Legal AF by MeidasTouch

Episode: Trump Trapped by His Own Lawsuit… Forced to Testify?!
Date: December 19, 2025
Host: Michael Popok (for MeidasTouch Network)

Episode Overview

This episode of Legal AF, hosted by Michael Popok, delves into Donald Trump's recent $10 billion defamation lawsuit against the BBC. Popok breaks down how this legal maneuver may inadvertently force Trump to testify under oath, a situation he has deftly avoided in his criminal cases. Popok frames the discussion by analyzing the legal standards Trump will confront, the potential pitfalls of such lawsuits, and the broader implications for media organizations and freedom of the press.

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Trump’s Lawsuit Against the BBC

• Filing and Background:
  Trump recently filed a $10 billion defamation suit against the BBC in federal court in Miami, Florida, assigned to Judge Altman.

  • [01:10] Popok questions the legitimacy, “He just opened the door to have to get on the stand and testify... you better be prepared to testify under oath about all of your statements, not just the 53 minute speech on the Ellipse on January 6th...”

• Nature of the Claim:
  The lawsuit arises from a BBC documentary “Panorama,” which edited clips from Trump’s January 6th speech. Trump alleges that this misrepresentation defamed him.

• Public Figure Standard:
  Popok explains the actual malice standard required in defamation cases involving public figures, referencing New York Times v. Sullivan.

  • [03:56] “Whenever you’re a public figure like Donald Trump, you have to get over a major hurdle. It’s called actual malice... They knew they were lying about you.”

2. Is Trump “Incapable of Being Defamed”?

• Wall Street Journal Argument:
  Popok cites a prior defamation case where it was argued Trump’s reputation is so tarnished that it cannot be further damaged, likening him to infamous figures.

  • [05:07] “I believe Donald Trump is incapable of being defamed. You can’t defame Hitler. You can’t defame Charlie Manson or Jeffrey Dahmer... because their reputation is incapable of being defamed.”

• BBC’s Response:
  The BBC plans a vigorous defense and is unphased by the lawsuit. They view it as an opportunity to put Trump on the stand, exposing him to rigorous legal scrutiny.

  • [07:42] Quoting a BBC spokesperson on the lawsuit:
    “Mr. Trump thinks this lawsuit puts the BBC on trial. In reality, it puts him on the stand. He has finally walked into a process he cannot control with a tweet or a rally.”

3. The Legal Process and the Risk to Trump

• Discovery and Testimony:

  • Popok explains that as the plaintiff, Trump will be forced to provide documents, answer interrogatories, and sit for a deposition under oath—a process he cannot avoid or manipulate via social media.
    • [08:13] “He’s gonna have to respond to interrogatories, written questions under oath... He’s gonna have to sit for a deposition. You can’t be a plaintiff and hide behind the fact: but I’m the President of the United States.”
  • The strength of the BBC’s discovery demands is highlighted, with Popok describing federal court discovery as “proctologist style.”

• Calculation of Damages:

  • Popok calls the $10 billion claim “ridiculous” and notes Trump must substantiate actual damages, which will be tough, given that:
    • The film was little-seen, especially in Florida.
    • Trump won Florida by 14 points in the last election, undermining any argument that his reputation was harmed there.
    • [10:34] “How is he going to prove $10 billion in damages in a state where he won by 14 points?”

• Distribution of the Documentary:

  • The BBC documentary was not broadly available—hardly aired in the US, only accessible via obscure channels or VPN, making claims of vast harm dubious.
    • [11:27] “It was on another outside-of-America channel that you could only get to by using a VPN... The porn-loving Trump documentary-loving people has gotta be a very, very small audience in Florida.”

4. Trump’s Pattern: Lawsuits for Headline Value

• “Name and Shame” Playbook:
  Popok describes how Trump uses lawsuits for publicity rather than real legal relief.

  • [13:10] “They put a big splashy number in... It’s all ink on a piece of paper. It’s all made up numbers. And then they let the case linger and let the bad press hit... They just want a name and shame. They don’t want to actually go through.”

• Historical Context:
  Trump has repeated this tactic with other media entities: The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, ABC, CBS, and even Michael Cohen.

  • Often, as soon as discovery or deposition is imminent, Trump tries to withdraw or settles.
  • In the Cohen case:
    • [14:42] “When push came to shove and the judge says, ‘Alright, time for depositions.’ Donald Trump dismissed the case. Ta da. You see where this is going?”

5. Implications for Media and Free Press

• Press Freedom and Pushback:
  Popok warns of the risks if media entities capitulate, arguing that standing firm in court is essential for the protection of free expression.
  • [15:33] “If they don’t draw the line in the sand... see what’s going to happen to freedom of expression and freedom of the press.”

Notable Quotes and Memorable Moments

• On Media Defamation:
  “[Trump] does it for the naming and shaming. He does it for the splash trashy headline. It’s not even being filed in the right court. It’s convenient to him, but it’s inconvenient to the BBC.”
  —Michael Popok [02:20]

• Legal Standard for Defamation:
  “Whenever you’re a public figure like Donald Trump, you have to get over a major hurdle. It’s called actual malice.”
  —Michael Popok [03:56]

• On Trump’s Reputation:
  “You can’t defame Hitler. You can’t defame Charlie Manson or Jeffrey Dahmer... because their reputation is incapable of being defamed.”
  —Michael Popok [05:07]

• BBC’s Defiant Response:
  “Mr. Trump thinks this lawsuit puts the BBC on trial. In reality, it puts him on the stand. He has finally walked into a process he cannot control with a tweet or a rally.”
  —BBC spokesperson quoted by Michael Popok [07:42]

• On Damages:
  “How is he going to prove $10 billion in damages in a state where he won by 14 points?”
  —Michael Popok [10:34]

• On Trump’s Lawsuit Tactics:
  “They just want a name and shame. They don’t want to actually go through.”
  —Michael Popok [13:45]

Important Timestamps

| Timestamp | Segment | | --------- | ------------------------------------------------- | | 01:10 | Overview of Trump’s new lawsuit vs. BBC | | 03:56 | Discussion of legal standard: "actual malice" | | 05:07 | Argument that Trump is “incapable of being defamed"| | 07:42 | BBC's anticipated legal response (quotes) | | 10:34 | Analysis of damages and the $10 billion claim | | 13:10 | Breakdown of Trump’s “name and shame” strategy | | 14:42 | Example: Dismissal of the Michael Cohen lawsuit | | 15:33 | Media pushback and press freedom discussion |

Conclusion

Michael Popok lays out how Trump’s BBC lawsuit, designed for headlines and intimidation, is likely to backfire by making Trump finally subject to discovery and cross-examination—potentially under oath about issues he's previously evaded. Popok urges media giants to force Trump through the legal process in order to defend press freedom and set a precedent against frivolous, punitive lawsuits from powerful figures.

For further deep dives on legal filings and oral arguments, Popok encourages listeners to check out the Legal AF Substack, where documents and ad-free content are available.