00:00Hi, everybody. I'm Brittany Lewis, a breaking news reporter here at Forbes. Joining me now
00:07is First Amendment attorney Jeff Lewis. Jeff, thanks so much for joining me once again.
00:12Yeah, thanks for having me.
00:14There is a big case, a big defamation case that I would love to get your insight on.
00:19Last week, the Wall Street Journal ran a story on what they described as a body letter President
00:24Trump allegedly wrote to Jeffrey Epstein on his 50th birthday. And according to the journal,
00:29it included a drawing of a naked woman and Trump writing, quote,
00:33happy birthday and may every day be another wonderful secret. President Trump has vehemently
00:39denied he wrote this letter and he drew that drawing saying he doesn't draw pictures of women
00:43and saying those weren't his words. He filed a defamation lawsuit against the journal,
00:47the reporters, and Rupert Murdoch, the founder of News Corp, which essentially owns the journal
00:53because it owns the journal's parent company. So to start off the conversation,
00:57what are your thoughts on this lawsuit?
00:59My thoughts are President Trump has a big hill to climb to win this lawsuit. There are three big
01:05obstacles in Florida he has to overcome to win this case. He's got to prove actual malice.
01:11At the time, the Wall Street Journal penned this piece that the Wall Street Journal's
01:16journalists didn't believe subjectively in the truth of this piece. It's called actual malice.
01:21Very hard to prove that. Second big hurdle, Florida's got an anti-slap law,
01:26which means immediately Trump's got to prove his case up or face dismissal. And then third,
01:31and most importantly, in Florida, before you sue a media defendant like this, you have to give five
01:36days notice. Hey, we're about to sue you. And as far as I know, it hasn't been reported whether
01:40or not he has given such notice.
01:42And I want to read some words from the lawsuit. The lawsuit says that the story is, quote,
01:48glaring failures in journalistic ethics and standards of accurate reporting. And then it
01:52went on to say this, quote, the reason for those failures is because no authentic letter or drawing
01:57exists. Defendants concocted this story to malign President Trump's character and integrity
02:02and deceptively portray him in a false light. This lawsuit is to the tune of billions of dollars.
02:08So, I mean, how how do you do that? How do you say that, prove that this story had these glaring
02:15failures, that these journalists concocted this just because they hate President Trump, essentially?
02:21Yeah, you know, to prove up a case like this requires specific facts that a journalist
02:27knew that the statements were false and proceeded anyway. And just saying, hey, you don't have a
02:33copy of the letter doesn't mean that the journalist knew at the time that the article was written
02:39that no such letter existed. We don't know if a letter exists or not. So I will say this. There
02:45are two claims pled in the complaint, one for defamation per se and one for defamation per quad.
02:51One of the claims doesn't even require any proof of actual damages, meaning if President Trump
02:56can prove that his reputation was harmed by a serious allegation, he doesn't have to prove a
03:01nickel of damages have been actually incurred to win. But he does have some hurdles, as we've
03:06discussed earlier in the interview. And the lawsuit seeking $10 billion in damages for each kind of
03:12defamation. There's two counts of defamation, meaning that if my math is correct, it's adding up
03:17to at least $20 billion. So that's a huge number. Do you think that adds anything to this case? And do you
03:24think that's worth what President Trump is suing over?
03:29Well, look, anytime you're sued by a president of the United States, or a big celebrity or a big
03:34well-known politician, it should be of concern to the defendant. On the other hand, what should
03:41give the Wall Street Journal pause, the thing that should cause concern for the Wall Street Journal
03:47is whether things outside the courtroom could be brought to bear to silence the Wall Street Journal.
03:52We've seen executive orders from this president targeting law firms or targeting mergers and that
03:58kind of thing. It's those kinds of pressures that should cause Wall Street Journal concern. But there's
04:04nothing in this lawsuit, based on the facts that are alleged, that should cause the Wall Street Journal's
04:09lawyers to lose any sleep.
04:10Okay, that's really interesting. So President Trump's saying the Wall Street Journal got this wrong.
04:15You're saying, President Trump, you don't have that strong of a case.
04:20Here's why I say he doesn't have that strong of a case. First of all, he didn't allege
04:23that he complied with the five-day rule in Florida. He doesn't allege any real specific facts that the
04:30reporters knew, for example, that their witness who gave him this letter was unreliable, or a fact that
04:36such claims have been debunked in the past. There's very few specific examples of facts that would
04:43put the Wall Street Journal on notice that their story was false. That's why I say this kind of
04:48case is very hard to win for President Trump.
04:51So then, because you're saying that President Trump has an uphill battle to climb here,
04:56what's the likelihood of this case even getting dismissed in the first place?
04:59That's going to get dismissed early on, and I expect the Wall Street Journal will bring either
05:05what's called an anti-slap motion to dismiss, or an early motion to dismiss testing the merits of
05:11the case on this issue of actual malice, or this five-day rule in terms of whether or not President
05:17Trump gave five days' notice to the newspaper before suing it. There's going to be an early
05:21testing, and that dismissal order or the failure to dismiss the case will go up to the Court of Appeal
05:26pretty early. And do you anticipate that this case gets dismissed, or it goes onward to the
05:33next step? I would expect this case to be dismissed, unless there's some fact that wasn't
05:39pled in the complaint that Mr. Trump, President Trump, is holding close to his vest. But based
05:43on the facts he's pled in the complaint, I would expect it to be dismissed. If this case doesn't
05:48get dismissed, I want to talk about the discovery process, because President Trump, as we know,
05:52is trying to distance himself from disgraced sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. But would he be forced
05:57to turn over anything in this discovery process that perhaps paints a different picture, perhaps
06:02would show that he has a bigger relationship with Epstein than he's trying to show?
06:08You're absolutely right. If this case survives the dismissal stage, the motion stage,
06:13there will be discovery. And the areas for discovery that he could be required to turn over evidence
06:18do could include depositions, could include whether or not he draws or not, could include
06:23communications or correspondence with Epstein, could include even, this may sound far-fetched,
06:28but there's been media reports that Trump's administration has been scanning the criminal
06:33records regarding Epstein for mentions of the word Trump. And even those efforts could be subject
06:39to discovery. So it's pretty broad what discovery could find in this case.
06:43And I know we're looking down the road here, but Ghislaine Maxwell was allegedly the person,
06:49according to the Wall Street Journal's reporting, the person who put together this book of letters
06:54for Jeffrey Epstein. Could she be called in to testify in this case?
07:00I believe I would expect her to be called in to testify both at a deposition and then ultimately
07:04at a trial. The fact that she's currently serving time is not a barrier to testifying at either.
07:10And how would the Wall Street Journal reporters defend themselves here from President Trump?
07:16Would they have to give up their sources? Would they have to show the letter? Should they have
07:21that letter? Because the letter was not printed and that was something that President Trump took
07:25issue with. Would they have to show that to the president and say, hey, this is the person who gave
07:30it to me? How they'll defend this case is, first of all, they'll say truth and they'll rely on that
07:36five-day rule I talked about before. But in terms of discovery, most states have shield laws that
07:41protect journalists from having to reveal their sources. But having to produce a copy of that
07:46letter is not the same as revealing a source. They could turn over a copy of the letter without,
07:51for example, turning over the email or details about the meeting in terms of how they obtained
07:56the letter, where they obtained the letter from.
07:58And were you surprised by this lawsuit at all as someone who is a defamation attorney who
08:04this is your field here? I mean, were you surprised that President Trump took this
08:08kind of extraordinary step?
08:11No, President Trump, you know, forecast he was going to do that. I was surprised they picked
08:16Florida. They had a few different choices of where they could sue. Florida has a pretty strong
08:20anti-slap law, a quick way to get rid of cases like this. So I'm kind of surprised they didn't do
08:25more forum shopping looking for a state, the weaker anti-slap law.
08:29And so then what should we be looking out for next? I know that this lawsuit was just filed last
08:33week. Yeah. So the first thing you should look for is either an anti-slap motion or motion to
08:40dismiss brought by the Wall Street Journal and the other defendants, or it's possible President
08:46Trump got this lawsuit filed in a hurry. He might file an amended complaint with more facts
08:50regarding the notices he gave and that and additional facts showing that the defendants
08:55acted with actual malice. Those are the next steps.
08:59Well, Jeff Lewis, as we see these next steps play out, I hope you can come back on and break
09:03them down. Thank you so much for joining me. Thanks for providing your insight, your expertise
09:08here, and you're welcome back anytime.
09:11Of course. Thanks for having me.
09:20Thanks for having me.
