The crude drawing was reportedly part of a
“large birthday book” or card given to Jeffrey Epstein, something akin to a circulated card where multiple people left signatures, jokes, or sketches.
- It was not described as a personal message from Trump to Epstein.
- The WSJ article referenced it as part of a collection of documents already published in another source, possibly linked to Epstein's seized archives or documents submitted in litigation.
- This supports your reading: it was an office-style group card, not a one-to-one exchange.
If the material was
already in the public domain, republishing it (even in an unflattering light) doesn’t necessarily make it defamatory—especially if:
- The Journal clearly attributed the content as part of a previously published archive.
- They didn’t fabricate the image or falsely claim Trump authored it (which is what Trump now denies).
- There’s documentary or photographic proof that the image exists and was attributed at the time to him.
This could strongly support a defense under the principle of:
Truth is an absolute defense to defamation,
Fair report or
neutral reportage if the outlet accurately conveyed what the image was and who it was attributed to.
What makes his lawsuit tricky is that:
- He’s not just denying authorship—he’s calling the entire report fabricated, implying actual malice or reckless disregard for truth.
- But if it was from a known archive (e.g., part of Maxwell or Epstein case evidence), and the Journal cited that, the burden flips to Trump to prove falsity and malicious intent.
- Filing this suit could open him up to discovery about his Epstein connections, documents, or past communications—possibly making the case backfire (as analysts are already noting)