Latest update — Former FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried trial [Day 6]
More Videos
Published
2 years agoon
By
admin
Cointelegraph reporters are on the ground in New York for the trial of former FTX CEO Sam “SBF” Bankman-Fried. As the saga unfolds, check below for the latest updates.
Oct. 11: Caroline Ellison details final months of FTX and how SBF floated selling equity to Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia
In her second day of testimony at the Sam Bankman-Fried trial on Oct. 11, Caroline Ellison provided more information regarding the months leading up to the anticipated FTX debacle in November 2022. Lenders required Alameda Research to repay millions in loans in mid-June following the market downturn in May, according to Ellison. “I was very stressed out,” she said.
Genesis Capital was one of these lenders, recalling $500 million in loans, according to screenshots taken from conversations between Ellison, Bankman-Fried, and Genesis employees via Telegram.
At the time, Alameda had over $13 billion of debt on its credit line with FTX, while its open-term loans exceeded $1.3 billion. As per Ellison’s testimony, Bankman-Fried instructed her to come up with “alternative ways” to disclose Alameda’s financial information to lenders, specifically Genesis.
According to Ellison, Genesis could recall all loans to Alameda if it were aware of Alameda’s true financial status, as well as damage its reputation. “I didn’t want Genesis to know that,” she stated in reference to Alameda’s billionaire liability towards FTX.
As per prosecutors’ evidence, Ellison worked on at least seven alternative spreadsheets for Genesis. A spreadsheet sent by Alameda to Genesis in June listed $10.3 billion in total liabilities, whereas the actual amount was approximately $15 billion at the time.
Bankman-Fried’s plans to survive the storm included raising capital from Mohammed bin Salman, the crown prince of Saudi Arabia. According to evidence presented in court, Ellison made a list of “things Sam is freaking out about” months prior to the exchange collapse.
The list featured raising capital from “the MBS”, borrowing more capital from BlockFi, which had already lent Alameda over $660 million, as well as “getting regulators to crack down on Binance,” an effort by Bankman-Fried to expand FTX market share, Ellison said.
She also mentioned a $150 million bribe that FTX allegedly paid to a Chinese official in 2021 to release funds frozen there as part of an investigation into money laundering. The alleged bribe is not included in the United States trial.
Oct. 5: Gary Wang details relationship between FTX and Alameda Research
In over four hours of testimony, Gary Wang, co-founder of Alameda Research and FTX alongside Bankman-Fried, provided in-depth details about the relationship between the companies and how the crypto empire ended up with an $8 billion hole in customer assets.
According to Wang, a few months after FTX’s inception, in 2019, Alameda received special privileges from FTX. Prosecutors used screenshots of FTX’s database and code available on GitHub to show that Alameda was allowed to have an unlimited negative balance at FTX, a special line of credit of $65 billion in 2022 and an exemption from the liquidation engine.
The commingling of funds and problems between companies evolved over time. In 2020, Bankman-Fried instructed Wang that Alameda’s negative balance should not exceed FTX’s revenue — a rule that changed over the years, according to Wang’s testimony. In late 2021, for example, Alameda’s liability to FTX stood at $3 billion, up from $300 million in 2020.
“I trusted his judgment,” Wang said when asked why he agreed to Alameda’s privileges.
However, these alleged privileges were part of Alameda’s role as a primary market maker for FTX, the defense argued later during Wang’s testimony. The defense counsel also noted that other market makers had similar privileges at FTX, and being able to go negative was a key feature of any market maker.
Another point emphasized by prosecutors was the MobileCoin exploit in 2021. Bankman-Fried allegedly told Wang and Caroline Ellison to add the multimillion-dollar deficit to Alameda’s balance sheet instead of keeping it on FTX to hide the loss from FTX investors.
Months before FTX’s collapse, Bankman-Fried, Wang and former engineering director Nishad Singh discussed shutting down Alameda and replacing its role with other market makers. The company’s liabilities, however, were too high at the time, sitting at $14 billion. Alameda remained in operation until November 2022.
Wang’s testimony will continue on Oct. 10, the same day Ellison’s will be heard.
Oct. 5: Yedidia cross-examination, witness testimonies in focus
Day 3 of the #SBF trial, we’re here bright and early! ☀️ pic.twitter.com/PQ1rQV38Px
— Cointelegraph (@Cointelegraph) October 5, 2023
A liability of $8 billion from Alameda to FTX was at the center of prosecutors’ cross-examination of Adam Yedidia on Oct. 5. Yedidia is a close friend of Sam Bankman-Fried and was a developer at FTX. He was also one of ten people to live in Bankman-Fried’s $35 million luxury resort in the Bahamas.
According to Yedidia’s testimony, since early 2021, FTX used an Alameda account labeled North Dimension to deposit users’ funds while facing difficulties opening its own bank account. Funds would be considered Alameda’s liability toward FTX, which reached $8 billion in June 2022.
While Yedidia was aware of the funds sent to Alameda’s account, he didn’t see it as a concern when he first heard about it in 2021. However, after learning about the liability amount in 2022, he voiced his concerns to Bankman-Fried during a tennis game. According to Yedidia, Bankman-Fried said the debt should be settled between the companies within six months to three years.

“I trusted Sam, Caroline, and others in Alameda to handle the situation,” he said, answering questions from prosecutors. Upon learning that Alameda was not only holding the funds but using them to pay its debtors, Yedidia resigned in November 2022.
While prosecutors used the case to illustrate how the companies were commingling funds, Bankman-Fried’s defense counsel sought to share a broader picture of FTX and Alameda’s relationship with the jury.
The defense highlighted that FTX was growing fast, with its leadership working over 10 hours a day during the 2021 bull market, including Bankman-Fried, who oversaw several parts of the company at the time.
The defense counsel also pointed out that Yedidia had been under several inquiries from prosecutors under an immunity order, meaning cooperation with prosecutors would protect him from facing any charges regarding his role at FTX.
Also, according to Bankman-Fried’s defense, FTX’s difficulties opening a bank account and its reliance on Alameda’s North Dimension to deposit funds were well known. Yedidia’s cross-examination will resume this afternoon in the federal courtroom in lower Manhattan.
Two witnesses testified during the second part of the Sam Bankman-Fried trial on Oct. 5: Matthew Huang, co-founder of Paradigm and Gary Wang, co-founder of FTX and Alameda Research.
Paradigm invested a total of $278 million in FTX in two funding rounds between 2021 and 2022. According to Huang, the venture capital firm was not aware of the commingling of funds between FTX and Alameda, nor of the privileges that Alameda had with the crypto exchange.
Such privileges included Alameda’s exemption from FTX’s liquidation engine (a tool that closes positions at risk of liquidation). With the exemption, Alameda was able to leverage its position and maintain a negative balance with FTX.
The Paradigm co-founder also acknowledged that the firm did not conduct deeper due diligence on FTX, instead relying on information provided by Bankman-Fried.
Another concern for Paradigm was FTX not having a board of directors. According to Huang, Bankman-Fried was “very resistant” to the idea of having investors on FTX’s board of directors but promised to build one and appoint experienced executives to serve on it.
During his brief testimony, Wang acknowledged that he, along with Bankman-fried and Caroline Ellison, had committed wire fraud, securities fraud, and commodities fraud.
Wang also noted that Alameda had special privileges with FTX, such as the ability to withdraw unlimited funds from the exchange, as well as a line of credit of $65 billion. To illustrate these privileges, Wang pointed out that any other market maker would have a credit line in the millions, while Alameda had a credit line in the billions.
A loan of approximately $200 million to $300 million from Alameda was also mentioned by Wang, allegedly as part of the purchase of other crypto firms. However, the loans were never credited to his account. His testimony will continue on Oct. 6.
Oct. 4: DOJ and Bankman-Fried’s defense state their arguments
The first hours of SBF’s trial have offered a glimpse of the arguments the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) and the former FTX CEO’s defense will bring to court in the coming weeks.
After a jury selection in the morning, both parties gave opening statements to the 12-person jury present in the court.
The DOJ took a tough stance against Bankman-Fried in its first statement, portraying the FTX founder as someone who deliberately lied to investors to enrich himself and expand his crypto empire.
According to the DOJ, Bankman-Fried lied to FTX customers and investors, using Alameda as a key partner to “steal customers’ funds,” a phrase that was frequently used during the opening statements.

As per the trial preview, the DOJ will focus its arguments on allegations that Bankman-Fried misled customers, investors and lenders regarding the safety of their funds while using Alameda to steal their money and influence politicians in Washington.
The defense, meanwhile, brought arguments about Bankman-Fried being a young entrepreneur who made business decisions that “didn’t work out.” The defense denied the existence of secret transactions between Alameda and FTX or a backdoor used to steal customer funds. According to the previous arguments presented, all transactions were legitimate or made in good faith by Bankman-Fried during the crypto market downturn and the subsequent collapse of FTX in November 2022.
The defense also highlighted the role of Binance in the bank run that led to FTX’s collapse. Testimonies will continue throughout the day.
According to the defense, Bankman-Fried assumed FTX was allowed to loan funds to Alameda as part of a business relationship with the market maker, and there was no secret door for transactions between the companies.
Prosecutors also noted that Caroline Ellison, Gary Wang and Nishad Singh will offer the jury insider details about Bankman-Fried’s role in FTX’s operations and alleged crimes. However, the defense pointed out that as part of the cooperation agreement with the government, they were supposed to give testimony against Bankman-Fried, raising doubts about their credibility.
The defense also downplayed the accusations against the nature of the relationship between FTX and Alameda, arguing that FTX margin traders were aware of the risks associated with transactions.
“There was no theft,” the defense claimed. “It’s not a crime to be the CEO of a company that files for bankruptcy.”
In the second half of the first day of the trial, the jury heard from two witnesses: Mark Julliard, a French trader and former client of FTX, and Adam Yedidia, a friend of Sam Bankman-Fried and former employee at Alameda Research and FTX.
In his testimony, Julliard said he had four Bitcoin (BTC) held at FTX at the time of the exchange’s collapse, worth nearly $100,000. He admitted that FTX and Bankman-Fried’s marketing efforts, as well as the notable venture capital companies backing FTX, gave him the confidence to use the exchange for crypto trading. He assumed that venture capital firms had done due diligence on FTX and its leadership.
During the questioning, prosecutors emphasized that the trader used FTX exclusively for spot trading and was unaware that the exchange used client funds for crypto trading with Alameda Research.
Questions for Yedidia were focused on his educational background at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he first met Bankman-Fried and had two professional experiences with the FTX founder. Yedidia worked at Alameda briefly in 2017 as a trader and then returned to work for FTX in 2021 as a developer. He was among 10 people living in the Bahamas on FTX’s $30 million real estate.
In Yedidia’s testimony, prosecutors used former FTX ads as evidence that the company was always positioning itself as a safe, trusted and easy way to invest in cryptocurrency, including marketing campaigns with NFL player Tom Brady and comedian Larry David. The trial will resume Oct. 5.
Oct. 3: SBF trial begins

The trial of Sam Bankman-Fried began on Oct. 3 with jury selection. Bankman-Fried is charged with seven counts of conspiracy and fraud in connection with the collapse of FTX, the cryptocurrency exchange he co-founded. He has pleaded not guilty to all charges. The case is being heard by Judge Lewis Kaplan, who has presided over a long list of other high-profile cases, including ones involving detainees at Guantanamo Bay, the Gambino crime family, Prince Andrew and Donald Trump.
Bankman-Fried was ordered to be jailed on Aug. 11 after Kaplan found that his sharing of former Alameda Research CEO Caroline Ellison’s personal papers amounted to witness intimidation. Alameda Research was a trading house also founded by Bankman-Fried. Previously, he had been under house arrest in his parents’ home in Stanford, California, on a $250-million bond.
December: SBF arrested
Bankman-Fried was arrested in the United States on his arrival from the Bahamas on Dec. 21, 2022. He had been arrested in the Bahamas on Dec. 12 after the U.S. government formally notified the country of charges the U.S. was filing against him. He declared his intention to fight extradition from the Caribbean nation but changed his mind after a week in Bahaman jail and consented to extradition.
Meanwhile, FTX co-founder Gary Wang and Alameda Research CEO (and reportedly sometime SBF girlfriend) Ellison agreed to plead guilty in the burgeoning case.
November: FTX collapses
Bankman-Fried’s troubles began when reports emerged on Nov. 2 that Alameda Research had a large holding of FTX Token (FTT), FTX’s utility token. That revelation led to questions about the relationship between the two entities. On Nov. 6, Changpeng Zhao, CEO of rival exchange Binance, announced that his exchange would liquidate its FTT holdings, which were estimated to be worth $2.1 billion. Zhao turned down an offer tweeted by Ellison to buy Binance’s FTT.
A run began on FTX. Bankman-Fried gave reassurances on Twitter (now X) that the exchange’s “assets are fine” and accused “a competitor” of spreading rumors. By Nov. 8, the price of FTT had fallen from $22 to $15.40.
It’s only been one week since SBF’s notorious “FTX is fine. Assets are fine.” pic.twitter.com/zKoILqquHF
— Robert Smith (@BondHack) November 14, 2022
Also on Nov. 8, Bankman-Fried announced on Twitter that he had come to an agreement with Zhao “on a strategic transaction.” He wrote, “Our teams are working on clearing out the withdrawal backlog as is. This will clear out liquidity crunches; all assets will be covered 1:1.”
On Nov. 9, Zhao announced that Binance would not pursue the acquisition of FTX after due diligence and more reports of mishandled funds. The price of Bitcoin (BTC) plummeted to $15,600. The FTX and Alameda Research websites went dark for a few hours. When the FTX website came back, it bore a warning against making deposits and was unable to process withdrawals.
On Nov. 10, Bankman-Fried posted a 22-part Twitter thread that began with “I’m sorry.” It was the first of a long string of public statements he made about the exchange’s fall. The following day, the entire staff of Alameda Research quit, and FTX, FTX US and Alameda Research filed for bankruptcy in the United States. Bankman-Fried resigned as FTX CEO and was replaced by John J. Ray III, who was best known for his role in the Enron bankruptcy.
SBF and FTX before the fall
At the beginning of 2022, FTX had a $32-billion valuation and was thought to be in enviable financial condition. Bankman-Fried was seen as a respected business leader by much of the crypto community and the world at large. He was photographed with political leaders and spoke at congressional hearings.
Maxine Waters is chairing the investigation into FTX https://t.co/oFMctH4rRh pic.twitter.com/Ox6O5w4nOl
— Jordan Schachtel @ dossier.today (@JordanSchachtel) November 17, 2022
He had gained a reputation as a philanthropist, pursuing a philosophy popular among academics known as “effective altruism.” Part of his implementation of that philosophy was political activism in the form of financial support for candidates.
As the crypto winter set in, Bankman-Fried spoke of FTX and Alameda Research’s “responsibility to seriously consider stepping in, even if it is at a loss to ourselves, to stem contagion.” The companies made a bid for Voyager Digital that was rebuffed.
FTX made a deal with Visa to introduce its own debit card in 40 countries.
Bankman-Fried, Ellison and other alumni of Jane Street Capital founded Alameda Research in 2017. Bankman-Fried went on to found FTX with Wang in 2019. Zhao was an early investor in the exchange.
This is a developing story, and further information will be added as it becomes available.
You may like
Politics
How No 10 plunged itself into crisis ahead of a perilous budget
Published
5 hours agoon
November 12, 2025By
admin

Double-dealing, plotting, declarations of loyalty and treachery – in recent weeks the nation has feasted on Celebrity Traitors.
But these sorts of antics emanating from Downing Street, a couple of weeks out from a critical budget, feels far less entertaining and only serves to further hurt a struggling prime minister.
It wasn’t the intention. Allies of Keir Starmer have been alive to growing talk of a possible post-budget challenge, which has building amid growing concerns from MPs about the upcoming manifesto-breaking budget, the continued dire polling, and a Downing Street forever on the back foot.
There was a decision, as I understand it, from the PM’s team, in light of questions being asked about a possible challenge, to put it out there that he would stay and fight a leadership challenge should it come.
Politics latest: Starmer denies authorising attack on Streeting
I was briefed about this on Tuesday by allies that wanted to make the case to the parliamentary party about the perils of trying to oust a sitting prime minister 18 months into the parliamentary term.
My contacts made it very clear to me that the PM would fight any challenge, in turn triggering a three-month leadership battle that would spook the markets, create more chaos and further damage the Labour brand.
More on Budget
Related Topics:
They also stressed the PM has no intention of giving way just 18 months in. The intention was to try to see off any plot and scare the parliamentary party into line at the prospect of a full-on meltdown should the challenge come.
But the decision by some of the PM’s allies to anonymously also drop the name of prime traitor suspect – Wes Streeting – into briefings has badly backfired and plunged No 10 into crisis.
‘Frustration’ after PM’s allies went ‘too far’
As for the clean-up job, Mr Streeting – already carded for the morning round ahead of a speech on the NHS on Wednesday – has come out to declare his loyalty (tick), but also take aim at the No 10 briefers, and called on the PM to take them to task.
On the part of No 10, I was told by sources on Wednesday morning that there wasn’t an attempt to brief against the health secretary – there is a view that some of Sir Keir’s allies might have gone too far, rather to make it clear the PM was prepared to fight a challenge if it came.
I am told by one No 10 source there is “frustration” over how his played out and it had “got out of control”.
“Wes is doing a good job, is an asset and doing a big speech today making the broader case of not cutting spending ahead of the budget,” said a source.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

1:57
Health Secretary Wes Streeting denies claims he is having talks about ousting the PM and says such accusations are ‘self-defeating’ and don’t ‘help anyone’.
But putting the genie back in the bottle is no easy feat. MPs are furious at the briefings and exasperated that No 10 have made a mountain out of a molehill, with some suggesting that there wasn’t an active plot post-budget, and they have created a crisis when there wasn’t one.
“They’ve done this before,” observed on senior party figure. “They pick a fight of their own making and imply everything is a calamity ahead of a big possible negative, be it the budget or the Batley and Spen by-election [in an effort to get MPs to rally around the PM].
“It’s worked in the past; I think they have misplayed it this time. They have started a fire they cannot put out.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

7:55
Sir Keir Starmer backed Wes Streeting at PMQs earlier.
The prime minister has been left badly burnt in all of this. He was forced at PMQs to defend his health secretary and his chief of staff as Kemi Badenoch goaded him over No 10’s “toxic culture”, and called for him to sack Morgan McSweeney, his chief of staff.
The PM told his party that he “never authorised” briefings against his cabinet and that it was “completely unacceptable”. But when his team were later asked about what the PM was going to do about it, they didn’t appear to have an answer.
If he takes no action, it will only feed into the sense among many in his party that Sir Keir doesn’t have a grip of his operation and is not leading from the front. That’s difficult when his health secretary, having professed his loyalty, has called on the PM to deal with those briefing against him. It’s a mess.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

9:33
Sir Keir Starmer was forced to defend his health secretary at PMQs after a series of briefings against him that the PM said were unauthorised.
Budget measures to calm febrile party
And this mess comes at a time that is already so difficult for this government. Number 10 and No 11 knows exactly how difficult the coming weeks are going to be.
The chancellor has been out pitch rolling her budget, trying to explain the reasons behind potential manifesto-breaking pledges and arguing that the alternatives – cutting spending and a return to austerity or breaking fiscal rules, and the knock on effect in the markets – are far worse.
The prime minister is also going to be out making the case as Downing Street and the Treasury work out how they can possibly try to sell a manifesto-breaking budget to voters already completely disillusioned with this Labour administration.
I’m told that the current working plan is to do a combination of tax rises and action on the two-child benefit cap in order for the prime minister to be able to argue that in breaking his manifesto pledges, he is trying his hardest to protect the poorest in society and those working people he has spoken of being endlessly in his mind’s eye when he takes decisions in No 10.
The final decisions are yet to be taken, but the current thinking is to lift the basic rate of income tax – perhaps by 2p – and then simultaneously cut national insurance contributions for those on the basic rate of income tax (those who earn up to £50,000 a year). That way, the chancellor can raise several billion in tax from those with the ‘broadest shoulders’ – higher-rate taxpayers and pensioners or landlords.
At the same time, the chancellor intends to move on the two-child benefit cap – although it’s unclear if that will be a full or partial lifting of that cap – in order to argue that Labour is trying to still protect those on lower incomes from tax hikes.
Those two measures will be designed to try to calm a febrile party and prevent panic after the budget. As one informed MP put it to me, the combination of tax rises for wealthier workers and more support for parents with more than two children are arguments that many MPs could get behind.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

12:36
Will the chancellor cut the two-child benefit cap to save cash when she unveils her budget? Mhairi Aurora looks at the dilemma facing Rachel Reeves.
More bad news at moment of peril
This is also why No 10 getting ahead of a possible post-budget coup has surprised me a little, given that pretty much all the conversations about a possible challenge to the PM have been linked to the ballot box test next May.
One party figure told me on Wednesday it would be “insane and catastrophic” to for the party to try and bring down a Labour PM over a Labour budget, given, for a start, how the markets would react, and thinks the No 10 briefing is a reflection of how “paranoid and out of touch” the Starmer operation is with the parliamentary party.
But it is also true that there is a settled view among some very senior figures in the party that Sir Keir lacks the charisma, leadership and communication skills to take on Nigel Farage, while broken manifesto promises will kill his hopes of standing for a second term. As one figure put it to me: “Breaking those promises will destroy him. The public won’t give him a hearing again. We need a clean skin.”
The whispered plots around Westminster are now front page news – not something the Sir Keir would have wanted as he prepares to front up what is shaping up to be his biggest test as prime minister yet, should he break the most sacred of his manifesto pledges on not raising VAT, income tax and national insurance on working people.
There is no doubt the budget will be a moment of peril – and those who wanted to be faithful to the PM this week have somehow only managed to make his situation even worse.
Politics
Reform pulls out of BBC documentary amid Trump legal threat
Published
5 hours agoon
November 12, 2025By
admin

Reform UK has pulled out of a BBC documentary about the party amid a row over the broadcaster’s misleading editing of a Donald Trump speech.
The Rise Of Reform had been due to air in January, fronted by Laura Kuenssberg, and was being made by the independent production company October Films.
An internal memo sent to all Reform MPs, councillors and other senior figures, and seen by Sky News, told party officials to stop assisting with the documentary.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

1:01
Trump: I have ‘obligation’ to sue BBC
A senior official wrote: “Hi all, as you will be aware October Films have been filming a documentary with Kuenssberg on the rise of Reform.
“As part of this, they have been visiting and filming at Reform councils and speaking to our councillors and council leaders across the country.
“We want to be clear that October Films have always conducted themselves professionally, and there is no suggestion from our side that they would maliciously misrepresent Reform UK. However, following the Panorama documentary the trust has been lost.”
The email continued: “If you are approached to participate, we would strongly advise you decline. If you have already participated, we would strongly advise that you contact October Films and explicitly withdraw consent for your footage to be used.”
More on Bbc
Related Topics:
Pic: AP
Production company ‘shocked’ over misleading edit
Meanwhile, a source close to October Films told Sky News the company was “shocked” it wasn’t told about concerns over the Panorama Trump documentary, despite an internal review at the corporation highlighting the misleading edit back in January.
October Films worked on the one-hour Panorama special, Trump: A Second Chance with a majority in-house BBC team, which included a BBC director, executive producer, editor and lawyer.
The source told Sky News: “October Films were not informed there was any question of integrity with the edit. Had they been given the opportunity, they would have insisted on the edit being changed.”
October Films – who are an Emmy and BAFTA-winning independent producer, with credits including BBC2’s Laura Kuenssberg: State of Chaos, Channel 4’s Levison Wood: Walking With…, and CNN’s First Ladies – are understood to have first learned of the misleading edit when a leaked BBC memo was published in The Telegraph.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

1:03
The Reform UK leader says he has spoken to the US president about the BBC and Donald Trump’s words are ‘not quotable’.
Sky News understands the concealed cut in the president’s speech was present in the first version of the film shown to executive producers at an early viewing, with those producers not told an edit had been made.
Despite subsequent internal viewings, and various changes and tweaks to other parts of the film ahead of sign-off by senior editorial figures, as well as the BBC’s compliance and legal teams, the clip containing the president’s spliced quotes remained intact as part of the final edit.
Sky News approached the BBC for comment and were told they had “nothing to add to the BBC Chair’s letter to CMS committee”.
In his letter, Samir Shah described the edit as an “error of judgement” and admitted it “did give the impression of a direct call for violent action”.
October Films declined to comment.
Laura Kuenssberg of the BBC interviewing David Gauke, then justice minister, in 2019. Pic: Reuters
Where was the documentary shown?
The 57-minute Panorama special – Trump: A Second Chance? – first aired on BBC One on 28 October 2024, a week before the US election.
The documentary aired in the UK and was put on iPlayer.
A shorter international version was cut, but the Capitol speech moment was not included in that cut-down version.
The film never aired in the US and couldn’t be viewed in the US on iPlayer as the content was geoblocked.
The January 6 riot at the Capitol Building. Pic: Getty
What was the misleading edit?
While the BBC say the film received “no significant audience feedback” at the time, the corporation says it has since received over 500 complaints after an internal memo detailing investigations into impartiality was leaked to The Telegraph.
The most contentious issue raised in the memo was the cutting together two parts of a long Trump speech, which he had made on 6 January 2021.
This content is provided by Spotify, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spotify cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spotify cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spotify cookies for this session only.
Tap here to follow Trump100 wherever you get your podcasts
This was the day of the storming of the Capitol building in Washington by Trump supporters who believed the 2020 election had been stolen by Joe Biden.
In the documentary, the clip was presented as one sentence, in which Mr Trump appeared to say: “We’re gonna walk down to the Capitol and I’ll be with you and we fight. We fight like hell and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not gonna have a country anymore.”
In reality Mr Trump’s words, “We’re gonna walk down to the Capitol and I’ll be with you,” came around 50 minutes before he said, “and we fight. We fight like hell….” The cut had been covered by crowd shots.
The concerns about the Trump documentary edit first came to light in a leaked memo from Michael Prescott, a former journalist
When were issues over the cut first raised?
The author of the leaked memo, Michael Prescott, former adviser to the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines and Standards Board (EGSB), says he first raised concerns over impartiality after watching the documentary when it aired on the BBC.
He says his complaint led to an investigation by senior EGSC advisor David Grossman, with a report delivered in January 2025. He said this report raised the alarm over the edit of Mr Trump’s Capitol Hill speech.
Read more:
Donald Trump and his long history of lawsuits against the media
‘Mistakes cost us’ says BBC boss Tim Davie
Mr Prescott said that following the review BBC executives “refused to accept there had been a breach of standards and doubled down on its defence of Panorama”.
He says he was told at an EGSC meeting in May 2025 that it was “normal practice to edit speeches into short form clips”.
It was after this meeting in May that Mr Prescott says he wrote to the BBC chairman, Samir Shah, asking him to “take some form of action,” but “received no reply”.
Donald Trump is pictured addressing supporters on January 6, 2021. Pic: AP
What’s the fallout been and what’s next?
The misleading edit has already led to the departure of BBC director-general, Tim Davie, and the head of BBC News, Deborah Turness.
Adding to the BBC’s problems, on Monday, the corporation received a letter from Mr Trump’s lawyers, threatening to sue them for $1bn.
They have been asked to issue a “full and fair retraction” of the documentary, “apologise immediately” and “appropriately compensate” the US president.
The BBC has been given a deadline of 10pm UK time on Friday to respond.
Politics
Prosecutors request February or March retrial for MEV bot brothers
Published
6 hours agoon
November 12, 2025By
adminAnton and James Peraire-Bueno, two brothers indicted for their alleged role in money laundering and fraud involving a $25 million exploit of the Ethereum blockchain, could face a second trial as early as February.
In a Monday filing in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, lawyers representing the US government requested a federal judge schedule a retrial for the Peraire-Bueno brothers “as soon as practicable in late February or early March 2026.”
The request came about three days after a judge declared a mistrial in the case, following the jurors’ inability to reach a verdict.
The brothers were charged with conspiracy to commit wire fraud, money laundering, and conspiracy to receive stolen property related to their role in using maximal extractable value (MEV) bots to exploit $25 million in digital assets in 2023.
The case drew attention from many in the crypto industry for the possible ramifications of a guilty verdict on trading on Ethereum. The brothers could still face decades in prison if they were to be found guilty at retrial.
Related: SEC chair pledges no ‘lax enforcement’ on crypto under market structure
What could change in a second trial?
Jurors took more than three days to deliberate before reporting to the judge that they were unable to reach a verdict. During that time, the jury asked several questions clarifying statements in testimony offered at trial, as well as the definition of “good faith.”
“Yesterday, half of the jury spontaneously broke down in tears, and several members of the jury have reported multiple nights of sleeplessness,” according to a letter filed on the public docket on Monday. “While this is a lesser concern, we have all endured the financial and psychological hardship of being sequestered from our jobs and family for nearly a month.”
As of Wednesday, the judge had not announced a possible retrial date.
Magazine: Big Questions: Did a time-traveling AI invent Bitcoin?
Trending
-
Sports2 years agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports3 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Sports3 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment1 year agoHere are the best electric bikes you can buy at every price level in October 2024
