He drops the suit in three, two...
this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2026
519 points (100.0% liked)
politics
31528 readers
2105 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Not sure he can do that without consequence. A quick Googling suggests that once the case has gone to discovery like this one, both sides need to agree to a dismissal and if the BBC thinks they have a strong case (which I think they probably do) they would would demand compensation. They spent a lot of resources fighting this already, after all.
So he'll drop it, BBC will be awarded compensation, and he won't pay it.
And then the BBC sues, wins, and eventually they just start seizing assets.
Trump has lost court cases and has paid out before.
If anyone knows how to stall the legal process, it's little t. "Eventually" means nothing.
E Jean Carol would disagree.
$5.6M. The larger amount is still held up, though it is in escrow. And he's abused his office to grift way more than that, so it's just chump change. Not to mention that it'll be a lot hard for the UK to get him to pay up.
The BBC will just seize one of his golf courses through the courts.
It's going to be absolutely hilarious right up to the point he decides to nuke Scotland as payback.
British courts are way too chickenshit to challenge a rich person like that.
She’s the perfect example. He still hasn’t paid her what he owes.
Earlier this year, Trump lost his appeal of the original case. SCOTUS refused to hear his last appeal of the original case on June 29, which is the decision that freed the funds for disbursal. E. Jean Carroll was paid the funds held in escrow on July 9.
But Trump tried at every turn to stop it, and then after her award was paid out, to claw the cash back somehow. There was a whole lot of back and forth and bouncing it around district and federal courts until the end of September, which is when he lost his final appeal and it is all done and dusted whether he likes it or not.
Here's a timeline by way of the Guardian reporting on it; any one of these links will give you that part of the story. Read one of the most recent for the entire thing if you're interested.
But Carroll did get paid, and she did keep the payout. It's very understandable that people lost track along the way.
load more comments
(1 replies)
She is literally an example of someone who did get paid.
Yes, that was why I said it.
load more comments
(1 replies)
He'll just use tax dollars to do it
Settlement in three, two, …
TA🐓O
From the beginning, I've been saying that these corporations should refuse to settle, and then haul him through a FEROCIOUS discovery. Drag him and his henchmen through the mud, make them answer every uncomfortable question, and then prosecute to the hilt for perjury.
If you are going to sue someone or something for 10 billion dollars you'd better fucking show up and explain why in person.
Hopefully, he can find it. Who am I kidding, the SS will guide him back:
the SS
I see what you did there
Holy fuck. I heard about it but had not seen the video. I didn't realize it was this bad. There was only ONE place for him to go and the demented old fuck went right by it. They even backed the vehicles right up to within feet the walkway, he only has like three or four steps from the bottom of the stairs to the car, and he still wandered off.
I'm laughing my ass off. Been there, done that with corralling the older people. "Come on back, grandpa. No -- no, not that -- no -- over here -- I'm over here -- come on back, grandpa."
Honestly they should have waved a KFC bucket or something.
We have entered the Lloyd Bridges in Hot Shots! stage...
Donnie dumbfuck expected them to fold like American institutions.
Put up or shut up, big boi.
If he does not show up, just bin the case and mame him pay all costs for the court and BBCs lawyers.
Nah arrest him. That's the law
Oh man; PLEASE issue a bench warrant for Trump.
Haven't we been through this already? They won't do shit and even if they did he would ignore them and they won't do shit
Yes but I can still want them to do it
load more comments
(1 replies)
If he does not show up, just bin the case and mame him
I like where you're coming from, but it's spelled "maim."
I was thinking we throw an arcade cabinet at him?
Oh gods, he'd be the kid "playing" the arcade machines without putting in any quarters, and believing that he was the one winning on the screen.
All the arcade cabinets
Here's the whip. Please apply 39 lashes to my keypads auto"correct".
Autocowrecked
It’ll either never happen or he’ll plead the fifth every question.
You can only plead the fifth in a civil case if answering could reasonably lead to incrimination. You can't use it to avoid being embarrassed or presenting relevant facts to the case that wouldn't be incriminating. I.e. he can't avoid answering questions about his taxes as long as the tax filings are fully legal and he can't be incriminated.
In a civil case, the jury is fully allowed to take your silence into consideration for adverse interference. As in you answering the question would clearly hurt your case.
load more comments
(2 replies)
He will never sit. He will drag it out as long as possible, or at least until after the midterm.
If I learned anything from Knowledge Fight, its that you can stretch out sitting for a deposition and court case for fucking years.
You don't have to be President Pedophile to delay a deposition.
I was in an accident a few years back. The other driver came into my lane and I tried to go around him, but failed. My best guess is that he fell asleep and just drove over the double yellow line. We hit in an offset head on collision, passenger side to passenger side.
The other driver had the state mandated minimum coverage, and the accident caused about $20,000 damage to my car. My insurance sued the other driver.
It took years to get the other driver to show up for the deposition. They'd schedule it, I'd take the day off, then the other driver would cancel at the last minute.
Eventually we all got into the same law office for the deposition. My insurance's lawyer put me in a room to read over the transcript* from my statement after the accident and asked me if I had any questions. Then they stepped out to see if the other driver and his lawyer were ready.
When he came back he said they settled.
They were hoping they'd get me to not show up so they could get the case dismissed. When they finally realized that would never happen, they gave up.
I might have not been so determined, but I have generous PTO (for an American), and the other driver lied to police at the accident and said I entered his lane. Luckily (?), the accident destroyed the windshield washer reservoir in my car, so it dumped all that out at the point of impact. It also destroyed the right front tire, so the rim dug parallel furrows into the street leading from where I ended up back to where the accident happened in my lane.
* If you ever have the opportunity to read an insurance company transcript of yourself, avoid it if possible. They note every dumb "uh" and "um" you utter.
- If you ever have the opportunity to read an insurance company transcript of yourself, avoid it if possible. They note every dumb "uh" and "um" you utter.
you only read it, imagine being the one that transcribed it. verbatim transcription is absolutely brutal to do.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Oh, man. I'd love to see him on the witness stand. Especially if it's in the UK and the judge wears one of those funny wigs.
Unfortunately the case is being heard in Miami, Florida.
... because under UK (English) law you can only claim damages for actual harm which is basically zero.
Its because libel cases need to be brought within 1 year of publication.
That is true but trump had several months of complaining about it when he could have bought a claim but didn't. In any case there's no incentive to claim in UK because there would be nothing to win, except he might get his legal fees back (but even that isn't guaranteed).
load more comments
(5 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
The porn i didn't want to watch "Trump f*cked by bbc"
Pretty please make it publically available
Now another round of appeals to push this out another year
Livestream when?
view more: next ›