Is there a level to which he will not sink? Possibly not, though there are some directions he might not go in (like defecating on the tomb of the Unknown Soldier). I was trying to think of entries that might go on a 2026 Trump Bingo card.
At the mid-terms, I suspect he may choose not to recognise some elections and try to install representatives to Congress in their place that are vocal supporters of his.
The Executive Order of the Day: Trump declaring Fentanyl a weapon of mass destruction. In truth, Fentanyl can be a very effective pain killer for surgery ( They gave me Fentanyl when I had my last knee replacement. Such a small dose. No withdrawals at all. One and done, for me). But, for Trump, this will give him an excuse to attack Venezuela since he claims Venezuela is the source for illegal fentanyl--this has never been proven, though. By Trump's (il)logic, if Venezuela is supplying a weapon of mass destruction, then what is to prevent him from invading the country?
I also had Fentanyl for surgery. They have better stuff now that wears off quicker, but it was helpful at the time. Trump does not seem to need an excuse to do anything, really. He does it and comes up with some lame reason afterward.
And, now it is announced DJT is taking on BBC for $10 billion. Suit filed in Southern District Court of Florida, where Mar A Lago is. BBC is arguing jurisdiction.
And when the time comes, a variety of defenses can be asserted; the BBC isn’t limited to one defense.
But in a civil case, that the plaintiff is “mentally incompetent and not responsible for his actions” isn’t really likely to be a successful defense. Jurisdiction, on the other hand, is an obvious defense to raise.
Jurisdiction looks like a strong first card to play. If it's shown that no crime was committed in Florida (eg: because the Panorama programme was never shown in Florida) and the case dismissed it'll force Trump to find another jurisdiction where whatever prevented a suit in Florida doesn't hold (eg: if it's found that as the Panorama programme wasn't shown in Florida and thus Florida courts have no jurisdiction then Trump would need to find somewhere that the Panorama programme was shown), or quit.
If the jurisdiction card doesn't work then that's just the first battle down. There would be plenty of other cards to play, I'm sure the BBC bosses made sure they'd have a good case even if it's heard in Florida before deciding to fight.
Broadly put, the question for personal jurisdiction would be whether the BBC has “minimum contacts” with Florida/the Southern District of Florida to make the court’s exercise of jurisdiction over it reasonable and not a violation of due process. Another way to put it for a corporation is whether the corporation does sufficient business in Florida/the Southern District of Florida to make the possibility of being sued there reasonably foreseeable.
And, now it is announced DJT is taking on BBC for $10 billion. Suit filed in Southern District Court of Florida, where Mar A Lago is. BBC is arguing jurisdiction.
Separately he has claimed that they put words in his mouth, possibly using AI:
And when the time comes, a variety of defenses can be asserted; the BBC isn’t limited to one defense.
But in a civil case, that the plaintiff is “mentally incompetent and not responsible for his actions” isn’t really likely to be a successful defense. Jurisdiction, on the other hand, is an obvious defense to raise.
To clarify, the post wasn't intended to be a legal comment - I am not qualified to do that. Merely a personal expression that this greedy, corrupt, moral degenerate should be treated as what he is - a specimen of humanity at its lowest ebb. He reminds me of the Rev Ron Ferguson's definition of original sin: humankind in the raw.
Can we as licence payers do anything. The BBC is a public funded organisation. It is public money he is hoping to get, not business. The British public are not happy that our money is possibly being taken.
Can we as licence payers do anything. The BBC is a public funded organisation. It is public money he is hoping to get, not business. The British public are not happy that our money is possibly being taken.
I think that is what the Don is hoping for: the British public gets so incensed they would force Parlement to get the BBC to back down. DJT is an abject bully, The only way to deal with a bully is to stand up to him.
Judging by the comments from my acquaintance on the subject, Trump's threats against the BBC are likely to have the opposite effect. Outside the extremist bubble, Trump is very unpopular over here and his attack on the BBC is much more likely to boost support for it. Even my friends who disapprove of the BBC for being too right-wing are angry about this. In fact, people are asking why the government isn't doing more to support the BBC.
Whether or not the UK government should or could do more to support the BBC, they are, I think, mindful of the need to mollify and/or appease the Tangerine Tyrant, lest he unleash the full extent of his madness upon us.
It's worth remembering that media outlets have insurance against lawsuits. If Trump wins (and it's a big if) the people coughing up in the first instance will be the insurers, not licence payers.
Whether or not the UK government should or could do more to support the BBC, they are, I think, mindful of the need to mollify and/or appease the Tangerine Tyrant, lest he unleash the full extent of his madness upon us.
Not sure the full extent of his madness is going to be much worse. He's already broken the Atlantic Alliance, reneged on the US-UK trade deal and declared his intention to destroy European democracy, presumably because he only respects dictators.
Perhaps that means even more reason to appease him, or at least to stroke his enormous ego. I don't advocate that course, but governments have to be pragmatic...
A small ray of hope can be found in the fact that he will die, sooner rather than later.
Governments can appease by giving him some cheap, tacky trinket (say a medal "best 47th President of the US, ever") to distract him while his lawyers get trounced in court.
A good idea. Anything cheap and cheerful will do, however bigly and inappropriate - it will accompany him to the darkness of the grave, and will never be seen again.
It's worth remembering that media outlets have insurance against lawsuits. If Trump wins (and it's a big if) the people coughing up in the first instance will be the insurers, not licence payers.
It's worth remembering that media outlets have insurance against lawsuits. If Trump wins (and it's a big if) the people coughing up in the first instance will be the insurers, not licence payers.
But who’s paying for that insurance?
The UK public through the license fee, and oversees broadcasters buying BBC productions and rights, will have been paying the insurance for years (it will be part of the costs of running the BBC, as any well run and legally compliant business will have liability insurance). If the BBC loses, which it won't, then those insurance premiums may increase which will be a very small increase in the overall running costs of the BBC.
In other news, Jack Smith, the former special prosecutor under Garlund, testified before the House Judiciary Committee in a closed-door session today that he had an airtight case against Trump and his involvement in the Jan 6 incident. This is of note because the House Judiciary Committee is controlled by the Republicans and is chaired by one of Trump's major supporters, Jim Jordon. CNN report here
Problem is Jack Smith may now be referred for criminal prosecution himself if he refuses to answer any of the Judiciary Committee questions. I know Trump wants to go after him.
Well, he's now re-writing history by adding the 'achievements' of presidents past and present, containing demonstrably untrue statements and portraying himself in the best possible light and his opponents in the worst.
His narcissism is endless. The only thing I wonder about is whether he believes himself immortal or whether he has post mortem plans for further self-aggrandisement akin to Lenin and Kim Il-Sung.
His narcissism is endless. The only thing I wonder about is whether he believes himself immortal or whether he has post mortem plans for further self-aggrandisement akin to Lenin and Kim Il-Sung.
As part of an immigrant citizenship purge"An official with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services said it would prioritize “those who’ve unlawfully obtained U.S. citizenship.”" (New York Times). Bad enough for many, but much worse is the further announcement that they are setting monthly quotas, so the ICE thugs will be after anyone they can find to make their numbers. Due process seems not to play any part in this manhunt.
Comments
At the mid-terms, I suspect he may choose not to recognise some elections and try to install representatives to Congress in their place that are vocal supporters of his.
Some people already wonder if we are at war with it see: https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2025/12/12/the-us-is-already-at-war-with-venezuela
And when the time comes, a variety of defenses can be asserted; the BBC isn’t limited to one defense.
But in a civil case, that the plaintiff is “mentally incompetent and not responsible for his actions” isn’t really likely to be a successful defense. Jurisdiction, on the other hand, is an obvious defense to raise.
If the jurisdiction card doesn't work then that's just the first battle down. There would be plenty of other cards to play, I'm sure the BBC bosses made sure they'd have a good case even if it's heard in Florida before deciding to fight.
Broadly put, the question for personal jurisdiction would be whether the BBC has “minimum contacts” with Florida/the Southern District of Florida to make the court’s exercise of jurisdiction over it reasonable and not a violation of due process. Another way to put it for a corporation is whether the corporation does sufficient business in Florida/the Southern District of Florida to make the possibility of being sued there reasonably foreseeable.
Separately he has claimed that they put words in his mouth, possibly using AI:
https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3ma2iqfgs6g2w
To clarify, the post wasn't intended to be a legal comment - I am not qualified to do that. Merely a personal expression that this greedy, corrupt, moral degenerate should be treated as what he is - a specimen of humanity at its lowest ebb. He reminds me of the Rev Ron Ferguson's definition of original sin: humankind in the raw.
I think that is what the Don is hoping for: the British public gets so incensed they would force Parlement to get the BBC to back down. DJT is an abject bully, The only way to deal with a bully is to stand up to him.
Not sure the full extent of his madness is going to be much worse. He's already broken the Atlantic Alliance, reneged on the US-UK trade deal and declared his intention to destroy European democracy, presumably because he only respects dictators.
A small ray of hope can be found in the fact that he will die, sooner rather than later.
But who’s paying for that insurance?
Problem is Jack Smith may now be referred for criminal prosecution himself if he refuses to answer any of the Judiciary Committee questions. I know Trump wants to go after him.
Well, he's now re-writing history by adding the 'achievements' of presidents past and present, containing demonstrably untrue statements and portraying himself in the best possible light and his opponents in the worst.
His narcissism is endless. The only thing I wonder about is whether he believes himself immortal or whether he has post mortem plans for further self-aggrandisement akin to Lenin and Kim Il-Sung.
I bet he hopes for a biglier queue to view him lying in state than our late Queen had...