Trump's billion dollar battle with the BBC - what's at stake

0:02Jon Sopel:This is a Global Player original podcast. Are you going ahead and suing the BBC? Well, I guess I have to, you know, why not? Because they defrauded the public and they've admitted it and they're top echelon. Director General and the CEO. This is within one of our great allies, you know, this is our supposedly great ally, BBC. The government has a chunk of that one, I guess. But that's a pretty sad event. They actually changed my January 6th speech, which was a beautiful speech, which was a very calming speech. And they made it sound radical and they actually changed it. What they did was rather incredible.

0:41Jon Sopel:They're showing me the results later on, the results of what they did, how they butchered it up. But it was very dishonest and the head man quit.

0:48Andrew Weissmann:We are living in parallel worlds here. But that is Donald Trump speaking to Laura Ingraham on Fox News, saying that he has, in his words, an obligation to sue the BBC over the editing of his perfect speech.

1:04Jon Sopel:We know that US media have been fast in this second term to bend the knee and to make accommodations with Donald Trump and to sue for peace. But is Donald Trump, by going after the BBC, globalising his attacks on the free press, with others like him watching on admiringly? Welcome to News Agents USA. The News Agents USA with Emily Maitlis and John Sopel. It's John. It's Emily. And Donald Trump has seen an open goal. And when he sees an open goal, he goes for it. he pushed the ball in the back of the net or if we're using an American metaphor you know if there is no defense he runs to the end line and scores the touchdown and that is what he's done with the BBC in its kind of appallingly slow response to the leak of information about the editing of this panorama clip and what it's done for Donald Trump is two things and I think we should sort of try and disentangle both one is it has strengthened his attacks on the media and his ability to kind of intimidate and to bully which is what we've seen in the US media but it's sort of what better way to do it than to attack the biggest global brand in news media than the BBC but the other part of this is the kind of steady rewriting of history about what unfolded on January the 6th.

2:36Jon Sopel:And we heard Donald Trump in that clip of the interview there talking about just how perfect that speech was on January the 6th.

2:44Andrew Weissmann:So let's just try and untangle this, starting with where the BBC is on this. The BBC has apologised for the edit, concluding that it gave the impression that President Trump had made a direct call for violent action. And many would say that that explanation, that retraction hasn't come soon enough. But the US president has accused the broadcaster of having defrauded the public with that edition of Panorama. There are lots of questions swirling around this idea that the public were defrauded, not least how many of the public in America would have ever seen Panorama go out, whether it would have been shown in America.

3:22Andrew Weissmann:And I guess the bigger question is, could you say that the public were defrauded about something that they would have seen four years after the event itself. And it's probably worth bringing in a piece that the Bulwark have done on the AI tool. Trump's Truth Social is asked the question directly. Did people storm the US Capitol on January the 6th, 2021 because of Donald Trump? This is the Truth Search AI. Yes. multiple official and contemporaneous records attribute the January the 6th 2021 capital breach to a pro-Trump crowd mobilized around his full selection fraud claims and pressure campaign to stop certification.

4:10Andrew Weissmann:So I think it's just worth dividing out those two things. One which is did the BBC unnecessarily slide together two bits of a speech that they shouldn't have done and give the impression in one sentence that he was directing people to go to the Capitol to fight. Yes, they did. Did Trump also encourage people right the way back through many, many weeks, along with people like Rudy Giuliani, the election denying force around him to fight to overturn the election of Joe Biden? Yes, he did. And so to John's point, I think that's absolutely clear that this is becoming something of a whitewashing exercise for Trump.

4:54Andrew Weissmann:He can go after the money. He can threaten the BBC, as he has done to multiple organisations in the US. But he can also rewrite and gently round the corners of what happened that fateful day on January the 6th, which was, let's not forget, the culmination of his election denying in the weeks and months ahead.

5:15Jon Sopel:Yeah. And that sort of process has been going on aplenty for a start. You know, most of the people that were involved in the January the 6th attempted insurrection have been pardoned by Donald Trump and a number more who were involved. You know, you talked about Rudy Giuliani pardoned this week. Sidney Powell, the lawyer, pardoned this week. And so it goes on that Donald Trump thinks that January 6th was nothing to make that go away. Donald Trump wants you to come away with the view that on January the 6th, a lot of really peace loving, decent Democrats, small d, who wanted to uphold the rule of law, went to the Capitol with good intent and were just trying to protest peacefully about the stealing of an election by Joe Biden.

6:04Jon Sopel:I'm sorry, there is no evidence at all that Joe Biden stole the election. He won the election. Donald Trump won in 2016. Joe Biden won in 2020. Donald Trump won in 2024. There is nothing to back up these calls. But Donald Trump is rewriting history and it extends to civil society as well, where the Smithsonian, the great museums in Washington were told to remove an exhibit about protests in America and insurrection, which had a whole lot on what happened on january the 6th and of course that has to go because it doesn't has it gone yeah it doesn't conform with donald trump's view of what the events were now the smithsonian said there was some bad signposting on it or whatever but it went and you just think wow so what we are doing is rewriting the history books the repository of truth yeah exactly and so So, you know, and what the BBC has done is assist that process by this idiotic edit that took place and has allowed Donald Trump to go after the BBC.

7:10Jon Sopel:And what the BBC does now face with this kind of, you know, threat of litigation, a billion dollar suit is remains unclear to me. I think the BBC has to fight it. But I mean, whether it will or not is another matter.

7:22Andrew Weissmann:Yeah, just to put this in context for our US listeners, a billion dollars, a billion pounds, let's say, is about a third of the BBC's overall budget. If that ever came to pass, that would be the end of the BBC. The BBC, frankly, cannot afford to give up a third of its income to a billionaire president. But even if it was a much, much smaller sum, it is still incredibly sensitive because you are asking taxpayers, you and me, to fund the pocket of the president. And for the BBC to be doing that, A, it would have to acknowledge that it felt that it was right to be settling. And B, your point, it is then contributing to the overall narrative, I think, that Donald Trump was never wrong about this election denialism.

8:11Andrew Weissmann:Now, maybe they in the BBC's mind, maybe they are two different things. But in the president's mind, there will not be two different things. There will be one and it will be the retelling of what happened on January the 6th.

8:20Jon Sopel:And Donald Trump framing it as the BBC as part of the government. And a lot of organisations, big corporations in America, think they can't get their head around the licence fee. And so they do think that the BBC is a government organisation. It has a royal charter. It's the government essentially that appoints the chairman of the BBC. So the government does have a role in it. The British government, which at various times, and I'm talking not about the Labour government, I'm talking about all governments since the BBC was formed have at various times wanted to shape the output and affect the news output of the BBC.

8:55Jon Sopel:I have never seen a government so happy to talk about the editorial independence of the BBC. This is nothing to do with us. This is not our fight with Donald Trump. We're not going to go anywhere near it. So hands off. So hands off. You make the decisions. You make this decision. Please don't make me have to get involved in this. And Keir Starmer in the House of Commons today was kind of asked about what, you know, what about Donald Trump? And are you going to push back and you're going to tell Donald Trump to get lost? Keir Starmer was just running a mile from it because this government doesn't want to pick a fight with Donald Trump.

9:32Jon Sopel:BBC, you're on your own here. Don't ask us for help. but what has happened with the bbc has seeped into american public life you know it's not just donald trump who's going on about it there is this little known podcaster um called joe rogan

9:49Emily Maitlis:who's rounded on the bbc as well the the clearest like indication of how how that woke shit was

9:58Jon Sopel:rotting people's brains and is still still is still but just less you know what i mean it was It was like it was on the March then and they all felt like they had to go along with it And so it by any means necessary we must make sure that you know

10:12Emily Maitlis:So they decided to paint a different version of what he said and they're fucked now. They're fucked BBC 60 minutes did it with the Kamala Harris Interview but they did it the other way they made it look like she had a good answer Which is like it's so crazy like you guys are supposed to be the news you're not supposed to be the propaganda arm

10:32Jon Sopel:of whatever party you support this is nuts this is fucking nuts and BBC is always like the one you quote when you want to seem smart I was watching this thing on the BBC oh dude, you watch the BBC you must be fucking smart

10:50Andrew Weissmann:I love his British accent

10:52Jon Sopel:I mean, was that British? I think it was British it was someone who was trying to sound sophisticated because if you watch the BBC of course you are incredibly sophisticated but i mean look the impact this has now is that i mean my successor in washington sarah smith for the bbc is saying she doesn't know whether the bbc will in future be allowed to go to you know kind of the oval office or the oval office or be on air force one as part of the reporting team you know so the bbc could get banished because of this this This is big stuff and it makes any foreign broadcaster. And let's face it, the foreign broadcasters don't have a dog in the fight.

11:32Jon Sopel:They want to hold power to account.

11:35Andrew Weissmann:And they're being intimidated. Yeah. And maybe we can play this clip from GB News last night where Trump's lawyer appears on and is asked directly what Trump's view is of both the BBC and GB News. So as ever, there are vested interests here trying to get the president on side.

11:54Jon Sopel:It was, of course, once known and respected worldwide as a renowned media source, a trusted source of truth. Some may argue that's changed over recent years. Would the president have any issue with potentially bringing down the BBC in that manner? I can't speak for the president as to what his feelings would be with regard to that. But I can know two things.

12:16Emily Maitlis:Number one, decisions have consequences. And the act of the BBC was an intentional one. And there are consequences to that. Has he mentioned GB News as well?

12:26Jon Sopel:He has. And I know he's fond of GB News. And I think he appreciates the treatment that he receives on GB News.

12:32Andrew Weissmann:So you've got those who feel that they are now in favour with the president, exploiting this for everything they can. And you have a lot of other journalists, and I don't think it will be just in the UK, but it will be around the world now thinking, do we have to alter how we cover what he does next?

12:48Jon Sopel:Yeah, I love the idea that the guy says, God, how much do you love us? How much do you... A bit more... No, go on. Just spell it out. Just spell it out. Is it just me? When the president's watching the lecture? Oh, fantastic.

13:00Andrew Weissmann:I mean, GB News, as we know, is just starting up in the US, right? So there is every reason why they want to get the president on side at this point and become the primary, you know, the sort of... Look, they're going to be... The Fox News of the UK. Yes, exactly.

13:14Jon Sopel:Or the Newsmax. Or the Newsmax. Or the friendly one. Yeah, exactly. The friendly one. And they're positioning themselves very well. And, you know, GB News is doing it very effectively. And that is why, you know, the GB News audience, I suspect Samir Shah and Tim Davey weren't watching GB News last night when that interview aired. But I think that they are very aware that, you know, GB News really matters now and is really an influential voice on the right in British public life. And that is what GB News has succeeded in doing.

13:46Andrew Weissmann:We'll be back in a moment.

14:00Jon Sopel:The News Agents USA. Well, the BBC has a barrel load of legal problems right now as a result of that panorama and Donald Trump's threatening to sue. And we're joined in the studio now by Andrew Wiseman, who, US attorney, former FBI general counsel, was deputy to Robert Mueller. I want to come to the BBC bit first of all. And Donald Trump is saying, I want to sue in Florida. Why?

14:26Emily Maitlis:So if you followed the case where Jack Smith was bringing a criminal indictment with respect to classified documents that were being held at Mar-a-Laco. Exactly. That case was brought by Jack Smith in Florida because that was sort of where the venue was. But there is a judge there who is extremely favorable to Donald Trump and who Donald Trump has repeatedly called out and praised. she issued a series of rulings that were very controversial. She was reversed twice by the higher court overseeing her for ruling in Donald Trump's favor in ways that were really, as the court found, inappropriate. So Florida is viewed as, I think, by Donald Trump as a place where he could get both a very favorable judge and perhaps a favorable jury.

15:24Emily Maitlis:And that's why you see what's called in the United States sort of forum shopping and judge shopping, something that shouldn't happen. But that to me would be the reason that he would seek to bring a case in Florida. That being said, I think he's going to want to have British law apply if he brings this suit to say to the Florida court, you should apply the law of England, not United States law. Can you do that?

15:53Andrew Weissmann:I mean, what does that mean?

15:54Emily Maitlis:So it is possible, this is not my area of expertise, but it is possible to, when you go to court, to say you should apply the law of a different jurisdiction and that should govern. And the reason to do that is that American law sets very high thresholds for somebody who's in the public eye, like Donald Trump, to be able to win that kind of defamation suit. My understanding of British law, again, I'm an American lawyer, not a British lawyer, is that it is more receptive to those kinds of lawsuits by public figures.

16:29Andrew Weissmann:If this came to trial in Florida, in the US, as a defamation suit, could he win?

16:36Emily Maitlis:He could win. I do think that it is worth noting that even if he could establish liability, and my understanding from reading the newspapers here in England is that there was an error made and that the BBC, I think quite honorably, is recognizing it. But that's not the end of the equation. One of the things that has to be determined is whether it was intentional or not. But even more than that, what are the damages? And I think that is an area where I would think that Donald Trump might have a very hard time in any jurisdiction establishing that just because of the splicing of what he said at the ellipse on January 6th, showing that that actually caused somebody to change their views of Donald Trump in any material way.