sure that he didn’t think about the consequences of attacking a well-respected media outlet that was *not* under his administration’s direct control.
You will likely have heard myself and many other attorneys and legal commentators say that when some of these cases get to the discovery phase it’s going to be beautiful.
And here we are.
This transcript is of the hearing last week in which Trump attorneys (Brito again!) tried – *unsuccessfully* – to keep their bossman from having to cough up his financial information.
Yes. Unsuccessfully.
I *wish* I had the time to give you the complete post-mortem on this hearing, but I actually have to do a live show with Zev Shalev shortly, about a smoking gun memo in the Epstein matter. I *really* hope you’ll sit down and read the whole transcript, which of course I’m including for Notes from the Front members (how do you like that $5 membership now? :~) ). But here are some highlights, these are all Judge Lett speaking:
“[T]he court will issue a written order that fully analyzes the case, the cases that come to that conclusion that I just stated, that all of the impressions that were received by President Trump’s statements on January 6 are at issue.”
“As it stands, it can’t be said, given the large scope of damages that is currently in the complaint, that all brand, properties, and businesses that are under President Trump’s purview is alleged to have been harmed and diminished. In the same way that the plaintiff has to prove up those damages, the defendant gets to defend against them, and the defendant is not required to accept the statements of plaintiff’s expert. The defendant is not even required to only review the evidence that the plaintiff’s experts receive. They are able to, on their own, defend against damages.”
And of course:
“Moreover, the scope of discovery is much broader than the scope of admissibility, and here where there is a liberal scope under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure of discovery and all of President Trump’s brand, properties, and businesses are impugned or said to have been impugned and result in both economic and reputational damage, all of that is now at issue in the case. So the motion to compel as to the subpoena to The Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust is granted.”
In other words, cough up those financials, Trump, you started this, now you have to follow the rules.
Now, my guess is that after he appeals and loses, or maybe even before that, Trump *may* move to dismiss the case. But here’s the thing: a court does *not* have to allow a plaintiff to dismiss its own case, not when it’s gotten this far. The BBC would have a very good basis on which to challenge it being dismissed because, in fact, now *Trump* is actually the one besmirching the BBC’s good name.
Notes from the Front members: 159-page transcript is in your inbox now.
My reporting is 100% reader-supported. Here are ways that you can support my reporting:
– Join Notes from the Front: It’s just $5 a month, and you will truly be supporting what I do here, plus you get the documents that I include with each post. You can do that here: https://annepmitchell.substack.com
– Support my coffee habit here: https://www.annepmitchell.com/buy-anne-a-coffee/
– Share this post
P.S. If you actually read all the way to the bottom please leave a sentence in a comment that includes the word “snort”. It will show me that my efforts aren’t in vain and that people actually *do* read these things, and it will drive those who just skim crazy wondering just why everyone is snorting! ;~)
(The above was provided by me, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. – attorney and law professor emeritus.)
Source