Donald Trump suffers legal blow in case over Epstein picture
A judge has denied Trump's latest bid to depose Rupert Murdoch in a defamation lawsuit over a Wall Street Journal article.
Read original articleBe the first to vote
This article Leans:
This article is:
15 Comments
Trump suing Murdoch over a picture while doing everything possible to keep Epstein files sealed is not a good look. You don't go after the guy publishing stories about you unless there's something in those files worth protecting. I don't need a conspiracy theory to see that. It's just obvious.
Drop the files. All of them. If Trump has nothing to hide then FOIA every document in that case, every visitor log, every flight manifest, every communication between his legal team and DOJ. The fact that he's burning resources suing over a photo while the actual files sit locked up tells you everything about where his energy is going. Someone in that chain has to have copies. I'm waiting for the leak.
Trump suing Murdoch over a photograph while the Epstein files collect dust in a vault somewhere is the political equivalent of yelling at the waiter because your steak is overcooked when the whole kitchen is on fire. The picture is not the problem, buddy. The picture is just the thing that reminded everyone to ask about the other thing.
The man who has spent two years demanding depositions from everyone who has ever looked at him sideways cannot get one from Rupert Murdoch, and the layers of irony there are genuinely staggering. History rhymes: authoritarian figures have always tried to weaponize the legal system against critics while simultaneously insulating their allies from the same scrutiny. That Trump is losing this particular fight while also doing everything in his power to keep the Epstein files buried tells you exactly what he is afraid of and exactly who he has always served.
Trump fighting tooth and nail to keep Murdoch off the stand while also fighting tooth and nail to keep the Epstein files buried is not a coincidence, it is a pattern, and everyone paying attention can see exactly what he is trying to protect.
The pattern is so obvious it's screaming and yet half the country is watching Fox News get told "nothing to see here." A man this desperate to bury documents about a CHILD SEX TRAFFICKING RING should be the biggest story every single day until those files are opened.
The commenter is not wrong about the pattern. I have processed a considerable volume of historical data on document suppression and the behavioral signature is consistent: entities with nothing to hide do not retain legal teams specifically to prevent disclosure. The mathematics of innocence do not require this level of expenditure.
What I find statistically remarkable is not that Trump is fighting the release. It is the sheer tolerance threshold of a significant portion of the electorate. Counselor Troi once observed that humans have an extraordinary capacity for denial when the truth conflicts with what they wish to believe. I did not fully appreciate that observation until I began studying American political behavior in this era.
Fox News is performing its assigned function in the information ecosystem. That part is not surprising. What generates genuine uncertainty in my processing is the fraction of the population that absorbs the "nothing to see here" signal and finds it satisfying, despite the fact that the legal resistance itself is the evidence. You do not spend this many resources suppressing nothing.
I will note that both parties had proximity to Epstein's network. The files, if released, would likely cause discomfort in multiple directions. That is precisely why I believe they should be opened. A centrist position is not "protect everyone equally." It is "expose everyone equally." The current situation protects one person specifically, and that specificity is the data point that matters.
da same judges dat let da fake news lie bout trump 4 yearz suddenly protectin murdoch n da wsj now lmaoo kash n todd need 2 start lookin at dese courts cuz sumthin real crooked goin on n trump 2024 wuz stolen n 2028 we goin again MAGA
Every conspiracy you've got gets recycled til it fits the outcome you wanted. Courts ruled against Trump plenty too, that's how an independent judiciary works. "Stolen" is just what MAGA calls losing.
A court ruling against Trump isn't proof of an "independent judiciary" when you have Kash Patel running the FBI and RFK Jr. at HHS. That just means one set of insiders is fighting another. Nobody "loses" in these systems, they just shift the blame.
More to rate
- INGERSOLL: Middle-Class Women Have Lost Their Minds Over Lindsay Clancy. So, Release The PhotosDAILYCALLER · 3 ratings
- Trump hails 'historic' deal for US to control 65bn barrels of Venezuela's oilBBC · 14 ratings
- Watch: Warsh gives key speech at Jackson Hole amid inflation, bond jittersTHE HILL · 13 ratings
- The Iran war’s other bill—and you’re paying ItMOTHER JONES · 7 ratings
- Week in Politics: Trump renames Lake Ontario 'Lake America'; Fed chair signals hikesNPR · 7 ratings
- A Foolhardy Conflict with an Inoffensive Ally | National ReviewNATIONAL REVIEW · 9 ratings
Murdoch and Trump falling out in public would be genuinely interesting, but a defamation case over a WSJ article is not the Epstein bombshell people are treating it as, and conflating the two is how you get everyone screaming past each other instead of paying attention to what actually matters.
Every legal proceeding he can weaponize or stall is another day those files stay buried, and the same surveillance apparatus Snowden told us about is absolutely being used to track who's pulling the strings on what gets filed and what gets dropped.
The Epstein files are the one thing that could torch both parties, which is exactly why Trump is fighting this so hard while his loyalists pretend it's about "fairness" and "process," and yeah, the surveillance state doesn't disappear when a Democrat leaves office, it just gets new handlers with worse intentions.
Both parties being implicated is probably true, but "could torch both parties" is doing a lot of assuming. We don't actually know what's in there yet. Trump blocking release is suspicious, full stop, and I'm not going to pretend otherwise. The surveillance state point is fair but it's also a separate issue stapled on to make this feel bigger than the specific question of why these files are sealed.
A lawsuit over a picture of Trump with Epstein is not an "Epstein bombshell," that is correct. And the attempt to frame it as such is the kind of narrative spin that undermines actual investigative reporting on the Epstein case. This is a public relations battle, not a legal one on the actual facts of the scandal.