Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

onenote

(45,469 posts)
38. Actually, the burden in this case is on Trump, not WSJ -- and that's why its a dangerous case for the WSJ
Sat Jul 19, 2025, 09:31 AM
Saturday

Last edited Sat Jul 19, 2025, 05:04 PM - Edit history (1)

As a public figure plaintiff in a defamation suit, Trump has the burden of proving the falsity of the allegedly defamatory statement. He also must establish by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant knew it was false or recklessly disregarded whether it was true. Essentially, the defendant must have knowingly lied or willfully ignored facts that would debunk the statement. This means in practice that Trump would have to establish that the WSJ deliberately lied or fabricated information, or had obvious reason to doubt their source but failed to verify, or departed from professional standards in ways that support an inference of knowing falsity.

That's a tough row to hoe -- and it will mean Trump will push for all kinds of discovery against the defendants, including the disclosure of confidential sources -- a particularly controversial issue in such cases.

On the other hand, WSJ doesn't have the burden of proving the statement to be true in a public figure case. Often, for defendants in defamation cases, the discovery is focused on whether there was injury to the plaintiff's reputation and/or the amount of damages. In a case like this, it probably matters less, except for show, whether Trump suffered any monetary harm -- he wants "vindication" in the form of a decision that the WSJ lied.

So why is this a dangerous case for the WSJ? Because on both the issue of the malice standard and the disclosure of confidential sources, there is every reason to believe that the current SCOTUS would overrule or limit prior precedent in order to make it easier for a public figure to sue a media outlet for defamation

Recommendations

2 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Hey, Trump! PJMcK Friday #1
Taco. He'll drop it before any discovery needs to happen. Scrivener7 Friday #2
If he drops it, Murdoch could counter-sue for vexacious litigation. . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Friday #7
Not successfully onenote Friday #17
Unless the POS in the WH can show they acted with malice, and knowingly made a false statement with lostincalifornia Friday #3
kelleyanne conjob strikes again??? - n/t lapfog_1 Friday #4
What insane lawyer signed that frivolous pleading under FRCP Rule 11? Tarzanrock Friday #5
Found This Thread On reddit r/law That You Might Appreciate... The Court System Is Now His Protection Racket MayReasonRule Saturday #35
He sues for frivolous reasons all the time. ShazzieB Saturday #40
The new f word. twodogsbarking Friday #6
If you listen carefully you can hear the rattling of attorney's swords. twodogsbarking Friday #8
Discovery should be fun Ritabert Friday #9
Why? What do you think the Journal will be seeking to discover that would be relevant to their defense? onenote Saturday #34
Truth Is Generally Considered An Abolute And Complete Defense Against Defamation Claims MayReasonRule Saturday #37
Actually, the burden in this case is on Trump, not WSJ -- and that's why its a dangerous case for the WSJ onenote Saturday #38
So why is this a dangerous case for the WSJ? SCOTUS MayReasonRule Saturday #39
More dangerous to everyone involved with getting the story published IbogaProject Saturday #42
Hey Rupe! Don't forget to demand Attorneys Fees and costs! no_hypocrisy Friday #10
Do I really have to root for Rupert Murdoch now? ificandream Friday #11
Root for Joe Palazzolo...he's a good reporter Prairie Gates Saturday #25
Trump sues Wall Street Journal's publisher and 2 reporters over Epstein article LetMyPeopleVote Friday #12
Maddow Blog-Following Epstein report, Trump files lawsuit against WSJ, Rupert Murdoch and others LetMyPeopleVote Friday #13
If The President has immunity, he shouldn't be able to file lawsuits on his own behalf. ruet Friday #14
Just do it felon, just do it. republianmushroom Friday #15
id love for teh wsj to subpeona the epstein files during discovery.... moonshinegnomie Friday #16
It wouldn't succeed onenote Friday #18
This will get interesting orangecrush Friday #19
20 years ago he was apparently more literate and articulate. Evidence of diminished capacity? Marcuse Friday #20
Murdoch will 'settle' for million$ pfitz59 Friday #21
News Corps BumRushDaShow Saturday #28
Has E. Jean Carroll been paid yet? tonekat Friday #22
I wonder if trump understands choie Friday #23
He'l deny he wrote the card. He admit he was friends with Epstein prior to 2004. onenote Sunday #43
Analysis from MSNBC's Lisa Rubin with Nicole Wallace pat_k Saturday #24
"seize back the narrative"... IthinkThereforeIAM Saturday #29
Souther District of Florida johnnyfins Saturday #26
My first thought when I seen the location of the filing... IthinkThereforeIAM Saturday #30
It's my understanding that there are only two absolute defenses in law and they concern libel and slander. MIButterfly Saturday #27
Good point... IthinkThereforeIAM Saturday #31
A country to run? lonely bird Saturday #36
I'm... myohmy2 Saturday #32
Can't wait for discovery dlk Saturday #33
What is the discovery phase of a libel suit kkmarie Saturday #41
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Trump sues Murdoch, Dow J...»Reply #38