• BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 hours ago

    He likely expects they’ll just bribe him off like CBS and ABC did. I don’t see that happening in this case and if WSJ sticks to their guns, discovery is likely to turn up a lot more dirt. Get your popcorn ready.

  • joel_feila@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    3 hours ago

    Doesn’t it being true make it not libel, also it can’t be so absurd that people won’t Belive it.

  • kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    3 hours ago

    For a successful suit, since he is a public figure, he would have to prove that the letter was demonstrably false and that either they knew it was false or they acted with willful disregard to the truth despite serious substantial doubts about its validity (his trying to threaten them into not publishing it doesn’t qualify). If this letter in question was in an album among many others gathered more than two decade ago, was in Epstein’s possession for all of those years until investogators found it and took it into evidence in 2019, has Trump’s signature on it, etc… well, good luck proving it is fake, let alone that they should have known it was. Cuz it’s clearly real, and they have the receipts.

  • MagicShel@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Lawsuit to be stopped before discovery.

    … or will it? Can he or his minions even be convicted of perjury any more?

  • TipRing@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    64
    ·
    8 hours ago

    They have the letter in their possession. This suit will go nowhere. Also ‘assault’? Some lawyer wants to get chewed out by a judge.

    • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      5 hours ago

      The suit isn’t intended to go anywhere, like most of A trumps personal lawsuits. It’s about giving the illusion someone else did something wrong. And once people forget about it because other shit is in the media, they’ll quietly drop it. In the meantime it forces the WSJ to waste money and lawyer’s time defending a frivolous lawsuit.

      • BremboTheFourth@piefed.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        4 hours ago

        i dunno, i think there’s a pretty good chance the wsj just bends over and issues a retraction and apology without ever going to court, so trump gets to claim another legal “”“win”“”

    • 0li0li@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      edit-2
      7 hours ago

      Actually, wouldn’t it be good if a judge were to confirm that the article was accurate along with the described letter? As good as it gets if you can all but publish a copy of it, no?

  • criss_cross@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    8 hours ago

    I know that media quality has gone down recently but this isn’t WSJ’s first rodeo. Even with conflicting interests from their boss Murdoch. I’m hoping they wouldn’t go with this story if there wasn’t more fuel to add to the fire.

    • KnitWit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      8 hours ago

      You don’t print that unless you’ve at least seen a copy, probably not without being able to show it as well. If somehow Murdoch has turned on him, he now can access discovery, which would be wild.

      • wheezy@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        5 hours ago

        I don’t think it’s a turn. I think it’s like you said. They have hard evidence and even Murdock knows it’s better to keep that shit in house. Whoever the source is would have gone elsewhere. That’s not something that gets pushed under the rug.

        The source for this clearly can’t be paid off to stay quiet. Going to the WSJ first is absolutely on purpose.

        If I had to make a wild guess. Maxwell. Only person that would have a bombshell like this with hard evidence. I think it’s a warning shot too. I really doubt there isn’t more.

      • wheezy@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 hours ago

        Really? I thought it was weak for Trump. He usually is a lot better at forming a bit of a narrative around his lie. He seems a little scared and off to be honest.

        • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 hours ago

          I just meant that the libel suit was predictable. Trump does seem shaken. I suppose that’s because this time the most fanatical of his followers are the outraged ones.