Trump is so desperate to keep his finances under wraps that he seeks permission in defamation lawsuit against BBC to revise complaint to take his financial issues out of play -- WTH

(Feminist News, Facebook)

U.S. news outlets have been packed in recent days with reports about the corruption, incompetence, and ignorance that have come to permeate the second Donald Trump administration. It's as if the Trumpers are racing to prove they are the most inept governing outfit in our nation's history -- maybe any nation's history. In fact, the Trump Bunch probably can dispense with their "Amazing Race" to the bottom because most rational Americans already seem convinced that they comprise the filthiest, dirtiest White House (what's left of it) our country has ever seen. 

Let's consider evidence from just the past few days. Exhibit A: We had the unlawful arrest of a former U.S. Olympian for the "crime" of dipping his hand into the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, out of curiosity, to see what a piece of a partially detached liner felt like. The president still is claiming the pool was "vandalized," even though his own Department of Justice filed court documents showing shoddy workmanship, by a contractor Trump himself hired, caused any damage -- including photographic evidence that said damage occurred before David "Davy" Hearn arrived on the scene.

Exhibit B: We had Trump's lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service, in which a group of 35 former federal judges moved the court to reopen the case and accused Todd Blanche, Trump's choice to be the next attorney general of the United States, of committing a "fraud on the court." The presiding judge called the lawsuit a "sham . . . designed to fleece taxpayers."

One week ago, those two cases rested atop my chart of the worst depradations of the Trump2 term. But we have a new item racing toward the top of our "Casey Kasem American Top 40 Countdown," and I see it taking over the No. 1 position soon.

It is Exhibit C, and it involves a defamation lawsuit Trump filed against the BBC. In an example of "turnabout is fair play -- and also a be-atch," we now have the president's lawyers begging a judge to block discovery of Trump's financial documents -- in a case Trump himself filed; he's the plaintiff. That should cause every American to summon his or her "inner Gladys Kravitz" and ask, "Gee, I wonder why the president doesn't want his finances to have a public airing? What possibly could be in those documents?"

For the latest on the Trump-BBC case we turn to the UK Guardian, where Marina Dunbar reports under the headline "US federal judge halts order for Trump to turn over financial records to BBC. Also included is a sub-header that reads "Judge issues temporary pause while he considers Trump's request to revise his libel lawsuit against BBC." In so many words, that sub-head is telling us that Trump wants his lawyers to rewrite the complaint he filed in order to take any issues regarding his finances out of play." If Alice Pearce, the actress who portrayed Gladys Kravitz, were still alive, that surely would raise her character's eyebrows into the permanent "locked and loaded' position. 

Lawsuits generally are not known for producing humor, but here we have a well-heeled litigant, and his well-compensated lawyers, who could not foresee a defendant responding to their complaint by essentially saying, "Mr. Trump, you claim billions of dollars in damages, so turn over the financial documents that prove you were harmed to that extent." That Team Trump could not see that one coming is a courthouse knee-slapper for the ages." Let's check out The Guardian's reporting on this nutty case:

A federal judge has temporarily halted an order requiring Donald Trump to turn over detailed financial information about his business empire to the BBC as part of an ongoing libel lawsuit.

US district judge Roy Altman (Southern District of Florida) issued the temporary pause while he considers Trump’s request to revise and narrow parts of his lawsuit against the BBC over a 2024 documentary that aired in the UK.

Trump’s legal team sought to stop the discovery order that would have given the BBC access to the president’s financial records in the multibillion-dollar case.

What is the gist of Trump's argument in the case -- assuming he and his lawyers can even put it into words? Dunbar supplies this answer:

Trump has argued the BBC’s 2024 documentary about the January 6 attack harmed his business interests. Last month, a Miami-based judge ruled that Trump would have to begin producing extensive financial records by 6 August, including information covering the hundreds of businesses held by the Trump family trust.

On Wednesday, Trump’s attorneys asked the court to temporarily suspend that order, arguing the BBC had demanded a “shockingly broad amount of information based on clearly political motivations.”

Here is a memo for Trump's legal team: When you file a flimsy lawsuit against a prominent media organization -- or any individual or entity, for that matter -- they are entitled to demand that you turn over information to help them defend the case. It's called discovery; it's how U.S. courts work. If Trump's attorneys don't know that, they should return to some legit law school immediately -- because they must have received their law degrees off a cereal box the first time. (By the way, for Trump to claim BBC acted with "political motivations is too rich for words. The network's legal team must still be howling over that one.) Let's return to The Guardian's reporting: 

In a four-page order signed on Wednesday and released on Thursday, Altman said Trump’s effort to remove his claims that the documentary damaged his brand and businesses could reduce the BBC’s need to obtain his financial records. Trump’s lawyers are seeking to narrow the claim to alleged reputational harm.

The BBC has argued that Trump’s business value remains relevant because his public reputation was closely linked to his success as a businessman.

The broadcaster’s lawyers also pointed out that Trump’s proposed amended complaint, which has not yet been made public, still seeks $10bn in damages. They contend that amount would be difficult to support if the case was based only on reputational harm.

At the center of the lawsuit is a scene from the BBC documentary Trump: A Second Chance, which edited together portions of Trump’s 6 January 2021 speech in a way that made it appear he directly encouraged supporters to attack the US Capitol. The BBC has apologized for the edit but maintains the defamation allegations lack merit.

Trump, it turns out, has spent a sizable chunk of his second term filing dubious defamation lawsuits against media organizations. Trump, along with his Republican boosters, clearly has no interest in governing, so maybe these lawsuits are needed to occupy his time (and what's left of his mind) -- a hobby, of sorts. Dunbar writes:

The lawsuit is part of a series of legal actions Trump has launched against media organizations over coverage he says is defamatory or unfair.

In a separate case, Trump’s attorneys argued that his $10bn defamation lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal should proceed to trial after the newspaper reported on a “bawdy” letter the president was said to have contributed to a birthday book for Jeffrey Epstein in 2003.

Trump’s justice department also issued subpoenas to New York Times journalists following the newspaper’s reporting on security concerns involving the Air Force One presidential aircraft before later withdrawing those subpoenas.

The BBC case raises a host of issues that neither Trump, nor his lawyers, apparently considered before filing the case. That makes it a particularly egregious waste of public resources -- especially for a president who once promised to fight "fraud, waste and abuse." We will take a look at those issues in an upcoming post. Please stay with us.