.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
8 minutes ago
- The Independent
The huge police operation for Trump's Scotland golf course visit
A significant security operation is underway at Donald Trump 's Trump Turnberry golf resort in South Ayrshire following his arrival in Scotland. Police and military personnel are conducting searches at the resort, with road closures implemented and limited access for locals and media. Trump arrived in Scotland on Friday night, landing at Prestwick Airport, and is expected to spend much of his initial day golfing. Scheduled meetings include European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen on Sunday and Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer on Monday, with First Minister John Swinney also set to meet him. Protests organised by the Stop Trump Coalition are anticipated in Edinburgh and Aberdeen, prompting Police Scotland to prepare for demonstrations and request support from other UK forces, leading to the redeployment of 1,500 officers from England and Wales.
The Guardian
9 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Columbia's capitulation to Trump begins a dark new era for US higher education
One of the chauvinistic, self-glorifying myths of American liberalism is that the US has especially strong institutions. In this story, trotted out occasionally since 2016 to reassure those who are worried about Donald Trump's influence, the private and public bodies of American commerce, governance, healthcare and education are possessed of uncommonly robust internal accountability mechanisms, rock-hard rectitude, and a coolly rational self-interest. Trump can only do so much damage to America's economy, culture and way of life, it was reasoned, because these institutions would not bend to his will. They would resist him; they would check his excesses. When forced to choose, as it was always accepted that they one day would be, between Trump's demands and their own principles and purposes, the institutions would always choose themselves. This week put another nail into the coffin of this idea, revealing its valorization of American institutions to be shortsighted and naive. The latest intrusion of reality comes in the form of a deal that Columbia University made with the Trump administration, in which the university made a host of academic, admissions and governance concessions to the Trump regime and agreed to pay a $200m fine in order to restore its federal research funding. The deal marks the formal end of Columbia's academic independence and the dawn of a new era of regulation by deal making, repression and bribery in the field of higher education. The story goes like this. After Columbia became the centerpiece of a nationwide movement of campus encampments in protest of the Israeli genocide in Gaza, the university administration began a frantic and at times sadistic crackdown on pro-Palestinian campus speech in an effort to appease congressional Republicans, who had gleefully seized upon the protests to make cynical and unfounded accusations that the universities were engaged in antisemitism. Columbia invited police on to its campus, who rounded up protesting students in mass arrests. This showed that the university would bend to Republican pressure, but did nothing to satisfy its Republican adversaries – who demanded more and more from Columbia, making their attacks on the university the center of their broader war on education, diversity and expertise. When the Trump administration was restored to power in January, the White House partnered with the Department of Education, the Department of Health and Human Services, the General Services Administration, and the Department of Justice to exert further pressure on Columbia, looking to exert a level of control over the university's internal operations that is unprecedented for a private institution. This time, the university's vast federal research funding – issued in the form of grants that enable university scientists, doctors and academics to make discoveries and pursue knowledge that has enormous implications for American commerce, health and wellbeing – was held hostage. Facing the end of its functioning as a university, Columbia capitulated and went to what was euphemistically called 'the negotiating table' – really, an exchange on the precise terms of its extortion. The deal that resulted gives the Trump administration everything it wants. A Trump-approved monitor will now have the right to review Columbia's admissions records, with the express intent of enforcing a supreme court ban on affirmative action – in other words, ensuring that the university does not admit what the Trump administration deems to be too many non-white students. The Middle Eastern studies department is subject to monitoring, as well, after an agreement in March. The agreement is not a broad-level, generally applicable regulatory endeavor that applies to other universities – although given the scope of the administration's ambitions at Columbia, it is hard to say whether such a regulatory regime would be legal. Instead, it is an individual, backroom deal, one that disregards the institution's first amendment rights and the congressionally mandated protections for its grants in order to proceed with a shakedown. 'The agreement,' writes the Columbia Law School professor David Pozen, 'gives legal form to an extortion scheme.' The process was something akin to a mob boss demanding protection money from a local business. 'Nice research university you have here,' the Trump administration seemed to say to Columbia. 'Would be a shame if something were to happen to it.' That Columbia folded, and sacrificed its integrity, reputation and the freedom of its students and faculty for the federal money, speaks to both the astounding lack of foresight and principle by the university leadership as well as the Trump movement's successful foreclosure of institutions' options for resistance. With the federal judiciary full of Trump appointees – and the supreme court showing itself willing to radically expand executive powers and rapidly diminish the rights of other parties in its eagerness to facilitate Trump's agenda – there is little hope for Columbia, or the other universities that will inevitably be next, to successfully litigate their way out of the administration's threats. But nor does capitulation seem likely to put an end to the Trump administration's demands. The installation of an administration-approved monitor seems poised to offer a toehold from which the government will impose more and more limitations on scholarship, speech and association. There is, after all, no limiting principle to the Trump administration's absolutist expansion of its own prerogatives, and no way for Columbia to ensure that its funding won't be cut off again. The university, in time, will become more what Trump makes it than what its students do. Meanwhile, the Trump administration is likely to use its experience at Columbia as a template to extract substantive concessions and big payouts from other institutions. And these are not just limited to universities. On Thursday, the day after Columbia's capitulation, the Federal Communications Commission approved the merger of Paramount and Skydance. The pending merger – and the Trump administration's threat to squash it – had been a rumored motivation for CBS's decision to pay Trump millions to settle a frivolous defamation suit; it was also rumored to have caused an outcry at the CBS news magazine program 60 Minutes and the end of the evening talkshow The Late Show With Stephen Colbert, when writers, journalists, and performers on those shows stood by their critical coverage of the president or mocked the deal their bosses paid him. The shakedown, after all, is a tactic that lots of institutions are vulnerable to, and Trump is already using it effectively to stifle some of the most visible forms of dissent. The institutions are not standing firm against him; they are capitulating. They are choosing their short-term interest over their long-term integrity. Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist
The Guardian
9 minutes ago
- The Guardian
The Macrons' Candace Owens lawsuit marks new phase in battle against conspiracy theories
When the French president, Emmanuel Macron, and his wife, Brigitte, took the rare step this week of filing a US defamation lawsuit against the rightwing podcaster Candace Owens, it marked a new phase in a legal battle on both sides of the Atlantic against the false claim that Brigitte Macron is a man named Jean-Michel Trogneux. The Macrons' US lawsuit attacked what it called the 'verifiably false and devastating lies' being repeated online by Owens that Brigitte Macron, 72, was born a man. The lawsuit said evidence clearly disproved this 'grotesque narrative', which had become 'a campaign of global humiliation' and 'relentless bullying on a worldwide scale'. The case prompted broader questions this week about how conspiracy theories spread worldwide, whether they can be stopped in the courts and what this false narrative, which began in France after the Covid pandemic, says about French society's distrust in politicians. 'This is now one of the biggest fake news stories worldwide in terms of popularity – a billion people have seen it,' said Emmanuelle Anizon, a senior journalist for the French weekly Nouvel Obs, who last year published a book, L'Affaire Madame, investigating the origins of the rumour in France. 'What's new is that for the first time, Emmanuel Macron has joined his wife in taking legal action.' The Macrons' US lawsuit states the accusation that Brigitte Macron was born a man named Jean-Michel Trogneux is completely false and Trogneux is in fact is her older brother. Trogneux, 80, lives in the northern French town of Amiens, where he grew up with Brigitte and four other siblings in a family famous for its local chocolate business. He was present in public alongside his Brigitte at Emmanuel Macron's two presidential inaugurations in 2017 and 2022. Owens, whose podcast and social media channels have an audience of millions, said this week she stood by her narrative. The false claim that Brigitte was a man first went viral in France in 2021, at a moment when distrust of politicians in was at a high, after the gilets jaunes (yellow vests) anti-government protest movement and the Covid pandemic that killed more than 130,000 people in France. In December 2021, a woman who used the name Amandine Roy and called herself a 'spiritual medium', broadcast a four-hour YouTube interview with Natacha Rey, 51, who had worked previously for a small essential oils business and described herself as 'an independent investigative journalist, self-taught, and not from the inner circle of mainstream media'. Rey said she had spent three years investigating Brigitte Macron, after questioning the first lady's body-shape in photos. Rey said she believed Brigitte Macron was actually a man called Jean-Michel Trogneux. Within hours, the interview had 500,000 views and the hashtag #Jean-MichelTrogneux was trending on social media in France, promoted by, among others, some far-right and anti-vaccine accounts. A small far-right newsletter had already published Rey's theories but it was the video interview that sent the claim viral. 'There was a deeper societal problem at that time in France: the mistrust of political, media and economic institutions,' Anizon said. 'There had been years of political health scandals worldwide and in France – from a contaminated blood scandal to the Mediator weight-loss drug. Many people had gradually reached a point of distrust, switching off traditional mainstream media and turning instead to online accounts – Covid and vaccine mistrust increased that.' The rumour spread in part because the Macrons' relationship had long been a topic of comment online. Brigitte Macron, who is 24 years older, first met Emmanuel Macron when she was a French teacher at his Jesuit secondary school in Amiens, directing him in a school play. The Macrons' US lawsuit this week stated: 'Through the school's theatre programme, president Macron and Mrs Macron formed a deeper intellectual connection.' It added: 'At all times the teacher-student relationship between Mrs Macron and President Macron remained within the bounds of the law.' Brigitte Macron, who has three children from her first marriage, divorced in 2006 and she and Emmanuel Macron married the following year when he was 30. In early 2022, after the first viral video allegations, Brigitte Macron and her brother, Jean-Michel Trogneux, filed a defamation case in France against Roy and Rey, who both denied wrongdoing. In September 2024, a Paris court found the two women guilty and ordered them to pay €8,000 in damages to Brigitte Macron and €5,000 in damages to Jean-Michel Trogneux. The women appealed against the verdict and, this month, they were acquitted by a Paris appeals court. The appeal court verdict did not imply that the claims that Brigitte Macron was a man were true, but instead judges ruled that the case against the women did not fit the definition of defamation. Brigitte Macron and Jean-Michel Trogneux have taken the case to France's highest appeals court, the cour de cassation. Brigitte Macron has filed a separate case for online harassment and 10 people will go on trial in Paris in October. Each time the Macrons' relationship is in the spotlight, the false allegations about gender spread again online. This was the case in May, when video images appeared to show Brigitte pushing her husband away with both hands on his face before they disembarked from a plane on a tour of Southeast Asia. Macron dismissed the incident as play-fighting, telling reporters that 'we are squabbling and, rather, joking with my wife', and that it had been overblown into 'a sort of geo-planetary catastrophe'. Brigitte Macron has not spoken publicly on the false gender claims since 2022 when she told French radio, RTL, that allegations that 'I am my brother' were an 'impossible' attack on her parents' family tree. She told TF1 TV at the time she wanted to set an example so other people would not suffer in the same way. She said fighting online bullying 'is my battle'.
