Politics
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 316 comments are related to the topic:
DONT MESS WITH DONALD
DONT MESS WITH DONALD
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 316
|
By:
It's all about providing value.
|
|
By:
He's pardoned quite a few pdfiles.
I feel sorry for that 9yo girl, Trump pardoned her abuser after just 6 month in prison. |
|
By:
No one was pardoned by Trump for pdf crimes and he only pardoned JSixers for J6 offences, not for any subsequent offences. Why do lefties have to lie all the time? If Trump was as bad as they make out he is the truth would be enough.
|
|
By:
The wives and families of the cops killed on J6 must feel utterly betrayed when POTUS pardoned their killers.
|
|
By:
Except no cops were killed on J6.
|
|
By:
Well it seems if you want an early look at his truth social
reports DJT will charge you $100k a month Who wants to read his lunatic ravings?  |
|
By:
Hmmm, possibly some of the 78 million people who voted for him?
|
|
By:
Donald Trump threatens to sue BBC for $1 BILLION over doctored Panorama speech as he demands a 'full and fair retraction' of documentary and other 'false and defamatory' statements
Hope no one on here pays for their T V Licence ! This has predictably backfired spectacularly for trump, with the bbc seeking all his financial accounts to disprove his claim to have suffered losses and all material related to his conduct before and after the speech to disprove his claim that the documentary falsely presented him. |
|
By:
How do I know he wouldn't have made 10X the profits if not for the BBC lies? Could be a solid argument.
|
|
By:
The Trump crypto will be worth next to nothing before he goes into the wilderness and before court cases against him begin in earnest. Does anyone here have a holding? Do the wise thing...
|
|
By:
Ronaldmcdonald • July 25, 2026 12:30 PM BST
How do I know he wouldn't have made 10X the profits if not for the BBC lies? Could be a solid argument. lol that's exactly why the bbc are seeking all his financial records. And the other info to prove that they weren't lies. And then when the case gets dismissed for lack of jurisdiction the beeb can publish all the financial records and Jan 20th records it obtains. |
|
By:
and the fact that the 'impartial' BBC put out doctored video footage doesn't concern you at all?
|
|
By:
Sounds like desperation to me and quite pointless. It's impossible to prove he made more, less or the same profit than he would have made without the BBC lies, it can only be based on an estimate. How would proving that he made a profit prove the profits still didn't suffer yugely because of the BBC's dishonesty? It's a nonsense argument.
|
|
By:
It wasn't doctored, it wasn't libelous, and it didn't do any damage to him at all.
Trump can always testify about what he did and didn't do in the days surrounding J6, he can always testify about any damage that video caused. But he won't, you know it, everyone knows. |
|
By:
|
|
By:
Escapee 25 Jul 26 13:48
It wasn't doctored |
|
By:
Of course he has a case, hopefully this will finish the BBC. Why anyone would take the side of the BBC, who covered up for Savile, Harris and Hall for 40 years is beyond me. Lefties are bonkers. They would still be covering it up now if they could get away with it.
|
|
By:
Yep, until he testifies what he actually said, it wasn't doctored.
you can scweam and scream about his innocense, just like mandy, andy, starmer et al, But everyone knows it's all bluster and BS, if he was legally wronged he can testify in court. He won't, he knows it wasn't doctored. |
|
By:
|
|
By:
No one in the Florida saw the footage unless they used an obscure vpn (bbc blocks vpns on i-player) and provided false details to breach copyright. So Florida has no jurisdiction.
The "editing" merely involved truncation of the speech and it's arguable whether that gave a misleading impression. Hence the discovery request for relevant Jan 20th documents. yes escapee the clown excelling himself: It's impossible to prove he made more, less or the same profit than he would have made without the BBC lies Of course he has a case |
|
By:
The editing gave a completely false narrative, that was it's intention. To deceive through manipulation.
The BBC are not impartial and dont deserve licence payers funding and should be become self funding to help restore media parity in uk. The apology is in effect an admission of guilt and they should pay dearly. |
|
By:
Their intention was to use the 'we didn't edit to mislead' defence.
They've had to abandon that, hence the new defence route. |
|
By:
utter nonsense.
They have made zero pronouncements about defence. They asked for the case to be dismissed because the court had no jurisdiction as no one in Florida could legally view the documentary. The judge said it was too early for these arguments. bbc then proceeded to discovery. Trump said his business interests were damaged in the suit. So bbc have asked for the relevant business records. the bbc have also asked for details of trump's activities on the day of the riot as they are clearly relevant to trumps claims that the edit damaged him. This case won't go to trial. trump will do his usual stalling by appeals against the discovery motions and when he loses he will drop the case rather than provide info far more damaging than anything in a documentary shown 1000s of miles away. |
|
By:
All those words will not convince me, they know they are guilty and would lose if they simply denied malicious editing.
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
His case is performative virtue signalling without any *substance, and look how many of you have fallen for it hook, line and sinker.
*Substance: as in evidence he, as plaintiff, must provide to the court prior to the hearing. He's going to bluster and fuddle, you're going to scweam and scweam, we're going to laugh. |
|
By:
#goBBC, #WinItForUK
You...Kay...You...Kay...You...Kay...You...Kay...You...Kay... Go BBC, Win it for the UK. Look at all the fake UK patriot refuk roundabout painters ITT... all on America's side. #goBBC, #WinItForUK shout it with me lads, You...Kay...You...Kay...You...Kay...You...Kay...You...Kay... |
|
By:
Oh dear, you've got the illness bad.
|
|
By:
Note that I never said it's impossible to meet the legal standard of "reasonable certainty".
|
|
By:
If for example Mar-a-Lago normally turned over $75 million, financial experts expected it to increase to $100 million and it only went up to $94 million, where did that extra $6 million go? Hence the lawsuit with the BBC.
|
|
By:
magaloons desperately holding on to the absurd belief that their cult leader will hand his financial records to the court to be examined.
Has he ever handed his financial records over to be publicly cross examined before? |
|
By:
Leftie cultists still clinging to the absurd belief the most investigated and leaked man in history fears more information getting out. He couldn't even trust the IRS not to leak his records.
|
|
By:
It's impossible to prove he made more, less or the same profit than he would have made without the BBC lies
If for example Mar-a-Lago normally turned over $75 million, financial experts expected it to increase to $100 million and it only went up to $94 million, where did that extra $6 million go? Hence the lawsuit with the BBC. clown still not getting the point. trump is refusing so far to provide the financial information, under discovery, that would support his case. saddo they know they are guilty not capable of understanding that "guilt" is a non-existent concept in civil cases. |
|
By:
You clearly care far more than I. It will cost them a fortune regardless of the result,
it couldn't happen to a more deserving bunch.  |
|
By:
|
|
By:
When the jury found in favour of EJC did they know she lied about her legal funding? And what else did she lie about? With no evidence and no witnesses the jury took her whole fishy story in good faith based on her word against his and then she turns out to be a perjurer. If I was one of those jurors I would be furious about being misled by EJC. She was asked if Reed Hoffman funded her multi-million dollar legal team and she said no - a blatant lie and something the jury needed to know about. Wouldn't you have wanted to know that? If the jury had known there was a political motive by the same guy who funded Kamala's campaign they would have come to a very different verdict.
|
|
By:
Bad week for DJT
Approval rating of just 32% Perhaps he needs to reflect in the pools!!! |