If you are Donald Trump you are using your puffed-chest pronouncements about your impending lawsuit to serve two significant purposes: As a means to combat the allegations in the story in real time, stating that “it’s all a lie, and as proof I am suing them” and second – an attempt to bring a $500 million lawsuit (My guess as to the amount) in the hopes to settle for $500,000 or so, just to claim victory if the WSJ pays to simply make it go away. But the Wall Street Journal isn’t wholly without a defense to the costs in this suit. As is often the case, it can easily move for Trump to pay attorney’s fees should he lose the entirety of the matter. Attorney’s fees would easily quintuple the $500,000 settlement figure. Both sides are playing for keeps on this one, and that’s why MSNBC’s legal analyst (And I) agree that the Journal wouldn’t go forward with litigation without having serious proof – “receipts” in the parlance of the day – and that proof goes to the ultimate defense, they printed the truth. But even that only gets them halfway to where they appear to be going.
We will get to the other arrow in the Journal’s quiver in a moment, but for now, let’s go to MSNBC Legal Analyst Lisa Rubin with her ever-reliable expert take as found in a report by our pals at Rawstory:
“If you look at the reporting from the other night with a lawyer’s eye, as I did, that piece of reporting was so particularly carefully worded as if a legal department had scoured every last punctuation mark and word in it. This is not something that the Wall Street Journal took on lightly.”
Well, true. But the exact same point can be made if you printed such scandalous accusations about anyone with serious access to resources and a big-time reason to believe that the printed material would hurt their public perception. This is self-evident even before one considers going after the American president. Still, her point is well-taken; the article was ever-carefully worded. She goes on:
“But in all likelihood, and this is again my belief, not based on any reporting, the Wall Street Journal already likely has evidence in its possession that this document is real and or was received by the Department of Justice as part of its 2019 investigation into Jeffrey Epstein,” said Rubin. “Whether or not that document then resurfaced as part of the recent review that Sen. [Dick] Durbin (D-IL) talked about in his letters today to Attorney General Bondi and others is unclear.”
Pay very close attention to Rubin’s words because she also has to be careful (As do I). The Wall Street Journal and the DOJ likely have evidence that this document and picture are real – she is pointing to the fact that there is yet to be published material that would substantiate Epstein’s “journal” itself and its contents below.
Nothing says ‘innocent friendship’ like a nudie doodle and a cryptic message signed by a future president.
— 𝕊𝕦𝕟𝕕𝕒𝕖 𝔾𝕦𝕣𝕝 (@sundaedivine.bsky.social) 2025-07-19T12:59:15.006Z
Nice, a president’s signature as pubic hair. This, obviously, is horrific, and Rubin is pointing to proof that it was Ghislaine Maxwell who put the binder together and who selected the friends to contribute; Maxwell would know who the friends to whom Epstein was closest, the type of things they would write (above), and what secrets must be kept. It is almost a list on its own – who did Maxwell select to write Epstein? She chose Trump and kept his horrible picture and reference to secrets. That much we know.
Rubin then goes on to point out what this lawyer has also written about five times now in this matter alone:
“I’m going to rely on that as the Wall Street Journal, because truth is always a defense in a defamation action.”
There you have it. Donald Trump isn’t the only one with a battalion of lawyers; the WSJ also knows what it’s doing from both an editorial and a legal standpoint. Now let’s break it down even further.
Rubin states that the WSJ can prove this document is within the DOJ’s hands and that the context reported on is real. That means there is evidence out there to substantiate that this letter is what’s been reported. The story didn’t lay out how it substantiated the matter, which, when revealed, could be as explosive as the contents of the letter itself – again, what was Maxwell really saying in compiling that birthday list? We know she chose to include the Trump letter; it cannot be that big an outlier, nor could it be considered too bawdy, lewd, distasteful, whatever other adjectives one might use, to be included. Hence, this must have been normal or expected stuff between Trump and Epstein. What other letters are out there – guilt by association?
The Journal also has at least partial access to the DOJ’s files. This came out. What else is the Journal holding back now? We can bet that it has at least something, and that should scare the hell out of Trump because the pattern in reporting is to build on the last report, getting ever more serious. Rubin and I believe that the Journal must feel that it can take Trump down both in the lawsuit and whatever it might print in the future.
This was a bigger summer blockbuster than Superman. And even though the Wall Street Journal has the reporting (Imagine the number of subscriptions bought yesterday), every other national news outlet will be competing to get at ever-deepening evidence about Trump’s participation with Epstein. Remember, too, that I personally believe that it is almost as damaging to Trump for them to prove he simply knew about the rape of young teens and continued to pal around with Epstein and/or cover for Epstein by not releasing the entirety of the DOJ files. (Do not be fooled. Releasing the grand jury evidence doesn’t mean everything is released; indeed, prosecutors often hold back damning evidence if they think they certainly have enough and it would be almost too much to believe they put forth anything incriminating on the sitting president.)
The Journal has the requisite receipts to take Trump down. Or, at least they have the evidence to prove that A) the letter to Epstein was written and drawn by Donald Trump, and B) the evidence that proves that Trump wrote the letter, with access to Epstein’s most private stuff. If Epstein kept this journal, imagine what else there might be incriminating him and, by extension, Donald Trump.
Why is this different than any other massive scandal that his supporters let go by? Well, it does involve raping young teens, so there’s that – even his supporters likely have limits. But there’s also the fact that his supporters wanted this material so badly because they are absolutely convinced that this is how one takes down Bill Clinton. Remember, as I often write, Donald Trump’s ultimate appeal to the MAGAs is that he hates the same people they hate, and he demonstrates it in the same sophomoric, unpresidential manner they would. If this stuff implicates him, suddenly, Trump is associated with Bill Clinton at the most base level. It might – I can’t be sure – help pop a bubble that has been ready to burst for some time.
But as to this letter, this journal, this list, have no doubt, the Wall Street Journal has the receipts, and those receipts will certainly take down Trump’s lawsuit, thereby perhaps taking down Trump himself.
Buy shares in Jolly Time.
**** Please follow me now on Bluesky
God Bless: I can be reached at [email protected] and also on X at @JasonMiciak.
Zoomers, we are always in need of donations. We work hard to get you analysis that you will not find in the mainstream media, but all media have been hit hard since the big companies have gobbled up and monopolized commentary. Anything you can spare will be immensely appreciated. And thank you to all who have donated generously already. Ursula
