Trump’s $10 billion WSJ lawsuit will backfire… discovery will destroy him

[TemplarKormac]

Democrats have been trying to spring traps on the man for the past decade.

 

[shockedcanadian]

What does Donald Trump have to prove to win his WSJ lawsuit over ‘fake’ Epstein card?

Here’s what President Donald Trump would have to prove to win his $10 billion defamation lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal.

uk.yahoo.com

"What does Donald Trump have to prove to win his WSJ lawsuit over ‘fake’ Epstein card?"

"For Trump to win the $10 billion defamation suit, he would have to prove that The Wall Street Journal was lying, or did not fact-check their claims before publishing."

How do you "prove" you didn't do something?

""If Trump's defense is that this was false, then any evidence suggesting that he had a relationship with Epstein, the degree to which that relationship was close or not, would be relevant to the question of whether or not it's likely Trump had any sort of role in this letter," Mattei said. "And so an aggressive Wall Street Journal here would seek broad discovery about the extent of Trump's relationship with Epstein.""

Essentially Trump would have to provide evidence of his dealing with Epstein, which is a total minefield for Trump. Even if something were innocent, people could use it against him in the media.

Will this be another nail in Trump's coffin?

The real dangerous game he is playing will be facing similar massive lawsuits if he says something offensive about others. Free Speech is critical to defend. I think he may be too angry about the lawfare he experienced and he is right to be angry, especially in regards to the bloated and abusive penalties the courts in NY tried to force upon him. He needs to bbe cautious though in not becoming that which he despised. I am a bit surprised WSJ published the story unless they were willing to reveal their source. I suppose the owner has deep pockets, so...

 

[frigidweirdo]

He's just trying to scare them. That's why the huge amount.

Maybe trying to get them to settle. Problem is the WSJ probably see this as a good way of making money.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The real dangerous game he is playing will be facing similar massive lawsuits if he says something offensive about others. Free Speech is critical to defend. I think he may be too angry about the lawfare he experienced and he is right to be angry, especially in regards to the bloated and abusive penalties the courts in NY tried to force upon him. He needs to bbe cautious though in not becoming that which he despised. I am a bit surprised WSJ published the story unless they were willing to reveal their source. I suppose the owner has deep pockets, so...

The other problem is, is it defamation? Can he silence all critics? If he were to win this case, then he could literally sue ANYONE who says ANYTHING he doesn't like.

That's the very definition of a dictator.

Just as the Supreme Court ruled that when he's president, what he does as president is protected, surely when he's president, people have the RIGHT to say, basically, whatever they like about him.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Democrats have been trying to spring traps on the man for the past decade.

He's like Al Capone. You know he's doing dodgy stuff all over the place. The problem is trying to pin him down on something, because he's very good at covering his ass by getting others to do things, and by not leaving a paper trail.

 

[TemplarKormac]

He's like Al Capone. You know he's doing dodgy stuff all over the place. The problem is trying to pin him down on something, because he's very good at covering his ass by getting others to do things, and by not leaving a paper trail.

The problem is assuming guilt before innocence. They don't know how it works. People everywhere are bent on proclaiming guilt before the breadth of evidence is laid out.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

What does Donald Trump have to prove to win his WSJ lawsuit over ‘fake’ Epstein card?

Here’s what President Donald Trump would have to prove to win his $10 billion defamation lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal.

uk.yahoo.com

"What does Donald Trump have to prove to win his WSJ lawsuit over ‘fake’ Epstein card?"

"For Trump to win the $10 billion defamation suit, he would have to prove that The Wall Street Journal was lying, or did not fact-check their claims before publishing."

How do you "prove" you didn't do something?

""If Trump's defense is that this was false, then any evidence suggesting that he had a relationship with Epstein, the degree to which that relationship was close or not, would be relevant to the question of whether or not it's likely Trump had any sort of role in this letter," Mattei said. "And so an aggressive Wall Street Journal here would seek broad discovery about the extent of Trump's relationship with Epstein.""

Essentially Trump would have to provide evidence of his dealing with Epstein, which is a total minefield for Trump. Even if something were innocent, people could use it against him in the media.

Will this be another nail in Trump's coffin?

To begin with, WSJ will have to produce the actual card in question for forensic analysis. Something they have refused to do. Trump does not have to prove any dealing with Epstein. WSJ alleges there was a relationship. They will have to do all of the proving.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

The other problem is, is it defamation? Can he silence all critics? If he were to win this case, then he could literally sue ANYONE who says ANYTHING he doesn't like.

That's the very definition of a dictator.

Just as the Supreme Court ruled that when he's president, what he does as president is protected, surely when he's president, people have the RIGHT to say, basically, whatever they like about him.

Far from suing anyone who says something he doesn't like, there are laws governing defamation.

Defamation law protects individuals from false statements that harm their reputation. It encompasses both libel (written defamation) and slander (spoken defamation). To succeed in a defamation claim, a plaintiff must generally prove that a false statement of fact was published, identifying them, and that the defendant acted with at least negligence (or actual malice for public figures).
Here's a more detailed breakdown:
Elements of Defamation:
False Statement of Fact: The statement must be a false assertion of fact, not an opinion.
Publication: The false statement must be communicated to at least one other person besides the plaintiff.
Identification: The statement must be understood to refer to the plaintiff.
Fault: The defendant must have been at fault, meaning they either knew the statement was false, recklessly disregarded the truth, or were negligent in publishing it.
Damages: The plaintiff must demonstrate they suffered harm to their reputation or other damages as a result of the false statement.
Key Differences:
Libel vs. Slander:
.
Libel is defamation in a permanent form (e.g., written, broadcast), while slander is spoken.
Public vs. Private Figures:
.
Public figures (like celebrities or politicians) generally need to prove "actual malice" (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth), while private individuals may only need to prove negligence.

Trump will have no problem proving actual malice. Particularly if this note is shown to be a fraud.

 

[BackAgain]

What does Donald Trump have to prove to win his WSJ lawsuit over ‘fake’ Epstein card?

Here’s what President Donald Trump would have to prove to win his $10 billion defamation lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal.

uk.yahoo.com

"What does Donald Trump have to prove to win his WSJ lawsuit over ‘fake’ Epstein card?"

"For Trump to win the $10 billion defamation suit, he would have to prove that The Wall Street Journal was lying, or did not fact-check their claims before publishing."

How do you "prove" you didn't do something?

""If Trump's defense is that this was false, then any evidence suggesting that he had a relationship with Epstein, the degree to which that relationship was close or not, would be relevant to the question of whether or not it's likely Trump had any sort of role in this letter," Mattei said. "And so an aggressive Wall Street Journal here would seek broad discovery about the extent of Trump's relationship with Epstein.""

Essentially Trump would have to provide evidence of his dealing with Epstein, which is a total minefield for Trump. Even if something were innocent, people could use it against him in the media.

Will this be another nail in Trump's coffin?

To have another nail, he’d have to have had a first one.

And Epstein and Trump having once been buddies of any sort is hardly a scoop.

Your prediction is just your fantasy and wishful thinking.

 

[JustAnotherNut]

A typewritten 'card' of a supposed conversation and a drawing of a naked woman.......isn't proof of anything. Especially the wording of the note....

From Snopes..... Unpacking report Trump sent Epstein birthday card with drawing of naked woman


Voice Over: There must be more to life than having everything.

Donald: Yes, there is, but I won't tell you what it is.

Jeffrey: Nor will I, since I also know what it is.

Donald: We have certain things in common, Jeffrey.

Jeffrey: Yes, we do, come to think of it.

Donald: Enigmas never age, have you noticed that?

Jeffrey: As a matter of fact, it was clear to me the last time I saw you.

Trump: A pal is a wonderful thing. Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret.



All sounds rather poetic.....something Trump is not.

 

[Missourian]

"When the headline is a question, the answer is always NO."

/thread

 

[jc456]

He's like Al Capone. You know he's doing dodgy stuff all over the place. The problem is trying to pin him down on something, because he's very good at covering his ass by getting others to do things, and by not leaving a paper trail.

What dodgy stuff?

 

[Invisibleflash]

What does Donald Trump have to prove to win his WSJ lawsuit over ‘fake’ Epstein card?

Here’s what President Donald Trump would have to prove to win his $10 billion defamation lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal.

uk.yahoo.com

"What does Donald Trump have to prove to win his WSJ lawsuit over ‘fake’ Epstein card?"

"For Trump to win the $10 billion defamation suit, he would have to prove that The Wall Street Journal was lying, or did not fact-check their claims before publishing."

How do you "prove" you didn't do something?

""If Trump's defense is that this was false, then any evidence suggesting that he had a relationship with Epstein, the degree to which that relationship was close or not, would be relevant to the question of whether or not it's likely Trump had any sort of role in this letter," Mattei said. "And so an aggressive Wall Street Journal here would seek broad discovery about the extent of Trump's relationship with Epstein.""

Essentially Trump would have to provide evidence of his dealing with Epstein, which is a total minefield for Trump. Even if something were innocent, people could use it against him in the media.

Will this be another nail in Trump's coffin?

Dunno, but Trump will roll the dice and maybe get a big settlement.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Dunno, but Trump will roll the dice and maybe get a big settlement.

View attachment 1139163

Trump will definitely try for that route. He got $16 million or something just by threatening Paramount.

The problem with a newspaper is they'll claim the first amendment, and that's dangerous for Trump.