Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Trump gets Nightmare News from Epstein Lawsuit

Episode Date: April 13, 2026

In breaking news, a Federal Judge has dismissed Trump’s $10 billion dollar defamation case against Rupert Murdoch and the Wall Street Journal for publishing an article detailing what they claim was Trump’s hand written pornographic hand drawn “letter” for Epstein’s 50th Birthday, pasted into a 2 volume scrap book by Ghislaine Maxwell, the very same birthday submission that was published by the House Oversight Committee. Popok knows the cast of characters well and reports on what happened and what could happen next. Dose: Save 35% on your first month of subscription by going to https://dosedaily.co/LEGALAF or entering LEGALAF at checkout. Subscribe:  @LegalAFMTN  Visit https://meidasplus.com for more! Support the MeidasTouch Network: https://patreon.com/meidastouch Add the MeidasTouch Podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-meidastouch-podcast/id1510240831 Buy MeidasTouch Merch: https://store.meidastouch.com Follow MeidasTouch on Twitter: https://twitter.com/meidastouch Follow MeidasTouch on Facebook: https://facebook.com/meidastouch Follow MeidasTouch on Instagram: https://instagram.com/meidastouch Follow MeidasTouch on TikTok: https://tiktok.com/@meidastouch Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In breaking news, Donald Trump's defamation case against Rupert Murdoch in the Wall Street Journal is on life support. Yeah, that $10 billion lawsuit filed in the Southern District of Florida because the federal judge there, Judge Gales, after sitting on the order for the last five or six months, good timing right after Melania gave a press conference denying any involvement with Epstein. Epstein is back in the news with Judge Gail's 17 page order. He is given Donald Trump one last chance. two weeks at best to try again and file yet another complaint. It'll be his last one to properly allege an element of defamation

that's required when you're a public figure. That is actual malice. That's a term of art that comes out of a case called New York Times versus Sullivan in the 1960s. I'll give you a teachable moment now to, and I think I'll explain having done defamation cases. I think he's going to have a very hard time making out that standard. If that's the case, game over, case over, motion to dismiss just granted without prejudice. And as to attorney's fees, which are substantial, that the other side, the Rupert Murdoch side is seeking, the judge says, not yet, I'll take it under advisement. Let's see what happens in the next go-around.

I'm Michael Popock. This all stems from that two-volume birthday scrapbook that Galane Maxwell admits that she created, a leather-bound tome. that those two volumes, if they say the Bible launched more ships around the world, that two volumes set has cratered more careers of predators because of their connections with Epstein than anything else I know. Every other page had some famous, infamous person in there in academia, in business, in the royalty, in the government around the world, rich people, all who got brought down and brought to justice because of the disclosure, that they were in this scrapbook,

many of them writing borderline, portographic, or inappropriate, or obscene material. Donald Trump, if you go to, I'm making it up now off top my head, but if you go to volume two, page 253, we've actually published the entire book on Legal A-F Substack, you will find a outline, we'll put a picture of it up here, an outline that claims to be Donald Trump,

signed by somebody signing Donald Trump's name, of an outline of a woman whose nature, with the pubic hair as Donald Trump's signature. Oh, yes, with some poem about Jeffrey Epstein being an enigma and having dark secrets. Okay. Now, look, I'm not here to claim that Donald Trump created that himself with a pen, but it's more likely than not based on the allegations and based on the reporting that he had somebody do it for him. And so let me get Donald Trump's theory straight.

Somebody 25 years ago thought he'd be president one day, and, And so the fabricated forged a submission, had it glued into volume two. He didn't even make volume one. Volume two of the book, to embarrass him and defame him in the future? Some, what, some time traveling liberal media? I just don't understand it. Of course, Judge Gales didn't either. Now, the good part about this case is I happen to know a couple of the players.

I know Judge Gales very well. I appeared in front of him in Miami-Dade Circuit Court when he was done. there. I supported his campaign when he needed to get reelected or retained. And I know Andy Lavander, because I've hired him for cases of mine, involving companies that I represented in New York, who represents Dow Jones. Now, I thought Andy had a very, very interesting attack. He, they went after it with a motion to dismiss. They said a few things. One, what we published about the birthday book is true. How do we know that? Because a month later, the House Oversight Committee published the book, got it from the Epstein estate and published the book.

And everything we said about the cartoon and Donald Trump's signature and the page it was on is true. And that's the ultimate defense to a defamation case. Now, we're on a motion to dismiss posture. At the very beginning of a case, there's an initial pleading. That's called the complaint. And when you get it and you're on the other side, you're on the defense side, you can move to dismiss. And it has to get through the pleading standards of federal. federal court in this case, which are contained in the federal rules of civil procedure.

When it comes to actual malice, which is an element of defamation that a public figure has to allege, you've got to show, and you have to allege facts, allege facts in your complaint, you know, at least prima facie argument that the media company, in this case, Wall Street Journal either knew that the birthday card submission was not Donald Trump's or published it with reckless disregard of whether it was true or false. And the main argument that Donald Trump has for that is, I told Rupert Murdoch it was false. So they were on notice.

That's actual malice, right? The judge says, I'll read it to you. It says, no, not even close. But you have to prove all of that. In the motion to dismiss, you argue in the defense side, for instance, in a defamation case, everything I wrote is true. Second thing they argued, which I don't think they thought would be appropriate for motion to dismissal.

dismiss, but it was a very good try, which was the show that Donald Trump is incapable of being defamed because his reputation is in the toilet by his own words and conduct. In other words, how do you defame in a judge sex abuser? How do you defame somebody that said that they were going to grab a woman by her genitalia? How do you defame somebody where dozens of women have claimed that they've been physically assaulted? How do you defame somebody who tells Iran to go F themselves, et cetera, et cetera? But I love that from context standpoint. I didn't think it was a winner on the motion to dismiss. and that's not what the judge relied on, but that's a very good way to frame your argument

when you're dealing with Donald Trump. Can we talk about the most underrated organ in your body? Your liver. It's doing more than 500 functions every day, filtering unwanted elements, supporting digestion, and helping with energy. So giving a daily support, it just makes sense. Dose for your liver is a clinically backed liver health supplement. This isn't just another capsule or powder.

Dose is a liquid supplement taken in a daily two-ounce shot, and it tastes like fresh squeezed orange juice. Dose cleanses the liver of unwanted stressors that's slowing your liver down and promotes daily liver function so your liver can do its job. Zero sugar, zero junk, zero calories. Your liver is your body's filter,

handling energy production, digestion, fat metabolism, and vitamin storage. When you drink dose daily, you're going to reduce sluggishness. Get rid of those midday crashes. Support your metabolism and even aides. your daily digestion. Plus, it's got real results with two double-blind placebo-controlled studies showing its positive impact on liver enzyme levels. Ready to give your liver the support it deserves,

head to dosedaily.co-slash-L-A-F or enter legal AF to get 35% off your first subscription. Your body does so much for you. Let's do something for it. That's D-O-S-E-D-A-L-Y.com slash legal for 35% off your first month subscription. They then also alleged he didn't make out actual malice. All he did was some sort of boilerplate, you know, conclusory allegations. Well, there was actual malice when they published it. You got to do more than that. You got to do better than that under the standards that apply.

And then they argued that he's not just arguing for defamation per se, which is you accused me of a loathsome disease, immorality, a crime, etc. et cetera, and I've been injured, even if it's a dollar, I get to maintain my suit. He sued under defamation per quad, meaning, I've got real damage. And they said, yeah, but you have to allege your special damages. What are your real damages? How did you make $1 less because of the publication by the Wall Street Journal about a birthday book that ended up being a part of the oversight committee hearing and publication,

part of interviews with Galane Maxwell by the Department of Justice that we reported on? how is he damaged? And when you look at the billions and tens of billions, hundreds of billions of dollars that Donald Trump is on his way to making, while he's in office, then he's got no defamation case. Here's with the judge. Did I mention you're on Midas Touch on Michael Popock?

Come over to Legal AF YouTube channel and help us grow that channel too. All right, let's get to the heart of the 17-page decision. The judge spends time saying what he's not going to decide the son. He says, I'm not going to decide whether the birthday card is true or false. I don't need to go there. He says, I'm going to go right to the heart of the matter. Actual malice, not properly made out. He says on page 13, the complaint falls short of pleading actual malice, which is required

under the 11th Circuit principles. That's the appellate court that sits in Atlanta over Judge Gales. And under the New York Times v. Sullivan, Supreme Court principles. He says on page 13, President Trump's primary allegations, relating to malice or that the defendants knew or should have known the statements of the article were false. And then just use conclusory language. The judge says, well, on page 14, formulaic recitations of the actual malice element are insufficient to state a claim. You've got to do more. You've got to have facts. That's the problem. How are they going to grow new facts in the next 14 days

to have the next motion to dismiss survive a the next complaint survive a motion to dismiss? I don't think it's possible. Here's what the judge says. The complaint is on page 14. Also alleges that President Trump told defendants that the letter was a fake before they ran the article. President Trump argues that this allegation, you know, he called Murdoch, shows that defendants acted with serious doubts about the truth of the reporting, therefore actual malice. The complaint comes nowhere close to the standard, says the judge.

Quite the opposite. The article explains that before, running the story the defendants contacted Trump, the Justice Department, and the FBI. President Trump responded with a denial. The Justice Department didn't respond at all, and the FBI said, no comment. In short, the complaint and article confirmed that defendants attempted to investigate. The article also states that the Wall Street Journal reviewed the letter. Accordingly, President Trump's conclusory allegation that defendants had contradictory evidence and failed to investigate is rebutted by the article itself.

Here's what the judge says in footnote 13. The complaint alleges that the article, that's the published article about the birthday book, does not explain whether defendants have seen the letter. This allegation is directly belied by the article. The article says the letter bearing Trump's name, which was reviewed by the journal, his body, like others in the album. So here's what the judge is going to do. Judge Gales. He's going to hold in abeyance whether the Dow Jones gets attorney's fees for being on the winning side of this. Okay. He's going to deny the request by the Wall Street Journal that certain conduct of Donald Trump or conduct of the oversight committee is going to, he's going to take

judicial notice. But in all other respects, he's tossed the complaint. He's given Donald Trump until the 27th of April to file again. What's going to happen? I don't think they're going to meet the standard. Donald Trump's going to have to create facts that don't exist. There's no discovery here. You don't get the facts. You have to possess the facts when you file the complaint,

not get them later in some sort of discovery or deposition. And then he's going to try it again. and the Wall Street Journal lawyers are going to file another motion to dismiss, and this time they're going to get it dismissed with prejudice, so bye-bye, and they'll get their attorney's fees. That's where I see it. I could be wrong. I don't think so, having read the papers, but we will see.

But we don't blow smoke or sunshine here on Legal A.F. I'm Michael Popak. You're on the Midas Touch Network. Hit the free subscribe button, come over to Legal A.F and do the exact same thing. And great news, everybody. Four days left. in the Webby Awards, People's Voice Award, Intersection, my podcast on Tuesday night's best new podcast,

and Legal AF's podcast is up for Best News Podcast. And with your help, it's coming down to the wire. Four days left with your help, we'll win both awards on your behalf. Appreciate both of you. Until my next report, I'm Michael Popok. Can't get your fill of LegalAF. Me neither.

That's why we form the Legal AF substack. Every time we mention something in a hot take, whether it's a court filing or an oral argument. Come over to the substack. You'll find the court filing in the oral argument there, including a daily roundup that I do call, wait for it, morning AF.

What else? All the other contributors from LegalAF are there as well. We got some new reporting. We got interviews. We got ad-free versions of the podcast and hot takes where legal A-F on Substack. Come over now to free subscribe.