Latest / The Epstein Chronicles / Donald Trump's WSJ Lawsuit Is Dismissed With Prejudice (Part 3) (11/1/26)

Transcript

Donald Trump's WSJ Lawsuit Is Dismissed With Prejudice (Part 3) (11/1/26) · The Epstein Chronicles

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up everyone and welcome to another episode of the
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: Epstein Chronicles. In this episode we're going to dive right
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: back in to the judge's order dismissing Donald Trump's claims
• 0:11
  Speaker 1: against the Wall Street Journal with prejudice. 1. Truth and
• 0:16
  Speaker 1: whether the statements are defamatory. Defendants ask the court to
• 0:21
  Speaker 1: make the factual determination that the statements in the article
• 0:24
  Speaker 1: are true and legal determination that they are not defamatory.
• 0:28
  Speaker 1: Because the court finds that the amended complaint fails to
• 0:31
  Speaker 1: adequately allege actual malice, it declines to address these issues.
• 0:36
  Speaker 1: And whether President Trump was the author of the letter
• 0:39
  Speaker 1: or Epstein's friends are questions of fact that cannot be
• 0:42
  Speaker 1: determined on a motion to dismiss. 2. Actual Malice To
• 0:47
  Speaker 1: prove a defamation claim, public figures, plaintiffs, must show that
• 0:51
  Speaker 1: the defendant made the alleged defamatory statement with actual malice.
• 0:56
  Speaker 1: As the 11th Circuit has instructed, A public figure plaintiff
• 1:00
  Speaker 1: must plead actual malice in accordance with Twombly-Ickball plausibility standard.
• 1:05
  Speaker 1: In these cases, there is a powerful interest in ensuring
• 1:08
  Speaker 1: that free speech is not unduly burdened by the necessity
• 1:12
  Speaker 1: of defending against expensive yet groundless litigation. Indeed, the actual
• 1:17
  Speaker 1: malice standard was designed to allow publishers the breathing space
• 1:21
  Speaker 1: needed to ensure robust reporting on public figures and events.
• 1:26
  Speaker 1: Forcing publishers to defend inappropriate suits through expensive discovery proceedings
• 1:31
  Speaker 1: in all cases would constrict that breathing space in exactly
• 1:34
  Speaker 1: the manner that actual malice standard was intended to prevent.
• 1:39
  Speaker 1: The cost and efforts required to defend a lawsuit through
• 1:42
  Speaker 1: that stage of litigation could chill free speech nearly as
• 1:45
  Speaker 1: effectively as the absence of the actual malice standard altogether. Therefore,
• 1:52
  Speaker 1: to plead actual malice, President Trump must allege facts sufficient
• 1:56
  Speaker 1: to give rise to a reasonable inference that the false
• 1:58
  Speaker 1: statement was made with knowledge that it was false or
• 2:01
  Speaker 1: with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. Turner, 879,
• 2:08
  Speaker 1: at 1273. This is subjective test focusing on whether the
• 2:13
  Speaker 1: defendant actually entertained serious doubts as to the veracity of
• 2:16
  Speaker 1: the published account, or was highly aware that the account
• 2:20
  Speaker 1: was probably false. In some circumstances, actual malice can be inferred.
• 2:26
  Speaker 1: where a story is fabricated by the defendant, is a
• 2:28
  Speaker 1: product of his imagination, or is based wholly on an
• 2:32
  Speaker 1: unverified anonymous telephone call, or when the publisher's allegations are
• 2:36
  Speaker 1: so inherently improbable that only a reckless man would have
• 2:40
  Speaker 1: put them in circulation. Where there are obvious reasons to
• 2:44
  Speaker 1: doubt the veracity of the informant or the accuracy of
• 2:48
  Speaker 1: his report. St. Ahmet, 390, at 732. However, actual malice
• 2:52
  Speaker 1: requires more then departure from a reasonable journalistic standard, thus
• 2:59
  Speaker 1: a failure to investigate, standing on its own, does not
• 3:02
  Speaker 1: indicate its presence. Here the amended complaint falls short of
• 3:06
  Speaker 1: pleading actual malice. Indeed, the allegations regarding malice are conclusory, vague,
• 3:11
  Speaker 1: sometimes inconsistent with the article, and often irrelevant to whether
• 3:16
  Speaker 1: defendants knew or should have known that the statements in
• 3:19
  Speaker 1: the article were purportedly false. A. Conclusory language is not enough.
• 3:26
  Speaker 1: As an initial matter, President Trump's conclusory allegations that defendants
• 3:30
  Speaker 1: acted with malice because they knew or should have known
• 3:33
  Speaker 1: the statements in the article were false are insufficient to
• 3:36
  Speaker 1: state a claim. B. Denial is not enough. Though vague,
• 3:41
  Speaker 1: the amended complaint appears to allege that by choosing to
• 3:44
  Speaker 1: publish the article despite President Trump and his team's denials,
• 3:49
  Speaker 1: defendants acted with actual malice. In effect, President Trump argues
• 3:53
  Speaker 1: that once he declared the letter a fake, Defendants should
• 3:56
  Speaker 1: have disregarded everything else they learned in their investigation and
• 4:00
  Speaker 1: not published the story. But that's not what the actual
• 4:03
  Speaker 1: malice standard requires and runs afoul of the First Amendment. Indeed,
• 4:08
  Speaker 1: were the law any time a public figure or his
• 4:11
  Speaker 1: team denies an accusation, journalists would be immediately blocked from
• 4:15
  Speaker 1: publishing negative or contradictory press, a result that flies in
• 4:19
  Speaker 1: the face of the American privilege to speak one's mind,
• 4:23
  Speaker 1: although not always with perfect good taste. on all public institutions. Moreover,
• 4:28
  Speaker 1: the article did not ignore or minimize President Trump's denial. Rather,
• 4:33
  Speaker 1: it informed readers that President Trump decried the letter as
• 4:36
  Speaker 1: a fake and denied writing it. By allowing readers to
• 4:39
  Speaker 1: decide for themselves what to conclude from the article, any
• 4:43
  Speaker 1: allegation of actual malice is less plausible. Turner, 879 at
• 4:46
  Speaker 1: 1274 Also see Meikle, 816 at 703 holding that reporting
• 4:55
  Speaker 1: perspectives contrary to the publisher's own should be interpreted as
• 4:59
  Speaker 1: helping to rebut, not establish, the presence of actual malice.
• 5:03
  Speaker 1: See the investigation. President Trump's argument that the WSJ defendant's
• 5:09
  Speaker 1: investigation was inadequate and therefore an indication of malice fares
• 5:14
  Speaker 1: no better. As detailed above, a failure to investigate without
• 5:18
  Speaker 1: more does not establish actual malice. Rather, a plaintiff must
• 5:22
  Speaker 1: must show the defendant deliberately avoided investigating the veracity of
• 5:26
  Speaker 1: the statement in order to evade learning the truth. The
• 5:30
  Speaker 1: amended complaint comes nowhere close to this standard. Indeed, the
• 5:34
  Speaker 1: article details a thoughtful and detailed investigation. Before running the story,
• 5:39
  Speaker 1: the defendants contacted President Trump and his team, Justice Department officials,
• 5:44
  Speaker 1: and the FBI for comment. President Trump and his team
• 5:48
  Speaker 1: responded with denials. The Justice Department did not respond at all,
• 5:53
  Speaker 1: and the FBI declined to comment. Defendants also attempted to
• 5:57
  Speaker 1: speak with Maxwell. She did not respond to their request,
• 6:00
  Speaker 1: and her attorney stated that she was focused on her
• 6:03
  Speaker 1: case before the Supreme Court. In addition, defendants reached out
• 6:07
  Speaker 1: to other individuals named in the birthday book, including Leslie
• 6:11
  Speaker 1: Wexner and Alan Dershowitz, and individuals involved in binding the
• 6:15
  Speaker 1: birthday book, who confirmed that Weitz put the book together.
• 6:19
  Speaker 1: In short, President Trump's allegation that defendants failed to conduct
• 6:24
  Speaker 1: an adequate investigation is rebutted by the article and is
• 6:27
  Speaker 1: insufficient to establish actual malice. See McKell, 816 at 704,
• 6:34
  Speaker 1: holding that plaintiff did not adequately allege malice where the
• 6:37
  Speaker 1: record indicated that the reporters conducted some outreach and engaged
• 6:42
  Speaker 1: in due diligence. Grasping at straws, the amended complaint attempts
• 6:46
  Speaker 1: to manufacture flaws with the investigation. First, it alleges that
• 6:51
  Speaker 1: the investigation was lacking because defendants only reviewed the letter
• 6:55
  Speaker 1: but did not have a copy in their possession. The
• 6:58
  Speaker 1: court cannot discern any substantive difference, and certainly not one
• 7:02
  Speaker 1: that would establish actual malice, between defendants reviewing the letter
• 7:06
  Speaker 1: before publication and obtaining a copy of the letter. Defendants
• 7:11
  Speaker 1: reviewed the letter and later reported on its contents. Nothing
• 7:14
  Speaker 1: in law suggests that the defendants needed to obtain, retain,
• 7:17
  Speaker 1: or publish a copy. In addition, President Trump's focus on
• 7:21
  Speaker 1: Maxwell is entirely misplaced. The 11th Circuit has found allegations
• 7:27
  Speaker 1: that defendants failed to fully investigate their statements by intentionally
• 7:31
  Speaker 1: choosing not to speak with any witnesses who could have
• 7:34
  Speaker 1: refuted the allegedly defamatory statements insufficient to plead actual malice
• 7:41
  Speaker 1: and any argument that defendants purposely avoided the truth by
• 7:44
  Speaker 1: either not disclosing that Maxwell told them or by refusing
• 7:48
  Speaker 1: to speak with her is difficult to reconcile with President
• 7:51
  Speaker 1: Trump's own allegations. The amended complaint alleges that Maxwell is
• 7:55
  Speaker 1: stated subject to penalty of perjury for lying to a
• 7:58
  Speaker 1: federal officer that she did not remember President Trump submitting
• 8:02
  Speaker 1: a letter for Epstein's 50th birthday. Based on this allegation,
• 8:06
  Speaker 1: Maxwell had little to offer to defendants' investigation. In short,
• 8:11
  Speaker 1: references to Maxwell are a red herring and simply do
• 8:14
  Speaker 1: not establish that defendants actually entertained serious doubts as to
• 8:18
  Speaker 1: the veracity of the published account, or was highly aware
• 8:22
  Speaker 1: that the account was probably false. D. Omissions President Trump's
• 8:28
  Speaker 1: argument that the article omits certain facts does not save
• 8:31
  Speaker 1: his claim. First, how or why the voiceover in the
• 8:35
  Speaker 1: letter was typewritten or how the voiceover was confirmed to
• 8:38
  Speaker 1: be in the third person are inconsequential details that have
• 8:41
  Speaker 1: no bearing on whether defendants published the article knowing its
• 8:45
  Speaker 1: contents were false or with reckless disregard. as to its falsity. Moreover,
• 8:50
  Speaker 1: defendants' decision about how to investigate and what to include
• 8:54
  Speaker 1: in the articles do not establish malice. Obviously, the author
• 8:58
  Speaker 1: of the article will have to choose which facts to
• 9:00
  Speaker 1: include and which to omit. It's impossible to print all
• 9:04
  Speaker 1: of the facts on which an opinion or belief is based.
• 9:08
  Speaker 1: Were the courts or criticized parties to be allowed to
• 9:11
  Speaker 1: dictate the content of such articles, censorship would have won
• 9:15
  Speaker 1: over free speech and the right of dissent. Finally, the
• 9:18
  Speaker 1: allegation that defendant intentionally omitted President Trump's denial that he
• 9:22
  Speaker 1: signed the letter or a discussion on whether that signature
• 9:26
  Speaker 1: on the letter is authentic is belied by the article.
• 9:29
  Speaker 1: It states multiple times that President Trump denies writing the
• 9:33
  Speaker 1: letter and it isn't clear how the letter with Trump's
• 9:36
  Speaker 1: signature was prepared. This is more than sufficient to encompass
• 9:40
  Speaker 1: any denial that he signed the letter or that the
• 9:42
  Speaker 1: signature on the letter is authentic. E. September 8th Article
• 9:48
  Speaker 1: The amended complaint's reliance on the September 8th article to
• 9:51
  Speaker 1: establish malice is equally unavailing. Nothing in the law suggests
• 9:55
  Speaker 1: that a journalist must report on every piece of evidence
• 9:58
  Speaker 1: they uncover before going to print. Moreover, it's unclear why
• 10:02
  Speaker 1: President Trump argues the September 8th article shows that his
• 10:05
  Speaker 1: signature could not be more different than the one in
• 10:08
  Speaker 1: the letter when it contains several examples where President Trump's
• 10:12
  Speaker 1: actual signature and sketches are similar to those in the letter.
• 10:16
  Speaker 1: At bottom, the September 8th article does not support a
• 10:19
  Speaker 1: finding that that defendants knew or should have known that
• 10:21
  Speaker 1: President Trump did not sign the letter. As President Trump
• 10:26
  Speaker 1: has not plausibly alleged that each defendant made defamatory statements
• 10:30
  Speaker 1: with actual malice, the amended complaint must be dismissed. And
• 10:34
  Speaker 1: because this is President Trump's second attempt to allege his claims,
• 10:37
  Speaker 1: the court finds that dismiss with prejudice is appropriate. See
• 10:42
  Speaker 1: read WL1874638 at 3 Dismissing defamation claim with prejudice where
• 10:48
  Speaker 1: the plaintiff had two opportunities to plausibly allege claims for
• 10:52
  Speaker 1: defamation in his lengthy complaints, but failed both times to
• 10:56
  Speaker 1: sufficiently allege any defendant acted with actual malice. C. Attorney
• 11:01
  Speaker 1: Fees and Costs Within the motion, defendants request attorney fees
• 11:05
  Speaker 1: and costs, arguing that President Trump's lawsuit lacks merit and
• 11:08
  Speaker 1: that he only brought it because they exercised their right
• 11:11
  Speaker 1: to free speech on a public issue. The court agrees
• 11:15
  Speaker 1: that President Trump's defamation claim lacks merit. However, based on
• 11:19
  Speaker 1: the party's limited briefing, it's unclear whether Florida or New
• 11:23
  Speaker 1: York's anti-SLAPP statutes apply. This is significant as several federal
• 11:27
  Speaker 1: district courts have found that New York's anti-SLAPP statute precludes
• 11:32
  Speaker 1: a Section 70 A's fees application brought by a motion
• 11:35
  Speaker 1: in federal court. See Rappaport v. Finkelman at 3 SDNY
• 11:40
  Speaker 1: September 1st. According to those cases, the statutes requires the
• 11:44
  Speaker 1: defendant to maintain an action, claim, cross-claim, or counterclaim to
• 11:49
  Speaker 1: recover attorney's fees. However, courts analyzing the application of Florida's
• 11:54
  Speaker 1: anti-SLAPP statute fee-shifting provisions have found that a request for
• 11:58
  Speaker 1: attorney fees under the statute may be brought by motion.
• 12:03
  Speaker 1: Because the parties have not fully briefed which law applies
• 12:06
  Speaker 1: to defendant's request for attorney fees or whether there is
• 12:09
  Speaker 1: a true conflict between those laws, the court will not
• 12:12
  Speaker 1: address defendant's entitlement to attorney fees at this time. Defendants
• 12:17
  Speaker 1: may file a motion for attorney fees pursuant to Local
• 12:19
  Speaker 1: Rule 7.3 that addresses which law should apply and whether,
• 12:24
  Speaker 1: under that law, they're entitled to attorney fees in this action.
• 12:28
  Speaker 1: Conclusion Based on the foregoing, it's ordered and adjudged as follows.
• 12:34
  Speaker 1: Defendant's motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint is granted.
• 12:38
  Speaker 1: The First Amended Complaint is dismissed with prejudice. The court
• 12:43
  Speaker 1: reserves jurisdiction to adjudicate attorney fees and costs. Three, any
• 12:47
  Speaker 1: motion for attorney fees shall be filed within 30 days
• 12:51
  Speaker 1: of this order. The motion shall include a choice of
• 12:54
  Speaker 1: law discussion. Done and ordered in the chambers at Miami,
• 12:58
  Speaker 1: Florida this 31st day of October, 2026. And this was
• 13:02
  Speaker 1: signed by Darren P. Gales. All the information that goes
• 13:07
  Speaker 1: with this episode can be found in the description box.