Lawyers for Rupert Murdoch and publishers call president’s lawsuit ‘an affront to the First Amendment’
Lawyers for Rupert Murdoch and The Wall Street Journal blasted Donald Trump’s defamation lawsuit over the publication of an alleged birthday letter to Jeffrey Epstein as an ‘an affront to the First Amendment’ (REUTERS)
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it’s investigating the financials of Elon Musk’s pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, ‘The A Word’, which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Lawyers for The Wall Street Journal blasted Donald Trump’s defamation lawsuit against the publishers and journalists who uncovered his alleged birthday letter to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, which the president claims does not exist.
A letter allegedly signed by Trump — which features a sexually suggestive drawing and a birthday wish that says “may every day be another wonderful secret” — was first published by the newspaper and then shared with members of Congress by the Epstein estate.
Trump has repeatedly denied writing the letter and denied that a signature on the document is his. The president’s $10 billion defamation lawsuit claims that “no authentic letter or drawing exists,” and on his Truth Social account, he called WSJ’s story a “false, malicious, defamatory, FAKE NEWS ‘article’ in the useless ‘rag’ that is.”
The president’s lawsuit “does not include a single plausible allegation” that any of the defendants — which include right-wing media mogul Rupert Murdoch and the newspaper’s parent companies — knowingly published false statements about him, lawyers wrote Monday.
“The Article is true,” lawyers wrote, and the evidence is publicly available for anyone to see.
“This case calls out for dismissal,” they wrote, calling Trump’s lawsuit “an affront to the First Amendment” and an attempt to “silence a newspaper for publishing speech that was subsequently proven true by documents released by Congress to the American public.”
“By its very nature, this meritless lawsuit threatens to chill the speech of those who dare to publish content that the president does not like,” according to Monday’s filing.
The president has denied ever writing such a greeting to Epstein or even drawing “pictures of women,” though the allegations arrived as his administration sought to dismiss the so-called Epstein files as a Democratic “hoax” after his Department of Justice claimed there was “no basis” to release any more documents surrounding the case.
Trump allegedly wrote a letter with a sexually suggestive drawing to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein on his 50th birthday, which the president claims does not exist (Getty)
The Justice Department’s attempt to draw the investigation to a close has renewed scrutiny into the president’s relationship with Epstein, who was accused of sexually abusing dozens of minors before he was found dead in his jail cell in 2019.
The president has repeatedly threatened media outlets, publishers and journalists with legal action, and he routinely suggests he can revoke broadcast licenses for networks over their antagonistic coverage.
Last week, a federal judge lambasted the president’s legal team in a scathing order dismissing the president’s $15 billion lawsuit against The New York Times, which the judge called “decidedly improper and impermissible.”
Lawyers for the WSJ have asked a judge to similarly dismiss Trump’s lawsuit against the newspaper.
“There is nothing defamatory about a person sending a bawdy note to a friend, and the article cannot damage plaintiff’s reputation as a matter of law. Plaintiff acknowledged his friendship with Epstein,” lawyers wrote Monday.
WSJ’s article also included Trump’s denial and is “consistent both with his general reputation and the actual letter released by the House Oversight Committee,” according to the newspaper’s legal team.
Trump also cannot allege that the article damaged his reputation because of the letter’s “bawdy” contents, because he has a well-documented reputation for bawdiness based on his past statements about women,” lawyers wrote, pointing to his well-publicized comments on the so-called Access Hollywood tape, among other statements.
“Any allegation that President Trump wrote a bawdy birthday note is thus consistent with his public reputation — which he has himself acknowledged — for using ‘locker room’ talk and does not plausibly state any harm,” they wrote.
The Independent has requested comment from the White House.
Monday’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit follows lengthy two-day congressional hearings with FBI Director Kash Patel, whose leadership has come under fire in the wake of the bureau’s decision that “no further disclosure” in the Epstein case “would be appropriate or warranted.”
At one point, however, Patel tentatively agreed to investigate Epstein’s estate — but only to defend the Trump administration’s claim that a signature on a birthday card the president allegedly wrote to Epstein was fake.
After Patel evaded a series of questions about the case from Democratic lawmakers last week, Rep. Jared Moskowitz asked the FBI director whether he would instead investigate the Epstein estate for, in the administration’s view, “putting out a fake document with the president’s signature linking him to the world’s largest pedophile ring.”
“On what basis?” Patel asked.
“On what basis?” Moskowitz responded. “They literally put out a fake document, according to the president, with a fake signature. It’s a forgery of the president of the United States’ signature. That’s the basis.”
“Sure,” Patel said. “I’ll do it.” (The Independent)