Or did they expect WSJ to get an "exclusive" and then not publish it, like David Pecker's catch-and-kill for the National Enquirer?

Trump is still operating under the assumption his catch-and-kill apparatus still exists. But, there's money to be made. Big money!

He's finding out what it's like to be on the other side. Maybe? Finally?

I'm still wavering as to if this spat isn't all flash and no bang.

..."alternative facts," aka lies.

Whose high school and college education was lacking because they never learned the meaning of the conjunction "however."

I can't even begin to tell you how many legal papers I have edited in which the author apparently believes all conjunctions have the same meaning . . . just a word you stick between to sentences to make them flow better.

ETA: This isn't age hating . . . I have had a hand in educating around 1000 - 1500 attorneys. The ones who are (now) in their 30s or younger, in my experience, missed out on some of the basics of communication which I was taught by the 7th grade at the latest. I'm pretty sure the person who wrote this is scratching their head at the response questioning the meaning of "exclusive." . . . in my experience, they almost certainly don't understand the difference between "however, since" and "since."

This is a matter of a lawyer who doesn’t understand that “exclusive” in journalistic terms means that only the WSJ and no other news medium has the story. The lawyer literally doesn’t get it that “exclusive” stories can be and indeed very often are widely disseminated. The lawyer is an imbecile.

They don't understand the meaning of the word "however," and are misusing it.

Go read the complaint. I have. The word is used a single time, in that sentence of the complaint, solely as identification of the article (the footnote is the title and a link to the artlcle). And I have also seen hundreds of documents written by both attorneys and attorneys-in-training which misuse the word "however," and other contrasting transitions.

I agree the lawyer is an imbecile, the content of the complaint bears that out. But there is nothing in the complaint which suggests they misunderstand the meaning of the word, "exclusive."

Probably earlier. But that's the oldest movies I've watched that used the term. Hey, some were in theaters even before Trump was born!

Not divided or shared with others.
"exclusive publishing rights."

And there you have it. They were the only ones to have the story to publish, it was theirs to publish, if they didn't nobody else would have. Want the story, you go to them; they had a monopoly. Unlike a story from a press briefing, where there's a gaggle to pick up the story and they used to race to get the story in first. Then the first was merely "first." Or reporting on a hurricane, where the reporter reports for the public that's in the hurricane that--hey, look, surprise, there's a hurricane!

https://www.wordnik.com/words/exclusive tends to be a quick 3-second Google search away for daunting questions about meanings.