https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-lawsuit-wall-street-journal-epstein-birthday-letter-dismissed/A multimillion-dollar defamation lawsuit by President Trump against The Wall Street Journal over a story reporting his ties to a birthday book for Jeffrey Epstein has been thrown out.In a 20-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Darrin Gayles in Miami dismissed the suit with prejudice on Saturday, ruling that Mr. Trump did not prove the defendants made defamatory statements with actual malice.He said the lawsuit was "grasping at straws" as it attempted to "manufacture" flaws in the WSJ's investigative reporting.Actual malice requires that plaintiffs prove that statements made about a public figure were published with the knowledge that they were false, or with disregard for whether they are true or not.When a case is thrown out "with prejudice," it cannot be refiled again, and the dismissal is permanent and incontrovertible."President Trump will continue to press forward in his powerhouse lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal and all of the other defendants," a spokesperson for Mr. Trump's legal team told CBS News in a statement. "The President will continue to hold those who mislead the American People with Fake News and smears accountable for their actions." A source familiar with Mr. Trump's legal strategy said that the decision will likely be appealed.The lawsuit was over a story the WSJ published last year describing a sexually suggestive letter that the paper said bore Mr. Trump's name and was included in a 2003 album compiled for Epstein's 50th birthday.
The president dismissed the story as "FAKE" and filed a $20 billion lawsuit against the paper, its parent company News Corp, the company's CEO, the reporters who wrote the story and Rupert Murdoch, News Corp's chairman emeritus.House lawmakers later subpoenaed and obtained a redacted version of the birthday book from Epstein's estate, which included the letter at the center of Mr. Trump's lawsuit. Then-White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said: "It's very clear President Trump did not draw this picture, and he did not sign it."In April, Gayles dismissed the lawsuit, saying the president's legal team failed to clear the legal bar needed to establish their claim. He ruled that the president came "nowhere close" to showing the paper acted with "actual malice" toward him, the standard for bringing a defamation suit as a public figure.Mr. Trump's legal team refiled the lawsuit.
This reminds me of the time Trump's personal attorney made a deal with Ghislane Maxwell where she'd be transferred to a minimum security prison if she said Trump never did anything with EpsteinThen Trump made him Attorney General, and one of the first things he did was declare the DOJ wouldn't be investigating Epstein's crimes anymore and that no more Epstein files would be released, despite a law passed with a veto proof majority that Trump himself signed which compels the DOJ to release all Epstein related files
i was about to post this article. lol
>>1546036Did this letter ever get authenticated?Like did they have anyone corroborate that Trump was at Epstein's birthday party? Or did they find what typewriter it was written on? An envelope with a trump affiliated address like the Mar-A-Lago? Anything at all to corroborate it or any of the other birthday letters in the book
>>1546043The WSJ put out the story, which Trump immediately denied and then filed suitThen a few days later the Democrats of the House Oversight Committee released the book that had Trump's letter in it, as well as othersTo date, not a single one of the 26 Republicans on the House Oversight Committee who have access to all of the same materials that the Democrats of the committee have, including such devoted Trump advocates as James Comer, Jim Jordan, Paul Gosar, Nancy Mace, Lauren Bobert, and Byron Donalds, have ever disputed the authenticity of the letterSo either some of the most outspokenly pro Trump Republicans in the party have been letting Democrats spread malicious lies about Trump and his relationship with Epstein, or the letter has been authenticated in a way they can't deny
>>1546054Have any of the Democrats of House Oversight Committee who have access to all of the same materials that the Republicans of the committee disputed the authenticity of letter from Bill Clinton in the Birthday Book?Or his various flights on the Lolita Express? Or the use of the Lolita Express by the Clinton Foundation?
>>1546090>ask question>get answer he doesn't like>"w-well whatabout..."
>>1546090Literally no one cares about Bill Clinton but chuds.
>>1546096>He should be investigated and prosecuted with every other pedo across party lines. "Nobody cares about bill" is as insane a response as "Bill Clinton is a pedophile so Donnie diapers isn't."
>>1546099Sure. I can't speak for other anons, but when I say I don't care about slick willy, I mean if he goes to prison, I don't have to hide my Clinton hat or flag and scrub social media of me calling him the next coming of Jesus and posting AI generated images of him surrounded by beefy, mostly naked men with some kind of caption about storms and consequences for my political enemies.Trump supporters can't say the same, so instead they just say "you lost, tranny" in between posting more AI generated gay fanfiction of an 80 year old man.
>w-well what about Clinton?Lock them both up, this sort of gotcha doesn't work. People who hate Trump because he's a pedo probably hate Clinton for the same reasons, regardless of party affiliation.
>>1546090>whatabouthahaha fucking retard
>>1546095>>1546096A lot of the democrats around today were still around when Clinton was presidenthttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFtXK7FJuSQhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mrl3kHLTm1shttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kj3rEL48Kj0>>1546096Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden all voted against Bill Clintons impeachment for sexual impropriety in 1998. These democrats have been in office for 30 years, the same people grandstanding about Trump's sexual impropriety today were downplaying Clinton's sexual impropriety. They voted against impeaching Bill Clinton for his sexual impropriety. Have any of them disputed the authenticity of Bill Clinton's letter in the birthday book?https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jul/24/bill-clinton-jeffrey-epstein-wall-street-journal-reportHave one of them said that the letter from former democrat they voted against the impeachment of was bullshit?
>>1546113God you're esl
>>1546111They all had a chance to do so, when it could matter.They all voted against it.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fzjOol5Vl0This is like Republicans agreeing to remove Trump from office in 2050. It would be purely symbolic, they wouldn't be giving up any power.
>>1546114Again with the stale talking points
>>1546116Nobody talks to you, you've lost those privileges a long time ago faggot
>>1546117One day you will try making arguments and present evidence to back up what you are saying instead of stale talking points. I won't hold my breath
>>1546121No, you will never command enough respect for that esl shill
>>1546036Yes he’s a pedo. But is that really so bad? We almost had a woman president, after all
>>1546036democrat judge defending his side with bias rulings yet again, time to bring back tar and feathering
>>1546190He's not the only president in that birthday book, wouldn't be the first pedo pres
Interesting how the usual shills always want to deflect from trump.
>>1546036How to tell you aren't getting a fair ruling:>Darrin Gayles>Appointed by Barack Obama
>>1546090correct. trumps close friend and fellow epstein golem bill clinton is also implicated.
>>1546208You mean former head of the democratic party who was president for 8 years while inviting Epstein to the White House, who was the husband of the 2016 Democratic nominee Trump beat in the 2016 general election to become president.
>>1546212correct and trump is protecting him from prosecution now
>>1546213for Trump, pedophiles being protected is good, pedophiles being prosecuted is bad. Clinton being protected from pedophile claims is a MIGA directive
>>1546213Like the democrats did when Bill Clinton was being impeached for his sexual impropriety https://youtu.be/YZakBC7dt6cIf they didn't have double standards they would have no standards at all I swear.
>>1546214why do magatards keep walking right into this one? do they really think anyone outside of trump and people like chuck schumer give a fuck about bill clinton’s reputation and that these people are on 4chan?
>>1546216maybe but that has nothing to do with epstein or pedophiles. you are genuinely low iq.
>>1546216Nobody gives a fuck if the president gets a blowjob from a consenting adult you pearl clutching faggot. Nobody cared trump cheated on his wife either, Trump cheating is a given you hypocritical dipshit, the charges were fraud with the money he uses to pay her off.He raped children. He argued about who got to rape a 13 year old girl with his best friend and the most notorious sex trafficker in the world. You don't get a pass for that tou mongoloid retard. You don't get to whataboutism it away. If Bubba raped kids too we burn both of them.
>>1546216Everyone knows raping children is not nearly as bad as cheating on your wife with a blowjob. This is why I’m proud the Republican Party is the party of moral, religious and family values.
>>1546216>Getting blown by a consenting adult (clinton) is the same as raping children (trump)Republicans really are total scum
>>1546221Also people forget that trump cheated on his current wife while she was pregnant, had his first wife murdered right before she was going to testify against him, then dumped her corpse on one of his golf courses to get a tax write off or something equally scummy.
>>1546224>Republicans are evil because of some fanfic I just made up Why are you like this?
>>1546233why are we not shills? we have self respect
>>1546224What makes you think the women Bill Clinton was seeing with Epstein were of age? Or consenting?You seriously think no Jane Does have named Bill Clinton as sexually abusing them?
>>1546218How can you say that has nothing to do with Epsteinhttps://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jul/24/bill-clinton-jeffrey-epstein-wall-street-journal-report"It’s reassuring isn’t it to have lasted so long across all the years of learning and knowing adventures and errors and still to have your childlike curiosity the drive to make a difference and the solace of friends.". I'm sure Bill Clinton and Jeffrey Epstein explored their *childlike* curiosity together while flying on the Lolita Express https://rollcall.com/2016/05/13/report-bill-clinton-flew-on-disgraced-donors-jet-26-times/
>>1546219>>1546221>>1546224Yeah sure Bill Clinton was a sex pest and we knew that and we had a chance to impeach him, but he was our guy. We have no problem throwing him under the bus now that he is out of power but how could you expect us to remove him when he did have power?Now here's why we need to remove Trump from office immediately....
>>1546329Just because Bill Clinton was inviting Epstein to the Whitehouse for dinner and Clinton was flying on Epstein's Private jet doesn't mean they were involved together that way when Clinton was in office.
>>1546237You never posted proof anyone here is a paid shill. It's literally some fanfic you just made up
>WSJ posts obviously false story>you can't prove they knew it was false, dismissedMeanwhile Trump loses a libel case where he says he didn't rape a woman, a crime he was never charged or convicted.
>>1546043>Did this letter ever get authenticated?No
>>15464411. Story isn't false, maga faggot, he signed his bff's birthday card.2. He did rape her. A civil jury found him liable for sexual assault, and Judge Kaplan subsequently clarified that the conduct the jury found him liable for constituted rape under the commonly understood definition: forced digital penetration. The jury didn't find him liable for rape only because New York's statutory definition was narrower. He was also found liable for defaming her by calling her allegations false. Both verdicts were upheld on appeal.
>>1546447>He did rape herOf all the "leftist NPCs on /news/ get BTFO" threads we have, I think Jean Carroll threads are my favorite because of just how easy it is to expose you as a brainless NPC. Just one single question is all that's needed:What evidence is there that Trump raped Jean Carroll?And we've asked that question in literally 100 threads by now. And every single time your answer is:>Other people said they believed her. Since I am an NPC, that is all the evidence I understand.Watch, this guy is about to reply with exactly that. He is about to show me evidence that other people believe that Trump raped Jean Carroll, because he is too much of an NPC to understand that this is not actually evidence that it happened.
