Ever heard of “discovery?”

a disregard for the truth, good luck with that.

And just taking a pathological liars word that the story is not true, isn't good enough.

No matter how ridiculous his claims are, he always seems to be able to find some idiot lawyer to represent him. I'm damned if I know why, but we've seen it too many times to count.

I think suing is an intimidation tactic for him, one he's relied on for years. I'm sure it's been effective for him in the past. If he still had any of his marbles left, he'd realize that the Wall Street Journal is not going to be intimidated that easily...if at all.

Furthermore, I dont believe they would have run that story unless they were absolutely sure of its veracity and had iron clad evidence that it's true. There's no way he can get them to retract this story, much less apologize to him, and in the highly unlikely event that this ever actually goes to court, he'll end up looking like an absolute fool when the WSJ produces the evidence that the story is true. The WSJ knows all this, and they're probably having a good laugh over it right now.

Basically, Schlump has painted himself into a corner here. Filing this suit was a stupid, stupid move, and I think it's just another sign of how his cognitive abilities are unraveling.

fake

...and Murdoch has real lawyers.

Discovery in defamation cases typically is more important for the plaintiff than the defendant. Consider the Jean Carroll case -- she was the plaintiff and discovery was key to her case, but wasn't particularly helpful to defendant Trump.

Happy Saturday to ya'!

When an allegedly defamatory statement is proven to be true, the plaintiff cannot succeed in a defamation lawsuit, regardless of the statement's potential harm or the defendant's intent.

This is because defamation, by its nature, involves a false statement of fact.

During discovery all underlying facts would be brought to bear.

The Wall Street Journal and Murdoch would not have published the piece the way they did unless they had absolute and irrefutable evidence of it's validity.

Trump and the GOP do not want this to go to discovery.
I guarantee it.

This is as idiotic as Vance demanding that The New York Times release Trump's letter.

Absolute proof is irrefutable.

This is that.

Last edited Sat Jul 19, 2025, 04:04 PM - Edit history (1)

As a public figure plaintiff in a defamation suit, Trump has the burden of proving the falsity of the allegedly defamatory statement. He also must establish by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant knew it was false or recklessly disregarded whether it was true. Essentially, the defendant must have knowingly lied or willfully ignored facts that would debunk the statement. This means in practice that Trump would have to establish that the WSJ deliberately lied or fabricated information, or had obvious reason to doubt their source but failed to verify, or departed from professional standards in ways that support an inference of knowing falsity.

That's a tough row to hoe -- and it will mean Trump will push for all kinds of discovery against the defendants, including the disclosure of confidential sources -- a particularly controversial issue in such cases.

On the other hand, WSJ doesn't have the burden of proving the statement to be true in a public figure case. Often, for defendants in defamation cases, the discovery is focused on whether there was injury to the plaintiff's reputation and/or the amount of damages. In a case like this, it probably matters less, except for show, whether Trump suffered any monetary harm -- he wants "vindication" in the form of a decision that the WSJ lied.

So why is this a dangerous case for the WSJ? Because on both the issue of the malice standard and the disclosure of confidential sources, there is every reason to believe that the current SCOTUS would overrule or limit prior precedent in order to make it easier for a public figure to sue a media outlet for defamation

Thank you for your informed analysis!

I'm working on doing the necessary mental gymnastics to convolute the malice standard in such a way as to moot evidentiary proof of truth as an absolute defense.

I am unable.

What twists and turns might SCOTUS pronounce so as to allow such an abhorrent outcome?

As he will be trying to get names in the court record to turn his followers towards.

I have an incredible hatred for everything Murdoch. I guess I'm going to have to swallow this one. Rupert, you still suck, though.

The Journal published an article saying Trump sent a letter, with a drawing of a naked woman, to Jeffrey Epstein in 2003 in celebration of the financier's 50th birthday..
The discovery in this case will be fun

BREAKING: President Trump sues the Wall Street Journal's publisher and 2 reporters over an article saying Trump sent a letter to Jeffrey Epstein in 2003.

— NBC News (@nbcnews.com) 2025-07-18T21:39:56Z

On Thursday night, the president vowed to sue The Wall Street Journal. Less than a day later, it became clear that he wasn't bluffing.

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/trump-sues-wsj-murdoch-epstein-birthday-letter-rcna219701

It's fucking crazy!

Popcorn

Ghost writer? Head fake by Rupert?

Its all a bribery scam.

still has the Smartmatic trial going on where they haven't settled yet (after they settled with Dominion for that infamous $787 million)!

The WSJ lawyers will strip trump like piranhas, so I hope she gets her court ordered recompense before he goes bankrupt again.

that Murdoch et al will be able to request discovery and he'll have to testify?

His lawyers will object to, and instruct him not to answer, any other questions about his relationship with Epstein on the grounds it isn't relevant to the question presented: did or did not Trump sign and send the card? The burden of proof in this case is on Trump as a public figure to prove the falsity of the story.

Analysis on 47's lawsuit from Lisa Rubin starts about 4 mins in on Nicole Wallace's show (limited given they don't have the complaint yet, but some insights on WSJ side).

... to feed the narrative to the MAGA and QAnon disciples, "no he didn't, it's all a New York (spit patooie) hoax"!

Just adds to the chaos. I am glad the past month or so the main stream media has been mentioning that word. CHAOS. It is what the RNC/GOP has been doing in the open since Nixon. Chip... Chip...Chip... until they chip away such a big chunk that we have a constitutional crisis. Of course, we can curse The Federalist Society for giving them lots of help!

Does that mean Aileen Cannon gets more work?

...eom.

It's not libelous or slanderous if it's TRUE.

By the way, doesn't this dumbass have a country to run? I would think he would be too busy working for the people to be filing frivolous lawsuits.

LOL! Look who I'm talking about. Sometimes I just crack myself up.

... but regardless...

Oh, you sweet Summer child.

😉😁

...taking notes...

...again, this how you knuckle-down the press...

...

This may have been the plan all along.