- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
Huh, I guess it’s TACO Thursday unfortunately.
You must log in or # to comment.
I hope BBC goes after him regardless. Bring it all out in the open on that loser rapist flesh rot
They’re almost certainly going to go after him for legal fees and his only defense would be that he believed there was actual harm which would also require release of his finances. He kinda fucked himself if they want to push it at all.
English law recognizes takebacksies, yes?
As long as the BBC didn’t say no takesiesbacksies.
If there is no detriment for the attempt, the legal system is a tool of aggression, not justice. A claimed was made and the investigation should be seen to it’s conclusion.
Well yeah. American justice system is just another tool for the rich to bully the poor into being quiet.
“They caused me financial harm!”
“Ok show us your financials so we can determine how much.”
“Oh… uh… you wanna see my totally legit financials?? Uhhh nevermind i take it back.”
He couldn’t handle BBC.
He just couldn’t grasp the BBC hard enough with his tiny ligitious hands.
He can’t handle anything because he’s a moron. He probably had a dozen people tell him this was a bad idea.
As usual, the primary intention was never necessarily to win, only to intimidate.
Big Bill Clinton?
No, we’re pretty sure he did grab him.
The telegraph is a Conservative Newspaper with a paywall. The Guardian is a more “centre left”/progressive newspaper (pro universal healthcare, facts matter etc) and it doesn’t have a paywall, it has a cancelable “please consider subscribing”.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/aug/06/trump-bbc-libel-lawsuit
It has a paywall tho
Sorry, I see that as a cookie wall, not a pay wall.
So yes, you have to accept cookies to read the article, but you don’t have to give them your credit card info, and American sites just set cookies anyway.
You should use a browser that lets you burn tabs’ cookies if you’re worried about it. (That’s what I do.) Alternatively get an ad blocker. My browser does its own ad blocking. It lets “sponsored” articles through, and similarly spoken ads included by the author in podcasts and videos but I don’t see Google’s ads on YouTube with it.
Browser fingerprinting is real and google and other advertisers track you whether you allow cookies or not.
Ha no. Fuck that, he don’t get taco out of this. Can BBC counter sue now? How do we get this discovery rolling?
BBC already filed a motion to oppose Trump’s filing.
The judge who gets to decide if motions stay or not was appointed by Trump during his first term.
A bunch of Trump appointed judges have ruled against him.
I’d put them as more lawful evil, and less likely to be fans of Trump’s chaotic evil.
A surprise to be sure, but a welcome one.
I mean some lawful neutral judges might have slipped past as well. Trump is incompetent if they aren’t actively doing good he may not realize they aren’t evil.
Oh, did the subpoenas suddenly get too real? Guess turning over his books on all his corruption schemes, I mean, businesses, wasn’t to his taste.
Ha! Cornered the POS.
What’s he hiding? Hmmm?
Very little legitimate income and lots of fraudulent income.
What? I didn’t know it was Taco Tuesday!
TACO Thursday! Close enough?
Edit: Woops! That’s the name of the post. My bad.
Yeah, i didn’t read the OP before commenting too. Oops.
Some people don’t read the articles before commenting, and here you two are taking it to the next level!
Hey listen, if drunk Lemmy commenting is wrong, I don’t wanna be right.
BBC1, BBC2, BBC3, BBC4, BBC5, BBC6, BBC7, BBC Heaven!
Ya… And?
Should he have business?
Pathetic loser. What an embarrassment.
rare bbc w
