A US federal judge on Saturday dismissed US President Donald Trump's $10 billion defamation lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal (WSJ), its parent company and media mogul Rupert Murdoch over a report detailing his alleged links to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.US District Judge Darrin Gayles, ruling in Miami, dismissed the case with prejudice, meaning Trump cannot file the same lawsuit again. The judge said the President had failed to establish that the defendants published defamatory statements with actual malice, a legal requirement for public figures pursuing defamation claims."Grasping at straws, the Amended Complaint attempts to manufacture flaws with the investigation," Gayles wrote in his ruling, adding that the newspaper had carried out a "thoughtful and detailed investigation" before publishing the report, according to Reuters.The dismissal is a setback for Trump, who has repeatedly clashed with media organisations over coverage critical of him.
The President has frequently accused news outlets of spreading "fake news" and has pursued several legal battles against media organisations during his second term. WHAT WAS THE WALL STREET JOURNAL REPORT ABOUT?The lawsuit stemmed from a WSJ report published last year about a sexually suggestive letter and drawing allegedly bearing Trump's name in a birthday album prepared for Epstein's 50th birthday in 2003.The album was reportedly compiled by disgraced British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, who was associated with Epstein.
The letter, according to the newspaper, contained text surrounded by the outline of what appeared to be a hand-drawn naked woman. It ended with the words, "Happy Birthday -- and may every day be another wonderful secret."Trump denied writing the letter and described the report as "false, malicious, and defamatory".
His lawsuit accused the newspaper and its reporters of knowingly publishing false and disparaging statements, claiming the report had caused significant financial and reputational damage, AP reported.Epstein died by suicide in a New York jail cell in August 2019 while awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges.JUDGE SAYS TRUMP FAILED TO ESTABLISH ACTUAL MALICEIn his ruling, Gayles said Trump's amended complaint did not meet the legal threshold for proving actual malice. He cited the US Supreme Court's landmark 1964 ruling in New York Times Co. v.
Sullivan, which established that public figures must demonstrate that a publication knowingly carried false information or acted with reckless disregard for the truth to win a defamation case."The Amended Complaint falls short of pleading actual malice," Gayles wrote, describing the allegations as vague, conclusory and, in some instances, inconsistent with the newspaper's article.The judge also pointed out that the WSJ report had included Trump's denial rather than ignoring or minimising it. The article had informed readers that the President called the letter fake and denied authoring it.Trump's lawyers had argued that the newspaper should have dropped the story after he denied having any involvement with Epstein.
Gayles rejected that argument, saying such a requirement was inconsistent with the actual malice standard and the First Amendment.TRUMP HAD REFILED LAWSUIT AFTER EARLIER DISMISSALThe ruling marks the second time Gayles has dismissed Trump's lawsuit. In April, the judge rejected the original complaint, finding that it failed to adequately establish that the newspaper had published the report with actual malice.However, he allowed Trump to submit an amended complaint, which the President's legal team filed in May.
Trump again sought at least $10 billion in damages.Saturday's dismissal with prejudice means the case cannot be brought before court again.The ruling comes amid a wider legal confrontation between Trump and media organisations. Apart from the WSJ case, the President has been involved in legal disputes with the BBC and The Associated Press.
Meanwhile, CNN, MS NOW and Politico have sued his administration over the restoration of White House access after they were barred in mid-September.The White House did not immediately issue a public response to Saturday's ruling or respond to an Associated Press request for comment.- EndsWith inputs from Reuters and