webodec3ARCHIVEPreview
Open in TheBrain

DEFAM 3

ESTB 12 25

NEED SEP NODES FOR LEGIT VS TRUMP LAWFARE?

SEE BBC FIGHT BACK 10 26

---

---

---

-=-=

an 10 26

The BBC is pulling out all of its big cards to defend itself against President Donald Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against the broadcasting company. Jack Smith, attorney and former special counsel for the United States Department of Justice, has been subpoenaed on their behalf. While Smith has not objected to the subpoena, Trump’s legal team has opposed it. Adam Klasfeld, editor-in-chief of All Rise News, shared the news in a post to X. The decision comes as the broadcast giant requested that a judge force Trump to sit for a deposition after he delayed being deposed several times, with Trump recently alleging he’s unable to sit for a deposition until early to mid January 2027.

The ruling notes, in part: “Plaintiff cannot seriously dispute the injustice of blocking Mr. Smith’s testimony. This Court has made it clear that the ‘Defendant is entitled to discover the contours of [Plaintiff’s] message’ in his Ellipse speech and the ‘impression that Plaintiff fomented violence,’ including, ‘whether that impression was given or received; if that impression was given or received; whether [Plaintiff] gave it intentionally or otherwise; the breadth of the audience of the message and impression; and the extent of any resulting injury or harm.'”

Trump remains in a legal battle with the BBC after he sued the company, accusing it of defamation and violating Florida's deceptive trade practices law over the BBC-produced documentary, Trump: A Second Chance. The documentary examines Trump’s political ascension ahead of his second term, as well as the fallout from the January 2021 U.S. Capitol attacks.

Those involved in creating the documentary acknowledge that two separate portions of one of Trump’s speeches, in which he seemingly encourages violence, were spliced together. In Trump’s lawsuit, he says the final edit depicts a false narrative.

BBC’s legal team says Trump has delayed the deposition on multiple occasions, and even recently canceled an agreed-upon date for his deposition. Trump’s reasoning for backing out is reportedly due to “matters of national importance.”

BBC lawyers said the initial proposed date for the deposition was for July, but they didn’t hear back until several follow-up requests until they settled on October 16.

In Trump’s filing to delay the deposition the last time around, BBC’s attorneys say they received a note saying, “Plaintiff’s counsel responded on September 28, 2026, indicating that ‘the President is no longer available for his deposition on October 16 due to other matters of national importance’ and that counsel would ‘endeavor to provide you with a replacement date by the end of this week.’ He did not.”

--=-=

---

RWW

04/20/2026

by

Kyle Mantyla

Kash Patel has alarmed colleagues with episodes of excessive drinking and unexplained absences.

The Atlantic reported that FBI personnel have expressed concerns about the director’s unexplained absences and excessive drinking. He sued a few days later.

---

an 4 26

President Donald Trump's $10 billion lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal, NewsCorp, Rupert Murdoch and others has been thrown out of court.

U.S. District Judge Darrin P. Gayles in Florida, an appointee from President Barack Obama, ruled that “Because President Trump has not plausibly alleged that defendants published the article with actual malice, both Counts must be dismissed."

The judge also said that Trump could file a new amended lawsuit if he wishes, but he only has until April 27 to do so.

Last year, the WSJ reported that there was a book celebrating trafficking Jeffrey Epstein's 50th birthday. In the book, Trump submitted a little skit of a conversation about "secrets" the two shared. It was within a drawing of a woman. Trump alleged it was false, but the page was revealed showing that the drawing did exist.

As an appellate lawyer, Gabriel Malor said, "Trump can replead."

Economist Teresa Fort commented, "There needs to be some penalty for bringing lawsuits that will be dismissed like this. There is a huge cost for defendants to deal with them."

A few people suggested that theWSJ sue Trump.

"Since most everything Trump does is illegal or a lie, fighting back pays off. He banks on the fact that his victims can’t afford to do so. Those who can, win," said Michael Curry.

"Stupid defamation lawsuits are a real threat to free speech. The story was true. It was well documented. And the President still managed to make a newspaper pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to report it," wrote lawyer Andrew Fleischman.

He explained that the WSJ was denied legal fees because Trump could still amend his complaint and suit.

"I am still surprised they did not raise the failure to give five days notice before suing, which has been successful in Florida federal district courts," said Fleischman.

He also recalled, "Republicans used to be all about tort reform. But many lack the stomach to support a federal anti-SLAPP to deter these stupid lawsuits until our litigant in chief shuffles off this mortal coil."

"In dismissing (without prejudice) Trump’s lawsuit vs WSJ over that Epstein birthday card, the judge shows why a reporter — asking someone for comment and quoting their response fully — is a smart legal, as well as ethical, thing to do," explained journalist Bill Grueskin.

"Yeah, tough to prove actual malice over a newspaper printing a real document you signed," quipped reporter David Weigel. "And lied about," added lawyer Scott Greenfield.

---

---

AN 3 26

On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Rossie Alston, Jr. decided he’d had enough of one former Trump official’s libel suit against an ex-aide and stomped his suit into the ground for good.

It was former Kennedy Center chief Richard Grenell second go-around in trying to sue ex-Mike Pence aide Olivia Troye over her claim that Grenell, while a former Acting Director of National Intelligence and a former United States Ambassador, had tried to arrange for former vice president Pence “to attend a white supremacist event while he was on an overseas trip.”

Troye further claimed Grenell “hung out with Nazis during his time serving as the Ambassador to Germany.”

Grenell claimed personal and economic damages in his libel suit, but judge Alston pointed out that Troye’s accusation of Nazi connections did nothing to hinder his career after President Donald Trump entered office.

“Plaintiff acknowledges that, since these remarks were posted, he has: (received private equity opportunities overseas, been named the Presidential Envoy for Special Missions, been named the Interim Director of the Kennedy Center, and joined the Board of Directors at [Fox News’] Live Nation,” Alston pointed out.

Acknowledging this, the judge dismissed the suit “with prejudice,” which effectively cans any further attempt by Grenell to sue Troye over the same accusations.

Troye, for her part, has never retracted her claim of Grenell’s Nazi connections.

Left Hook host, Wjahat Ali called Grenell’s suit “frivolous ... lawfare” on Wednesday and said Grenell had obviously been inspired by his boss Donald Trump to intimidate all opposition with expensive court cases.

“Instead of bending the knee like corporate law firms and media outlets, Troye decided to fight her case — and she won!” said Ali.

“It's just really a way to make an example of an individual and say, if any of you other people speak out, this is coming your way,” Troye added on Ali’s show.

Troye said she caught similar intimidation from the administration when she criticized the appointment and subsequent confirmation of FBI director Kash Patel, who Troye openly complained was unfit for the job.

“Every time I went out and criticized Kash Patel and said he was unfit to become the FBI director, I got a letter, and … MS NOW got a letter threatening to sue them and me over the fact that I was merely saying what other people who have directly worked with Kash Patel were saying as well,” said Troye. “Yeah. It didn't stop me. I showed up at his confirmation hearing because I was, like, ‘all right, you're going to threaten me. I'm going to show up with a former judge and former FBI director.’ And we sat through that hearing together so that I could stare. Republican senators in the face and in the eyes and say, ‘you know exactly what this individual is.’

---

---

AN 3 26

President Donald Trump has lost his appeal in his libel lawsuit against the cable news outlet CNN.

The appeal went before the full panel of judges at the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Alabama, Georgia and Florida cases. Trump had specifically asked for the decision be en banc, meaning the full panel would rule on it. The reason may have been that many judges were appointed by Trump himself to the appeals court. Still, the verdict was unanimous, Politico legal reporter Josh Gerstein posted on X.

Trump filed the lawsuit in 2022 as a private citizen after the network used the term "Big Lie" to refer to false claims about fraud around the 2020 election.

The case was thrown out first in 2023 by one of Trump's own appointed district court judges. Trump appealed to the 11th Circuit, where the case was thrown out again. Trump's lawyers then requested that the full panel reconsider, and he was denied there, too.

The one-page response makes it clear that not only did Trump lose the first judge in the district court, but he also lost six of the 12 Trump-appointed judges on the court of appeals.

"The Petition for Rehearing En Banc is DENIED, no judge in regular active service on the Court having requested that the Court be polled on rehearing en banc," the court said.

It's unclear whether Trump will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court in an effort to silence the use of the phrase "Big Lie" on television, but he has been known to take his lawsuits all the way to top. Justice Clarence Thomas is the Supreme Court Circuit Justice responsible for overseeing the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. It means Thomas could review the case and decide whether or not the high court should rule on the matter.

The one major barrier, however, is that Thomas has been "decisive" in First Amendment expression cases, the Free Speech Center said. However, when it comes to the press, Thomas has been a long-time critic of the 1964 case New York Times v. Sullivan, which set a higher bar for public figures to claim libel. Both he and Trump agree on the issue.

Trump has sued the Wall Street Journal and owner Rupert Murdoch personally, the New York Times/Penguin Random House, the BBC, The Des Moines Register, the Pulitizer Prize Board, writer Bob Woodward and his publisher Simon and Schuster, as well as his case against CNN.

---

---}:

AN 12 25

Donald Trump's efforts to sue the Pulitzer Prize board over defamation claims took a turn for the president last week, according to a new report from Law & Crime, after the board demanded extensive documents in discovery pertaining to everything from his psychological history to his prescription medication use.

Trump first sued the board back in 2022over a statement the board released defending prizes it awarded in 2018 to the New York Timesand theWashington Postreporting related to collusion between his first presidential campaign and the Russian government, after Trump demanded that the prizes be rescinded. The board's statement explained that "two independent reviews" of the reports awarded in 2018 showed that no aspects of them were refuted by special counsel Robert Mueller's Russian collusion findings, despite Trump's claims.

In claiming defamation from this statement, Trump's lawsuit nevertheless called the Russia connection a "now-debunked theory," and alleged that he suffered reputational harm and damages from it.

As of Thursday, the case had reached the discovery phase, with the Pulitzer board submitting a 12-page filing with a "litany of broad discovery demands" for Trump's legal team. In addition to demanding more typical documents pertaining to Trump's various lawsuits and claims about the political impact of the Pulitzer Prizes, the board also requested a wide range of documents detailing much more personal and intimate details.

This includes "all" of the president's tax returns dating from 2015 to now, so as to show any potential financial harm caused by the Pulitzer board's actions. It also requested health records and prescription histories to demonstrate proof of Trump's claims of mental and physical anguish.

"To the extent You seek damages for any physical ailment or mental or emotional injury arising from Counts I-IV of Your Complaint, all Documents (whether held by You or by third parties under Your control or who could produce them at your direction) concerning Your medical and/or psychological health from January 1, 2015, to present, including any prescription medications you have been prescribed or have taken," the filing explained. "For the avoidance of doubt, this includes all Documents Concerning Your annual physical examination. To the extent you do not seek such damages in this action, please confirm so in writing."

Per the filing, Trump's legal team could potentially avoid providing some of these sensitive materials by deciding not to pursue damages specifically for the alleged harms they pertain to.

The board's filing also leaves open the possibility for Trump's team to claim that certain materials are privileged and cannot be provided, though it will have to explain why.

"With respect to your responses to the following Requests, if any information is withheld because of a claim of privilege, state the basis for your claim of privilege with respect to such information and the specific ground(s) on which the claim of privilege rests," the filing noted.

---