← Sidebar with Katie Phang
Sidebar with Katie Phang
Trump Panics After Judge Orders Him to Turn Over All Financial Records
00:20:33
Loading summary
Transcript1 lines
- [00:00]
A
So, folks, it looks like once again, convicted felon Donald Trump has bitten off more than he can chew. Back In December of 2025, Trump sued in federal court in one of his favorite venues, the Southern District of Florida. He sued the BBC and he sued the BBC for defamation. And what was it over? He claims that there was an episode of a show called Panorama, and that that episode edited together different sections of the speech that he delivered on January 6, 2021, which was the day of the insurrection. And that because of the way that the editing had been done for this show, Panorama on BBC, that it was misleading and that Trump alleges in his defamation lawsuit that it led pan people or viewers to believe that he had directly called for violence on that day. Now, I'm not here to relitigate January 6th, and that phrase will become relevant to all of you in just a few minutes. But because Donald Trump sued for a defamation claiming $10 billion in damages, his lawsuit and the claims of that lawsuit have now made certain things relevant and discoverable. Now, what do I mean by that? Well, what's relevant is if you claim that you have suffered economic financial harm and that you have suffered reputational harm that may have impacted your ability to do business or to be able to have better economic outcomes, then your finances become relevant. And because they are relevant, they become discoverable. Meaning that in the course of litigation, something called discovery is the process wherein either documents are exchanged or you depose people and witnesses, or you have other sides answer questions under oath in writing. Those are just a few examples I've discussed discovery. And so at this point, because Trump has sued for $10 billion claiming reputational slash economic, reputational and economic harm, a judge, a magistrate judge in federal court in Florida has ruled over Donald Trump's objections that not only can certain subpoenas be served on members of Trump's inner circle, but that financials about Trump's companies must be turned over to the BBC. Now, I want to stop for a second here because I think that this is important for you to know. After that episode aired on BBC, the BBC chairman, Samir Shah issued a letter in November of 2025. This is before Trump sued for $10 billion for defamation. Chairman Shah, in his letter, apologized for the clip that appeared on Panorama, the show and Shah said that they unintentionally gave the mistaken impression that President Trump made a direct call for violent action back on January 6th. Now, Donald Trump's favored law lackey, Alex Brito, who again is a lawyer, that I sued his law firm for malpractice and they were forced to settle. Brito says that Chairman Shaw's letter apologizing to Donald Trump is an admission, is a concession. It's a confession by the BBC. And the BBC, though, said, look, we don't care. They've actually filed a motion to dismiss the entire case that has not yet been ruled on by the presiding judge, Roy Altman. But the BBC says, look, it was never even broadcast in the United States, and among other things, the case should be dismissed. But because it hasn't been dismissed and because Donald Trump continues to push this defamation lawsuit, now these financials have become discoverable. Let's get into it, because this is incredibly important. Through the course of discovery so far, as in through July 21st, 22nd of 2026, the BBC has produced more than 87,000 pages of documents to Trump's lawyers because Trump's lawyers have requested these documents and this information from the BBC. Now ask yourself how much information thus far has Donald Trump, the plaintiff, the person who's bringing this litigation in the first instance, how much has Donald Trump turned over to the BBC? Well, turns out they've only turned over 735 pages. You want to talk about a discrepancy? The BBC has produced 87,000 pages. Trump has produced 735. And according to counsel for the BBC, Charles Tobin, it's been a, quote, sham production of only 735 pages. It's only been news articles and other material pulled from the Internet. So it's a big win for BBC to be able to get its hands on all of these financial information for Donald Trump. BBC's legal team winning the arguments in front of the magistrate judge and holike let judge let telling Trump that he must release financial records held by the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, which was created to manage his businesses while he is president. That's a lot. That's not just one company. That's what's going on the financials in the entirety of that trust. So again, this is a 2024 show or documentary, Panorama. And the documentary was called, quote, Trump A Second Chance. And it had a scene from the speech that Trump delivered on the ellipse before his supporters, those insurrectionists, stormed the United states Capitol on January 6th. And the editing that was done for that documentary and for that very, very, very short scene of Donald Trump, according to Trump, has defamed him and caused him reputational and financial harm. Now, I want to stop for a second and explain to you kind of procedurally how things happen in federal court when it comes to a magistrate judge. Magistrate judge, sorry, and the district court judge. So the district court judge, of which there are several within each district. So the Southern District of Florida has a certain number of district court judges. And the judge who's presiding over this particular defamation case is a judge by the name of Roy Altman. Each district court judge has assigned to him or her a magistrate judge. And you can imagine the district court judges have a lot of work on their plate. So they are given an assist by these magistrate judges who are brilliant in and of their own right. And these magistrate judges often handle a lot of the day to day kind of of these cases. So discovery disputes like the one we're talking about right now would go to a magistrate judge and that magistrate judge would listen to arguments, make a ruling. And so when that ruling is entered by the magistrate judge, it can be appealed to the district court judge. So in this instance, we reasonably anticipate that Donald Trump will now appeal this ruling from the magistrate judge, Judge Lett. L E T T. He'll try to appeal that to the district court judge, Judge Altman, to decide to see whether or not Judge Altman agrees with, with what his magistrate judge has ruled. Now, these financial records are incredibly, incredibly revealing. And so guess what Trump's lawyer, Alex Brito, tried to pull in the midst of trying to prevent these financial records from being disclosed. Alex Brito tells the judge, oh, Judge, guess what? We don't want you to compel the release of these financial documents. So guess what we're going to do? We're going to actually limit our claim of damages in this case. We're going to abandon the kind of financial part of this, that his companies and his financials were harmed as a result of this defamation. We're going to limit it to just reputational harm, thereby, Judge not making, making, you know, making, not making any of these financials relevant anymore. But what did the magistrate judge, Judge let say? Judge Lett says, sorry, but guess what? Your complaint, Donald Trump, is so broad and sweeping in nature that you've put the financial viability of your businesses at the forefront of your claims of defamation and their vitality and their ability to thrive and succeed. Because according to your lawsuit, Donald Trump, you claim that the defamation that was allegedly perpetrated by the BBC has harmed you financially. You've now made the viability of those businesses a key issue in this case. And because of that, those financial records are not only relevant, but they are discoverable. This is the ruling part of the Ruling from Judge Let quote, all of President Trump's brand properties and businesses are impugned or said to have been impugned. Reputational, economic damages, all of that is now at issue in this case. She said this at the conclusion of a three hour hearing. Right. So my husband and I were recently talking about life insurance and I thought it was an important conversation because I'm about to celebrate a birthday in a few weeks and we have a daughter. And you know, you want to hedge, you want to hedge against the bad, but because you always want to be prepared. And it reminded me about when my late father passed away and how it impacted my mom and how she felt financially about the stability of the rest of her life. You know, really means a lot to be able to speak to you about Ethos. Ethos makes getting life insurance fast and easy. It's a hundred percent online. You can get a quote in seconds. You can apply in minutes and get same day coverage. You can get up to $3 million in coverage with some policies as low as $30 a month. And let me be clear, there's no medical exam. You just answer a few simple health questions. So take 10 minutes to get covered today with life insurance through Ethos. Get your free quote@ethos.com Fang P H A N G that's my last name. That's ethos.com fang e t h o s.com Fang application times may vary and rates may now, this means the BBC can now do discovery on more than 400 companies that are owned by that Trump revocable trust. So here's the other thing. And before I get to that, before I get to the subpoenas, let's talk about Alex Brito, the lawyer for Donald Trump. Brito's like, look, our approach, our strategy to our case has now, quote, evolved. And because we're only pursuing reputational damages in this case, Judge, and not the businesses being harmed, these damages are now limited. And it's different from when we originally filed this case back in December of 2025. Quote, Even if there has been harm to the brand, we are not pursuing that as a part of our damages. It's a far more narrow scope of what this case is about. And Judge Letts like, sorry, you've now told me you're going to amend the complaint, but you haven't amended the complaint. And as we sit here right now, we are traveling under what is called the operative complaint. And the operative complaint is the one wherein you allege financial harm to your businesses. So that means that discovery can occur. So we all know what's going to happen, right? There's an amended complaint that's going to be coming down the pipeline, but you also get permission from the court to be able to do that at this stage. So we'll keep an eye on that. Now, here's another critical part of what happened at this hearing yesterday, which is the following. During the course of this three hour hearing, Donald Trump was trying to prevent certain subpoenas to his inner circle from being able to be not only served, but honored. Right. So talk about, so let's talk about the subpoenas because that's really important. The BBC has been trying to serve these subpoenas on members of Trump's inner circle, including but not limited to Donald Trump Jr. One of convicted felon Donald Trump's failsons, Ivanka Trump, Javanka, Ivanka and Jared. Guess who's next? Jared Kushner. Right. So Javanka is being subpoenaed by the BBC. Steve Bannon. I'm not done yet, people. Stephen Miller and Michael Flynn. That's not all of them, but those are kind of the highlights. Right? And the reason why the BBC wants to be able to subpoena these people is they want to be able to explore and obtain evidence about Trump's state of mind and what his intent was when he gave his speech at the Ellipse on January 6, prior to his supporters storming the Capitol and doing the insurrection. And the BBC is, has argued, or did argue, excuse me, that Trump must show that he did not incite the riot to prove that the BBC defamed him by allegedly implying through the presentation of its documentary, the clip in its documentary, that he had done so. See, this is a danger with bringing defamation lawsuits because when you bring a defamation lawsuit, you center the defamation and then you allow things like this to happen. A defendant like the BBC stating, well, we need to be able to determine whether Donald Trump's state of mind and his intent on January 6, 2021 was to incite it. Because truth is a defense to defamation. And if it is true, as borne out through these subpoenas to people like Stephen Miller, Javanka, Jared and Ivanka, Don Trump Jr. Stephen Bannon, Stephen Miller and others that Donald Trump on January 6 wanted the violence to happen that ensued, wanted the riots to happen that ensued, wanted the insurrection to happen, which happened then, BBC did not defame Donald Trump in any way, did it? So the magistrate judge, judge led, agreed with, with the BBC's lawyers and said the subpoenas to Trump's inner circle are good to go. Now, she did say that the subpoenas to Trump's inner circle and the financials that the information sought may be a little over broad, which was a concession to what Trump's lawyers were arguing. But she did say, and she did say, quote, I don't believe that a full relitigation of January 6 is called for simply because the documentary itself was related to January 6th. But she didn't enter a ruling that said that you can only do X, Y and Z. At least I haven't seen one, right? So here's the kind of shit kicker about all of this. Guess who is avoiding being deposed in this case? Convicted felon Donald Trump. Lawyers for the BBC stating to the magistrate judge, quote, they, as in the lawyers for Donald Trump, like Alex Brito, have ignored our request to schedule the President's deposition. They're dragging their feet on giving me a date for the President's deposition. Here's the problem for Donald Trump. You are the plaintiff, you are suing, you are availing yourself of the judicial system to be able to seek relief for the claims that you have brought. You cannot avoid participating in the discovery process just because you feel like it. And you can't avoid it because you're the President of the United States. Cuz we've heavily litigated this. And if it's civil litigation, you can't avoid shit like your deposition. So Trump is in a real pickle. And that's why I started today's episode by saying sometimes you bite up more than you can chew, huh, Donald? Because by suing the BBC for defamation relating to these January 6th insurrection and the speech at the Ellipse and what you've alleged the BBC has done to defame you, Donald Trump has put the financials of more than 400 of his companies at issue. And he is also put the, the ability to subpoena people. And I'm talking serious people. The people are not serious, but I guess they're considered to be really high up in the food chain. In his inner circle. He has put them at issue as well in terms of what Trump's state of mind and intent was on January 6th. And that's the reason why discovery can happen involving them too. And Donald Trump has a sit for a depot. I mean, it's an incredibly delicious use of the rules of procedure and of the law. And if Donald Trump doesn't want to participate, then he needs to get the hell out. But because his knee jerk reaction is to just sue for defamation, anyone and everyone which gets back to my conversation about the White House Correspondents Dinner. But because he thinks that that's the way to go, then he needs to realize that there are judges, some of whom are Trump appointees, that actually follow the law and understand that in order to be a part of the litigation process, if you are a litigant, then you have to play by the rules, too. So we're going to watch what happens here because the discovery in this case is going to be pretty damn amazing. Let's see if Trump amends his complaint to attempt. Because, by the way, just because Trump amends his complaint to try to drop this idea that his businesses have been harmed to avoid this discovery doesn't necessarily mean that it won't happen. Okay? Meaning that the discovery won't happen. So we're going to watch this carefully. In the meantime, be mad, be outraged, demand accountability. I kind of like the cage rattling that the lawyers for the BBC have achieved here. My hat off to y'. All. Katie Fang here. We launched the Katie Fang News Channel in partnership with the Midas Touch Network so we could bring you the latest in legal and political news. Straight, no chaser. So if you're a fellow truth teller, hit that subscribe button and share the word about this channel so we can build a high information America together.