He thought the BBC would roll over like when he sued ABC and they just paid him 15 million and apologized to him. Or when he sued CBS and they paid him 16 million. The issue is that BBC is funded from taxpayer money and I don’t think the British taxpayers would be very happy with them paying Trump.
ABC did that on purpose. They knew they could use the settlement as a disguised bribe to get preferential treatment from Trump. That was worth more than the legal battle that would drag on for years and net them nothing. He still hasn’t paid E. Jean Carroll. He certainly wouldn’t have paid out the ABC case.
What they did is the equivalent of paying a crooked cop. It’s textbook racketeering. “Pay me and we’ll protect you.” -every one of the 5 families.
ABC is owned by Disney, there’s an equally likely chance they were afraid Trump would retaliate by blocking a merger or something. I don’t know what merger it would have been, but it feels like there’s a pretty good chance Disney is trying to buy some other company at any given time.
He could have tried to get their license revoked, but would have lost the ensuing lawsuit on first amendment grounds. ABC was never at risk of losing their license. They willingly chose the bribe. A lawyer that just passed their BAR exam could have won that case.
but would have lost the ensuing lawsuit on first amendment grounds. ABC was never at risk of losing their license.
I don’t agree. They could revoke it and drag it through the courts, but it could take years. They also could make up any reason they wanted to distance itself from free speech rules.
They willingly chose the bribe.
I agree that the result is the same, but they saw the carrot AND the stick.
Also, as a foreign broadcaster the Trump-controlled FCC can’t threaten the BBC’s license. I think this is a factor in the US-based broadcasters rolling over.
It’s not quite tax payer money, we pay a licence fee to be able to watch live broadcast which funds the BBC (they also get a vast amount of money from licensing shows overseas). But your point is true that the public would be pissed if they just rolled over and paid without fighting Trump
Yep.
I’m a licence payer and not only would I be very upset if the BBC just paid the raging orange paedo, I also want to offer my services to fight that fat cunt.
I mean physically. I don’t have the money to win in court, however I’d be verrrrry happy to throw hands.
Very happy.
You have no way to gauge how happy I’d be to punch that useless pile of wobbling dementia riddled barrel of rape and corruption.
Have you seen his calves though? I’m not sure that a leg sweep is moving one of those. I suppose you might pop it instead which would still be interesting at least.
Goodness, this was brilliantly stated and I salute you. I think many would want to follow in your lead. An orderly line of eager participants, each wishing to have their turn, might be required.
He thought the BBC would roll over like when he sued ABC and they just paid him 15 million and apologized to him. Or when he sued CBS and they paid him 16 million. The issue is that BBC is funded from taxpayer money and I don’t think the British taxpayers would be very happy with them paying Trump.
ABC did that on purpose. They knew they could use the settlement as a disguised bribe to get preferential treatment from Trump. That was worth more than the legal battle that would drag on for years and net them nothing. He still hasn’t paid E. Jean Carroll. He certainly wouldn’t have paid out the ABC case.
What they did is the equivalent of paying a crooked cop. It’s textbook racketeering. “Pay me and we’ll protect you.” -every one of the 5 families.
ABC is owned by Disney, there’s an equally likely chance they were afraid Trump would retaliate by blocking a merger or something. I don’t know what merger it would have been, but it feels like there’s a pretty good chance Disney is trying to buy some other company at any given time.
Well yeah because Trump could get their license revoked.
He does not have that leverage with the bbc
He could have tried to get their license revoked, but would have lost the ensuing lawsuit on first amendment grounds. ABC was never at risk of losing their license. They willingly chose the bribe. A lawyer that just passed their BAR exam could have won that case.
I don’t agree. They could revoke it and drag it through the courts, but it could take years. They also could make up any reason they wanted to distance itself from free speech rules.
I agree that the result is the same, but they saw the carrot AND the stick.
Also, as a foreign broadcaster the Trump-controlled FCC can’t threaten the BBC’s license. I think this is a factor in the US-based broadcasters rolling over.
There’s also a stark difference between 15 mil and 10 bn
Don’t you mean the “land of the free”-based broadcasters? Lol
It’s not quite tax payer money, we pay a licence fee to be able to watch live broadcast which funds the BBC (they also get a vast amount of money from licensing shows overseas). But your point is true that the public would be pissed if they just rolled over and paid without fighting Trump
Yep.
I’m a licence payer and not only would I be very upset if the BBC just paid the raging orange paedo, I also want to offer my services to fight that fat cunt.
I mean physically. I don’t have the money to win in court, however I’d be verrrrry happy to throw hands.
Very happy.
You have no way to gauge how happy I’d be to punch that useless pile of wobbling dementia riddled barrel of rape and corruption.
Eh, he’s got some heft to him. You’re better off trying to sweep the leg.
Have you seen his calves though? I’m not sure that a leg sweep is moving one of those. I suppose you might pop it instead which would still be interesting at least.
Goodness, this was brilliantly stated and I salute you. I think many would want to follow in your lead. An orderly line of eager participants, each wishing to have their turn, might be required.