Wall Street Journal Asks Judge To Toss Trump’s Revised Lawsuit

The Wall Street Journal is asking a judge to toss out Donald Trump‘s revised defamation lawsuit, contending that the president’s new litigation is merely a “re-package” of claims already dismissed by the court.

Trump’s new lawsuit, the Journal’s legal team wrote, “does not remedy any of the defects identified in the court’s dismissal order. In fact, it compounds them.”

Trump sued the Journal, News Corp., Rupert Murdoch and others after the publication of a story on a birthday letter sent under Trump’s name in 2003 to Jeffrey Epstein.  The letter, the Journal reported, “contains several lines of typewritten text framed by the outline of a naked woman, which appears to be hand-drawn with a heavy marker,” adding that a “pair of small arcs denotes the woman’s breasts, and the future president’s signature is a squiggly ‘Donald’ below her waist, mimicking pubic hair.” Congress later released a letter identical to one described in the Journal story.

In April, a federal judge dismissed Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit, concluding that it failed to adequately allege actual malice, an essential threshold for proving defamation claims. The judge, though, did allow Trump to file a revised lawsuit.

Last month, in the new litigation, Trump alleged that the Journal “recklessly disregarded” whether the letter was sent by Trump, noting that the article did not explain “how the signature in the alleged letter was verified,” among other things.

The revised lawsuit also pointed to Trump’s denials that he wrote the letter and point to statements from Ghislaine Maxwell, the Epstein associate who is currently serving a sentence for her role in trafficking of underage girls. Trump’s legal team noted that Maxwell had stated that she did not remember submitting a Trump letter for Epstein’s birthday. The Journal story noted that she did not respond to a request for an interview, and her attorney did not address the letter.

The Journal’s legal team wrote in response that “Failure to investigate is not actual malice. And Plaintiff’s allegations are contradicted by the Article, which reveals the Journal did investigate.”

They also wrote that Trump “now claims the Article contains ‘glaring omissions’ that demonstrate actual malice. But much of the ‘omitted’ information is, in fact, included in the Article. And even if these omissions existed, none would plausibly plead Defendants believed the Article to be false.”

A spokesperson for the president’s legal team did not immediately return a request for comment.

The Journal’s legal team also argued that the article “does not have a defamatory meaning.”

“Even if the Article had reported that Plaintiff personally crafted the letter to Epstein—and it does not—there is nothing defamatory about a person sending a bawdy note to a friend,” the Journal’s filing stated.

The Journal also challenged the claim that the article did not include any denial from Trump that he signed the letter. The Journal’s legal team noted that the article “dedicated three paragraphs to Plaintiff’s denial, including his insistence that the letter was a ‘fake thing’ and his categorical disavowal of involvement, stating: ‘[t]his is not me.’”

In addition to the dismissal, the Journal is seeking attorneys fees and costs under the anti-SLAPP statute.

The Journal also asked the judge to stay discovery pending the judge’s ruling on the motion to dismiss. They noted that Trump’s team has sought a deposition of Murdoch, as it previously requested shortly after the lawsuit was filed last year.