Doesn't it being true make it not libel, also it can't be so absurd that people won't Belive it.
this post was submitted on 18 Jul 2025
231 points (98.3% liked)
politics
24821 readers
1770 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
They have the letter in their possession. This suit will go nowhere. Also 'assault'? Some lawyer wants to get chewed out by a judge.
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.
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"""
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?
I want it entered into the public record.
FOIA request if needed...
Yeah, having it all out in court is the best option.
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.
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.
Lawsuit to be stopped before discovery.
... or will it? Can he or his minions even be convicted of perjury any more?
Discovery and depositions are going to be delicious.
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.
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.
Yeah this wasn't published before the company lawyers had a good long look at the article
Happy cake day!
Trump's response was entirely predictable so I presume that they predicted it and planned for it.
Murdoch has fkn deep pockets.
Yes, I was thinking he has more money and clout than the other guy.
Anti-anti-SLAPP EO getting signed in 3... 2...
i hope they declare totally vendetta and the leopards have their own civil war
Oh, please, please, please!
🍿