A brief thread on Trump renewing his threat to sue the BBC. (Note I am not an American lawyer, this is perspective of an English legal commentator.) > The renewal was in response to a reporter's question, watch the exchange (on BBC!) here: bbc.co.uk As such, it was not in a further formal lawyer letter. Had he not been asked, he may not have said anything on it. His response appears improvised, including his "$1 to 5 bn" >
www.bbc.co.uk
His response on timing is also vague: "probably sometime next week". As such, nothing substantive has changed at his end: no further legal correspondence, no suit has been filed. Not even an exact new deadline. Just an off-the-cuff response to a reporter's question. But. > What he also sometimes says at times like this, but does not say here, is something like "my lawyers have told me I have a strong case [etc]". He does not refer to having had any further advice. So we don't know if he has actually spoken to his lawyers since the BBC reply. > Does this mean the BBC was wrong to apologise (without an admission of liability), as some other pundits aver? An emphatic no, in my view. > By accepting there was a mistake (even if over-stated by Trump), the BBC have made their position stronger if there is any litigation. The facts here are not good for BBC and they should not pretend a mistake was not made. > Trump cares nothing about weak legal cases, but he has a keen eye for weak institutions and their weak leadership. He believes he can bully BBC into further concessions. Sadly, he has a point. BBC is having one of its periodic crises, and is suffering an ongoing political and media kicking. > So what happens next? Trump has given an implicit extension to his deadline: until "probably sometime next week." There will be pressure on BBC bosses to make a further concession. Perhaps there will be panic, or political interference. This is what Trump is good at, a master of his craft. > What the BBC *should* do is await a formal response in reply to their letter. Or they should simply wait to be served with a law suit. And take local (ie US) law advice. Only then will they have the further information to make a rational decision on the merits of the case. > But litigation - especially when Trump is involved - is often not about rational decisions. It is high political theatre. Trump, in essence, is a reality TV star schooled in the dark arts of litigation-as-leverage by Roy Cohn en.wikipedia.org > As such, Trump knows how to game both the media *and* the legal process. This is not his first rodeo. So what happens if BBC bosses buckle and gives him a large compensation payment, regardless of the merits of the claim? Just to make it all go away. > On the face of it, the BBC has a general legal power to make payments even with meritless claims, if the BBC sincerely sees it as in their best interests. But. The BBC is also accountable to parliament and the National Audit Office. It may need to be able to justify any payment. > The BBC cannot simply do as it wishes with (what is in effect) licence payer's money. It may have to account for it politically. In certain circumstances, if there is bad faith or a collateral purpose, it could even by judicially reviewed in the courts. ie - the problem may not just go away. > So: law vs politics. Following a process or dealing with a disruption. There are no easy decisions here for BBC bosses. Trump can smell blood. And this is not his first bull fight. Let's see what happens next. /end for now, may add posts later. "Where were the handsome bulls and the handsome bull-fighters now? It appeared that even in Barcelona there were hardly any bullfights nowadays; for some reason all the best matadors were Fascists." George Orwell, Homage to Catalonia.