Latest / The Epstein Chronicles / Donald Trump's WSJ Lawsuit Is Dismissed With Prejudice (Part 2) (11/1/26)

Transcript

Donald Trump's WSJ Lawsuit Is Dismissed With Prejudice (Part 2) (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 complaint
• 0:11
  Speaker 1: against the Wall Street Journal. G. The amended complaint. On
• 0:15
  Speaker 1: May 27th, 2026, President Trump filed his first amended complaint,
• 0:21
  Speaker 1: once again asserting claims for defamation per se count one
• 0:25
  Speaker 1: and defamation count two. One. Alleged defamatory statements. The amended
• 0:31
  Speaker 1: complaint alleges that the article falsely and maliciously stated that
• 0:35
  Speaker 1: President Trump author drew and signed a letter wishing Epstein
• 0:39
  Speaker 1: a happy 50th birthday. 20. And contends that the following
• 0:44
  Speaker 1: statements from the article are per se defamatory. The letter
• 0:48
  Speaker 1: bearing Trump's name, which was reviewed by the journal, is bawdy,
• 0:52
  Speaker 1: like others in the album. It contains several lines of
• 0:55
  Speaker 1: typewritten text framed by the outline of a naked lady,
• 0:59
  Speaker 1: which appears to be hand-drawn with a heavy marker. A
• 1:02
  Speaker 1: pair of small arcs denotes the woman's breasts, and the
• 1:06
  Speaker 1: future president's signature is a squiggly Donald before her waist,
• 1:10
  Speaker 1: mimicking pubic hair. It isn't clear how the letter with
• 1:14
  Speaker 1: Trump's signature was prepared. Inside the outline of the naked
• 1:17
  Speaker 1: woman was a typewritten note styled as an imaginary conversation
• 1:22
  Speaker 1: between Trump and Epstein, written in the third person. Voice over.
• 1:27
  Speaker 1: There must be more to life than having everything, the
• 1:29
  Speaker 1: note began. Donald, yes, there is. But I won't tell
• 1:33
  Speaker 1: you what it is. Jeffrey, nor will I, since I
• 1:36
  Speaker 1: also know what it is. Donald, we have certain things
• 1:40
  Speaker 1: in common, Jeffrey. Jeffrey, yes, we do. Come to think
• 1:44
  Speaker 1: of it, Donald, enigmas never age. Have you noticed that? Jeffrey,
• 1:49
  Speaker 1: as a matter of fact, it was clear to me
• 1:51
  Speaker 1: the last time I saw you. Donald, a pal's a
• 1:54
  Speaker 1: wonderful thing. Happy birthday, and may every day be another
• 1:58
  Speaker 1: wonderful secret. It also alleges that the following statements from
• 2:03
  Speaker 1: the article are implicitly defamatory. Jeffrey Epstein's friends sent him
• 2:07
  Speaker 1: body letters for a 50th birthday album. One was from
• 2:11
  Speaker 1: Donald Trump. It was Jeffrey Epstein's 50th birthday, and Ghislaine
• 2:15
  Speaker 1: Maxwell was preparing a special gift to mark the occasion.
• 2:19
  Speaker 1: She turned to Epstein's family and friends. One of them
• 2:22
  Speaker 1: was Donald Trump. The album had poems, photos, and greetings
• 2:26
  Speaker 1: from business people, academics, Epstein's former girlfriends, and childhood pals,
• 2:32
  Speaker 1: according to the documents reviewed by the journal and people
• 2:35
  Speaker 1: familiar with them. When he turned 50, Epstein was already
• 2:39
  Speaker 1: wealthy from managing Wexner's fortune and was socializing with Trump, Clinton,
• 2:44
  Speaker 1: and other powerful people. He often entertained at his Manhattan townhouse,
• 2:48
  Speaker 1: Palm Beach, Florida home, and private Caribbean island. President Trump
• 2:52
  Speaker 1: contends that these statements were false because he, one, did
• 2:56
  Speaker 1: not author, sign, or draw any portion of the letter
• 3:00
  Speaker 1: or direct anyone else to author it. Two, never made
• 3:04
  Speaker 1: or dictated to anyone any of the statements in the
• 3:07
  Speaker 1: voiceover or had any such conversations with Epstein as portrayed
• 3:11
  Speaker 1: in the letter. And three, was not childhood pals with Epstein.
• 3:16
  Speaker 1: He also asserts that the voiceover's tone, cadence, and vocabulary
• 3:20
  Speaker 1: were are inconsistent with his character and personality. 2. Actual
• 3:25
  Speaker 1: Malice Allegations In attempting to plead actual malice, the amended
• 3:30
  Speaker 1: complaint focuses on four overlapping areas. First, defendants allegedly acted
• 3:35
  Speaker 1: with actual malice by publishing the article, despite President Trump's
• 3:39
  Speaker 1: denial of the existence of the alleged letter. Second, Safdar, Palazzolo,
• 3:45
  Speaker 1: Dow Jones, and News Corp. Pre-publication investigation of the facts
• 3:49
  Speaker 1: underlying the article was inadequate because they, one, only reviewed
• 3:53
  Speaker 1: the letter and did not have an actual copy in
• 3:55
  Speaker 1: their possession. Two, should have reached out to Maxwell to
• 3:59
  Speaker 1: verify information about the letter, but avoided communicating with her.
• 4:03
  Speaker 1: And three, alternatively, did consult with Maxwell, but intentionally failed
• 4:08
  Speaker 1: to report what she told them. Third, the article admits, one,
• 4:12
  Speaker 1: how the Wall Street Journal defendants obtained a copy of
• 4:15
  Speaker 1: the letter. Two, How and why the voiceover in the
• 4:18
  Speaker 1: letter was typewritten. 3. Who typed the voiceover. 4. How
• 4:22
  Speaker 1: the voiceover was confirmed to be in the third person. 5.
• 4:27
  Speaker 1: How the contents of the letter, including the signature, were verified,
• 4:30
  Speaker 1: if at all. 6. The steps the Wall Street Journal
• 4:33
  Speaker 1: defendants took to verify that President Trump signed the letter. 7.
• 4:38
  Speaker 1: Why the Wall Street Journal defendants did not publish the
• 4:41
  Speaker 1: letter in the article. 8. Trump's denial that he signed
• 4:45
  Speaker 1: the letter. And fourth, the WSJ defendants, one, used the
• 4:51
  Speaker 1: September 8th article to whitewash their journalistic shortcomings, and two,
• 4:55
  Speaker 1: could and should have included the September 8th article's analysis
• 4:59
  Speaker 1: in the article because the signature in the birthday book
• 5:02
  Speaker 1: looked different than President Trump's actual signature. The amended complaint
• 5:07
  Speaker 1: alleges that because Haftar and Palazzolo were acting within the
• 5:11
  Speaker 1: course and scope of their employment when they authored and
• 5:14
  Speaker 1: published the article, their actions are attributed to Dow Jones
• 5:18
  Speaker 1: and News Corp. Other than stating that Dow Jones and
• 5:22
  Speaker 1: News Corp published the article at the direction of defendants
• 5:25
  Speaker 1: Murdoch and Thompson, the amended complaint is devoid of any
• 5:29
  Speaker 1: allegations about how Thompson acted with actual malice. H. Defendants
• 5:34
  Speaker 1: Motion to Dismiss On June 10, 2026, defendants moved to
• 5:39
  Speaker 1: dismiss the amended complaint with prejudice arguing that it fails
• 5:43
  Speaker 1: to plausibly allege claims for defamation per se, along with
• 5:48
  Speaker 1: dismissal defendants seek attorney fees under Florida or New York's
• 5:52
  Speaker 1: anti-slap laws. 2. Legal Standard To survive a motion to
• 5:56
  Speaker 1: dismiss brought under a federal rule of Civil Procedure 12b-6,
• 6:01
  Speaker 1: a claim must contain sufficient factual matter accepted as true
• 6:05
  Speaker 1: to state a claim of relief that is plausible on
• 6:08
  Speaker 1: its face, meaning that it must contain factual content that
• 6:12
  Speaker 1: allows the courts to draw the reasonable inference that the
• 6:15
  Speaker 1: defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
• 6:19
  Speaker 1: 556 U.S. 662-678, 2009 Quoting Bell Atlantic Corporation v. Twombly,
• 6:22
  Speaker 1: 550 U.S. 544-556-570, 2007 While a court must accept well-pleaded
• 6:26
  Speaker 1: factual allegations as true, conclusory allegations are not entitled to
• 6:28
  Speaker 1: an assumption of truth, and legal conclusions must be supported
• 6:45
  Speaker 1: by factual allegations. Randall v. Scott, 610 F. 3d, 11th Circuit,
• 6:51
  Speaker 1: 2010 Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
• 6:55
  Speaker 1: action supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice. Iqbal,
• 7:00
  Speaker 1: 556 U.S., 678 Therefore, a complaint that merely presents labels
• 7:06
  Speaker 1: and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of
• 7:11
  Speaker 1: a cause of action will not survive dismissal. When reviewing
• 7:15
  Speaker 1: a motion to dismiss, a court must construe the complaint
• 7:18
  Speaker 1: in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and take
• 7:21
  Speaker 1: the factual allegations therein as true. See Brooks v. Blue
• 7:24
  Speaker 1: Cross v. Blue Shield of Florida, 11th Circuit, 1997. Discussion.
• 7:32
  Speaker 1: Defendants argue that the amended complaint fails to state a
• 7:35
  Speaker 1: claim for defamation because 1. The article is true. 2.
• 7:38
  Speaker 1: The article is not defamatory. 3. It does not plausibly
• 7:42
  Speaker 1: allege the defendants published the article with actual malice. And 4.
• 7:47
  Speaker 1: It fails to allege special damages for the defamation. Claim.
• 7:52
  Speaker 1: As with its order dismissing the complaint, the court must
• 7:55
  Speaker 1: first determine which documents outside the amended complaint, if any,
• 7:59
  Speaker 1: it can consider at this stage of the litigation. A.
• 8:03
  Speaker 1: Incorporation by reference. Defendants ask the court to incorporate by
• 8:08
  Speaker 1: reference the article, birthday book, produced letter, and the September
• 8:12
  Speaker 1: 8th article. In reviewing of 12b6 motion, the court is
• 8:16
  Speaker 1: largely limited to the allegations in the complaint and the
• 8:19
  Speaker 1: attached exhibits. See Financial Security Assurance Incorporated, 1st Stevens, 11th Circuit, 2007. However,
• 8:29
  Speaker 1: a document attached to a motion to dismiss may be
• 8:32
  Speaker 1: considered by the court without converting the motion into one
• 8:36
  Speaker 1: for summary judgment only if the attached document is one
• 8:39
  Speaker 1: central to the plaintiff's claim. 2. Undisputed. Undisputed, in this context,
• 8:45
  Speaker 1: means that the authenticity of the document is not challenged. Notably,
• 8:48
  Speaker 1: a document need not be physically attached to a pleading
• 8:52
  Speaker 1: to be incorporated by reference into it. If the document's
• 8:55
  Speaker 1: contents are alleged in a complaint and no party questions
• 8:59
  Speaker 1: those contents, the court may consider such a document provided
• 9:03
  Speaker 1: it meets the centrality requirement imposed in Horsley. 11th Circuit, 2005.
• 9:10
  Speaker 1: The article and the September 8th article are both incorporated
• 9:13
  Speaker 1: by reference into the amended complaint. President Trump details their
• 9:17
  Speaker 1: contents in the amended complaint. They're central to his defamation claims,
• 9:21
  Speaker 1: and he does not dispute their authenticity. However, the court
• 9:25
  Speaker 1: continues to find that the birthday book and Purdue's letter
• 9:28
  Speaker 1: are different. Though central to the claims in the amended complaint,
• 9:32
  Speaker 1: President Trump disputes their authenticity. The court cannot make a
• 9:36
  Speaker 1: factual finding at this time, that the documents produced by
• 9:39
  Speaker 1: the Epstein estate are the same documents referenced in the article. Moreover,
• 9:44
  Speaker 1: President Trump disputes that he wrote or signed the produced letter.
• 9:50
  Speaker 1: Because of these factual disputes, the court denies the defendant's
• 9:53
  Speaker 1: request to incorporate by reference the birthday book and produced letter. B. Defamation.
• 9:59
  Speaker 1: To state a claim for defamation under Florida law, a
• 10:02
  Speaker 1: plaintiff must allege five elements. 1. Publication. 2. Falsity. 3.
• 10:06
  Speaker 1: The statement was made with knowledge or reckless disregard to
• 10:10
  Speaker 1: the falsity on a matter concerning public official, or at
• 10:13
  Speaker 1: least negligently, on a matter concerning a private person. 4.
• 10:17
  Speaker 1: Actual damages. And 5. statement must be defamatory. Defamation claims
• 10:23
  Speaker 1: can be proven in either of the following ways. 1.
• 10:27
  Speaker 1: Per quod, which requires an additional explanation of or an
• 10:31
  Speaker 1: interpretation of innuendo suggested by the words used to demonstrate
• 10:36
  Speaker 1: the defamatory meaning or that the plaintiff is the subject
• 10:39
  Speaker 1: of the statement. Or 2. Defamation per se, which does
• 10:44
  Speaker 1: not require an additional explanation in order to prove the
• 10:47
  Speaker 1: defamatory nature of the statement. Because defamation requires additional explanation
• 10:53
  Speaker 1: of the words used to show that they have a
• 10:55
  Speaker 1: defamatory meaning. The plaintiff must allege and prove special damages.
• 11:00
  Speaker 1: Block 1st Metestic, Florida 2025. Defendants argue that the amended
• 11:05
  Speaker 1: complaint fails to adequately allege 1. That the statements in
• 11:09
  Speaker 1: the article are false or defamatory. 2. Actual malice or 3.
• 11:14
  Speaker 1: Special damages for the defamation claim. Alright folks, we're going
• 11:18
  Speaker 1: to wrap up part 2 right here And in the
• 11:20
  Speaker 1: next episode, finish this bad boy off. All the information
• 11:24
  Speaker 1: that goes with this episode can be found in the
• 11:27
  Speaker 1: description box.