ElwoodBlues · M
Step one for the WSJ, IMHO is to demand sworn depositions from tRump. He's always terrible under oath so he'll try to wriggle out and it'll be a very bad look for him to refuse to be deposed on the Epstein matter.
Step 2 for the WSJ might be to subpoena the DoJ for all their Epstein material. It can go to a team of special masters for review, but getting out of Bondi's hands might be very scary for Trump.
From Sen Dick Durbin:
BTW, if you recall back in 2016, FBI director James Comey broke with longstanding DoJ policy by releasing some stuff about a laptop belonging to Huma Abedin just weeks before the election. The rumor at the time was that Comey's hand was forced; that he was afraid FBI agents would go rogue and leak stories about the laptop if Comey didn't go public.
That same dynamic may be in effect here with the Epstein tRump connections. Stuff like the letter the WSJ has could have been leaked by FBI agents who couldn't stomach the "there is no Epstein list" coverup. If so, look for more slow leaks.
Step 2 for the WSJ might be to subpoena the DoJ for all their Epstein material. It can go to a team of special masters for review, but getting out of Bondi's hands might be very scary for Trump.
From Sen Dick Durbin:
“According to information my office received, the FBI was pressured to put approximately 1,000 personnel in its Information Management Division (IMD) … on 24-hour shifts to review approximately 100,000 Epstein-related records in order to produce more documents that could then be released on an arbitrarily short deadline,” Durbin wrote to Patel.
“This effort, which reportedly took place from March 14 through the end of March, was haphazardly supplemented by hundreds of FBI New York Field Office personnel, many of whom lacked the expertise to identify statutorily-protected information regarding child victims and child witnesses or properly handle FOIA requests,” the letter said.
“My office was told that these personnel were instructed to ‘flag’ any records in which President Trump was mentioned.”
It sure would be interesting to see what that turned up!“This effort, which reportedly took place from March 14 through the end of March, was haphazardly supplemented by hundreds of FBI New York Field Office personnel, many of whom lacked the expertise to identify statutorily-protected information regarding child victims and child witnesses or properly handle FOIA requests,” the letter said.
“My office was told that these personnel were instructed to ‘flag’ any records in which President Trump was mentioned.”
BTW, if you recall back in 2016, FBI director James Comey broke with longstanding DoJ policy by releasing some stuff about a laptop belonging to Huma Abedin just weeks before the election. The rumor at the time was that Comey's hand was forced; that he was afraid FBI agents would go rogue and leak stories about the laptop if Comey didn't go public.
That same dynamic may be in effect here with the Epstein tRump connections. Stuff like the letter the WSJ has could have been leaked by FBI agents who couldn't stomach the "there is no Epstein list" coverup. If so, look for more slow leaks.
MoveAlong · 70-79, M
There are a few possibilities here. I originally thought trump might not sue due to the fact that it would allow the WSJ to depose....well....almost anybody, including Maxwell. And I was sure trump wouldn't want that. Then I realized that in true trump fashion he could file dozens of motions followed by appeals that could keep things from moving forward for years. And that may be the route he chooses.
Then we have to consider that Rupert just had to pay 800M to settle the Dominion suit. The best out for both trump and Murdoch is for the WSJ to settle for a reasonably small amount to end what will be a very costly process. Trump clams victory and WSJ gets off cheap.
Then we have to consider that Rupert just had to pay 800M to settle the Dominion suit. The best out for both trump and Murdoch is for the WSJ to settle for a reasonably small amount to end what will be a very costly process. Trump clams victory and WSJ gets off cheap.
MarkPaul · 26-30, M
@MoveAlong That is not a likely nor advisable scenario. No doubt, Murdoch was well aware Cry-Baby-trump was going to sue before the article was greenlighted by both Murdoch and his personal and corporate lawyers. It is likely this will go on for years as part of Cry-Baby-trump's performance to distract "the base."
FOX Noise had to pay $800 M to Dominion for over-aggressive news performers knowingly lie about Dominion (for which TuKKKer Carlson was fired... as popular as he once was). The Wall Street Journal is a legitimate news organization and clearly has evidence that Cry-Baby-trump does not want revealed. His suit has no merit; it's designed for performance only to try and throw "the base" off the trail.
Murdoch is not going to give up. Despite all his failings, he does care about the reputation of the Wall Street Journal and he has already shown he is not afraid to stand up to a junior varsity businessman at best and a child having a temper tantrum at worst. He is used to squashing children having temper tantrums... just ask his kids.
FOX Noise had to pay $800 M to Dominion for over-aggressive news performers knowingly lie about Dominion (for which TuKKKer Carlson was fired... as popular as he once was). The Wall Street Journal is a legitimate news organization and clearly has evidence that Cry-Baby-trump does not want revealed. His suit has no merit; it's designed for performance only to try and throw "the base" off the trail.
Murdoch is not going to give up. Despite all his failings, he does care about the reputation of the Wall Street Journal and he has already shown he is not afraid to stand up to a junior varsity businessman at best and a child having a temper tantrum at worst. He is used to squashing children having temper tantrums... just ask his kids.
🧾 1. Grounds for a Counterclaim
To file a counter-suit, WSJ would need legitimate legal grounds. Possible avenues might include:
Abuse of Process or Malicious Prosecution: If WSJ's legal team believes the lawsuit is not just weak but was filed with improper motives (to harass, chill speech, or manipulate public opinion), this could be a basis. But this is a high bar and rarely successful.
Declaratory Judgment: More commonly, WSJ might seek a declaratory judgment asserting that their article is not defamatory and was protected under the First Amendment. This isn't technically a counter-suit for damages, but it puts WSJ on legal offense.
SLAPP Countermeasures: In some jurisdictions, anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statutes allow for recovery of attorneys' fees and damages if a lawsuit is found to be intended to silence or intimidate protected speech. WSJ might invoke such protections depending on state law.
🎯 2. Strategic Pros of Counter-Suing
Deterrence: A strong counteroffensive may deter Trump (or others) from weaponizing defamation law against journalism.
Control the Narrative: It sends a public signal that WSJ won't be intimidated—preserving journalistic integrity and media independence.
Legal Leverage: Filing a counter-suit can give WSJ more procedural control and bargaining power in the litigation.
🧱 3. Strategic Cons of Counter-Suing
Risk of Escalation: Engaging in tit-for-tat litigation may pull WSJ deeper into a public political spectacle, especially with a media-savvy opponent like Trump.
Costly & Distracting: Even if WSJ has a winning case, legal proceedings require resources, time, and PR risk.
First Amendment Shield Is Already Strong: The bar for public figures like Trump to win defamation suits is high (New York Times v. Sullivan), and WSJ may prefer to stick with a focused defense and let the case implode on its own.
🤹 4. Political Optics
Trump thrives on portraying himself as a victim of elite media. A counter-suit might feed that narrative—especially with his base. However, doing nothing could be seen by press-freedom advocates as a failure to stand up for factual reporting under siege.
🧠 5. Recommended Course
Don’t counter-sue yet. Instead, WSJ should:
File a motion to dismiss under First Amendment and/or anti-SLAPP statutes.
If discovery begins, consider a narrow counterclaim only if Trump’s suit is shown to be in bad faith or part of a broader pattern of intimidation.
Stay above the fray publicly while dismantling the case legally and surgically.
If Trump's suit is dismissed and found to be frivolous, WSJ could then seek sanctions or legal costs, which is a more restrained but effective form of pushback.
Final Verdict:
🗞 Let it go for now—but keep the sword sheathed and sharp.
If Trump’s suit starts to look like a clown show in court (as many legal experts expect), the WSJ wins by simply defending itself with calm authority. A counter-suit risks becoming part of his spectacle, not a rebuke of it.
--ChatGPT
To file a counter-suit, WSJ would need legitimate legal grounds. Possible avenues might include:
Abuse of Process or Malicious Prosecution: If WSJ's legal team believes the lawsuit is not just weak but was filed with improper motives (to harass, chill speech, or manipulate public opinion), this could be a basis. But this is a high bar and rarely successful.
Declaratory Judgment: More commonly, WSJ might seek a declaratory judgment asserting that their article is not defamatory and was protected under the First Amendment. This isn't technically a counter-suit for damages, but it puts WSJ on legal offense.
SLAPP Countermeasures: In some jurisdictions, anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statutes allow for recovery of attorneys' fees and damages if a lawsuit is found to be intended to silence or intimidate protected speech. WSJ might invoke such protections depending on state law.
🎯 2. Strategic Pros of Counter-Suing
Deterrence: A strong counteroffensive may deter Trump (or others) from weaponizing defamation law against journalism.
Control the Narrative: It sends a public signal that WSJ won't be intimidated—preserving journalistic integrity and media independence.
Legal Leverage: Filing a counter-suit can give WSJ more procedural control and bargaining power in the litigation.
🧱 3. Strategic Cons of Counter-Suing
Risk of Escalation: Engaging in tit-for-tat litigation may pull WSJ deeper into a public political spectacle, especially with a media-savvy opponent like Trump.
Costly & Distracting: Even if WSJ has a winning case, legal proceedings require resources, time, and PR risk.
First Amendment Shield Is Already Strong: The bar for public figures like Trump to win defamation suits is high (New York Times v. Sullivan), and WSJ may prefer to stick with a focused defense and let the case implode on its own.
🤹 4. Political Optics
Trump thrives on portraying himself as a victim of elite media. A counter-suit might feed that narrative—especially with his base. However, doing nothing could be seen by press-freedom advocates as a failure to stand up for factual reporting under siege.
🧠 5. Recommended Course
Don’t counter-sue yet. Instead, WSJ should:
File a motion to dismiss under First Amendment and/or anti-SLAPP statutes.
If discovery begins, consider a narrow counterclaim only if Trump’s suit is shown to be in bad faith or part of a broader pattern of intimidation.
Stay above the fray publicly while dismantling the case legally and surgically.
If Trump's suit is dismissed and found to be frivolous, WSJ could then seek sanctions or legal costs, which is a more restrained but effective form of pushback.
Final Verdict:
🗞 Let it go for now—but keep the sword sheathed and sharp.
If Trump’s suit starts to look like a clown show in court (as many legal experts expect), the WSJ wins by simply defending itself with calm authority. A counter-suit risks becoming part of his spectacle, not a rebuke of it.
--ChatGPT
DeWayfarer · 61-69, M
Problem here is Trump could cause so much licensing trouble that he could force a sale. Sure it would take some time. Yet it won't cost him anything.
View 55 more replies »
@MarkPaul You have an aversion to a frog? 🐸
whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M
I am sure the Journal can make a bid deal of daily repoerts of the progress (or lack thereof with Trump) of the case and Murdoch has deep pockets and a wide reach...😷
whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M
@MarkPaul Exactly.. This isnt another family contractor he is going to stiff for his bill..😷