by
Win
McNamee/Getty
Images)
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.
Which
is
a
lucky
thing,
because
Trump
always
loses
in
court.
His
lawsuit
against
CNN
got
tossed.
As
did
his
suits
against
the
New
York
Times
and
Washington
Post.
His
RICO
trollsuit
against
Hillary
Clinton,
James
Comey,
and
half
of
DC
cost
him
a
million
dollars
in
sanctions.
And
his
tortious
deplatforming
suits
against
YouTube,
Facebook,
and
Twitter
went
nowhere
until
he
got
elected
again
and
Mark
Zuckerberg
used
his
as
a
vehicle
for
a
peace
offering,
AKA
a
bribe.
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.
Subscribe
to
read
more
at
Law
and
Chaos….
Liz
Dye produces
the
Law
and
Chaos Substack and podcast.
You
can
subscribe
to
her
Substack
by
clicking
the
logo: