The BBC Scandal Demonstrates Maybe Bigger Than Watergate

The BBC has shown the world what is really taking place in Mainstream Media and even Wikipedia, which nobody should donate 10 cents to, yet another FAKE NEWS organization edited by the government. We saw it with COVID-19, where the government told social media to cancel people. Others are being debanked because the government does not like what they say.

What the BBC has done with their doctoring a speech by Trump that aired a week before the 2024 presidential election, made him appear to encourage the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. This was deliberate FAKE NEWS in an attempt to influence the election. I believe this a CRIME!!

There is a statute (18 U.S.C. § 371) that makes it a crime to conspire to impair or obstruct a lawful function of the government through deceit. That would include an election. The press hides behind the First Amendment but they have turned on its head. It is NOT free speech to yell fire in a crowded theater to start a stamped when there is no fire.

The First Amendment protects even false, misleading, or partisan speech. However, the Supreme Court has set an incredibly high bar for punishing speech, especially speech about public figures and political matters. For a journalist to be held legally liable for false statements, the plaintiff (or prosecutor) would generally need to prove “actual malice”—that the journalist knew the information was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. The facts of this case warrant an FBI investigate of the journalist and the BBC deliberately editing this video shows “actual malice” this was intentional and not a mistake. All their emails should be preserved and if there was any partisan connection and deliberate “malace” the BBC should be criminally charged. This is the only way to start cleaning up the press.

While there’s no “fake news statute,” there are existing laws that could potentially apply in specific, egregious circumstances which has been shown here by the BBC. This is the area where prosecutors have recently tested the legal limits. The theory is that publishing a story of value to a campaign, when coordinated with that campaign, can be considered an illegal, unreported campaign contribution.

 The Michael Sussmann Case (2021) comes to mind. A lawyer was acquitted, but the special counsel argued he lied to the FBI while acting on behalf of the Hillary Clinton campaign. In his defense, he successfully argued that the meeting with the FBI was brief and focused on the substance of the data, not on who Sussmann’s clients were, and that the FBI agent’s memory of the specific statement was not sufficiently reliable. Thus, the jury found him not guilty. The legal theory was that his lie was a “thing of value” to the campaign, making it a potential campaign finance violation.

My advice is that this precedent can apply to a journalist. If a journalist coordinated directly with a political campaign to deliberately publish a known false story as the BBC has done here, the value of that “hit piece” (the advertising space and the credibility of the news outlet) could be construed as an illegal, unreported in-kind contribution. This is a complex and legally uncertain area, but it’s the one most actively explored by prosecutors. Someone in Congress needs to launch this against the BBC NOW!!!!!

Since (18 U.S.C. § 371) makes it a crime to conspire to impair or obstruct a lawful function of the government through deceit, if a journalist conspired with others (like a foreign government or a campaign) to deliberately publish disinformation with the specific intent to disrupt the election process—a lawful government function—this law could potentially be invoked. This would be an extremely aggressive and rare use of the statute but I believe it properly falls within its four corners.

Then there is the catch-all statue. Laws against wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343) prohibit using interstate communications to execute a “scheme to defraud.” This squarely falls within a broadcast. A court would have to find that the public has a “property right” in a fair and honest election, and that the fake news scheme sought to deprive them of that right. Our property right in terms of an election is the cornerstone of everything about our civilization. If there is no “free election” then there us no Republic or Democratic Process and I have been deprived of my most fundamental right of citizenship. I would argue that the BBC also conspired against my civil rights under 18 U.S.C. § 241.

If any contact with the Democrats or someone in the Biden Administration too place, then the most direct and specific federal statute that prohibits interfering with a federal election is 18 U.S.C. § 595. “Interference by administrative employees of Federal, State, or Territorial Governments.”

Here is is a crime for any person employed in any administrative position by the United States, a State, or a Territory to use their official authority to interfere with, affect, or attempt to interfere with or affect the nomination or election of any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, or Member of the House of Representatives.

Why the BBC needs to be subpoenaed instantly is that a government employee in an administrative position (this distinguishes them from elected officials or political appointees whose jobs are inherently political), so anyone in the Biden Administration, then this blows up into bigger than Watergate.

Defamation

Of course, there is the publishing a knowingly false statement that damages a candidate’s reputation is defamation. In the case of a public figure like a candidate, the plaintiff must prove “actual malice.” Defamation is almost always a civil offense, meaning the harmed candidate can sue the journalist or outlet for monetary damages, but the journalist is not going to jail. There are very few “criminal defamation” laws still on the books in some states, but they are rarely used and may be unconstitutional.