Trump

[Sundayjumper]

So basically he took the value from $365m to zero, and USAir (with operational control but not ownership) took it from zero to $285m.

The threads story really lets him off lightly !

[dinny_g]

With any of these types of Trump stories (Or any of the current Megalomaniac's - Musk, Bezos et al) , I often wonder how much of his success, or indeed failure, comes down to them exclusively or more, the people they hire. I mean I know the buck ultimately stops with them but still.

In any corporate environment, the directors or CEO's rarely actually MAKE a decision, more they ratify the recommendations made by the teams. A situation is analysed, impact assessed, options are presented and a recommendation made. the CEO ratifies the recommendation into a decision.

Did he "Trump successfully ran it for a further 7 years and increased the value to $285m by the time he sold it" or did the people he hired etc ?

[Sundayjumper]

Neither dinny, it’s in the wiki article. USAir took operational control after he f**ked it into bankruptcy.

Trump was forced to cede control over several business holdings to his bankers in June 1990 in order to avoid personal bankruptcy. The airline ran out of cash and defaulted on its debt in September 1990.

USAir ultimately reached an agreement in December 1991 to take operational control of Trump Shuttle for up to ten years, with an option to buy it after five years.

[dinny_g]

More a general observation

[Beany]

Well, the issue with that is that when he talks about how successful he is, it's never "me and my senior management team", it's "me me me me me"

He's explicitly made that his public persona, and it cuts both ways.

[Gavster]

I love how his $10bn claim against the BBC is going he's discovering that when a media organisation aren't American nor rely on his policies they can't be as easily bullied.

The BBC requested his financial records as part of discovery, and Trump then filed an emergency request to delay handing over the records. Seems he doesn't want to actually prove how he suffered any financial losses. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwyewew50ryo

Next the BBC have tried to subpoena Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner as witnesses and he thinks that's harrassment https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 34169.html

[DaveE]

It's like he's used to just suing and winning through no contest/capitulation

Rather than actually having to justify or prove anything in court

[mik]

I hadn’t appreciated that the BBC aren’t allowed to settle legal matters out of court…. hence Mr Trumps usual tactics can’t work - he either drops the case, or it needs to be tried.

Worth watching the whole thing, but this aspect is covered at approx 7mins

[DaveE]

I hadn’t appreciated that the BBC aren’t allowed to settle legal matters out of court…. hence Mr Trumps usual tactics can’t work - he either drops the case, or it needs to be tried.

Kind of...

The out-of-court settlement was a five-figure sum and was paid by BBC Studios, meaning the funds did not come from the licence fee, PA Media understands.

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/202 ... me-dancing

[Sundayjumper]

I still don’t understand how a US court has any jurisdiction over the BBC ?

[Beany]

I hadn’t appreciated that the BBC aren’t allowed to settle legal matters out of court…. hence Mr Trumps usual tactics can’t work - he either drops the case, or it needs to be tried.

Kind of...

The out-of-court settlement was a five-figure sum and was paid by BBC Studios, meaning the funds did not come from the licence fee, PA Media understands.

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/202 ... me-dancing

Apparently it's a value for money thing - if the cost of settling would be astronomically higher than fighting it or if it would be significantly damaging to reputation then the BBC won't settle.

In the instance with Abbington, it was presumably more sensible to settle rather than pissing money up the wall on lawyers arguing it (Especially as the review found they were at least partially to blame anyway).

In the case of Trump, settling and basically admitting that their programming was damaging to Trumps reputation (regardless of the details, that's how it would be spun by Trump) would be very bad for the BBCs global reputation itself, especially as they don't feel that what they did had the remotest impact on Trump - so it would make more sense for them to fight their corner to maintain their reputation.

As for Jurisdiction, that's down to the US justice system, regardless of what the law says. Because it's not like the US Govt pays attention to the law these days.

[Jobbo]

I still don’t understand how a US court has any jurisdiction over the BBC ?

Media tends to be available across the world. Plenty of people sue for libel in the U.K. even though the subject matter of the case isn’t really in the U.K. - Trump is just choosing a forum which he considers convenient/likely to succeed.

The BBC show was I believe available to be seen in Florida somehow.

[Gavster]

Interesting how Trump didn’t sue over this panorama episode

[mik]

I’m no economist, but this sounds…. Interesting (explained in the first 45 seconds)

[mik]

Whereas Prof Jeffrey Sachs is an economist. Although he’s not talking about this particular issue….

[Sundayjumper]

They’re going to go ahead and demolish the Kennedy Centre if he’s not allowed to put his name on it.


https://www.rawstory.com/trump-threaten ... dy-center/

[Jobbo]

I don’t understand. So Trump’s name will be put on it then the wrecking ball will destroy it?

[Beany]

if it distracts from him being a warmongering, rug pulling kid fucker, I don't think he cares if it makes sense.

[Sundayjumper]

No no. If his name is plastered all over it, they’ll be able to find the money to “restore” it. Alternatively, if you don’t appease the whiney toddler he’ll have a hissy fit and make sure nobody can have it.

It’s not about the affordability or the condition. He just wants his name on it.

[mik]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckgwdn1g58yo

How long until the Atlantic is renamed the East American Ocean?