A resurfaced 2003 letter, allegedly written by Donald Trump to the late Jeffrey Epstein, has triggered a legal and political storm. The Wall Street Journal, which published the letter, claims it reveals a once-cordial relationship between Trump and the disgraced financier. In response, Trump has followed through with threats and is suing Rupert Murdoch’s media empire, accusing the outlet of defamation and “malicious” lies.
But Trump may have opened a door he can’t easily close.
At the heart of the controversy is a simple question: would suing the Wall Street Journal end the story – or make it far worse for Trump?
The key lies in discovery. With Trump now suing the Murdoch-owned paper for defamation, the Journal would likely be entitled to defend itself by seeking documents, testimony, and other evidence related to Trump’s ties with Epstein. In U.S. defamation law, especially involving public figures, truth is the primary defense – and to prove defamation, Trump would have to show the letter is false and that the Journal published it with “actual malice” (knowing it was false or acting with reckless disregard for the truth).
That opens the door to an intrusive discovery process. The Journal could request:
- Documents: Emails, phone records, or correspondence that clarify the nature of Trump’s relationship with Epstein, helping to authenticate the letter or establish a broader context.
- Testimony: Depositions from individuals with direct knowledge – potentially including Ghislaine Maxwell (who reportedly compiled the 2003 birthday album where the letter was found).
- Background material: Supporting evidence, such as photos or video footage (like the 1990s party clips featuring Trump and Epstein), to show the letter fits within their known association.
The scope of discovery in U.S. civil litigation is broad. As the lawsuit proceeds, Trump could face demands for sensitive records he may prefer to keep private. While courts can limit overly broad requests, a credible defamation defense would likely justify a wide-ranging examination of the Trump-Epstein connection.
Trump, for his part, would need to prove not just that the letter is fake, but that the Journal knew it was fake or acted recklessly in publishing it. The Journal might cite sources – including Department of Justice officials familiar with the birthday album – as evidence supporting authenticity. And if needed, discovery could uncover more about Trump’s past with Epstein to reinforce their defense.
It could become one hell of a legal battle if incriminating evidence surfaces – depending on what records remain and whether key figures cooperate. Trump runs the risk of turning a news cycle into a courtroom saga – and giving the Epstein scandal new oxygen.
While Trump has repeatedly denied wrongdoing and insists he cut ties with Epstein long before the financier’s arrest, the public record is murky. Flight logs, photos, and testimony link the two men at parties and events spanning decades. Trump’s infamous quote calling Epstein a “terrific guy” who “likes beautiful women as much as I do, many of them on the younger side,” still haunts him. The lawsuit could finally drag that quote – and other details – into legal scrutiny.
Suing is always a part of Trump’s broader playbook: attack the press, claim victimhood, and try to reframe the narrative as a smear campaign. But this time, it could backfire. If Murdoch’s lawyers take him at his word, they won’t just defend the letter – they might build an entire legal case around Trump’s history with Epstein.
And the political fallout could be just as damaging. A high-profile legal brawl over Epstein would dominate headlines for months. Even if Trump prevailed in court, the reputational cost could be enormous.
In the end, the biggest threat to Trump may not be what the Wall Street Journal has already printed – but what the courts could force into the light.
Dear reader, we need your support
Independent sites such as The AIMN provide a platform for public interest journalists. From its humble beginning in January 2013, The AIMN has grown into one of the most trusted and popular independent media organisations.
One of the reasons we have succeeded has been due to the support we receive from our readers through their financial contributions.
With increasing costs to maintain The AIMN, we need this continued support.
Your donation – large or small – to help with the running costs of this site will be greatly appreciated.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
You mean Trump has a reputation that the publication can damage??
As much as I detest Murdoch I hope he digs his heels in puts the wind, and shits, right up The Donald.
No doubt in my mind with Trump’s known chronic, persistent, sordid, litigious, bullying, sex scandal, malicious, vengeful, demented, maniacal, tyrannical and despot history, and very publicly known brash, boastful, sexist, friendship with Epstein that he is not just involved but likely thoroughly immersed in a way far more damning than Nixon’s Wartergate affair.
It’s the Criminaldon Final with Donny Dogshit versus Rupey Merdeblock, two champion pustularities, on court one, then many others, and winner gets to grin…(sport?)
Trump has already collected $US15 million as part of a legal settlement for defamation from ABC in the US.
He is now going Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal for $US10 Billion.
Murdoch’s Fox News has already paid a settlement $US787.5 million to Dominion vote counting machines with Fox having to acknowledge that certain claims it made about Dominion were false. Another claim against Fox from Smartmatic along similar lines is likely to be even more expensive for Murdoch : Smartmatic are seeking $US 2.7 Billion in damages.
It used to be that media operators could buy Defamation insurance but I woud suggest that those days are over as insurance companies would be on a hiding to nothing the way things have been going.
The WSJ case could bankrupt the publisher which may be Trump’s objective although Murdoch would be more likely to settle out of court and just pay Trump a penance rather than fight.
Terry, we’ll see. You appear to be suggesting that Trump may win. I reckon he won’t, and perhaps this is the first move in a gambit by Murdoch to destroy the bloated orange obscenity.
Murdoch knew of the consequences prior to publishing the story, and Trump gave them ample warning.
They knew what they were doing. There is more to the story, and they have access to it. It’s their insurance.
This is going to be epic.
Dementodon suing Mudrake … this is one of those “I hope they both lose” situations.
I understand the $10 billion is for damages (of what, I don’t know). It’s absurd. The letter was published less than two days ago – that’s $5 billion a day. Trump had no credibility left to damage. Maybe $1.50 would have been a balanced amount.
Michael, the $USD10 billion would be for damages to Trump’s ego… which would be, by any assessment, priceless; it’s very fragility and quality of construction endows such rarity & uniqueness. I’m surprised he’s not asking for $USD100 billion.
Canguro, I hear his personal wealth has increased by $3 billion in the six months since his inauguration.
Oh yes please Rupert fight it. Do all the things Michael suggests, there is obviously much more to the Trump/Epstein relationship than simple shared appreciation of the fairer sex, preferably on the young side. Trump is a convicted rapist and we know he has predilection for attractive young women, including his own daughter. You cant tell me he wasn’t testing the Epstein/Ghislaine Maxwell offerings. Someone out there know’s something though not surprising there is reticence given the man’s vindictive litigiousness.
Sidney Blumenthal’s piece, Trump cannot dispel the ghost of Jeffrey Epstein, printed in yesterday’s Guardian, includes the following salacious detail. It’s possibly correct to assume this is but one of many similar incidents. No wonder Trump’s having a meltdown.
“The Trump biographer Michael Wolff told me on my podcast The Court of History how Epstein opened his safe in his New York townhouse for him to retrieve a pile of about a dozen photographs of Trump at Epstein’s Palm Beach mansion. “They were kind of spread out like playing cards,” Wolff said. “And it was Trump – with girls of uncertain age. In two of them, topless girls are sitting on Trump’s lap. In another, he has a visible stain on his pants while several girls are laughing and pointing at it.” Wolff said: “I think it’s certainly not unlikely that they were in the safe when the FBI came in after his arrest and took everything.”
Would be no small irony if the cretin who facilitated the rise of Trump ended up unravelling him.How sweet.
I see The Donald is preparing the groundwork for throwing Bondi under the Trump Shit Doesn’t Stick To Me Bus.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-wants-pam-bondi-to-take-the-heat-over-epstein-crisis-report/
In the face of T-Rump’s WSJ suit, with T-Rump having given Putin 50 days, will the Kremlin decide it’s time to throw their honey-trap videos into the ring?
That’d be a wonderful pile-on.
The J.D.Vance “Complete & utter bullshit” type of retort might now be sub-judice. In cases such as this, outside court, 1st Amendment (free speech) rights do not exist. And it would seem that the Supreme Court’s protection of POTUS from prosecution arising from carrying out POTUS functions, does not apply.
Can’t wait to see the looks on the faces of T-Rump’s flunkey cabinet members and admin. Suppose T-Rump now takes the TACO option, it would likely see him smashed by all and sundry.
It’s such a delicious can-o-worms. Let’s see him wriggle out of this one.
Hopefully, finally, hoist with his own petard.
Probably not. He never gets hit with the consequences of his behavior.