2025/07/27 #Trump v. #Murdoch (1:25-cv-23232, District Court, S.D. Florida) #Lawsuit https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70843413/trump-v-murdoch/

Old ⁋27: "Notably, Murdoch and Thomson authorized the publication of the Article after President Trump put them both on notice that the letter was fake and nonexistent."

Pick a lane!

New ⁋⁋ 29-36: Convicted Felon Ghislaine Maxwell who can be granted a pardon by Trump if only she makes this Epstein connection just go away "cannot recall" if Trump sent Epstein a letter. Everyone else is dead.

A footnote suggests Trump made the DOJ ask her that question in July, 2025, something like a week after the initial complaint was filed.

New ⁋⁋ 50-75: Grasping a straws, strawmen, and bad arguments, Trump's lawyers attempt to flesh out an Actual Malice claim. But at the core they rest heavily on the believe if Trump says a thing it is true no matter what your lying eyes tells you. That's not how actual malice works.

Trump complains a lot that they don't reveal sources and methods in the article.

But just because the WSJ published an article without their journalistic notes and tradescraft doesn't mean there is evidence of its absence.

———

> I would move immediately for a rule 11 motion ... tell them they have 21 days to withdraw this filing or they're going to you're going to file a motion for sanctions and for attorneys fees.

> This actual malice allegations I think is worse than what was put in the first complaint. And if I were the judge, I would do that and I'd file a bar complaint or make a bar referral to the Florida bar for these two lawyers having uh having brought this into the court, right? And violated their ethical standards in doing so.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1HsdPZuPVE

2026/06/10 Update in #Trump v. #Murdoch #Lawsuit

In two filings, we get 1️⃣ the expected Motion to Dismiss to the bogus First Amended Complaint (FAC) which incorporates by reference the letter from the book of well-wishers to #Epstein on the occasion of his birthday — i.e. exactly the document that the dismissed first complaint claimed didn’t exist and was never seen by anyone, and we get 2️⃣ a new motion to stay discovery until the new motion to dismiss is adjudicated. Why? Because Brito’s law firm want to perform an apex deposition of Rupert Murdoch — before the discovery phase has even begun — in an attempt to harass the guy and maybe run some gotcha questions at him to prove he thinks Trump is scum, because Brito doesn’t understand the actual malice standard.

This is not the first time they tried this, and one of their attempts was staged at a time when there wasn’t even an operative complaint.

So we should soon see *something* from Trump’s more clown-like lawyers as Murdoch’s not knuckling under like a common CBS.

Also, when the press reports on this as “#Trump’s $10 billion #lawsuit versus #Murdoch and the #WallStreetJournal” be smug that you know the FAC has two operative $10 billion demands — Doc 67 is a $20 billion clownish complaint.

#Trump v. #Murdoch (1:25-cv-23232, District Court, S.D. Florida) #Lawsuit https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70843413/trump-v-murdoch/

So, I think the deadline for a response to these motions might be Wednesday, so I will make a poll.

What will be the Trump filings this week:

Both responses were filed on 2026/06/24 between 23:00 and 24:00.

So in fact, they *actually* managed to file both documents, and didn't let gamesmanship and technical problems combine to accidentally filing late.

We now have Trump's Doc 70: [Trump]'s Memorandum of Law in Opposition to [Murdoch and the WSJ]'s Motion to Dismiss [68] First Amended Complaint [67] with Incorporated Memorandum of Law

Did they find that they did plead actual malice against all defendants in 67?

Or explain how the article had a defamatory meaning?

Or meaningfully salvage the concept of defamation by the implication of true statements?

Or meaningfully dispute that the article is true?

No, primarily because the FAC [67] is trash and evades making a case about the actual content of the article. The operative ¶¶ 20–22 state:

> [they] stated that President Trump authored, drew, and signed a letter wishing Epstein a happy fiftieth birthday.
> [they wrote] that he drew an outline of a naked woman, drew breasts on her, and signed his name below her waist “mimicking pubic hair.”
> [they said] that inside of the naked woman that he allegedly drew lies a “typewritten note styled as an imaginary conversation between Trump and Epstein, written in the third person.”

But the actual article content in ¶¶ 38–39 which contradicts these claims. By avoiding the content of the article in favor of their imaginary strawman theory, on page 8 of p. [70] they quote themselves and not the article. Foul!

Are they worried about paying Murdoch's lawyers as per anti-SLAPP laws?

Maybe, if there is a defense that Florida law should control I don't see it.

In short in [70] they argue that they would prefer to dictate all journalism practice.