‘This is a much better place': WSJ bombshell unites a frayed MAGA
'We're not done yet, but this is a much better place than we were yesterday,' the person added. 'And it feels right to be bashing the media again — it has extra oomph because [Wall Street Journal owner] Rupert Murdoch is involved.'
A spokesperson for Newscorp did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The report and MAGA world's response marked the latest chapter in the Epstein firestorm, which erupted into a political mess for the White House this month after the Justice Department and Federal Bureau of Investigation released a long-awaited memo concluding there was no evidence that Epstein, a financier and convicted sex offender, was murdered in his jail cell or that a 'client list' ever existed — unleashing accusations from far-right influencers that Trump administration officials, chiefly Attorney General Pam Bondi, were aiding a cover-up.
It left Trump in unfamiliar territory, criticizing some of his supporters as 'weaklings' and unable to change the conversation in Washington as he ran up against a fractured MAGA movement that appeared unwilling to let up the pressure. That changed Thursday night when the Journal story dropped and the president announced his intention to sue, allowing him to steer the conversation to a place familiar to him and his allies — the media's treatment, or mistreatment, of him.
It has, so far, created a rally-around-the-flag effect for the president, and allies hope that the loudest critics learned a 'lesson.'
'You're playing with fire when you do the bidding of the left and pick up their strategy. I know they were doing it because they felt like it would pressure more disclosure,' said Matt Schlapp, Trump confidant and chair of the American Conservative Union. 'But President Trump has exercised more political power than any politician I've ever seen at any time in a democracy, and his supporters need to be careful and understand that the left is looking for every opportunity to split apart this coalition.'
White House spokesperson Liz Huston said 'Democrats and Fake News media desperately tried to coordinate a despicable hoax to smear' the president, adding that Trump is the 'proud leader of the MAGA movement' and has 'record-high support among Republicans.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
a few seconds ago
- The Hill
Trump's WSJ lawsuit is as dangerous as it is unprecedented
President Trump made history on Friday when he became the first president to sue a newspaper for an article that exposed something he did not want brought to light. In so doing, he again used the Oval Office as a platform to settle scores and to carry out a personal vendetta rather than to serve the public interest. Trump's unprecedented step came in the context of his heightened sensitivity about anything having to do with Jeffrey Epstein, the infamous deceased child sexual abuser. On July 17, The Wall Street Journal triggered the suit when it published an article that claimed Trump had sent Epstein a 'lewd' birthday card in 2003 when the latter turned 50 years old. Trump reacted almost immediately, filing suit the next day seeking $10 billion in damages. But he has his eyes on something even bigger than that suit — namely the possibility of weakening the Constitution's protection of press freedom. His lawsuit alleges that the Journal's article was an attempt to 'inextricably link President Trump to Epstein' and that the Journal 'falsely claim[ed] that the salacious language of the letter is contained within a hand-drawn naked woman, which was created with a heavy marker.' The president claims that the newspaper 'failed to attach the alleged drawing, failed to show proof that President Trump authored or signed any such letter, and failed to explain how this purported letter was obtained.' His lawsuit charges that with 'malicious intent … Defendants concocted this story to malign President Trump's character and integrity and deceptively portray him in a false light.' Those allegations tee up the constitutional battle that the president wants to wage. Trump's suit against the Journal has already reaped benefits, redirecting Epstein-related ire from the MAGA base away from him. His supporters now have a familiar target: the press and its alleged persecution of the president. In addition, it is an important step in Trump's long-running desire to get the United States Supreme Court to reverse decades of precedent and make it easier for public figures to win libel and defamation suits against newspapers and other media outlets. Like other strongman leaders, if he can't control the media directly, he wants to coerce and intimidate it. Relaxing its legal protection is one way to accomplish that goal. In the 2016 campaign, Trump promised: 'One of the things I'm going to do if I win, I'm going to open up our libel law so when they (the press) write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money.' He has failed so far to deliver on that promise. But as we know, he is not easily dissuaded. Newspapers, radio or television stations that have the audacity not to do the president's bidding must be made to pay a price, with the hope that others will seek to avoid that fate by censoring themselves. Trump's quick and unprecedented resort to the courts sends a clear message to any media outlet that crosses him. He may be feeling good, but the rest of us should not be. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1786: 'Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.' He went on to note that 'To the sacrifice, of time, labor, fortune, a public servant must count upon adding that of peace of mind and even reputation. And all this is preferable to European bondage. ' Almost 200 years later, Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black reiterated Jefferson's sentiment. 'The Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy,' he explained. 'The press was to serve the governed, not the governors.' Turmp wants exactly the opposite. Seven years before Black wrote those lines, the Supreme Court, in another classic defense of press freedom, made it very hard for public figures to win defamation suits against news outlets of the kind Trump filed on Friday. 'To sustain a claim of defamation or libel,' the court said, 'the First Amendment requires that the plaintiff show that the defendant knew that a statement was false or was reckless in deciding to publish the information without investigating whether it was accurate.' Justice William Brennan explained that America's 'profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open' meant 'that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.' Echoing Jefferson, he added, 'Injury to official reputation affords no more warrant for repressing speech that would otherwise be free than does factual error.' Since 1964, public figures have found it nearly impossible to succeed in cases like the one Trump filed on Friday. Whether he or the Journal loses in the lower courts, the president may be hoping that his case will make its way to the Supreme Court so it can again come to his rescue and do his bidding. Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch have already indicated their belief that the court's 1964 decision and its actual malice standard should be overruled. So, keep an eye on what happens to Trump's suit against The Wall Street Journal. The Journal's fate will be important in shaping the fate of the freedom of all Americans.
The Hill
a few seconds ago
- The Hill
New York Times comes to Wall Street Journal's defense in wake of Trump lawsuit
The New York Times issued a blistering statement on Tuesday condemning a decision by the White House to ban The Wall Street Journal from covering an overseas trip by President Trump this weekend, calling it 'simple retribution.' 'The White House's refusal to let one of the nation's leading news organizations cover the highest office in the country is an attack on core constitutional principles underpinning free speech and free press,' the Times said. 'Americans regardless of party deserve to know and understand the actions of the president and reporters play a vital role in advancing the public interest.' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt on Monday said the Journal would be excluded from the travel pool heading to Scotland with Trump this weekend, citing the outlet's reporting on a previously unknown letter it said Trump sent disgraced financier Jeffery Epstein. 'Thirteen diverse outlets will participate in the press pool to cover the President's trip to Scotland,' Leavitt said. 'Due to the Wall Street Journal's fake and defamatory conduct, they will not be one of the thirteen outlets on board.' The ban comes just days after Trump sued the Journal and its owner Rupert Murdoch over the newspaper's reporting on his past relationship with Epstein, a convicted sex offender who died in jail in 2019 while awaiting trial on federal sex-trafficking charges. The Journal reported that Trump was among those who sent a 'bawdy' letter to Epstein for his birthday in 2003. Trump denies writing the letter and has said he appealed directly to Murdoch to stop publication of the Journal story. The president has pushed back forcefully amid widespread calls in the GOP for his administration to release more information about the case involving the dead financier. 'This is simple retribution by a president against a news organization for doing reporting that he doesn't like,' the Times said Tuesday. 'Such actions deprive Americans of information about how their government operates.'
Axios
a few seconds ago
- Axios
U.S. again withdraws from UNESCO, citing anti-Israel bias and "woke" causes
President Trump has again withdrawn the U.S. from the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Why it matters: This is the third UN agency the Trump administration is withdrawing from following decisions earlier this year to leave the World Health Organization and the Human Rights Council. The move further decreases U.S. footprint and influence in international organizations, and experts say the nation's exit will allow China to increase its influence on the UN system. The U.S. officially informed UNESCO of the decision on Tuesday, the State Department said. The U.S. withdrawal will take effect on December 31, 2026. The U.S. will remain a full member of UNESCO until that time, the State Department said. Behind the scenes: The U.S. move wasn't a surprise. In February, Trump ordered a review of the country's UNESCO membership, and a report was submitted to the White House in May. A U.S. official said Trump made the final decision last week. UNESCO's Director-General Audrey Azoulay expected Trump to again withdraw from the organization. In February, she met with Vice President JD Vance at the Munich Security Conference in an effort to influence the administration's perspective, a source with knowledge of the meeting told Axios. In a statement, Azoulay said that after Trump's 2017 UNESCO withdrawal, the organization diversified its funding sources and that U.S. funding is only 8% of the organization's budget today. Catch up quick: After Palestine became a full member of UNESCO in 2011, the Obama administration stopped providing funding to the organization because it was barred to do so by U.S. law. In October 2017, the Trump administration announced it was leaving UNESCO over what it described as anti-Israel bias. Israel announced that it would leave the organization not long after. In February 2022, the Israeli government notified the State Department that it wouldn't oppose a U.S. return to UNESCO. The Israeli position paved the way for some Democrats and Republicans in Congress to support the move. The U.S. rejoined UNESCO in July 2023 under then-President Biden. What they are saying: The U.S. is departing UNESCO since the organization "supports woke, divisive cultural and social causes that are totally out-of-step with the commonsense policies that Americans voted for in November," White House Deputy Press Secretary Anna Kelly said in a statement. Trump "will always put America First and ensure our country's membership in all international organizations aligns with our national interests," she said. It it's own statement, the State Department said "continued involvement in UNESCO is not in the national interest of the United States," and pointed to the organization's diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives as one of the reasons for the departure. UNESCO's involvement in "divisive social and cultural causes" and "outsized focus on the U.N.'s Sustainable Development Goals, a globalist, ideological agenda for international development [is] at odds with our America First foreign policy," the statement said. The statement also accused UNESCO of a "proliferation of anti-Israel rhetoric." Israel's Foreign Minister Gideon Saar welcomed the U.S. decision and called in "a necessary step, designed to promote justice and Israel's right for fair treatment in the UN system." A senior Israeli official said the Trump administration notified Israel of the decision in advance. The other side: Azoulay said in a statement she "deeply regrets" Trump's decision and stressed it may impact "first and foremost our many partners in the U.S."
