Who could have possibly guessed that Trump’s defamation suit against that radical left lunatic rag, the Wall Street Journal (not to mention my old pal, Joe Palazzolo, one-time author of the WSJ Law Blog), for a whopping $10 billion over Trump’s “fake hoax” Epstein birthday book note would end up getting tossed?

The Complaint also alleges that President Trump told Defendants that the Letter was a fake before they ran the Article. President Trump argues that this allegation shows that Defendants acted with serious doubts about the truth of their reporting and, therefore, with actual malice. The Court disagrees. To establish actual malice, “a plaintiff must show the defendant deliberately avoided investigating the veracity of the statement in order to evade learning the truth.”

The Complaint comes nowhere close to this standard. Quite the opposite. The Article explains that, before running the story, Defendants contacted President Trump, Justice Department officials, and the FBI for comment. President Trump responded with his denial, the Justice Department did not respond at all, and the FBI declined to comment. In short, the Complaint and Article confirm that Defendants attempted to investigate. The Article also states that the WSJ reviewed the Letter. Accordingly, President Trump’s conclusory allegation that Defendants had contradictory evidence and failed to investigate is rebutted by the Article and is insufficient to establish actual malice.

Notably, the defendants didn’t bother to raise the statutory requirement of five days notice that Trump neglected to provide. And then there was the subsequent Oversight Committee subpoena for the birthday book, which inexplicably contained Trump’s “bawdy” birthday wishes.

On August 25, 2025, after President Trump filed this action, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the United States House of Representatives (the “Committee”) subpoenaed the Epstein Estate for documents (the “Subpoena”). The Subpoena included a request to produce all letters in the album Ghislaine Maxwell compiled for Epstein’s fiftieth birthday (the “Birthday Book”). The Epstein Estate complied with the Subpoena; and on September 8, 2025, the Committee released the produced documents on its official webpage via a press release (the “Press Release”). The production included a copy of the Birthday Book. The Birthday Book includes a page matching the Article’s description of the Letter (the “Produced Letter”).

That’s when the plaintiff’s bluff switched from “it doesn’t exist” to “Trump didn’t write it,” perhaps some wag in 2003, anticipating that Trump would someday run for president and be disgraced by his relationship with Epstein, surreptitiously sent Ghislaine Maxwell the sharpie-signed note under Trump’s nubile pubic signature for future revelation?

Not only have most people forgotten about this note, but his lie denying that the note existed. By immediately suing the WSJ, Trump manufactured a plausibly deniable stance for his sycophants to grasp in order to maintain the fiction that their Fearless Leader was pure as Jesus (or a doctor, as the case may be). By the time the truth came out, it would be old news, about a thousand lies back, in that huge pile of lies upon which Trump stands with his fist upraised.

The suit was dismissed without prejudice not because it had any merit, but because Judge Darrin Gayles held that every defamation plaintiff is entitled to a second try to plead malice. Whether Trump does so remains to be seen, since there’s no longer much need to manufacture a false denial given all that’s happened since, rendering this outrage old news.

But what of the Wall Street Journal, forced to defend itself against this nonsense suit? Florida has an Anti-SLAPP suit, but it failed to serve any purpose to dissuade Trump from filing frivolous actions. After all, the cost to Trump, which has yet to be imposed since he still has the chance to replead, pales in comparison to the billions in graft he’s gained. It’s merely another nuisance, easily paid from the proceeds of Trump’s next crypto venture.

What then can prevent someone in Trump’s position from suing anyone, any newspaper, any journalist, who says anything that makes Trump sad? The legal system takes far too long to make frivolous suits untenable, and the anti-SLAPP laws, sufficient for plaintiffs who lack Trump’s access to free legal services and unlimited graft, fall short. Is there any way to prevent this abuse of the legal system? Is there any way to prevent the chilling effect that would cause the press to hesitate to post about Trump’s actions?

And for less well-heeled defendants than the WSJ, is there any protection from the legal wrath of serial litigant and pathological liar?

*Tuesday Talk rules apply.