According
to
market
research
by
commercial
real
estate
firm
Cresa,
which
Am
Law
50
firm
increased
their
NYC
office
space
the
most
in
the
second
quarter
of
2025?
Hint:
The
firm
added
a
131,000
square-foot
new
office
in
addition
to
their
existing
NYC
office
space,
which
the
firm
says
is
“in
response
to
our
growth
and
anticipated
future
needs.”
What
was
Donald
Trump
thinking
about
the
Jeffrey
Epstein
files?
Maybe
this:
It’s
the
middle
of
2024,
and
the
Epstein
files
are
important
to
my
presidential
campaign. My
base
thinks
the
files
will
prove
that
Democratic
pedophiles
run
the
country. I’m
supposed
to
release
the
files,
expose
the
pedophiles,
and
cleanse
the
country
of
the
Democratic
elite
cabal.
Does
anyone
really
believe
that
crap? Thank
God
for
QAnon.
Anyway,
I
realize
there’s
a
bunch
of
stuff
in
the
Epstein
files
that
makes
me
look
pretty
bad.
The
heck
with
it! I’ll
commit
to
release
the
files
anyway. Maybe
folks
will
have
forgotten
about
Epstein
by
the
time
I’m
inaugurated.
It’s
now
the
summer
of
2025,
and
people
still
remember
the
Epstein
files.
What
can
I
say
now
to
avoid
releasing
the
files,
which
contain
that
incriminating
material?
Maybe
I’ll
say
that
we
can’t
release
the
files
because
they
contain
second-
and
third-hand
information
that
may
damage
the
reputation
of
innocent
people.
Wait
a
minute;
no
one
will
believe
that. Have
you
seen
how
much
I
care
about
the
reputations
of
innocent
people? Hell,
I’ve
been
ordered
to
pay
tens
of
millions
of
dollars
to
E.
Jean
Carroll
for
having
defamed
her. I’m
not
sure
I
should
talk
about
protecting
the
reputations
of
innocent
people.
What
else
can
I
say
to
avoid
releasing
the
files?
Maybe
I
should
say
that
the
files
will
unfairly
incriminate
people. No. My
base
knows
that
the
files
are
incriminating;
that’s
why
people
want
to
see
the
damn
things. That
won’t
work.
Maybe
I
should
say
that
I
can’t
release
the
Epstein
files
because
they
contain
the
names
of
underage
victims
of
sexual
abuse.
I
don’t
really
care
about
underage
girls. I
used
to
go
strolling
around
the dressing
room of
a
Miss
Teenage
America
pageant. But
I’m
not
sure
that
excuse
will
work. If
anyone
really
cares
about
young
victims
of
sexual
abuse,
we
could
just
redact
the
names
of
the
children.
I
guess
there’s
only
one
thing
for
me
to
do: Deny
that
there’s
anything
interesting
in
the
Epstein
files. My
base
will
probably
believe
me
—
God,
I
love
the
deplorables!
—
and
that
will
put
the
whole
issue
behind
me.
Shoot! People
aren’t
believing
me. They
still
want
to
see
the
files. I
guess
we’ve
been
talking
about
Epstein
for
too
long. Even
my
base
isn’t
stupid
enough
to
let
me
renege
on
my
promise
to
release
the
files. And
now
the
Democrats
are
piling
on. What
will
I
do?
Maybe
I
should
say
that
I
can’t
release
the
Epstein
files
because
they
contain
secret
grand
jury
materials.
I
sure
don’t
give
a
damn
about
grand
jury
materials. What
the
hell’s
a
grand
jury,
anyway? Besides,
I’m
immune
from
criminal
prosecution,
so
they
can’t
prosecute
me
if
I
illegally
release
grand
jury
materials.
But
I
don’t
even
have
to
release
the
stuff! I’ll
tell
Pam
Bondi
to
release
“grand
jury
testimony,”
if
courts
authorize
it. The
courts
may
not
authorize
it. Even
if
they
do,
the
grand
jury
would
have
investigated
only
Epstein
and
Ghislaine
Maxwell;
prosecutors
wouldn’t
have
asked
any
questions
about
me. So
long
as
we
release
only
“grand
jury
testimony,”
and
not
the
“Epstein
files,”
I’m
probably
okay.
Shoot! The
Wall
Street
Journal is
about
to
report
on
the
birthday
note
that
I
allegedly
sent
to
Epstein
that
suggests
that
I
might
allegedly
know
about
his
fondness
for
underage
girls.
What
will
I
do
now?
I’ll
have
my
thugs
call
Rupert
Murdoch
and
tell
him
not
to
publish!
Didn’t
work.
I’ll
have
my
thugs
call
the
editor
at
the Journal and
demand
that
she
not
publish!
Didn’t
work.
I’ll
threaten
to
sue
the Journal! (I
know
that’s
ridiculous,
because
a
lawsuit
would
only
draw
attention
to
the
issue,
and
discovery
in
the
lawsuit
would
be
horribly
embarrassing
to
me,
but
what
can
I
do? You
have
to
threaten
to
sue,
and
generally
follow
through,
to
avoid
looking
weak.)
That
didn’t
work
either.
What
do
I
do
now?
Fake
news!
Anything
that
doesn’t
flatter
me
is
always
fake
news.
It’s
a
bifurcated
world: There’s
only
flattering
news
and
fake
news. There
are
only
judges
who
rule
in
my
favor
and
judges
who
are
corrupt,
communist
Democrats. I’ll
just
use
the
old
fake
news
ploy: I’ll
insist
the
birthday
note
to
Epstein
is
a
fake!
This’ll
be
tricky
to
pull
off.
The
note
is
included
with
a
bunch
of
others
in
a
book
that
celebrated
Epstein’s
50th
birthday. The
company
that
published
the
book
probably
has
evidence
that
the
contributors
actually
sent
in
their
contributions. Scores
of
people
who
wrote
other
notes
for
Jeff
will
probably
concede
that
their
notes
are
real. Is
my
alleged
note
the
only
fake
note? Who
faked
it,
and
when?
Jesus
—
Ghislaine
Maxwell
assembled
the
book
for
Jeff,
and
she’s
still
alive. She
could
testify
that
she
didn’t
concoct
stuff
to
put
in
the
book.
Screw
it. Who
gives
a
damn?
I’m
gonna
insist
that
the Journal concocted
the
note
and
somehow
placed
it
in
a
book
that
was
published
20
years
ago. Maybe
they
knew
I’d
be
elected
president. Or
maybe
Obama,
or
Biden,
or
Comey
concocted
the
note.
I
haven’t
worked
this
out
yet,
but
one
of
those
things
should
work.
What
if
they
don’t
work? Even
my
base
might
not
be
that
stupid.
I
guess,
in
the
end,
it
won’t
matter. I’ve
been
found
liable
for
sexual
assault
(which,
in
the
common
meaning
of
the
words,
constituted
rape).
I’ve
been
accused
of
sexual
assault
by
dozens
of
other
women. My
voice
is
on
tape
talking
about
grabbing
women
by
the
pussy. The
whole
world
knows
about
Stormy
Daniels.
None
of
that
made
any
difference.
So
the
birthday
note
will
be
made
public,
and
every
thinking
person
will
know
that
it’s
real.
Of
course
it’s
not
just
the
note.
Epstein
and
I
were
“best
friends”
for
a
long,
long
time.
I
fought
pretty
damn
hard
to
keep
the
entire
Epstein
file
from
being
made
public,
so
there’s
probably
some
other
incriminating
stuff
in
there,
too.
The
hell
with
it;
I’ll
be
incriminated.
I
can’t
be
prosecuted,
even
if
there’s
evidence
of
criminality
in
the
files.
The
Republicans
in
Congress
sure
aren’t
going
to
impeach
me
over
this.
I
guess
I’ll
just
have
a
stain
on
my
reputation.
Another
stain
on
my
reputation?
I
don’t
even
care
if
that’s
fake
news. It’s
basically
no
news
at
all.
This
is
not
normal.
It’s
very
unusual
to
see
them
[associates]
take
to
LinkedIn
to
very
specifically
announce
why
they
are
leaving
[and
to
denounce
their
firms.]
The
impression
I’m
getting
is
that
it
was
a
breach
of
trust
between
the
associates
and
leadership…
and
the
breach
of
trust
can’t
be
solved.
—
Anna
Sanders,
Washington,
D.C.
recruiter
and
senior
director
at
VOYlegal,
in
comments
given
to
the
American
Lawyer,
about
the
many
very
public
associate
resignations
that
the
legal
profession
has
seen
during
the
Trump
era.
Sanders
said
that
how
firms
have
reacted
to
Trump
“will
have
repercussions”
on
their
recruiting,
and
that
“[i]t
appears
to
be
a
concern”
for
candidates
whether
a
firm
has
made
a
deal
with
the
president.
Staci
Zaretsky is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law,
where
she’s
worked
since
2011.
She’d
love
to
hear
from
you,
so
please
feel
free
to
email
her
with
any
tips,
questions,
comments,
or
critiques.
You
can
follow
her
on Bluesky, X/Twitter,
and Threads, or
connect
with
her
on LinkedIn.
I’m
attending
the
American
Association
of
Law
Librarians
(AALL)
Conference
this
week
in
Portland,
Oregon.
It’s
one
of
my
favorite
conferences.
Law
librarians
are,
as
a
group,
friendly,
unassuming,
and
knowledgeable,
as
I
have
discussed
before.
I
couldn’t
help
but
wonder
though
as
I
roamed
the
exhibit
hall
and
attended
some
of
the
sessions
what
the
long-term
impact
AI
will
have
on
the
role
of
the
law
librarian.
The
Role
of
the
Librarian
Consider
the
role
of
the
law
librarian.
Librarians,
especially
law
librarians,
are
knowledge
managers
and
workers.
They
historically
held
the
keys
to
knowledge
and
information:
they
knew
where
to
find
it,
how
to
access
it,
and
how
to
retrieve
it.
They
are
charged
with
managing
the
accumulated
expertise
of
the
profession
to
help
solve
legal
problems.
But
now
and
increasingly
in
the
future,
those
keys
may
be
held
by
an
AI
platform.
With
natural
language
processing,
anyone
(everyone)
can
access
any
and
all
knowledge
and
information.
Combine
this
the
inevitable
financial
constraints
as
law
firms
and
corporations
may
come
to
view
AI
as
replacing
the
human
knowledge
function.
The
Historic
Librarian
Of
course,
of
any
profession,
law
librarians
have
faced
fundamental
changes
before
and
thrived.
When
I
was
a
young
lawyer,
the
law
library
in
the
firms
in
which
I
worked
was
a
massive
room
housing
books,
periodicals,
newspapers,
and
microfiche.
Both
law
and
regular
libraries
employed
the
mysterious
and
downright
mystical
Dewey
Decimal
System.
Accessing
anything
beyond
the
ordinary
in
these
libraries
typically
required
the
skill
of
a
trained
librarian
who
could
direct
you
to
or
find
the
information
this
then
young
lawyer
needed.
Today’s
Librarian
Contrast
that,
of
course,
to
today,
where
the
law
library
is
no
longer
a
physical
space
but
a
virtual
one.
Law
librarians
today
still
fill
the
role
of
knowledge
and
information
management
and
access
but
the
tools
they
use
are
different.
Instead
of
the
Dewey
Decimal
System,
they
use
Google
or
Boolean
searches.
Different
tools.
Similar
role.
But
what
happens
when
this
now
old
lawyer
can
himself
find
and
access
the
information
without
Dewey,
Google,
or
Boolean?
Certainly,
for
the
time
being,
librarians
can
and
must
have
the
ability
to
harness
and
make
accessible
the
AI
tools
to
enable
lawyers
and
legal
professionals
to
do
that.
They
need
to
usher
their
lawyers
into
the
AI
age.
To
show
them
how
to
safely
use
the
AI
tools
to
their
advantage
(and
that
of
their
clients’)
benefit.
The
Paradox
But
here‘s
the
paradox.
By
teaching
and
encouraging
lawyers
to
use
AI
effectively,
are
law
librarians
basically
working
themselves
out
of
a
job?
Once
everyone
can
do
what
they
need
to
do,
what’s
their
role?
What’s
their
value?
Of
course,
one
option
for
the
librarian
is
to
hold
on
as
tightly
as
they
can
to
the
old
ways.
To
resist
change.
To
argue,
as
some
have,
that
prompting
is
a
difficult
chore
that
has
to
be
mastered.
That
lawyers
can’t
do.
But
that’s
a
mistake.
Kodak,
for
example,
was
well
aware
of
the
potential
for
digital
photography
early
on.
But
instead
of
embracing
it,
Kodak
decided
to
work
tirelessly
to
continue
to
market
prompt
print
photography
and
not
digital.
Why?
Because
with
print,
you
didn’t
need
film.
Without
film,
Kodak’s
revenue
would
dry
up.
Of
course,
what
happened
is
that
Kodak
didn’t
jump
on
the
digital
bandwagon
in
time
and
ultimately
went
bankrupt.
But
something
else
happened
when
the
digital
revolution
came
along.
We
now
have
more
pictures
than
we
can
manage.
We
have
more
tools
to
alter
and
work
with
photos
than
most
of
us
can
use.
Photography
is
a
booming
business.
Humans
are
still
needed
to
separate
the
wheat
from
the
chaff.
To
determine
what
is
real
and
what
is
fake.
Photography
didn’t
change.
The
tools
used
to
master
photography
did.
Kodak
may
not
have
survived
but
photography
did.
And
the
roles
of
those
involved
did
as
well.
The
Evolving
Librarian
The
same
may
be
true
of
law
librarians.
Yes,
librarians
find
and
mine
information.
But
what
they
really
do
is
master
the
tools
needed
for
that
finding
and
mining.
Just
as
they
did
in
the
past,
law
librarians’
roles
will
evolve
from
caretakers
of
the
information
to
caretakers
of
the
new
tools
that
access
the
information.
They
need
to
be
the
guardians
of
those
tools
and
how
to
safely
use
them,
for
what
and
when.
They
need
to
be
crucial
in
the
evaluation
and
selection
of
the
tools.
They
need
to
understand
the
risks
and
benefits
and
assist
lawyers
in
mastering
the
relevant
ethics.
They
need
to
assess
and
understand
the
long-range
implications
of
the
tools
on
the
practice
of
law.
As
one
of
the
panels
noted,
the
future
role
of
the
law
librarian
will
include
things
like:
Understanding
algorithmic
bias
Managing
privacy
and
security
issues
Understanding
the
impact
of
AI
on
critical
thinking
Managing
the
flow
of
misinformation
Dealing
with
labor
displacement
Tomorrow’s
librarian
will
need
to
be
in
charge
not
of
a
library
but
of
the
AI
function
within
a
law
firm.
And,
among
all
those
in
the
legal
ecosystem,
law
librarians
may
indeed
be
in
the
best
position
of
all
to
do
that.
They
need
to
master
this
tech
just
like
they
mastered
what
came
before.
An
Inflection
Point
Law
librarians
are
at
an
inflection
point.
But
instead
of
panicking,
they
need
to
stretch
and
yawn
and
say
what
the
hell,
just
another
change
to
master.
Been
there,
done
that.
But
let’s
be
honest.
Yes,
we
still
have
photography.
But
we
don’t
have
as
many
professional
photographers.
The
number
of
law
librarians
and
what
they
do
may
change
and
change
significantly.
Cornell
Winston,
AALL
President,
told
us
in
his
opening
remarks
that
AALL
has
been
around
119
years.
I
suspect
librarians
will
still
be
getting
together
another
119
years
but
it
may
be
in
a
different
format
and
look
a
lot
different.
Stephen
Embry
is
a
lawyer,
speaker,
blogger
and
writer.
He
publishes TechLaw
Crossroads (Opens
in
a
new
window),
a
blog
devoted
to
the
examination
of
the
tension
between
technology,
the
law,
and
the
practice
of
law.
Shon
Hopwood
(Photo
by
Cheriss
May/NurPhoto
via
Getty
Images)
Shon
Hopwood is
a
name
that
is
often
celebrated
within
the
legal
profession
as
a
case
of
true
criminal
reform.
In
case
you’re
not
familiar
with
him,
Hopwood served
more
than
a
decade
in
federal
prison for
bank
robbery
but
he
went
on
to
go
to
law
school,
and
later
became
a
professor
at
Georgetown
Law,
one
of
the
most
prestigious
law
schools
in
the
country.
Hopwood
mentored
Tiffany
Trump
during
her
time
at
Georgetown,
and
even
assisted
in
the
development
of the
First
Step
Act,
a
federal
prison
and
sentencing
reform
bill
that
Trump
signed
into
law
during
his
first
term,
but
things
took
a
turn
for
him
in
2023,
when
he
was
arrested
and
accused
of
some
rather
disturbing
allegations
of
domestic
violence.
Hopwood
—
who
is
currently
on
leave
from
the
law
school
—
was
recently
convicted,
and
now
stands
to
return
to
prison.
The
Washington
Post
has
additional
details:
[Hopwood]
was
convicted
Friday
of
assaulting
his
wife,
ignoring
a
judge’s
order
to
stay
away
from
her
and
trying
to
get
her
to
drop
the
charges
against
him.
A
D.C.
Superior
Court
jury
of
eight
men
and
four
women
found
Hopwood
guilty
of
11
out
of
12
charges.
Hopwood,
who
was
released
from
custody
shortly
after
his
arrest
in
2023,
showed
no
emotion
as
the
verdicts
were
read,
chewing
gum
as
he
sat
next
to
his
attorney.
Although
Hopwood
promised
that
he
would
not
flee,
Judge
Errol
Arthur
ordered
him
jailed
pending
sentencing,
which
is
currently
scheduled
for
September
18.
“Shon
Hopwood
made
his
wife
believe
she
was
worthless
and
crazy
and
placed
her
in
an
invisible
cage
and
wanted
to
protect
his
image
as
the
comeback
kid,”
Assistant
U.S.
Attorney
Katherine
Ballou
told
the
jury
during
trial.
“You,
ladies
and
gentlemen,
can
help
her
break
out
of
that
cage
for
good.”
Hopwood
and
his
wife,
who
is
also
an
attorney,
are
now
separated.
He
could
face
several
years
behind
bars,
and
his
sentence
could
be
further
enhanced
due
to
his
prior
offenses.
If
you’re
involved
in
a
verbally
or
physically
abusive
relationship,
there
are
friends,
family,
and
colleagues
you
can
call.
If
you’re
a
victim
of
domestic
violence,
please
reach
out
if
you
need
help,
before
it’s
too
late.
If
you
feel
that
you
are
in
immediate
danger,
please
call
the National
Domestic
Violence
Hotline at
1-800-799-SAFE
(7233).
Staci
Zaretsky is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law,
where
she’s
worked
since
2011.
She’d
love
to
hear
from
you,
so
please
feel
free
to
email
her
with
any
tips,
questions,
comments,
or
critiques.
You
can
follow
her
on Bluesky, X/Twitter,
and Threads, or
connect
with
her
on LinkedIn.
What’s
in
a
Biglaw
name?
A
lot,
actually.
Mix
up
your
K
names
and
you
could
end
up
working
for
a
spineless
firm
that
puts
profits
over
principles
(Kirkland)
instead
of
getting
free
Coca-Cola
in
the
break
room
(King
&
Spalding).
And
before
you
say
that
worrying
about
names
is
making
a
mountain
out
of
a
molehill,
at
least
one
Biglaw
name
actually
comes
with
mountains:
Quinn
Emanuel.
For
decades,
Quinn
has
offered
optional
hikes
as
team
building
exercises.
That
tradition
continues
to
today.
Forbes
has
coverage:
“It’s
intense,”
says
Tigran
Guledjian,
partner
at
Quinn
Emanuel
and
co-chair
of
the
firm’s
national
intellectual
property
litigation
practice.
He
helps
run
the
hikes,
and
has
been
attending
them
for
more
than
20
years.
“You
carry
your
own
backpack
with
your
own
tent,
and
your
own
sleeping
bag,
and
your
own
food,
and
you
are
responsible
for
yourself.
There’s
nobody
out
there
who
is
going
to
do
anything
for
you,
other
than
your
colleagues.”
The
firm’s
hiking
tradition
began
in
1993,
when
founder
John
B.
Quinn
led
15
legal
analysts
through
Coyote
Gulch
in
Utah.
Since
then,
the
outing
has
grown
significantly,
and
the
firm
started
travelling
internationally
in
2008.
Now
hundreds
of
employees
flock
each
year
to
iconic
trails
like
Switzerland’s
Faulhornweg,
Japan’s
Mount
Fuji,
and
Greece’s
Mount
Olympus,
to
name
a
few.
I
guess
some
people
will
do
anything
for
an
excuse
to
not
respond
to
their
work
emails.
Firm-sponsored
touching
grass
is
a
great
opportunity
to
get
to
know
your
co-workers
better.
And
while
there
is
still
some
risk
of
biting
at
these
work
events,
chances
are
the
mouth
belongs
to
a
bear
and
not
a
quirky
Sidley
Austin
associate.
One
thing’s
for
sure,
hiking
up
a
mountain
is
one
of
those
work
events
that
definitely
couldn’t
have
been
an
email.
It
isn’t
all
fun
and
photo-ops,
though.
Prior
associates
have
accidentally
stepped
off
the
beaten
path
and
needed
rescue,
not
to
mention
that
if
you
sign
up
and
back
out
before
the
big
day
you
might
have
to
reimburse
the
firm
for
spending
on
your
seat.
This
is
definitely
one
of
those
read
the
waiver
before
you
sign
deals.
Their
last
trip
had
hundreds
of
associates
hiking
the
Andes
Mountains
in
Peru.
If
you
were
a
part
of
the
trip,
how
was
it?
Feel
free
to
brag
about
the
mountain
air
and
tell
us
via
[email protected]!
Chris
Williams
became
a
social
media
manager
and
assistant
editor
for
Above
the
Law
in
June
2021.
Prior
to
joining
the
staff,
he
moonlighted
as
a
minor
Memelord™
in
the
Facebook
group Law
School
Memes
for
Edgy
T14s
.
He
endured
Missouri
long
enough
to
graduate
from
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law.
He
is
a
former
boatbuilder
who
is
learning
to
swim, is
interested
in
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected]
and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.
A&O
Shearman’s
securities
litigation
practice
is
a
little
lighter.
As
of
today,
New
York-based
partner
Agnès
Dunogué
has
moved
firms,
opting
to
continue
her
career
at
Freshfields.
Freshfields’
co-head
of
securities
and
shareholder
litigation
Mary
Eaton
said
of
the
move,
“I’ve
had
the
privilege
of
litigating
in
the
same
securities
space
as
Agnès
for
a
number
of
years.
She
will
be
a
key
driver
in
the
next
phase
of
the
team’s
growth
in
the
US.”
Bloomberg
Law,
who
broke
the
story
of
the
lateral
move,
couches
it
in
terms
of
the
battle
between
U.K.-based
firms
(both
Freshfields
and
A&O
originated
across
the
pond):
The
move
is
the
latest
instance
of
the
multinational
law
firms
with
roots
in
the
UK
fighting
for
top
talent
in
key
US
markets.
UK-founded
Freshfields
has
been
fighting
for
US
dominance
by
recruiting
from
competitors, hiring Latham
&
Watkins
M&A
partner
Matthew
Goulding
to
launch
an
office
in
Boston
earlier
this
year.
Freshfields’
leaders
are
looking
to
Dunogué,
who
has
served
as
outside
counsel
to
Uber
Technologies
Inc.
and
JPMorgan
Chase
&
Co.,
to
counsel
the
firm’s
public
company
and
financial
clients
on
how
to
navigate
disputes
with
stockholders.
Which
is
certainly
fair
analysis.
But
there’s
also
a
flood
of
seasoned
litigators
running
from
the
Biglaw
firms
that
capitulated
to
Donald
Trump,
inking
deals
that
cumulatively
promised
$940
million
in
a
pro
bono
payola
war
chest
to
conservative
clients
and
causes,
rather
than
stand
against
the
president’s
bullying
and
defend
the
rule
of
law.
And,
wouldn’t
you
know
it,
A&O
Shearman
is
one
of
the
infamous
nine
Biglaw
firms
that
kissed
Trump’s
ring
(over
strenuous
objection
from
the
rank-and-file
attorneys
at
the
firm).
While
Freshfields
signed
the
amicus
brief
supporting
fellow
Biglaw
firm
Perkins
Coie
in
their
fight
against
Trump.
But
lateraling
partners
are
often
discreet
when
making
their
moves,
and
rarely
spill
the
deets
on
what’s
*really*
behind
the
departure.
And
Dunogué’s
statement
on
the
move
is
expectedly
tame,
“The
opportunity
to
add
my
expertise
and
experience
into
a
successful,
and
still
growing,
practice
makes
it
an
exciting
place
to
join
and
make
an
impact.”
Still,
Dunogué
is
part
of
a
litigation
partner
trend
—
one
we
don’t
expect
will
end
any
time
soon.
Kathryn
Rubino
is
a
Senior
Editor
at
Above
the
Law,
host
of
The
Jabot
podcast,
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
AtL
tipsters
are
the
best,
so
please
connect
with
her.
Feel
free
to
email
her
with
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments
and
follow
her
on
Twitter
@Kathryn1 or
Mastodon
@[email protected].
On
Friday,
a
federal
judge
in
New
York
dismissed
Donald
Trump’s
copyright
suit
against
Bob
Woodward
and
Simon
and
Schuster.
So
much
for
the
president’s
plan
to
extort
$50
million
from
the
publisher
for
conspiracy
to
collate
and
cobble!
But
when
God
closes
a
door,
she
opens
a
window.
And
so
that
very
same
day,
Trump
filed
a
$10
billion
dollar
defamation
suit
against
the
Wall
Street
Journal
and
its
owner
Rupert
Murdoch.
Trump
denies
that
in
2003
he
contributed
a
crude
drawing
to
a
book
of
“bawdy
letters”
compiled
for
pedophile
Jeffrey
Epstein’s
50th
birthday,
as
reported
by
journalists
Khadeeja
Safdar
and
Joe
Palazzolo
in
their
blockbuster
article.
“The
Wall
Street
Journal
printed
a
FAKE
letter,
supposedly
to
Epstein,”
he
screeched
on
social
media.
“These
are
not
my
words,
not
the
way
I
talk.
Also,
I
don’t
draw
pictures.”
The
New
York
Times
and
Washington
Post
promptly
published
articles
documenting
numerous
line
drawings
the
president
contributed
over
the
years
to
charities.
Like
the
one
described
in
the
Journal,
many
of
them
are
rendered
in
thick,
black
Sharpie
and
feature
his
unmistakable
echocardiogram
signature.
“I’m
gonna
sue
The
Wall
Street
Journal
just
like
I
sued
everyone
else,”
he
blustered
in
an
attempt
to
ward
the
paper
off
of
publication.
And
that
much
at
least
is
true.
Trump
has
a
long
history
of
suing
news
outlets
for
publishing
unflattering
stories.
Twenty
years
ago,
he
sued
New
York
Times
reporter
Tim
O’Brien
for
reporting
that
his
net
worth
was
somewhere
between
$150–$250
million,
far
below
Trump’s
self‑reported
$2.7–$6
billion.
O’Brien
ultimately
prevailed,
although
the
case
dragged
on
through
2011.
“I
spent
a
couple
of
bucks
on
legal
fees,
and
they
spent
a
whole
lot
more.
I
did
it
to
make
his
life
miserable,
which
I’m
happy
about,”
Trump
sneered.
And
that
seems
to
be
the
president’s
guiding
philosophy
when
it
comes
to
litigation:
It
doesn’t
matter
what
happens
in
court
as
long
as
you
make
the
other
guy
bleed.
In
fact,
Trump’s
only
courtroom
“wins”
have
been
settlements
extorted
after
his
election
from
media
companies
cutting
their
losses
when
faced
a
with
a
madman
controlling
the
levers
of
power.
In
some
sense,
this
newest
suit
against
the
Journal
is
of
a
piece
with
all
the
others.
It’s
ridiculous
on
its
face
and
only
“works”
as
an
angry
press
release
stapled
to
a
$402
check
to
cover
the
federal
filing
fee.
And
yet
it
cannot
be
divorced
from
the
larger
context,
in
which
Trump’s
base
is
tearing
itself
apart
over
Jeffrey
Epstein.
After
years
of
winking
at
Qanon
and
Pizzagate
hoaxers,
Trump
finds
himself
unable
to
halt
the
conspiratorial
frenzy
—
particularly
after
the
FBI
and
Attorney
General
Pam
Bondi
spectacularly
bungled
the
much
hyped
release
of
the
“Epstein
Files.”
Garbage
pleadings
The
complaint
itself
is
par
for
the
Trump
course,
consisting
of
just
18
threadbare
pages
larded
with
inflammatory
rhetoric
and
screenshots
of
the
supposedly
defamatory
story
and
its
republication
on
social
media.
As
to
actual
law
…
not
so
much.
It
alleges
that
calling
Trump
Epstein’s
“pal”
and
saying
he
drew
women’s
breasts
amounts
to
defamation
per
se,
a
subset
of
defamation
involving
allegations
of
crime
or
moral
turpitude.
Clearly
it
is
not
defamatory
at
all
(much
less
defamatory
per
se)
to
report
that
a
notorious
philanderer
drew
boobs
for
his
friend’s
birthday.
But
if
the
defamatory
bit
was
“to
attempt
and
inextricably
link
President
Trump
to
Epstein,”
well,
Trump
was
Epstein’s
pal
25
years
ago.
We’ve
all
seen
that
nasty
video
of
them
gawking
at
young
women
on
the
dance
floor
and
read
the
New
York
magazine
piece
where
Trump
said
“I’ve
known
Jeff
for
15
years.
Terrific
guy.
He’s
a
lot
of
fun
to
be
with.
It
is
even
said
that
he
likes
beautiful
women
as
much
as
I
do,
and
many
of
them
are
on
the
younger
side.”
As
for
the
actual
malice
standard
required
by
NYT
v.
Sullivan,
the
complaint
merely
states
in
conclusory
fashion
that
is
satisfied:
The
statements
were
published
by
Defendants
with
actual
malice,
oppression
and
fraud
in
that
they
were
aware
at
the
time
of
the
falsity
of
the
publication
and
thus,
made
said
publications
in
bad
faith,
out
of
disdain
and
ill-will
directed
towards
Plaintiff
without
any
regard
for
the
truth.
How
do
we
know
that
the
Journal
was
“aware
at
the
time
of
the
falsity
of
the
publication?”
Because
Trump
called
up
Murdoch
to
yell
at
him
and
deny
it.
Notably,
Murdoch
and
Thomson
authorized
the
publication
of
the
Article
after
President
Trump
put
them
both
on
notice
that
the
letter
was
fake
and
nonexistent.
Except
that
it
is
well
established
that
mere
denial
by
the
plaintiff
will
not
establish
that
the
defendant
knew
the
story
was
false
as
required
by
the
Sullivan
standard.
And
just
two
weeks
ago,
an
11th
Circuit
panel,
including
two
Trump
appointees,
affirmed
the
dismissal
of
golfer
Patrick
Reed’s
defamation
claims
against
the
Golf
Channel
because
“Reed’s
complaints
include
a
litany
of
conclusory
allegations
that
are
merely
formulaic
recitations
of
the
‘actual
malice’
element
which,
alone,
are
insufficient.”
(Reed
was
pissed
because
commentator
Brandel
Chamblee
criticized
him
for
decamping
from
the
PGA
to
the
Saudi-backed
LIV
golf.
Trump
hosted
merger
talks
between
the
rival
tours
at
his
Florida
golf
club
after
welcoming
Prince
“Bonesaw”
back
to
polite
company.
Fire
the
writers!)
Trump
is
represented
here
by
Alejandro
Brito,
a
commercial
litigator
from
Coral
Gables
who
rode
along
for
the
disastrous
CNN
suit,
but
also
for
the
successful
attempt
to
wring
cash
out
of
ABC
after
George
Stephanopoulos
inartfully
referred
to
Trump
as
an
“adjudicated
rapist.”
This
latest
complaint
also
contains
some
hilarious
typos.
“$10
billion
dollars?”
Is
that
like
ten
billion
dollars
SQUARED?
By
our
math
that
is
ONE
HUNDRED
QUINTILLION
DOLLARS.
But
whyyyyy?
It’s
not
clear
what
Trump
actually
“wants”
here.
He’s
had
good
luck
lately
filing
ridiculous
trollsuits
leveraging
unsubtle
threats
by
executive
agencies
as
a
means
to
extract
obeisance
from
media
companies.
But
it’s
one
thing
to
file
a
SLAPP
suit
against
the
Des
Moines
Register
for
tortious
whiffing
a
poll.
The
worst
thing
that
can
happen
there
is
your
lawyers
stepping
on
every
rake
in
Iowa
as
they
explore
the
vagaries
of
the
Federal
Rules
of
Civil
Procedure.
It’s
quite
another
to
pour
gas
on
a
fire
that’s
engulfing
your
administration
and
threatening
to
divide
your
base.
Because
Safdar
and
Palazzolo
are
very
experienced
reporters.
In
fact,
Palazzolo
won
a
Pulitzer
Prize
for
breaking
the
news
about
Michael
Cohen
paying
Stormy
Daniels
$130,000
to
keep
quiet
about
her
encounter
with
Trump.
It
is
very
unlikely
that
Safdar,
Palazzolo,
and
the
Wall
Street
Journal
would
go
to
press
without
all
their
ducks
in
a
row,
and
so
they
are
almost
certainly
in
a
position
to
call
Trump’s
bluff.
Just
as
The
Atlantic
responded
to
White
House
denials
that
cabinet
members
discussed
classified
war
plans
over
Signal
by
publishing
the
screenshots,
the
Journal
can
punch
back
by
publishing
the
sketch.
And
even
if
it
doesn’t,
this
imbroglio
is
fraught
with
peril
for
Trump
himself.
Specifically,
the
article
claims
that
“Pages
from
the
leather-bound
album—assembled
before
Epstein
was
first
arrested
in
2006—are
among
the
documents
examined
by
Justice
Department
officials
who
investigated
Epstein
and
Maxwell
years
ago,
according
to
people
who
have
reviewed
the
pages.”
If
that
is
correct,
then
the
DOJ
has
this
document,
and
its
failure
to
produce
it
will
just
feed
accusations
of
a
coverup.
Moreover,
there
appear
to
be
multiple
participants
in
the
event,
including
Ghislaine
Maxwell,
Epstein’s
girlfriend/procurer,
who
compiled
the
messages
from
Epstein’s
“pals”
and
is
currently
serving
a
20-year
prison
sentence.
The
reporters
also
spoke
to
“people
who
were
involved
in
the
process”
of
assembling
the
birthday
book,
which
was
printed
by
New
York
City
bookbinder,
Herbert
Weitz.
Put
simply,
this
isn’t
the
apocryphal
pee
tape.
There
are
clearly
witnesses
and
a
paper
trail
that
will
make
this
maximally
unpleasant
for
Trump
if
he
keeps
dragging
the
story
into
the
next
news
cycle
—
and
that’s
before
this
case
even
gets
to
discovery.
And
the
Journal
seems
to
have
no
interest
in
backing
down.
Dow
Jones,
the
paper’s
parent
company,
put
out
a
statement
saying,
“We
have
full
confidence
in
the
rigor
and
accuracy
of
our
reporting,
and
will
vigorously
defend
against
any
lawsuit.”
So,
now
what?
The
case
was
filed
in
the
Southern
District
of
Florida
and
will
almost
certainly
be
assigned
to
a
judge
today.
There
are
a
fair
number
of
Trump
appointees
in
this
district,
including
the
infamous
Judge
Aileen
Cannon.
But
it
was
docketed
in
the
Miami
division,
so
he’s
unlikely
to
wind
up
in
her
courtroom
in
Fort
Pierce.
Notably
this
is
the
same
district
where
Judge
Anuraang
Singhal,
another
Trump
pick,
dismissed
Trump’s
CNN
suit
because
their
reporting
calling
him
out
for
“the
Big
Lie”
was
“opinion,
not
factually
false
statements,
and
therefore
are
not
actionable.”
Judge
Singhal
also
dismissed
Alan
Dershowitz’s
LOLsuit
against
CNN
for
supposed
“defamatory”
reporting
on
his
comments
about
the
first
Trump
impeachment.
Dershowitz
was
deeply
enmeshed
in
the
Epstein
story:
He
negotiated
Epstein’s
first
disgracefully
lenient
plea
deal.
He,
too,
contributed
a
page
to
the
birthday
book.
And
he
admits
he
got
a
massage
at
Epstein’s
house,
but
insists
that
it
was
from
an
old
Russian
woman,
and
he
kept
his
underpants
on
because
he
and
his
wife
have
a
“perfect,
perfect
sex
life.”
(Fire
the
writers
again!
And
vomit!)
Last
week,
Dersh
penned
an
opinion
piece
in
the
Journal
—
where
else?
—
insisting
that
there
was
no
Epstein
client
list,
and
if
there
was
it
wouldn’t
include
“any
current
officeholders.”
Ummmm
…
All
of
which
is
to
say
that
this
is
an
odd
time
for
a
lawsuit
reminding
the
public
of
all
the
allegations
made
against
Trump
and
Dersh
by
Epstein’s
victims.
Trump
seems
to
have
lodged
his
foot
in
a
trap
of
his
own
making,
and
is
attempting
to
shoot
the
thing
off
with
a
very
big
gun.
Careful
what
you
sue
for,
‘cause
you
just
might
get
it.
On
Friday,
a
federal
judge
in
New
York
dismissed
Donald
Trump’s
copyright
suit
against
Bob
Woodward
and
Simon
and
Schuster.
So
much
for
the
president’s
plan
to
extort
$50
million
from
the
publisher
for
conspiracy
to
collate
and
cobble!
But
when
God
closes
a
door,
she
opens
a
window.
And
so
that
very
same
day,
Trump
filed
a
$10
billion
dollar
defamation
suit
against
the
Wall
Street
Journal
and
its
owner
Rupert
Murdoch.
Trump
denies
that
in
2003
he
contributed
a
crude
drawing
to
a
book
of
“bawdy
letters”
compiled
for
pedophile
Jeffrey
Epstein’s
50th
birthday,
as
reported
by
journalists
Khadeeja
Safdar
and
Joe
Palazzolo
in
their
blockbuster
article.
“The
Wall
Street
Journal
printed
a
FAKE
letter,
supposedly
to
Epstein,”
he
screeched
on
social
media.
“These
are
not
my
words,
not
the
way
I
talk.
Also,
I
don’t
draw
pictures.”
The
New
York
Times
and
Washington
Post
promptly
published
articles
documenting
numerous
line
drawings
the
president
contributed
over
the
years
to
charities.
Like
the
one
described
in
the
Journal,
many
of
them
are
rendered
in
thick,
black
Sharpie
and
feature
his
unmistakable
echocardiogram
signature.
“I’m
gonna
sue
The
Wall
Street
Journal
just
like
I
sued
everyone
else,”
he
blustered
in
an
attempt
to
ward
the
paper
off
of
publication.
And
that
much
at
least
is
true.
Trump
has
a
long
history
of
suing
news
outlets
for
publishing
unflattering
stories.
Twenty
years
ago,
he
sued
New
York
Times
reporter
Tim
O’Brien
for
reporting
that
his
net
worth
was
somewhere
between
$150–$250
million,
far
below
Trump’s
self‑reported
$2.7–$6
billion.
O’Brien
ultimately
prevailed,
although
the
case
dragged
on
through
2011.
“I
spent
a
couple
of
bucks
on
legal
fees,
and
they
spent
a
whole
lot
more.
I
did
it
to
make
his
life
miserable,
which
I’m
happy
about,”
Trump
sneered.
And
that
seems
to
be
the
president’s
guiding
philosophy
when
it
comes
to
litigation:
It
doesn’t
matter
what
happens
in
court
as
long
as
you
make
the
other
guy
bleed.
In
fact,
Trump’s
only
courtroom
“wins”
have
been
settlements
extorted
after
his
election
from
media
companies
cutting
their
losses
when
faced
a
with
a
madman
controlling
the
levers
of
power.
In
some
sense,
this
newest
suit
against
the
Journal
is
of
a
piece
with
all
the
others.
It’s
ridiculous
on
its
face
and
only
“works”
as
an
angry
press
release
stapled
to
a
$402
check
to
cover
the
federal
filing
fee.
And
yet
it
cannot
be
divorced
from
the
larger
context,
in
which
Trump’s
base
is
tearing
itself
apart
over
Jeffrey
Epstein.
After
years
of
winking
at
Qanon
and
Pizzagate
hoaxers,
Trump
finds
himself
unable
to
halt
the
conspiratorial
frenzy
—
particularly
after
the
FBI
and
Attorney
General
Pam
Bondi
spectacularly
bungled
the
much
hyped
release
of
the
“Epstein
Files.”
Garbage
pleadings
The
complaint
itself
is
par
for
the
Trump
course,
consisting
of
just
18
threadbare
pages
larded
with
inflammatory
rhetoric
and
screenshots
of
the
supposedly
defamatory
story
and
its
republication
on
social
media.
As
to
actual
law
…
not
so
much.
It
alleges
that
calling
Trump
Epstein’s
“pal”
and
saying
he
drew
women’s
breasts
amounts
to
defamation
per
se,
a
subset
of
defamation
involving
allegations
of
crime
or
moral
turpitude.
Clearly
it
is
not
defamatory
at
all
(much
less
defamatory
per
se)
to
report
that
a
notorious
philanderer
drew
boobs
for
his
friend’s
birthday.
But
if
the
defamatory
bit
was
“to
attempt
and
inextricably
link
President
Trump
to
Epstein,”
well,
Trump
was
Epstein’s
pal
25
years
ago.
We’ve
all
seen
that
nasty
video
of
them
gawking
at
young
women
on
the
dance
floor
and
read
the
New
York
magazine
piece
where
Trump
said
“I’ve
known
Jeff
for
15
years.
Terrific
guy.
He’s
a
lot
of
fun
to
be
with.
It
is
even
said
that
he
likes
beautiful
women
as
much
as
I
do,
and
many
of
them
are
on
the
younger
side.”
As
for
the
actual
malice
standard
required
by
NYT
v.
Sullivan,
the
complaint
merely
states
in
conclusory
fashion
that
is
satisfied:
The
statements
were
published
by
Defendants
with
actual
malice,
oppression
and
fraud
in
that
they
were
aware
at
the
time
of
the
falsity
of
the
publication
and
thus,
made
said
publications
in
bad
faith,
out
of
disdain
and
ill-will
directed
towards
Plaintiff
without
any
regard
for
the
truth.
How
do
we
know
that
the
Journal
was
“aware
at
the
time
of
the
falsity
of
the
publication?”
Because
Trump
called
up
Murdoch
to
yell
at
him
and
deny
it.
Notably,
Murdoch
and
Thomson
authorized
the
publication
of
the
Article
after
President
Trump
put
them
both
on
notice
that
the
letter
was
fake
and
nonexistent.
Except
that
it
is
well
established
that
mere
denial
by
the
plaintiff
will
not
establish
that
the
defendant
knew
the
story
was
false
as
required
by
the
Sullivan
standard.
And
just
two
weeks
ago,
an
11th
Circuit
panel,
including
two
Trump
appointees,
affirmed
the
dismissal
of
golfer
Patrick
Reed’s
defamation
claims
against
the
Golf
Channel
because
“Reed’s
complaints
include
a
litany
of
conclusory
allegations
that
are
merely
formulaic
recitations
of
the
‘actual
malice’
element
which,
alone,
are
insufficient.”
(Reed
was
pissed
because
commentator
Brandel
Chamblee
criticized
him
for
decamping
from
the
PGA
to
the
Saudi-backed
LIV
golf.
Trump
hosted
merger
talks
between
the
rival
tours
at
his
Florida
golf
club
after
welcoming
Prince
“Bonesaw”
back
to
polite
company.
Fire
the
writers!)
Trump
is
represented
here
by
Alejandro
Brito,
a
commercial
litigator
from
Coral
Gables
who
rode
along
for
the
disastrous
CNN
suit,
but
also
for
the
successful
attempt
to
wring
cash
out
of
ABC
after
George
Stephanopoulos
inartfully
referred
to
Trump
as
an
“adjudicated
rapist.”
This
latest
complaint
also
contains
some
hilarious
typos.
“$10
billion
dollars?”
Is
that
like
ten
billion
dollars
SQUARED?
By
our
math
that
is
ONE
HUNDRED
QUINTILLION
DOLLARS.
But
whyyyyy?
It’s
not
clear
what
Trump
actually
“wants”
here.
He’s
had
good
luck
lately
filing
ridiculous
trollsuits
leveraging
unsubtle
threats
by
executive
agencies
as
a
means
to
extract
obeisance
from
media
companies.
But
it’s
one
thing
to
file
a
SLAPP
suit
against
the
Des
Moines
Register
for
tortious
whiffing
a
poll.
The
worst
thing
that
can
happen
there
is
your
lawyers
stepping
on
every
rake
in
Iowa
as
they
explore
the
vagaries
of
the
Federal
Rules
of
Civil
Procedure.
It’s
quite
another
to
pour
gas
on
a
fire
that’s
engulfing
your
administration
and
threatening
to
divide
your
base.
Because
Safdar
and
Palazzolo
are
very
experienced
reporters.
In
fact,
Palazzolo
won
a
Pulitzer
Prize
for
breaking
the
news
about
Michael
Cohen
paying
Stormy
Daniels
$130,000
to
keep
quiet
about
her
encounter
with
Trump.
It
is
very
unlikely
that
Safdar,
Palazzolo,
and
the
Wall
Street
Journal
would
go
to
press
without
all
their
ducks
in
a
row,
and
so
they
are
almost
certainly
in
a
position
to
call
Trump’s
bluff.
Just
as
The
Atlantic
responded
to
White
House
denials
that
cabinet
members
discussed
classified
war
plans
over
Signal
by
publishing
the
screenshots,
the
Journal
can
punch
back
by
publishing
the
sketch.
And
even
if
it
doesn’t,
this
imbroglio
is
fraught
with
peril
for
Trump
himself.
Specifically,
the
article
claims
that
“Pages
from
the
leather-bound
album—assembled
before
Epstein
was
first
arrested
in
2006—are
among
the
documents
examined
by
Justice
Department
officials
who
investigated
Epstein
and
Maxwell
years
ago,
according
to
people
who
have
reviewed
the
pages.”
If
that
is
correct,
then
the
DOJ
has
this
document,
and
its
failure
to
produce
it
will
just
feed
accusations
of
a
coverup.
Moreover,
there
appear
to
be
multiple
participants
in
the
event,
including
Ghislaine
Maxwell,
Epstein’s
girlfriend/procurer,
who
compiled
the
messages
from
Epstein’s
“pals”
and
is
currently
serving
a
20-year
prison
sentence.
The
reporters
also
spoke
to
“people
who
were
involved
in
the
process”
of
assembling
the
birthday
book,
which
was
printed
by
New
York
City
bookbinder,
Herbert
Weitz.
Put
simply,
this
isn’t
the
apocryphal
pee
tape.
There
are
clearly
witnesses
and
a
paper
trail
that
will
make
this
maximally
unpleasant
for
Trump
if
he
keeps
dragging
the
story
into
the
next
news
cycle
—
and
that’s
before
this
case
even
gets
to
discovery.
And
the
Journal
seems
to
have
no
interest
in
backing
down.
Dow
Jones,
the
paper’s
parent
company,
put
out
a
statement
saying,
“We
have
full
confidence
in
the
rigor
and
accuracy
of
our
reporting,
and
will
vigorously
defend
against
any
lawsuit.”
So,
now
what?
The
case
was
filed
in
the
Southern
District
of
Florida
and
will
almost
certainly
be
assigned
to
a
judge
today.
There
are
a
fair
number
of
Trump
appointees
in
this
district,
including
the
infamous
Judge
Aileen
Cannon.
But
it
was
docketed
in
the
Miami
division,
so
he’s
unlikely
to
wind
up
in
her
courtroom
in
Fort
Pierce.
Notably
this
is
the
same
district
where
Judge
Anuraang
Singhal,
another
Trump
pick,
dismissed
Trump’s
CNN
suit
because
their
reporting
calling
him
out
for
“the
Big
Lie”
was
“opinion,
not
factually
false
statements,
and
therefore
are
not
actionable.”
Judge
Singhal
also
dismissed
Alan
Dershowitz’s
LOLsuit
against
CNN
for
supposed
“defamatory”
reporting
on
his
comments
about
the
first
Trump
impeachment.
Dershowitz
was
deeply
enmeshed
in
the
Epstein
story:
He
negotiated
Epstein’s
first
disgracefully
lenient
plea
deal.
He,
too,
contributed
a
page
to
the
birthday
book.
And
he
admits
he
got
a
massage
at
Epstein’s
house,
but
insists
that
it
was
from
an
old
Russian
woman,
and
he
kept
his
underpants
on
because
he
and
his
wife
have
a
“perfect,
perfect
sex
life.”
(Fire
the
writers
again!
And
vomit!)
Last
week,
Dersh
penned
an
opinion
piece
in
the
Journal
—
where
else?
—
insisting
that
there
was
no
Epstein
client
list,
and
if
there
was
it
wouldn’t
include
“any
current
officeholders.”
Ummmm
…
All
of
which
is
to
say
that
this
is
an
odd
time
for
a
lawsuit
reminding
the
public
of
all
the
allegations
made
against
Trump
and
Dersh
by
Epstein’s
victims.
Trump
seems
to
have
lodged
his
foot
in
a
trap
of
his
own
making,
and
is
attempting
to
shoot
the
thing
off
with
a
very
big
gun.
Careful
what
you
sue
for,
‘cause
you
just
might
get
it.
On
Friday,
a
federal
judge
in
New
York
dismissed
Donald
Trump’s
copyright
suit
against
Bob
Woodward
and
Simon
and
Schuster.
So
much
for
the
president’s
plan
to
extort
$50
million
from
the
publisher
for
conspiracy
to
collate
and
cobble!
But
when
God
closes
a
door,
she
opens
a
window.
And
so
that
very
same
day,
Trump
filed
a
$10
billion
dollar
defamation
suit
against
the
Wall
Street
Journal
and
its
owner
Rupert
Murdoch.
Trump
denies
that
in
2003
he
contributed
a
crude
drawing
to
a
book
of
“bawdy
letters”
compiled
for
pedophile
Jeffrey
Epstein’s
50th
birthday,
as
reported
by
journalists
Khadeeja
Safdar
and
Joe
Palazzolo
in
their
blockbuster
article.
“The
Wall
Street
Journal
printed
a
FAKE
letter,
supposedly
to
Epstein,”
he
screeched
on
social
media.
“These
are
not
my
words,
not
the
way
I
talk.
Also,
I
don’t
draw
pictures.”
The
New
York
Times
and
Washington
Post
promptly
published
articles
documenting
numerous
line
drawings
the
president
contributed
over
the
years
to
charities.
Like
the
one
described
in
the
Journal,
many
of
them
are
rendered
in
thick,
black
Sharpie
and
feature
his
unmistakable
echocardiogram
signature.
“I’m
gonna
sue
The
Wall
Street
Journal
just
like
I
sued
everyone
else,”
he
blustered
in
an
attempt
to
ward
the
paper
off
of
publication.
And
that
much
at
least
is
true.
Trump
has
a
long
history
of
suing
news
outlets
for
publishing
unflattering
stories.
Twenty
years
ago,
he
sued
New
York
Times
reporter
Tim
O’Brien
for
reporting
that
his
net
worth
was
somewhere
between
$150–$250
million,
far
below
Trump’s
self‑reported
$2.7–$6
billion.
O’Brien
ultimately
prevailed,
although
the
case
dragged
on
through
2011.
“I
spent
a
couple
of
bucks
on
legal
fees,
and
they
spent
a
whole
lot
more.
I
did
it
to
make
his
life
miserable,
which
I’m
happy
about,”
Trump
sneered.
And
that
seems
to
be
the
president’s
guiding
philosophy
when
it
comes
to
litigation:
It
doesn’t
matter
what
happens
in
court
as
long
as
you
make
the
other
guy
bleed.
In
fact,
Trump’s
only
courtroom
“wins”
have
been
settlements
extorted
after
his
election
from
media
companies
cutting
their
losses
when
faced
a
with
a
madman
controlling
the
levers
of
power.
In
some
sense,
this
newest
suit
against
the
Journal
is
of
a
piece
with
all
the
others.
It’s
ridiculous
on
its
face
and
only
“works”
as
an
angry
press
release
stapled
to
a
$402
check
to
cover
the
federal
filing
fee.
And
yet
it
cannot
be
divorced
from
the
larger
context,
in
which
Trump’s
base
is
tearing
itself
apart
over
Jeffrey
Epstein.
After
years
of
winking
at
Qanon
and
Pizzagate
hoaxers,
Trump
finds
himself
unable
to
halt
the
conspiratorial
frenzy
—
particularly
after
the
FBI
and
Attorney
General
Pam
Bondi
spectacularly
bungled
the
much
hyped
release
of
the
“Epstein
Files.”
Garbage
pleadings
The
complaint
itself
is
par
for
the
Trump
course,
consisting
of
just
18
threadbare
pages
larded
with
inflammatory
rhetoric
and
screenshots
of
the
supposedly
defamatory
story
and
its
republication
on
social
media.
As
to
actual
law
…
not
so
much.
It
alleges
that
calling
Trump
Epstein’s
“pal”
and
saying
he
drew
women’s
breasts
amounts
to
defamation
per
se,
a
subset
of
defamation
involving
allegations
of
crime
or
moral
turpitude.
Clearly
it
is
not
defamatory
at
all
(much
less
defamatory
per
se)
to
report
that
a
notorious
philanderer
drew
boobs
for
his
friend’s
birthday.
But
if
the
defamatory
bit
was
“to
attempt
and
inextricably
link
President
Trump
to
Epstein,”
well,
Trump
was
Epstein’s
pal
25
years
ago.
We’ve
all
seen
that
nasty
video
of
them
gawking
at
young
women
on
the
dance
floor
and
read
the
New
York
magazine
piece
where
Trump
said
“I’ve
known
Jeff
for
15
years.
Terrific
guy.
He’s
a
lot
of
fun
to
be
with.
It
is
even
said
that
he
likes
beautiful
women
as
much
as
I
do,
and
many
of
them
are
on
the
younger
side.”
As
for
the
actual
malice
standard
required
by
NYT
v.
Sullivan,
the
complaint
merely
states
in
conclusory
fashion
that
is
satisfied:
The
statements
were
published
by
Defendants
with
actual
malice,
oppression
and
fraud
in
that
they
were
aware
at
the
time
of
the
falsity
of
the
publication
and
thus,
made
said
publications
in
bad
faith,
out
of
disdain
and
ill-will
directed
towards
Plaintiff
without
any
regard
for
the
truth.
How
do
we
know
that
the
Journal
was
“aware
at
the
time
of
the
falsity
of
the
publication?”
Because
Trump
called
up
Murdoch
to
yell
at
him
and
deny
it.
Notably,
Murdoch
and
Thomson
authorized
the
publication
of
the
Article
after
President
Trump
put
them
both
on
notice
that
the
letter
was
fake
and
nonexistent.
Except
that
it
is
well
established
that
mere
denial
by
the
plaintiff
will
not
establish
that
the
defendant
knew
the
story
was
false
as
required
by
the
Sullivan
standard.
And
just
two
weeks
ago,
an
11th
Circuit
panel,
including
two
Trump
appointees,
affirmed
the
dismissal
of
golfer
Patrick
Reed’s
defamation
claims
against
the
Golf
Channel
because
“Reed’s
complaints
include
a
litany
of
conclusory
allegations
that
are
merely
formulaic
recitations
of
the
‘actual
malice’
element
which,
alone,
are
insufficient.”
(Reed
was
pissed
because
commentator
Brandel
Chamblee
criticized
him
for
decamping
from
the
PGA
to
the
Saudi-backed
LIV
golf.
Trump
hosted
merger
talks
between
the
rival
tours
at
his
Florida
golf
club
after
welcoming
Prince
“Bonesaw”
back
to
polite
company.
Fire
the
writers!)
Trump
is
represented
here
by
Alejandro
Brito,
a
commercial
litigator
from
Coral
Gables
who
rode
along
for
the
disastrous
CNN
suit,
but
also
for
the
successful
attempt
to
wring
cash
out
of
ABC
after
George
Stephanopoulos
inartfully
referred
to
Trump
as
an
“adjudicated
rapist.”
This
latest
complaint
also
contains
some
hilarious
typos.
“$10
billion
dollars?”
Is
that
like
ten
billion
dollars
SQUARED?
By
our
math
that
is
ONE
HUNDRED
QUINTILLION
DOLLARS.
But
whyyyyy?
It’s
not
clear
what
Trump
actually
“wants”
here.
He’s
had
good
luck
lately
filing
ridiculous
trollsuits
leveraging
unsubtle
threats
by
executive
agencies
as
a
means
to
extract
obeisance
from
media
companies.
But
it’s
one
thing
to
file
a
SLAPP
suit
against
the
Des
Moines
Register
for
tortious
whiffing
a
poll.
The
worst
thing
that
can
happen
there
is
your
lawyers
stepping
on
every
rake
in
Iowa
as
they
explore
the
vagaries
of
the
Federal
Rules
of
Civil
Procedure.
It’s
quite
another
to
pour
gas
on
a
fire
that’s
engulfing
your
administration
and
threatening
to
divide
your
base.
Because
Safdar
and
Palazzolo
are
very
experienced
reporters.
In
fact,
Palazzolo
won
a
Pulitzer
Prize
for
breaking
the
news
about
Michael
Cohen
paying
Stormy
Daniels
$130,000
to
keep
quiet
about
her
encounter
with
Trump.
It
is
very
unlikely
that
Safdar,
Palazzolo,
and
the
Wall
Street
Journal
would
go
to
press
without
all
their
ducks
in
a
row,
and
so
they
are
almost
certainly
in
a
position
to
call
Trump’s
bluff.
Just
as
The
Atlantic
responded
to
White
House
denials
that
cabinet
members
discussed
classified
war
plans
over
Signal
by
publishing
the
screenshots,
the
Journal
can
punch
back
by
publishing
the
sketch.
And
even
if
it
doesn’t,
this
imbroglio
is
fraught
with
peril
for
Trump
himself.
Specifically,
the
article
claims
that
“Pages
from
the
leather-bound
album—assembled
before
Epstein
was
first
arrested
in
2006—are
among
the
documents
examined
by
Justice
Department
officials
who
investigated
Epstein
and
Maxwell
years
ago,
according
to
people
who
have
reviewed
the
pages.”
If
that
is
correct,
then
the
DOJ
has
this
document,
and
its
failure
to
produce
it
will
just
feed
accusations
of
a
coverup.
Moreover,
there
appear
to
be
multiple
participants
in
the
event,
including
Ghislaine
Maxwell,
Epstein’s
girlfriend/procurer,
who
compiled
the
messages
from
Epstein’s
“pals”
and
is
currently
serving
a
20-year
prison
sentence.
The
reporters
also
spoke
to
“people
who
were
involved
in
the
process”
of
assembling
the
birthday
book,
which
was
printed
by
New
York
City
bookbinder,
Herbert
Weitz.
Put
simply,
this
isn’t
the
apocryphal
pee
tape.
There
are
clearly
witnesses
and
a
paper
trail
that
will
make
this
maximally
unpleasant
for
Trump
if
he
keeps
dragging
the
story
into
the
next
news
cycle
—
and
that’s
before
this
case
even
gets
to
discovery.
And
the
Journal
seems
to
have
no
interest
in
backing
down.
Dow
Jones,
the
paper’s
parent
company,
put
out
a
statement
saying,
“We
have
full
confidence
in
the
rigor
and
accuracy
of
our
reporting,
and
will
vigorously
defend
against
any
lawsuit.”
So,
now
what?
The
case
was
filed
in
the
Southern
District
of
Florida
and
will
almost
certainly
be
assigned
to
a
judge
today.
There
are
a
fair
number
of
Trump
appointees
in
this
district,
including
the
infamous
Judge
Aileen
Cannon.
But
it
was
docketed
in
the
Miami
division,
so
he’s
unlikely
to
wind
up
in
her
courtroom
in
Fort
Pierce.
Notably
this
is
the
same
district
where
Judge
Anuraang
Singhal,
another
Trump
pick,
dismissed
Trump’s
CNN
suit
because
their
reporting
calling
him
out
for
“the
Big
Lie”
was
“opinion,
not
factually
false
statements,
and
therefore
are
not
actionable.”
Judge
Singhal
also
dismissed
Alan
Dershowitz’s
LOLsuit
against
CNN
for
supposed
“defamatory”
reporting
on
his
comments
about
the
first
Trump
impeachment.
Dershowitz
was
deeply
enmeshed
in
the
Epstein
story:
He
negotiated
Epstein’s
first
disgracefully
lenient
plea
deal.
He,
too,
contributed
a
page
to
the
birthday
book.
And
he
admits
he
got
a
massage
at
Epstein’s
house,
but
insists
that
it
was
from
an
old
Russian
woman,
and
he
kept
his
underpants
on
because
he
and
his
wife
have
a
“perfect,
perfect
sex
life.”
(Fire
the
writers
again!
And
vomit!)
Last
week,
Dersh
penned
an
opinion
piece
in
the
Journal
—
where
else?
—
insisting
that
there
was
no
Epstein
client
list,
and
if
there
was
it
wouldn’t
include
“any
current
officeholders.”
Ummmm
…
All
of
which
is
to
say
that
this
is
an
odd
time
for
a
lawsuit
reminding
the
public
of
all
the
allegations
made
against
Trump
and
Dersh
by
Epstein’s
victims.
Trump
seems
to
have
lodged
his
foot
in
a
trap
of
his
own
making,
and
is
attempting
to
shoot
the
thing
off
with
a
very
big
gun.
Careful
what
you
sue
for,
‘cause
you
just
might
get
it.
Kathryn
