On Tuesday, a federal judge ruled that President Donald Trump must surrender detailed financial documents relating to his defamation lawsuit against the BBC. According to Politico, “U.S. Magistrate Judge Enjoliqué Lett concluded that Trump’s sweeping complaint put injury to his businesses at the forefront and made their vitality a fair subject for the BBC to demand information about.”
Read more Trump biographer decodes ‘goblin’ president’s worldview
“All of President Trump’s brand, properties and businesses are impugned or said to have been impugned. Reputational, economic damages, all of that is now at issue in this case,” Lett said at the conclusion of a three-hour hearing. As Politico reports, “Her decision opened the door for the BBC to explore the finances of more than 400 companies owned by a Trump family trust, but Trump can appeal the ruling to U.S. District Court Judge Roy Altman, a Trump appointee.” Trump’s attorney declined to comment on whether or not the president would appeal.
“Trump’s lawyers had tried to head off the ruling by backing away from some of his initial damage claims, giving up on assertions that the 2024 BBC documentary had caused him economic injuries and diminished the value of his companies,” explains Politico. “Brito told Lett the president’s approach to the case has ‘evolved’ and he is now pursuing only damage to his reputation — not his businesses — as a result of how the BBC spliced together portions of Trump’s Jan. 6, 2021 speech. Trump contends that the edit made it sound like he called for violence when he did not.”
Brito told the court, “The damages are limited in a way that is different from when the case was originally filed. Even if there has been a harm to the brand, we are not pursuing that as part of our damages….It’s a far more narrow scope of what this case is about.”
Read more Ty Cobb warns of $2 billion Trump ‘scam’ as he tears apart enabler Todd Blanche
In the end, the judge declared that she “lacked the power” to drop the business element from the complaint. As Politico notes, “The hearing could serve as a reminder to Trump that the headline-grabbing lawsuits he’s fond of filing against media outlets are a two-way street, giving the press added leverage to pry into his business dealings and controversial episodes he might prefer to consign to history.”
This comes as one of several legal setbacks that have hit Trump recently. In June, Trump’s lawsuit against the BBC received a major “bench slap” when a judge censured his legal team for missing a deadline. In April, a judge threw out his lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal, calling it “groundless.” And last year, yet another suit, this one against CNN, was dismissed as “meritless.”
Trump has also encountered legal troubles beyond these attacks on the First Amendment. Last week, a judge issued yet another slap down of Trump’s “slush fund” for J6ers. The following day, a judge warned Trump’s attorneys for using fake citations generated by AI. At the same time, his case against an Olympian charged with vandalizing the Reflecting Pool appeared to implode due to contradictory evidence submitted by White House lawyers.
Read more ‘Aren’t buying the ruse’: Irony as voters blame Trump for issue that sunk Biden
