The Wall Street Journal story about Trump’s birthday letter to Jeffrey Epstein has pretty much eaten the news cycle. Right-wing media and websites are still pretending the story is a hoax. Ed Morrissey at Hot Air is typical:
Want to know why Americans rate media credibility below that of used-car salesmen? The Wall Street Journal gave us a great demonstration last night. And now Donald Trump will make yet another example of a media company — this time, the Murdochs.
It’s a nothingburger, Morrissey says, even if the letter is authentic. And now Trump is going to sue the Wall Street Journal, and the Murdochs are going to be sorry!
Trump did indeed threaten to sue the Murdochs, claiming he didn’t write the letter and the story is false. Except I do know something about the newspaper biz, and I know that the big newspapers like the Wall Street Journal and New York Times have their own in-house lawyers. And one of the things those lawyers do is review controversial scoops to be sure the newspaper isn’t opening itself up to a lawsuit. I very much doubt the Wall Street Journal would have run with the story if there was any doubt whatsoever that the letter was authentic. Further, it’s my understanding (the original story is behind a subscription paywall, so I haven’t read it) that the WSJ story draws no conclusions but simply reports what’s in the letter.
And I also know a little about libel law. Truth is a near-absolute defense. The only exceptions I could find involved private citizens, not public figures, who argued that something published about them might have been true, but was done maliciously for no purpose other than to harm them. Where public figures are concerned, especially elected officials, the public’s right to know prevails. I’m sure the WSJ lawyers made sure the story as published was liability-proof.
My guess is that Trump will be talked out of filing the suit, because a suit would open up a big can of worms labeled “discovery.” Most likely he’ll go through a period of saying he’s “thinking” of filing a suit, and then he’ll just fail to get around to it.
[Update: I was wrong; he filed a suit today already. This is a stupid move on his part, IMO. This difference here is that this is going to keep the Epstein issue in the news, and is likely to bring about more leaks and revelations.]
The letter itself is beyond creepy but doesn’t absolutely prove that Trump did anything criminal or knew about Epstein’s sex-trafficking activities. It sounds a bit like something a precocious 15-year-old would produce, and Trump must have been about 56 at the time. And as Trump is a known sexual predator this isn’t really telling us anything about him many of us hadn’t already realized. Whether this will put any cracks in the Right’s pathological denial of what sort of man Trump really is remains to be seen.
Trump’s other response to the story was to order AG Pam Bondi to release any “pertinent” grand jury testimony — subject to court approval — that helped indict Epstein of sex trafficking. Josh Marshall points out the problems with this idea:
First, grand jury testimony is secret and unauthorized release of it is a serious crime. Judges can under some circumstances allow the release of grand jury testimony. But they rarely do. So “subject to Court approval” makes this whole statement basically meaningless. At most it’s a way to blame some judge for the coverup.
Second, agreeing to release only the information Trump or Bondi find “pertinent” makes the whole thing not only meaningless but laughable. My defense attorney will allow the jury to see all the pertinent information from the investigation!
Third and most importantly, no one has ever talked about grand jury testimony. It’s not even clear what testimony he’s referring to. To the extent anyone knows just what the government has, the focus has always been on materials confiscated from Epstein during the 2019 investigation and especially what was taken from his residence and safe when he was arrested. So the whole “grand jury testimony” thing is a silly red herring.
Someone on MSNBC last night said that Ghislaine Maxwell has an appeal of her conviction pending, which makes the release of any Epstein testimony even more unlikely.
Do read Why Trump Can’t Shake Jeffrey Epstein by Ezra Klein at the New York Times. It brings the QAnon believers into focus to show why they so stubbornly stick with Trump. They sound a lot like an apocalypse cult that is absolutely certain Jesus will return in glory on such and such a date. The faithful leave their jobs and give away their possessions to be ready. And then when the great event fails to happen, and they are ruined, they just assume they got the date wrong and choose another date. Their faith in this glorious thing has become so central to their lives and self-identities that they can’t give it up.
But Trump is worse than the Jesus who just doesn’t show up. He’s betraying these people with every policy decision. For example, some apparently believed Trump would release the government’s secret cure for cancer, which they had, so they wouldn’t have to die. Instead, he ended a lot of promising cancer research by cutting off funds. Because of Trump, a whole lot about life in the United States is going to get a whole lot harder, especially if you don’t have much money.
In other news — nobody believes that CBS cancelled it’s top-rated Late Show With Stephen Colbert for “financial reasons.” Colbert will still be on until his current contract ends in May. Then no more Late Show. I assume CBS will fill the time with old movies. I am hoping Colbert gets picked up by one of the cable companies, like HBO or Comedy Central.
And this morning Trump’s cuts to NPR, PDS, and foreign aid passed in the House, which means the cuts just need Trump’s signature to become law.
Update: See Marcy Wheeler, Pam Bondi Reportedly Created 1,000 Witnesses to the Jeffrey Epstein File. That must be the file that was on Bondi’s desk that later was determined to not exist.
Here's a gift link to the WSJ article I got off Bluesky, Maha…
https://www.wsj.com/politics/trump-jeffrey-epstein-birthday-letter-we-have-certain-things-in-common-f918d796?st=w1YJc4&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
Thanks!
Regardless of whether the WSJ likely would prevail in any lawsuit, their calculation is their potential financial harm from Trump abusing his power to get revenge on them. That was the same calculation made by Paramount, universities and law firms.
Rather than sympathizing with them as Trump victims, they need to be warned that caving into Trump's demands will result in permanent damage to their credibility and reputation.
I still say it's unlikely he will sue. He'd be putting himself at greater risk of letting more Epstein information become public.
Update: Well, I was wrong. He filed a suit. This was a stupid move on his part. This will keep the Epstein issue in the news and probably lead to new revelations.
Trump filed suit against Michael Cohen, his lawyer and enforcer, only to drop the matter when faced with discovery. I think everyone knew Trump would chicken out when faced with discovery but for a time, it allowed Trump to pretend Cohen's claims were false.
Former Trump supporters post videos of them burning their MAGA hats
What I'm thinking about are TPTB, the people who control what news is published, how they're starting to pull back the curtain. Somebody high up in the Murdoch food chain had to say YES to the birthday letter, for example. And yes, you can be sure they ran it by legal first.
The oligarchs I'm sure are realizing Trump is bad for business, and desperately want stability in the markets. And probably for JD Vance to take over.
Joyce Vance said that releasing parts of the grand jury testimony is likely a delaying tactic, the kind of play that Trump has built his entire career on.
CBS sure looks ridiculous. I can't wait to see how Stephen lands on his feet after May. It's prime political season, and ratings for shows like his are going to go through the roof in 2026.
Apparently, the Orange man met the angry slav Melania through Jeffy and they had sex for the first time on the pedo plane.
He could defile a minor on 5th ave and still not lose a vote.
Paramount is the parent company of Comedy Central as well as CBS, so I doubt Comedy Central will take him. I also believe Jon Stewart is worried he's next.
https://variety.com/2025/tv/news/jon-stewart-daily-show-future-post-merger-honestly-dont-know-1236464579/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
How will the WSJ defeat a lawsuit for defamation? As Maha pointed out, they have to be 100% certain they can prove the truth. Which leads me to question, HOW do you prove the authenticity of a typewritten imaginary conversation between DJT and Epstein, written by DJT. Or a handwritten drawing of a nude female?
The only thing that comes to mind is absolute certainty based on the source. And I don't see that mentioned ANYWHERE. I can only think of two possibilities. If it was swept up by the FBI when they raided Epstein's homes, any number of FBI agents and prosecutors saw the bound book. Making personal copies which were "sold" to the media would seem to be a violation of ethics and the law. Dangerous, to put it mildly, especially if you would be outed in a lawsuit.
The other possible source would be someone who cleaned up AFTER Epstein's arrest but before the search and seizure of evidence, a narrow time frame I'd think. Who would have a key to the home where incriminating stuff had to be grabbed and knew WHAT to grab? Maxwell? She's in prison, so I'd think he lawyers might have participated in a shakedown for her. She wants a pardon – now! She's in a position to not only talk, but she may have the evidence, which she produced a sliver of. So she will come down with amnesia and all that stuff will stay hidden – if Trump signs a pardon. Otherwise, the WSJ has the scoop to end all scoops if the story she leaked is the tip of the iceberg. So she gets a pardon or Maxwell will have Trump's head on a platter.
It would be foolish to think the elite do not continue to employ a secret organization with services similar to those delivered by Epstein. It is also silly to think it would be called the secret service or that lawyers and judges were not still providing cover for them to do business. This cover comes with a level of status and of course a big price tag. There are state secrets there that are protected much more closely than those in Mar-a-Lago bathrooms.
It would take more than colored yarn and thumb tacks to unravel much. It would be like peeling an onion layer by layer to better understand the onion. As tedious as it would be unenlightening for sure. For sure, using agents time for unveiling "credible" data which matches "politically correct" data in this environment of political variability and distortion would be worse than peeling onions. For the record onion peels are quite thin, just one cell thick.
Meanwhile, who is looking for the current secret operations picking up the demand with decreased or less discrete supply? Who is identifying their corrupt cover people and those raking the profits? You can bet there is plenty of work to be done. Layer upon layer of deceptions and protections hiding the secret lifestyles of the perverse and perverted members of the corrupt faction of the rich and famous. Risky work too, with too many corrupt people in all the wrong places. Never have secrets been safer at the normal ridiculously high price.