The playbook is getting old. Trump gets outraged and sues the media. He’s never won a defamation case against a media outlet, and he’s not going to win this one either, but media outlets have used his suits to pay bribes or protection money, such as the Paramount payoff. But Rupert Murdoch, intrepid owner of News Corp., which owns those left-wing, commie, radical, lamestream, failing, third-rate media outlets, New York Post and Wall Street Journal, not to mention Fox Corp., owner of Fox News, from whence Trump’s cabinet “best people” derive.

But Murdoch knew very well what Trump would do if the birthday picture/message was published. Trump says he called him and told him, although it took little stretch of the imagination to guess that the most litigious president ever would be litigious. And Murdoch either approved it or, at the very least, did nothing to prevent it. Murdoch knew what he was doing, and Rupert Murdoch is no fool.

And Trump did what Trump is wont to do.

This is performative, much like the bizarre assertions about this suit forcing Murdoch to give depositions and testimony, which “will be interesting.” So too will the plaintiff, “your favorite President, ME,” be subject to depositions. But the purpose at the moment is for Trump to blunt the impact of the article, as if Trump hasn’t already been deeply and inextricably connected to that “terrific guy,” Jeffrey Epstein, “who likes women as much as me, even if they are a bit on the younger side”

There are litany of reasons why this suit has problems, from failing to comply with the notice condition precedent to the question of whether there is anything defamatory about the story at all. And then there’s Florida robust anti-SLAPP statute, in contrast to the hope that by bringing this suit in the Southern District of Florida, the case will be assigned to the Emil Bove of district judges, Aileen Cannon.

The complaint alleges that the story is false and defamatory.

24. Indeed, the Article contains the following false statements that are defamatory per
se:

a. “The letter bearing Trump’s name, which was reviewed by the Journal, is bawdy—like others in the album. It contains several lines of typewritten text framed by the outline of a naked woman, which appears to be hand-drawn with a heavy marker. 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.”

b. “It isn’t clear how the letter with Trump’s signature was prepared. Inside the outline of the naked woman was a typewritten note styled as an imaginary conversation between Trump and Epstein, written in the third person.”

c. “Voice Over: There must be more to life than having everything,” the note began. Donald: Yes, there is, but I won’t tell you what it is. Jeffrey: Nor will I, since I also know what it is. Donald: We have certain things in common, Jeffrey. Jeffrey: Yes, we do, come to think of it. Donald: Enigmas never age, have you noticed that? Jeffrey: As a matter of fact, it was clear to me the last time I saw you. Donald: A pal is a wonderful thing. Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret.

Is that defamatory per se? Is it defamatory at all? Even if false, it must still be defamatory as well. There is nothing defamatory about sending a bawdy birthday wish to a friend, and contrary to the assertion in the complaint, the evidence that Trump and Epstein were friends is beyond dispute.

But all this was very well known to Murdoch and his radical left wing publication, the Wall Street Journal. Similarly well known was Trump’s propensity to sue at the drop of a hat, for performative purposes or otherwise. It’s inconceivable that Murdoch didn’t anticipate that Trump would lose his mind over this story, not to mention friends at the WSJ, NY Post and Fox News.

What’s Murdoch got up his sleeve? This is a mystery for the moment, but it seems inconceivable that Rupert Murdoch did not enter into this fight with the intention of losing. It’s almost as if Murdoch deliberately provoked Trump to do what Trump invariably does for purposes yet to be disclosed. But now that the battle is joined and Trump has put his claims in writing, expect there to be blood on the screen. Whether that blood will be Murdoch’s or Trump’s has yet to be seen, but if I was a betting man, I would put my money on Murdoch. Rupert Murdoch is no fool.