The president’s lawyer sent the threat to the BBC over the way a documentary edited his Jan. 6, 2021, speech before a mob of his followers stormed the U.S. Capitol.

Trump’s history of suing news media companies — sometimes winning multimillion-dollar settlements — is part of a long-running grievance against the industry he describes as “fake news” that has often focused a critical eye on his actions.

But Trump faces fundamental challenges to getting a case to court, never mind taking it to trial. He would also have to deal with the harsh glare of publicity around his provocative pep talk the day Congress was voting to certify President-elect Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 election that Trump falsely alleged was stolen from him.

“If he sues, he opens a Pandora’s box and inside is every damning quote he’s ever uttered about the ‘steal,’” said attorney Mark Stephens, an international media lawyer who practices in the U.S. and U.K.

The BBC documentary

The BBC’s “Panorama” series aired the hourlong documentary titled “Trump: A Second Chance?” days before the 2024 U.S. presidential election.

The third-party production company that made the film spliced together three quotes from two sections of the 2021 speech, delivered almost an hour apart, into what appeared to be one quote in which Trump urged supporters to march with him and “fight like hell.” Among the parts cut out was a section where Trump said he wanted supporters to demonstrate peacefully.

BBC Chairman Samir Shah apologized Monday for the misleading edit that he said gave “the impression of a direct call for violent action.”

Director-General Tim Davie and news chief Deborah Turness quit Sunday over accusations of bias and misleading editing.

From to letter to lawsuit

A lawsuit in England is unlikely because the one-year deadline to bring one expired two weeks ago, experts said. If successful in overcoming that barrier, libel awards in the High Court rarely exceed 100,000 pounds ($132,000), experts said.

Trump could still bring a defamation claim in several U.S. states, and his lawyer cited Florida law in a letter to the BBC.

Filing a lawsuit and demanding money is one thing, but prevailing in court is much different. To succeed, Trump would have to clear many hurdles to get a case before a jury.

Before any of that could happen, Trump faces a more fundamental challenge: The BBC program was not aired in the U.S., and the BBC’s streaming service is also not available there. Americans could not have thought less of him because of a program they could not watch, Stephens said.

“The other ticklish problem for Trump’s lawyer was that Trump’s reputation was already pretty battered after Jan. 6,” he said. “Alleging ‘Panorama’ caused additional harm when your reputation is already in tatters … is a tough sell.”

Trump was impeached on a charge of inciting insurrection over the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol by some of his supporters, though he was acquitted by the Senate.

The demands

Trump’s lawyer Alejandro Brito threatened the BBC with a defamation lawsuit for “no less than” $1 billion. The letter spelled out the figure and used all nine zeros in numeric form.

The letter demanded an apology to the president and a “full and fair” retraction of the documentary along with other “false, defamatory, disparaging, misleading or inflammatory statements” about Trump.

It also said the president should be “appropriately” compensated for “overwhelming financial and reputational harm.”

The letter cites Florida’s defamation statute that requires a letter be sent to news organizations five days before any lawsuit can be filed.

If the BBC does not comply with the demands by 5 p.m. EST Friday, then Trump will enforce his legal rights, the letter said.

“The BBC is on notice,” it said.

Other media lawsuits

While many legal experts have dismissed the president’s claims against the media as having little chance of success, he has won some lucrative settlements against U.S. media companies.

In July, Paramount, which owns CBS, agreed to pay $16 million to settle a lawsuit filed by Trump over a “ 60 Minutes” interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris. Trump alleged that the interview was edited to enhance how Harris, the Democratic nominee for president in 2024, sounded.

That settlement came as the Trump-appointed head of the Federal Communications Commission launched an investigation that threatened to complicate Paramount’s need for administration approval to merge with Skydance Media.

Last year, ABC News said it would pay $15 million to settle a defamation lawsuit over anchor George Stephanopoulos ’ inaccurate on-air assertion that the president-elect had been found civilly liable for raping writer E. Jean Carroll. A jury found that he was liable for sexually abusing her. Trump asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday to throw out that finding.

Litigation threat could leverage payout

London lawyer David Allen Green dismissed the litigation letter for failing to spell out any actual harm Trump suffered. But he said Trump’s willingness to use lawsuits as a form of deal-making could leverage a payout because the edit was indefensible.

“Putting aside the theatrics of a bombastic letter with its senseless $1 billion claim, there is a power play here which Trump has done many times before,” Green said on The Law and Policy Blog. “The real mistake of the BBC (and the production company) was opening itself up to such a play of power.”

Stephens said if Trump were somehow to win billions from the BBC, it could crush the news organization that is mostly funded through a fee charged to all television owners in the U.K.

But he said that outcome was unlikely and the broadcaster should stand its ground. He recommended Trump take the public relations win and avoid the damage from revisiting the Jan. 6 events that would be dredged up at trial.

He said Trump was due an apology, which Shah offered, for the BBC not upholding high journalistic standards.

“The question is, ‘Did it cause harm in people’s minds?’” he said. “Because he was elected afterwards, it doesn’t appear it did.”

The post Trump’s $1 billion lawsuit threat casts shadow over the BBC, but it could also be a bluff appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Erik Scott Warner, 48, of Menifee; Felipe Antonio Martinez, 50; and Derek Kinnison, 42 — both of Lake Elsinore — along with Ronald Mele, 54, of Temecula were all convicted in November during a trial at U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., of conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding and obstruction of an official proceeding.

Warner and Kinnison were additionally convicted of tampering with documents.

All four were also found guilty of misdemeanor charges of entering a restricted building and disruptive conduct in a restricted building.

U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth sentenced Kinnison and Mele each to 33 months behind bars, while Martinez was ordered to serve a 21-month term, and Warner was sentenced to 27 months.

The judge also ordered the foursome to each pay $2,000 in restitution to the government and remain on parole for 36 months following their release.

Kinnison’s attorney, Nicolai Cocis of Murrieta, in November described his client as “a patriotic citizen who wanted to show his support for President Donald Trump, whom he believed was the rightful winner of the 2020 election.”

The attorney told City News Service at the time that Kinnison regretted “his involvement in the events of Jan. 6 at the Capitol.”

Federal prosecutors argued the four joined thousands who sought to disrupt proceedings at the Capitol, where Congress was preparing to certify the Electoral College vote recognizing President-elect Joe Biden as the winner of the 2020 presidential election.

They were part of a group called the “Three Percenters,” which has been described variously as a militia, political action organization and anti-government movement around since the 2000s. Some members draw parallels between themselves and the rebel forces opposing the British Empire during the War for American Independence.

The indictment stated the men coordinated via social media on logistics for their trip to the nation’s capital for the “Stop the Steal” rally announced by then-President Trump. Kinnison said in a Telegram post that they would be transporting “lots of gear, from medical kits, radios, multiple cans of bear spray, knives, flags, plates, goggles, helmets.”

He later posted a selfie with a bandolier of shotgun ammunition hung over his shoulders, according to court papers.

“It came out in the trial that my client took two handguns with him when he drove across the country,” Cocis said. “But those legally owned firearms never left his hotel room after they arrived in Washington.”

He said they were only taken for self-defense in case violence erupted after the rally.

The defendants joined streams of people who walked to the Capitol Building after Trump spoke on the Ellipse.

As the four approached the building in the early afternoon of Jan. 6, 2021, Kinnison shouted, “This is the storm of the Capitol,” as they moved through the crowd, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

Minutes later, Warner joined protesters ascending the northwest stairs to the Upper West Terrace. Then Martinez, Kinnison and Mele advanced on a police line on the northwest lawn, prosecutors said. Warner accessed the Capitol Building via a broken window, at which point Martinez, Kinnison and Mele went to the terrace in an attempt to rendezvous with him, but the defense said the trio ultimately elected not to enter the building.

All of the men were clad in ballistic vests and carrying gas masks and cans of bear spray, though none were accused of dispersing it.

Prosecutors said in the ensuing weeks, Warner and Kinnison deleted chats from their phones to conceal their involvement.

Kinnison, Martinez, Melee and Warner represent the last of the Riverside County residents sentenced for actions on Jan. 6.

In January 2023, 46-year-old Andrew Alan Hernandez of Jurupa Valley was sentenced to 18 months in federal prison after admitting a charge of aiding and abetting in the obstruction of an official proceeding. Security surveillance camera images from inside the halls of Congress showed him carrying an American flag with a Go-Pro camera attached to the pole and snapping selfies, alongside some others who appeared to be peaceful.

In October 2022, Rafael Valadez Jr., 44, of Indio admitted a misdemeanor count of picketing in the Capitol Building and was sentenced to 30 days behind bars. Valadez stood in front of a senator’s office, using his camera phone to video people going in and out. He left the building after 25 minutes, according to federal investigators.

In March 2022, Kevin Strong, 47, of Wildomar admitted the same offense and was sentenced to 24 months’ probation. Photos submitted to the court showed Strong following a crowd through the Statuary Hall corridor, where he took pictures, spoke to a group of police officers watching protesters, then left.

No other county residents were among the nearly 1,400 people charged nationwide in connection the breach.

The post 4 Riverside County men sentenced to federal prison for Jan. 6 Capitol riot appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.