Trump refiled $10 billion lawsuit against Wall Street Journal over reporting on his Epstein ties, after the last one was thrown out by a judge

Donald Trump has officially refiled a massive 10 billion dollar lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal, reigniting a legal battle that centers on a report regarding his alleged ties to the late financier Jeffrey Epstein, as reported by The Guardian. This move comes just one month after a Florida judge dismissed the initial version of the case, providing a fresh opportunity for the President to challenge the publication.

The lawsuit targets the Murdoch-owned publisher Dow Jones, along with reporters Khadeeja Safdar and Joe Palazzolo. It is quite a bold step, especially considering the relationship between the President and Rupert Murdoch, who has often been viewed as a key media ally.

The legal drama kicked off in April when Judge Darrin P Gayles dismissed the original complaint. At that time, the judge ruled that the legal team had failed to sufficiently argue that the publication acted with actual malice. In legal terms, this means the team did not prove that the people responsible for the story published it despite knowing it was false or having serious reason to believe it was untrue. However, the dismissal was issued without prejudice, which essentially gave the legal team a second chance to return with more concrete evidence.

The judge noted that there was significant evidence that the outlet had attempted to verify the letter in question

The letter in the original report featured a drawing of a naked woman’s torso and an imagined conversation between the two men. Because the outlet took those steps, the judge found that the President’s claim of the document being fake did not automatically prove the journalists had serious doubts about their story.

The updated filing is seven pages longer than the version the court rejected earlier this year. The core of the argument remains that the letter to Epstein simply does not exist. The complaint states, “The reason for those failures is that Defendants did not have access to any such letter when the Article was published, which is a fact because no authentic letter or drawing exists.” This document was originally released by the House oversight committee in September after it was handed over by the estate of Jeffrey Epstein.

A spokesperson for the legal team described the filing as a “powerhouse lawsuit” and added, “The President will continue to hold those who mislead the American People with Fake News and smears accountable for their actions.” It is clear that the legal team is digging in their heels. They have included new claims suggesting that the outlet intentionally left out the President’s denial of the letter, even though the original story actually noted that “Trump denied writing the letter or drawing the picture.”

One of the more interesting details in the filing involves a conversation the President reportedly had with Rupert Murdoch. The lawsuit claims that when the President called to tell him the story was untrue, Murdoch replied, “I will handle it.” The complaint argues that the President “reasonably interpreted as meaning that Murdoch believed President Trump, and that the article would not be published.”

Furthermore, the legal team is pointing to comments from Ghislaine Maxwell, an associate of Epstein, who said she did not recall the letter. The complaint alleges that “Of the two surviving individuals who could substantiate whether President Trump had submitted a birthday letter, one person, President Trump, vehemently denied the existence of the alleged letter, and the other person has testified to a federal official that she had no knowledge of it.”

The legal team believes that the reporters and the parent company either knew these facts or deliberately avoided looking into them before publishing what they call a defamatory article. Before this refiling, the team actually tried to get permission for a limited amount of discovery to find proof of actual malice, but Judge Gayles denied that request. He argued that such a move was improper and “contravenes the purpose behind the actual malice standard.”

It is worth noting that the President is no stranger to these kinds of courtroom confrontations. Over the years, he has taken on various media companies, with some cases ending in settlements worth tens of millions of dollars that were earmarked for his future presidential library. He currently has other active lawsuits against the New York Times and the BBC as well.

While the 10 billion dollar figure is certainly eye-catching, it remains unclear exactly how that specific number was calculated.