🚨BREAKING: Judge DISMISSES Trump’s EPSTEIN LAWSUIT…

This is a breaking news alert on. Saturday afternoon. A federal judge from. the Southern District of Florida has. just dismissed Donald Trump's defamation. lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal. over its reporting on Trump's birthday. letter to Jeffrey Epstein for Epstein's. 50th birthday. We all saw the letter. We. saw Donald Trump's signature. It looks. just like Donald Trump's signature on. lots of other stuff that he signs, but. Trump says, "I never signed it. That. wasn't me." This federal judge dismissed.

Donald Trump's defamation lawsuit with. prejudice, meaning Donald Trump cannot. refile the lawsuit. The judge previously. gave Donald Trump one additional chance. to file the lawsuit again. So, Trump. filed a first amended complaint, and. that's what was dismissed. This was a. major First Amendment ruling where this. federal judge rejected Donald Trump's. argument that his denials that this. letter was sent by him and signed by him.

should have prevented the Wall Street. Journal from publishing its reporting. And the judge warned that such a. standard would not just run a foul to. the Constitution, but it would basically. mean that any public figure would just. call a story fake, and that would. automatically establish that the. reporting satisfied the actual malice. standard, and that the reporter could be. found liable. And the judge says, "That's not what the First Amendment. provides for." The judge also described.

the Wall Street Journal's reporting as. thoughtful and a detailed investigation, and concluded that Donald Trump's. defamation claims lack merit. The judge. left open the possibility as well that. Donald Trump could be ordered to pay the. Wall Street Journal's attorneys fees. The judge asked for further briefing on. the issue of attorneys fees, and the. issue really is if it's under New York. law, the Wall Street Journal would have. to file a separate lawsuit to basically.

reclaim the attorney's fees. And if it. was under Florida's what's called. anti-slap statute in Florida law. applied, then it would just be a motion. for attorney's fees. Regardless, the. Wall Street Journal will be entitled to. hundreds of thousands of dollars in. attorney's fees and potentially more. depending on what the Wall Street. Journal lawyers had to bill to defend. this case. And yes, it is possible Trump. can appeal, but this was a very solid.

order and there's really nothing that is. going to be argued to persuade a. appellate court here to overturn. this ruling. I'll remind you what the. letter looked like that Donald Trump. sent to Epstein for Epstein's 50th. birthday right there, where it had this. hypothetical or perhaps real. conversation between Donald Trump and. Epstein. And this was part of a 50th. birthday book that Ghislaine Maxwell was.

compiling for Epstein and you'll recall. that Ghislaine had all of Epstein's. closest friends submit letters to. Epstein and lots of the people who. submitted letters when the Wall Street. Journal got their hands on this book. which was part of the Epstein estate's. property. Everybody else was like, "Yeah, I wrote. that. Yeah, Ghislaine was, you know, organizing this." And other people. admitted to But Donald Trump's like, "It's fake. That's not my signature.". And just to remind you what it said, it.

was this narration between Donald and. Jeffrey Epstein and it was a sketch of a. naked woman. Yes, Donald says, "Yes, there is, but I won't tell you what it. is." Jeffrey Epstein says, "Nor will I, since I also know what it is." Then. Donald says, "We have certain things in. common, Jeffrey." And then in this. conversation that, you know, was alleged. Donald Trump wrote, Jeffrey Epstein then. says, "Yes, we do, come to think about. it." Donald says, "Enigmas never age. Have you noticed that?" And then Jeffrey.

goes, "As a matter of fact, it was clear. to me the last time I saw you." To which. Donald responds, "A pal is a wonderful. thing. Happy birthday, and may every day. be another wonderful secret." So, the. Wall Street Journal initially just. described what uh the letter looked like. and what the letter said. Thereafter, the Democrats in the House Oversight. Committee were able to get the Epstein. estate to turn over the actual birthday.

book, and there it was, the exact letter. described by the Wall Street Journal in. its article. And that article came out. It's a long time ago at this point, all. the way back in July of 2025. So, you. see how slow these lawsuits, you know, can actually move, but Donald Trump's. lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal. in the Southern District of Florida now. officially dismissed. Want to turn to. some of the uh key aspects of this.

ruling. Uh on page 14, the federal judge. explains here, "The amended complaint. falls short of pleading actual malice. Indeed, the allegations regarding malice. are conclusory, vague, sometimes. inconsistent with the article, and often. irrelevant to whether defendant Wall. Street Journal knew or should have known. that the statements in the article were. purportedly false." So, when you are a.

public figure the way Donald Trump is, you have to plead, you have to put in. your lawsuit that there was actual. malice on the part of the defendant when. they defamed you. It can't just be. negligent. They have to have acted with. actual malice. And so, the federal judge. is saying there's nothing that you're. saying that satisfies that actual malice. standard, and your allegations are vague. and. internally contradictory, and don't. really make much sense. Uh For example,

the complaint that Donald Trump filed in. the amended complaint points to a. September 8th article by The Wall Street. Journal where The Wall Street Journal. compares the handwriting from Trump's. letter to Epstein and the signature by. Donald Trump to other signatures of. Donald Trump and also to other sketches. that Donald Trump had previously drawn. And so The Wall Street Journal says, "Look at all these sketches. Look at his. signature when he's drawn other things.

This doesn't this look very similar to. or identical to what was. now we know was part of the Epstein 50th. birthday book.". And here's what the federal judge says. over there. The amended complaint's. reliance on the September 8th article to. establish malice is equally unavailing. Nothing in the law suggests that a. journalist must report on every piece of. evidence they uncover before going to. print. Moreover, it is unclear why.

President Trump argues the September 8th. article shows that his signature cannot. be more different than the one in the. letter when it contains several examples. where President Trump's actual signature. and sketches are similar to those in the. letter. At bottom, the September 8th. article does not support a finding that. defendants knew or should have known. that President Trump did not sign the. letter. They're saying, "Well, why do. you point to the September 8th article.

as showing that this could not have been. Donald Trump's signature based on. Trump's signature and drawings in other. context? They look very similar." The. judge is saying like, "This makes no. sense what you're even arguing." Let me. go through some other key points of the. ruling for you cuz I think it's helpful. that you understand the federal judge's. ruling, the analysis that's actually. taken here. It's. Federal Judge Darrin P. Gales who made. the ruling. So, here's how the order.

begins. Those who won our independence. believed that public discussion is a. political duty and that this should be. fundamental principle of the American. government. They recognize the risks to. which all human institutions are. subject, but they knew that order cannot. be secured merely through fear of. punishment for its infraction, that it. is hazardous to discourage thought, hope, and imagination, that fear breeds. repression, that repression breeds hate,

that hate menaces stable government, that the path of safety lies in the. opportunity to discuss freely supposed. grievances and proposed remedies, and. that the fitting remedy for evil counsel. is good ones. Believing in the power of. reason as applied through public. discussion, they eschewed silence. coerced by law, the argument of force in. its worst form. Recognizing the. occasional tyrannies of governing.

majorities, they amended the. Constitution so that free speech and. assembly should be guaranteed. And. that's citing the New York Times versus. Sullivan case, the 1964 seminal case on. the First Amendment actual malice. standard in defamation cases, citing a. case called Whitney v. California, um and it is a Justice Brandeis uh. concurring opinion from the Supreme. Court. The federal judge in this case.

says, "Justice Brandeis's words as. relevant today as they were nearly a. century ago form the background behind. the Supreme Court's holding in Sullivan. The First Amendment prohibits a public. figure, in this case Donald Trump, from. recovering damages for a defamatory. falsehood unless he proves that the. statement was made with actual malice. This constitutional protection is not. limited to post-discovery motions and. trial because the costs and efforts.

required to defend a lawsuit through. discovery could chill free speech nearly. as effectively as the absence of the. actual malice standard all together. A. public figure must plausibly allege. actual malice at the outset of the. litigation. In other words, as a. threshold matter, the public figure. needs to establish in fact with detailed. facts in the complaint how this was not. just simply negligence or not a mistake,

but actual malice because. the Supreme Court recognized that if you. allowed powerful public figures to file. these types of lawsuits, the fishing. expedition, the costs and expenses and. harassment on reporters and journalists. could chill, could stop the. fundamentally critical reporting that. makes the United States the United. States and creates the free press.

The judge then goes on to say, "This order addresses Donald Trump's. second attempt to plead that the. defendants Dow Jones & Company, The Wall. Street Journal, News Corporation, Keith. Rupert Murdoch, Robert Thomson, and. journalist Khadija Safdar, and Joseph. Palazzolo. acted with actual malice when they. published an article in The Wall Street. Journal linking Trump to convicted sex. offender Jeffrey Epstein. As with his.

first attempt, he has failed. Therefore, for the reasons below, defendants Wall. Street Journal and all of those the. writers, reporters, and the executives, their motion to. dismiss the first amended complaint is. granted and Donald Trump's amended. complaint is dismissed with prejudice. With prejudice meaning he can't refile. He can appeal, but he can't refile. Then. the opinion goes over the article, what.

was said in the article, how Donald. Trump then denied that it was his. signature, that it was his letter. The. uh order then goes on to describe how. The Wall Street Journal contacted other. people who were uh who had their letters. in Jeffrey Epstein's book and other. people confirmed that their letters were. in it and that Donald Trump was really. the only person who said it was all. fake. It was all fake. Uh the order by this federal judge goes. on to say that the Wall Street Journal.

printed Donald Trump's denials that it. was fake so that the world could see. what Donald Trump was claiming. and it was a fair and balanced and uh. thoughtfully investigated article. Um one of the things that they point out. in this order is that Donald Trump was. basically saying that uh because. Ghislaine Maxwell had no recollection. when she was recently questioned by. recently in the past year questioned by. Todd Blanche about the book.

uh for Epstein's 50th birthday about. whether Donald Trump contributed to it. Uh she had said that she doesn't recall. and so Donald Trump says, "Well, you. know, Ghislaine Maxwell should be given. a lot more weight and the Wall Street. Journal didn't, you know, go you know, print out what Ghislaine Maxwell said. originally." And the Wall Street Journal. said they tried to reach her and she's, you know, a convicted child sex. trafficker and a known liar.

And uh then the court just goes on to. talk about not only does the Wall Street. Journal. motion to dismiss not only is it granted. but also that uh they're entitled to. attorneys' fees and the issue just is do. they need to file a new action to get. those attorneys' fees or can they do it. by way of uh a motion here for. attorneys' fees before this court. And. uh the court basically says uh. uh within the motion defendants request. attorneys' fees arguing that Trump's.

lawsuit lacks merit and that he only. brought it because they exercised their. right to free speech on a public issue. The court agrees that Trump's defamation. claims lack merit and then the court. goes on to say though because of the. issue of it's a choice of law issue. because you know is is the choice of law. even though it's in a Florida court do. you apply Florida law or in some cases. even if a case is brought in another. jurisdiction you still apply the law of.

another state where the conduct may have. taken place. So the issue is does New. York law apply or does Florida law. apply? Regardless the Wall Street. Journal is going to be entitled to. attorney's fees. So that's where we're. at. Big loss for Donald Trump on the. weekend. Get your copy of WTF America. the way out of this hell and back to. democracy. That's the book I wrote with. my brothers. Check it out. Number two on the New York Times. bestseller list. Thanks for watching. everybody. We appreciate you. >> WTF America is officially out now. My. brothers and I wrote it but this book is.

also about you. The millions who refused. to back down when it mattered most. Scan. the QR code, click the link in the. description, or find it anywhere books. are sold and order your copy today.