https://unpresidented.substack.com/p/tru...gainst-the

Quote:Trump's defamation suit against the media backfires — now his medical history could go public.

Donald Trump has spent nearly a decade insisting that the press conspired against him, that journalists fabricated a “Russia hoax,” and that shadowy elites worked overtime to undermine his presidency. Now, that grievance has collided head-on with civil discovery — the part of litigation where slogans die and documents matter.

On Thursday, members of the Pulitzer Prize Board fired back at Trump’s long-running defamation lawsuit by dropping a 12-page legal broadside in Okeechobee County, Florida, demanding that the president finally prove it. Not with Truth Social posts. Not with cable hits. But with sworn disclosures, financial records, and potentially even his medical history.

 
This isn’t a debate over opinion or politics anymore. It’s a test of whether Trump’s most enduring claim — that he was smeared by award-winning reporting on Russian interference — can survive the cold, unforgiving mechanics of civil procedure, where claims of “billions” in damage require evidence, not bluster.
And buried inside the Board’s demands are questions Trump has spent years avoiding: How much harm did he actually suffer? Who says so? And if he’s claiming emotional or physical injury — what do his own medical records show?

I've seen this news story pop up in a few places now, and thought it would be good to see what fellow D.I. members make of it??
Could this reveal Trumps underlying health issue with his mysterious bruising, make up and plasters on the back of his hand, and also recent MRI??

This case is also asking for financial data and tax returns to show if he suffered any financial loss as he claims he suffered in his case.
Trump filed the lawsuit back in 2022 after the Pulitzer Prize Board rejected his demands to rescind the 2018 prizes awarded to The 'New York Times' and 'The Washington Post'. He claims the board perpetuated “the absurdly false and defamatory narrative” that he and his campaign “colluded with Vladimir Putin and the Russian government” in the 2016 election.

Quote:After Trump demanded the prizes be rescinded, the Pulitzer board commissioned two independent reviews and issued a 2022 statement explaining that the reviews showed no aspects of the reporting were refuted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s findings. Mueller’s investigation did not ultimately allege conspiracy between Trump’s 2016 campaign and Russia, though the special counsel’s report identified “numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign”.

Other links to this news...
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/pul...-finances/

https://allaboutlawyer.com/trumps-pulitz...l-records/

It's not Trumps job to prove he's innocent.
It's the medias job to prove he's guilty.
And they haven't.
The 'Russia Russia Russia' hoax is just that.
A hoax.
Trump has the upper hand on this one.

(12-16-2025, 01:21 PM)FlyersFan Wrote: It's not Trumps job to prove he's innocent.
It's the medias job to prove he's guilty.
And they haven't.
The 'Russia Russia Russia' hoax is just that.
A hoax.
Trump has the upper hand on this one.

Correction...it's the media's job to report the news.  The fact that the media is trying to prove him guilty is a big part of the problem.

Other than that, you're spot on.

(12-16-2025, 01:21 PM)FlyersFan Wrote: It's not Trumps job to prove he's innocent.
It's the medias job to prove he's guilty.
And they haven't.
The 'Russia Russia Russia' hoax is just that.
A hoax.
Trump has the upper hand on this one.

No, it's Trump's civil suit not a criminal case.

FAFO springs to mind....

Now he's suing the BBC for 5 Billion.

Doubt he'll get another State visit invite....

(12-16-2025, 01:31 PM)Oldcarpy2 Wrote: No, it's Trump's civil suit not a criminal case.

FAFO springs to mind....

Now he's suing the BBC for 5 Billion.

Doubt he'll get another State visit invite....

Yeah, it's a civil suit, but they are trying to make him look guilty.
It's not his job to defend himself, it's their job to give the facts
and prove THEIR case.    They haven't.

As far as the BBC goes.  He won't get any money, but he's right
about the suit.   BBC screwed with the editing and purposely made
it look like he was saying something that he wasn't.   We've discussed
this on another thread and UB posted the side by side of the original
vs the BBC edited versions.   It's clear the BBC is guilty.

(12-16-2025, 01:54 PM)FlyersFan Wrote: Yeah, it's a civil suit, but they are trying to make him look guilty.
It's not his job to defend himself, it's their job to give the facts
and prove THEIR case.    They haven't.

As far as the BBC goes.  He won't get any money, but he's right
about the suit.   BBC screwed with the editing and purposely made
it look like he was saying something that he wasn't.   We've discussed
this on another thread and UB posted the side by side of the original
vs the BBC edited versions.   It's clear the BBC is guilty.

Of course the BBC is guilty as hell for selective editing.

The Brits are nearly as bad as Canadians.

Can't trust the lot of em.

  ​​​​​​​

(12-16-2025, 01:54 PM)FlyersFan Wrote: Yeah, it's a civil suit, but they are trying to make him look guilty.
It's not his job to defend himself, it's their job to give the facts
and prove THEIR case.    They haven't.

As far as the BBC goes.  He won't get any money, but he's right
about the suit.   BBC screwed with the editing and purposely made
it look like he was saying something that he wasn't.   We've discussed
this on another thread and UB posted the side by side of the original
vs the BBC edited versions.   It's clear the BBC is guilty.

His claim, burden of proof is on him.

As for his 5 billion claim against the BBC, the thin skinned vengeful litigious twat can fuck right off.

I'm just surprised he's got any lawyers left who will act for him.

I've had some "difficult" clients in my time but I would think he'd be an absolute nightmare.

(12-16-2025, 01:56 PM)Moon68 Wrote: Of course the BBC is guilty as hell for selective editing.

The Brits are nearly as bad as Canadians.

Can't trust the lot of em.

 

Cheers, mate.  It's mutual

(12-16-2025, 02:03 PM)Oldcarpy2 Wrote: As for his 5 billion claim against the BBC, the thin skinned vengeful litigious twat can fuck right off.

Yes he is thin skinned and litigious.
(and he's a total ass)
But his BBC lawsuit has merit.

The BBC claims they made an 'unintentional error' in editing.
That's absurd.   It was obviously on purpose and with an agenda.

I'm surprised you are okay with the media lying to you and 
manipulating the information to socially engineer you.
Or is this a national pride thing because the BBC is British and 
anti-Trump so you side with them?

(12-16-2025, 02:03 PM)Oldcarpy2 Wrote: His claim, burden of proof is on him.

As for his 5 billion claim against the BBC, the thin skinned vengeful litigious twat can fuck right off.

I'm just surprised he's got any lawyers left who will act for him.

I've had some "difficult" clients in my time but I would think he'd be an absolute nightmare.

I just hope the BBC holds their ground.

These bullying tactics is how Trump has gotten as far as he has.