.jpg%3Ftrim%3D0%2C0%2C0%2C0%26width%3D1200%26height%3D800%26crop%3D1200%3A800&w=3840&q=100)
What does Donald Trump have to prove to win his WSJ lawsuit over ‘fake' Epstein card?
The lawsuit filed in Miami federal court on Friday names the paper's owners, including right-wing media mogul Rupert Murdoch, as well as the paper's parent companies, Dow Jones and News Corp, and two Wall Street Journal reporters, claiming they defamed Trump.
Weeks after the White House attempted to dismiss the so-called Epstein files as a Democratic 'hoax,' the Journal published Trump's alleged 50th birthday card message to Epstein. The 2003 note was described as including a sexually suggestive drawing and a birthday wish that read: 'may every day be another wonderful secret.'
But the lawsuit claims the paper 'failed to show proof that President Trump authored or signed any such letter, and failed to explain how this purported letter was obtained.'
Trump's handling of claims related to Epstein, the child sex predator who died by suicide in a Manhattan jail cell in 2019, has drawn criticism even from his own MAGA base, as many Americans believe the US government is hiding information about Epstein's associates.
According to experts, The Wall Street Journal could seek reciprocal discovery, and Trump would be forced to answer highly-publicized questions about his relationship with Epstein, and whether he was aware of his crimes.
Here's what Trump would need to happen to win the lawsuit:
Prove the Journal was lying – or failed to properly fact-check their story
For Trump to win the $10 billion defamation suit, he would have to provethat The Wall Street Journal was lying, or did not fact-check their claims before publishing.
A spokesperson for Dow Jones defended the accuracy of the reporting and their fact-checking of its claims.
'We have full confidence in the rigor and accuracy of our reporting, and will vigorously defend against any lawsuit,' a spokesperson said in a statement.
News Corp did not immediately return The Independent's request for comment.
According to Damon Dunn, a First Amendment and media attorney, Trump would have to prove the story was false, damaging to his reputation, and published with 'actual' malice – a lofty legal standard to reach, Dunn told Business Insider.
'The provenance of the 'card' appears suspect, but, even so, is it defamatory that one millionaire sent a birthday card to another in 2003 before Epstein was discovered?' Dunn said, noting the card was allegedly written years before Epstein was convicted of sex crimes.
Former federal prosecutor Chris Mattei said the lawsuit may allow the Journal to seek reciprocal discovery – meaning it can ask Trump to provide additional information or evidence that he did not write the letter, as well as details about his relationship with Epstein and whether he was aware of his crimes.
"If Trump's defense is that this was false, then any evidence suggesting that he had a relationship with Epstein, the degree to which that relationship was close or not, would be relevant to the question of whether or not it's likely Trump had any sort of role in this letter," Mattei said. "And so an aggressive Wall Street Journal here would seek broad discovery about the extent of Trump's relationship with Epstein."
Mattei said he felt Trump's case was unlikely to have merit, and likely stood as a test to 'explore what kind of power and leverage he has over the American media.'
"There will be some period of weeks where The Wall Street Journal will be able to file its motion to dismiss if it wants to make a request for discovery, the judgment rule on that request could take a little bit more time," Mattei said. "And so if it is indeed contested, you could see the initial phase of this, including discovery, playing out over the next six months."
What Trump is claiming in the lawsuit
Despite the Journal's defense of its reporting, Trump still claims the Murdoch-owned paper exhibited 'glaring failures in journalistic ethics and standards of accurate reporting.'
The story detailed a gift Trump allegedly gave Epstein for his 50th birthday that included a signed note from Trump inside a drawing of a naked woman. The note apparently included the disturbing phrase, 'may every day be another wonderful secret,' according to the report.
The filing, however, notes that the Journal did not publish the drawing or the letter that it alleges Trump wrote.
Trump denied writing the letter, going so far as to claim he has never drawn a picture in his life.
'I never wrote a picture in my life. I don't draw pictures of women,' he said, according to the Journal. 'It's not my language. It's not my words.'
The Wall Street Journal, however, later fired back in another story, highlighting several images drawn by Trump, including four that were auctioned off during his first term in office.
Trump threatened legal action against the paper, and the two journalists whose bylines appear on the report, Khadeeja Safdar and Joe Palazzolo, were almost immediately targeted by CNN, the report stated.
The president also took to his Truth Social platform to air his grievances about the story.
' The Wall Street Journal, and Rupert Murdoch, personally, were warned directly by President Donald J. Trump that the supposed letter they printed by President Trump to Epstein was a FAKE and, if they print it, they will be sued,' Trump wrote.
Trump also claimed that Murdoch did not want to print the letter, but he 'did not have the power to do so,' prompting Trump to file the suit.
After the article was published, Trump said he directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to 'produce any and all pertinent grand jury testimony subject to Court approval.' On Friday, the Justice Department sought court approval for that public release.
Federal prosecutors in 2019 charged Epstein with sex trafficking underage girls in both Florida and New York. He died by suicide in jail while awaiting trial.
Trump has threatened other media outlets over coverage
The president has regularly threatened to take legal action against media outlets over unflattering or antagonistic coverage.
His lawsuits against ABC and CBS resulted in controversial settlements that have sparked fears among press freedom advocates that publishers are only emboldening the president's chilling message to the media.
Now Murdoch, who also owns The New York Post and The Sun, once a close ally, has found himself in the same boat.
The network ultimately settled that defamation lawsuit, which was brought by voting machine company Dominion Voting Systems, for a record-breaking $787 million.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Independent
18 minutes ago
- The Independent
‘I'm 94 years old and will not be intimidated': Has Trump met his match in Rupert Murdoch?
Lamenting the inconvenient truth that his parent company had joined a slew of other institutions in capitulating to Donald Trump's capricious demands, Jon Stewart threw out a rallying cry this week after his late-night cohort Stephen Colbert was canceled amid Paramount's desperate push to complete an $8 billion merger. 'Sack the f*** up,' the Daily Show star exclaimed, calling for media conglomerates to stop running scared and stand up to the president's legal bullying, which CBS employees have described as a 'Trump shakedown.' Could it be that Stewart has already found his unlikely champion in the form of a nonagenarian right-wing media mogul who was the driving force behind Trump's rise to power? That is increasingly looking like that might be the case. Feeling emboldened by Paramount and Disney paying him off to settle easily winnable lawsuits, the president followed through on his days-long threat and sued Rupert Murdoch on Friday for $10 billion after the Wall Street Journal published a much-anticipated story about Trump's 'bawdy' birthday letter to deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Before firing off his defamation suit, the president spent the previous few days desperately trying to get Murdoch and his paper to kill the story, which promised to further fan the flames of the controversy over the administration's handling of the Epstein files as it detailed Trump's lengthy kinship with the disgraced financier. 'This is not me. This is a fake thing. It's a fake Wall Street Journal story,' Trump shouted at WSJ editor-in-chief Emma Tucker two days before the story was published. 'I'm gonna sue the Wall Street Journal just like I sued everyone else.' Following the bombshell report's publication last Thursday night, the president whined on Truth Social that Murdoch told him 'he would take care of it,' but apparently 'did not have the power to do so.' Despite legal experts saying he has an exceptionally weak case and that it could backfire by exposing him to further scrutiny in the Epstein matter, the president went ahead and fired off his latest legal tantrum on Friday. Meanwhile, not only has the Wall Street Journal and its publisher Dow Jones stood by its reporting, but the paper dropped another blockbuster on Wednesday by revealing that Attorney General Pam Bondi informed Trump in May that his name appeared several times in the Epstein files. That story further helps explain why the administration reversed course this month and decided against revealing more documents in the Epstein case. It also appears that Murdoch himself has indicated behind the scenes that he has no plans to back down anytime soon. 'I'm 94 years old and I will not be intimidated,' Murdoch said, the Washington Post reported, citing three people familiar with the Fox News owner's private conversations. While the Post also notes that the president's latest volley in his all-out war on the media 'crosses a new Rubicon' as he is 'lashing out at one of his most powerful media allies,' what it really lays bare is how the Trump-Murdoch relationship has always been one of convenience between two men who see themselves as the leading figure in the conservative movement. Trump's lawsuit, and Murdoch's potential willingness to fight it to the end, could be the final crescendo to the fraught alliance between the two right-wing titans. As Puck's Dylan Byers observed this week, unlike the multi-tiered conglomerates or overleveraged companies that have bent the knee to Trump recently, 'the 94-year-old media titan is a different kind of defendant' as he has 'the resources, the freedom, and the fortitude to wage a legal fight with the president.' 'I don't think he has any intention of settling. Why would he?' one Murdoch source told Byers, noting that the mogul could 'relish the fight' against Trump. At the same time, it appears that both Trump and Murdoch understand how important it is to keep Fox News – Murdoch world's crown jewel – out of the fray for the time being. The president's lawsuit was carefully compartmentalized to avoid pulling in the right-wing network – which the president enjoys a symbiotic relationship with and uses as a staffing agency for his administration. All the while, Fox News has all but ignored the ongoing Epstein saga in recent days and has largely avoided mentioning either the Wall Street Journal's story or the president's lawsuit against their boss, which has also led the White House to punish Fox's sister publication by pulling their reporters off the travel press pool. Instead, the network's pro-Trump hosts have gone all in on trumpeting the administration's efforts to distract from the Epstein mess – specifically glomming onto Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard's misleading and false claims that the Obama administration engaged in a treasonous 'coup' with its Russia election interference assessment. In fact, the network has mentioned former President Barack Obama three times more than Epstein since Gabbard released her report. Additionally, senior members of the Trump administration have continued to flock to Fox News for softball interviews and friendly sitdowns that have completely sidestepped the Epstein controversy. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, who has blasted Murdoch and the Wall Street Journal repeatedly over the Epstein-Trump story, was asked to react to Hunter Biden's profane podcast appearance in two separate Fox News interviews. This odd dichotomy prompted NewsNation anchor Chris Cuomo to press attorney Alejandro Brito – who is representing the president in his lawsuit – why Trump's allies 'keep using Fox News' if Murdoch is so 'inimical to the cause' and essentially public enemy #1. Brito essentially shrugged and dodged Cuomo's pointed question. According to the New York Times, people close to the president have said that he 'considers Fox News — and for that matter, The New York Post, another business owned by Mr. Murdoch — to be in a separate, friendlier category, where he has warm relations with various personalities.' For example, on the same day Trump filed his lawsuit, the president promoted his close pal Sean Hannity's show, urging his followers to watch later that evening because Hannity 'really gets it.' In the end, Murdoch has barely constrained his disdain for Trump over the years, and has at times hoped to even make him a 'non-person' within GOP politics – especially when the reality star-turned-MAGA king has damaged Fox News' balance sheet. Early on in Trump's political rise, Murdoch hoped to stop the former Apprentice star dead in his tracks with the first Republican primary debate of the 2016 presidential race. 'This has gone on long enough,' he told his then-lieutenant Roger Ailes, directing the Fox News chief to have the moderators pummel Trump with hard-hitting questions. Of course, after Trump publicly attacked Megyn Kelly following the debate and the right-wing base ate it up, Murdoch and the network eventually relented and sided with the eventual president over their star anchor. The on-again/off-again friendship, meanwhile, would continue over the course of the next decade. After keeping things congenial throughout Trump's first term, tensions once again escalated between the two following the 2020 presidential election, which saw Fox News become the first network to call the battleground state of Arizona for Joe Biden. That decision resulted in a domino effect that saw Fox News' ratings briefly collapse as furious MAGA supporters fled to fringe right channels that would peddle Trump's election lies, eventually leading to the Dominion lawsuit against Fox News – which began trumpeting election fraud conspiracies to lure back viewers – that would cost Murdoch $787.5 million. Following Trump's exit from office in 2021, the two men barely talked for years, and Trump was even given a 'soft ban' from appearing on Fox for a period of time. Murdoch also attempted to use his vast media empire to back potential challengers to Trump for the 2024 presidential nomination, particularly Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley. The Fox News audience, however, was having none of it and Trump easily secured the nomination – and Murdoch's backing once more. Still, even before Trump decided to take Murdoch to court, the president continued to air his gripes about the coverage he was receiving from the mogul's news outlets – especially the Wall Street Journal. Hosting Murdoch in an Oval Office meeting in February, Trump groused when a reporter asked about a recent WSJ op-ed blasting him for starting the 'dumbest trade war in history.' 'I'm going to have to talk to him about that,' Trump grumbled with Murdoch sitting mere feet away. Amid the president's ongoing assault on legacy and mainstream media outlets, whether it's coercing news organizations to settle frivolous lawsuits or pressuring billionaires to change their newspapers' editorial direction or defunding public media groups, some have wondered if Murdoch will stand up and be the improbable savior of the First Amendment. 'Is this what we have come to—depending on Rupert Murdoch to stand up for press freedom?' Tina Brown, the former editor-in-chief of Vanity Fair and The Daily Beast, wrote recently. 'Amidst the Trumpian slide towards authoritarian bullying of the press, it raises the increasingly urgent question of whom we can turn to keep independent journalism alive.'


The Guardian
18 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Far-right Israeli politicians and settlers discuss luxury ‘Gaza riviera' plan
A group of far-right Israeli politicians and settlers met in parliament this week to discuss a plan to displace Palestinians from Gaza, annex the territory and turn it into a hi-tech, luxury resort city for Israelis. The scheme, titled 'The master plan for settlement in the Gaza Strip', envisions the construction of 850,000 housing units, construction of hi-tech 'smart cities' that trade cryptocurrency, and a metro system that runs across the territory. It took its inspiration from an idea shared by the US president, Donald Trump, in February, when he pledged to turn Gaza into the 'riviera of the Middle East'. The text of the plan, which boasts of the economic benefits to Israel, said: 'The right of the people of Israel to settle, develop and preserve this land is not just a historical right – it is a national and security obligation.' The plan, seen by the Guardian, would require Gaza's existing population of about 2 million to be emptied out. Legal experts warn that forcible displacement on such a scale would be tantamount to ethnic cleansing. Michael Sfard, one of Israel's leading human rights lawyers, said: 'This is a plan for ethnic cleansing. Under international law, this would amount to a crime against humanity because deportation is a war crime when committed on a small scale and a crime against humanity when it is committed on a massive scale.' The plan was discussed on Tuesday in the Knesset during a conference called 'The riviera in Gaza: from vision to reality'. Among the speakers was the minister of finance, Bezalel Smotrich, and the settler activist Daniella Weiss. The conference drew criticism from other politicians, including Gilad Kariv, of the Democrats party, who accused Smotrich of calling for war crimes to be committed. Weiss told the Guardian over the phone: 'Gazans will not remain there. They will go to other countries. Supporters of Hamas we will fight. But those who want to live a normal life, they will have to leave Gaza because of the 7 October attack.' Palestinians would be relocated to Egypt and other unspecified 'African countries', she added. Weiss said she had a list of 1,000 Israeli families who had already signed up to live on land in Gaza once Palestinian residents were pushed out. 'My plan is to make [Gaza] paradise, to make it Singapore,' she said. Weiss represents a small, but increasingly influential group of radical settlers within Israel who seek to illegally occupy the Gaza Strip. Their calls to create Israeli settlements have grown stronger since the 7 October 2023 Hamas-led attack, which killed about 1,200 people, and the Israeli war in Gaza, which has killed more than 60,000 so far. The war has levelled much of Gaza and destroyed basic civilian infrastructure. The riviera plan would build luxury resorts on the ruins of Gaza once Israel stopped bombing it. Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has denied any plans to resettle residents of Gaza, though his defence minister, Israel Katz, has suggested transferring residents to a 'humanitarian city' in southern Gaza. Legal experts have called the plan a blueprint for crimes against humanity and the Israeli military itself pushed back on the idea, which it said would be a security nightmare. Trump has also floated the idea of expelling the population of Gaza, suggesting at one point that neighbouring Jordan could take in those displaced. Trump suggested the US could assume control over Gaza to 'develop' the strip – which drew the ire of human rights organisations around the world. While the conference was beng held, Gaza's starvation crisis continued to worsen. At least 113 people have died of hunger in Gaza, 45 of whom died in the last four days, health authorities said. Aid organisations have blamed Israel's virtual blockade of aid into the strip for the growing levels of extreme hunger. Human rights experts said the suggestion of displacing Gaza's residents inside and outside the territory should not be viewed in isolation. Rather, this was part and parcel of a displacement policy. 'When an occupying power creates a coercive environment by, for instance, withholding food, and that coercive environment leaves no choice to the civilian population but to move, then this can amount to the war crime of forced displacement,' said Janina Dill, the co-director of the Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law and Armed Conflict.


The Guardian
18 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Hulk Hogan – a life in pictures from wrestling fame to Trump rallies
The controversial wrestling star died at the age of 71 after a cardiac arrest at his home in Florida. He was one of the most successful wrestlers of the 1980s before starring in films such as Mr Nanny, Rocky III and Suburban Commando. He was also a vocal supporter of Donald Trump, taking part in campaign rallies for the president Hulk Hogan, wrestling star and actor, dies aged 71