- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Judge dismisses Trump's WSJ defamation lawsuit
Posted on 4/13/26 at 9:14 am
Posted on 4/13/26 at 9:14 am
quote:
A Florida federal court judge tossed out a defamation lawsuit by President Donald Trump against media baron Rupert Murdoch and The Wall Street Journal.
Trump claimed he was defamed in a Journal article that said he sent a birthday letter to Jeffrey Epstein, his then-friend.
Trump will be allowed to file an amended lawsuit in the case, Judge Darrin Gayles said in his ruling in U.S. District Court in Miami.
quote:
Plaintiffs who are public figures like Trump must show that a defendant had actual malice when they made allegedly defamatory statements, according to legal precedent.
But Gayles, in his decision allowing Trump to amend his lawsuit, cited another precedent that says a plaintiff “should have the opportunity to amend his complaint” if a lawsuit was tossed out for failing to plead facts in that suit “giving rise to an inference of actual malice.”
CNBC
This post was edited on 4/13/26 at 9:14 am
5
Posted on 4/13/26 at 9:18 am to Powerman
A big win for you libtards?
Posted on 4/13/26 at 9:19 am to Powerman
It will get re-filed
Posted on 4/13/26 at 9:19 am to Powerman
Oof
Another Obama judge. Coincidence? Trend?
Another Obama judge. Coincidence? Trend?
This post was edited on 4/13/26 at 9:32 am
Posted on 4/13/26 at 9:24 am to Powerman
quote:
Nominated by Barack Obama on February 6, 2014
Posted on 4/13/26 at 9:25 am to Powerman
Not sure how you show malice, but a good legal research team can certainly come up with years of articles and headlines that show a distinct bias against the President (before and after he was elected) on a regular basis. I certainly would call that malice.
Posted on 4/13/26 at 9:33 am to conservativewifeymom
quote:
Not sure how you show malice, but a good legal research team can certainly come up with years of articles and headlines that show a distinct bias against the President (before and after he was elected) on a regular basis. I certainly would call that malice.
The WSJ has long been a fairly right leaning publication that has no doubt had positive/negative articles pertaining to every president. Good luck showing the Trump bias.
Posted on 4/13/26 at 9:34 am to conservativewifeymom
quote:
Not sure how you show malice,
One could argue that knowing the inevitable damage that would result from any "connection" to Epstein, the printing of the story with now solid proof was per se malicious.
Posted on 4/13/26 at 9:35 am to udtiger
quote:
One could argue that knowing the inevitable damage that would result from any "connection" to Epstein, the printing of the story with now solid proof was per se malicious.
It's not their fault he had a connection to Epstein
Defamation also requires the story to be false
Posted on 4/13/26 at 9:36 am to Powerman
Where do you get your definition of defamation from?!?!
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News