Mr Hawkes, I'd agree it's not funny; more ridiculous when the President denied the result of the 2020 presidential election with, as far as I'm aware, no evidence to back that up - plus I didn't hear him give much support to VP Pence who was undertaking his legal duty to transfer power to the newly elected Biden government. Instead he seems to support those who rampaged through Congress threatening Pence and other Congress people - and which seemed to lead to the deaths of at least one police person and one demonstrator - by pardoning them; at least, that's the impression I got from watching the live 6th Jan broadcast and reports of the aftermath.
Is there evidence the BBC's subcontractor editing error and the BBC's failed process to spot it was malicious as opposed to being careless or incompetent?
Yes, of course most organisations have corporation lawyers. (I've worked closely with some in the field of data protection and internet crime but suing in the UK has usually been a last resort, particularly if it's challenging the Russian Mafia!). Amongst other things, corporate lawyer are there as much to keep organisations in line with market and industry regulations, laws and best practices rather than to be adversarial (at least, that's my experience). I doubt the lawyers will consider the Floridian jurisdiction an obfuscation, the UK ones might prefer English law? It's my perception that Mr Trump has a lawyer sitting by to threaten to sue as a first step, but my perception could be mistaken, although I'm surprised so many US news media just give in; I note the WSJ haven't.
I've seen a copy of a Robert Peston Xitter post that legal advice is that Trump’s case against the BBC is weak and the BBC should call his bluff. I've not been able to verify that but I bet the BBC's lawyers are combing through this release of Epstein documents ... of course they could confirm Trump is innocent of all accusations ...
Still, Private Eye seems to agree with the irony in it all ....
