‘Happy to see her dragged to court’: Jen Psaki in the firing line as Eric Trump threatens to sue

追加: 2026-05-19

[00:00:00]Eric Trump has announced he plans to sue MS Now host Jen Saki. She was of course Biden's press secretary for a period now. He's suing her for a number of claims she made about his business interest in China. Let's have a look at a little bit of that segment. He's supposed to be sort of firewalled off from any US government activities because he took over the family businesses when his father reentered the White House supposedly to prevent conflicts of interest. But there he is.

[00:00:29]You can see him. You see, Eric is on the board of a company called Alt 5 Sigma, and you can see him and Don Jr. here ringing the opening bell at the NASDAQ.

[00:00:38]Yep. She went on to accuse him of being, as you heard there, a board uh member of a company purportedly seeking to do business in China, but Eric Trump has responded saying, "I have had zero involvement in any merger discussions involving any public entity I do not run or control. I have zero business interest in China, no properties, no investments, nothing. Contrary to her monologue and blatant lies, I have never been on the board of um Alt 5. Not now, not ever. Any person with basic access to Google and willing to open a company's annual report or proxy statements would know this. Josh, you're a lawyer. Is Jen Saki and MS Now, are they in trouble?

[00:01:27]uh she could be. So look, defamation is not an easy thing to prove in American law. It all goes back to a very misguided Supreme Court case from the 1960s called New York Times versus Sullivan. In my opinion, this this was a very very incorrectly decided opinion.

[00:01:40]But nonetheless, what the court said back at the height of the liberal war in court 60 years ago, give or take, was they said that if you are a public figure, then you have to prove the standard is called actual malice. So it it's not sufficient that the person lied. you have to prove that the person did so with actual demonstrable malice.

[00:01:57]Now, having said that, Rita, in the case of Jen Saki and and Ms. Now, there that seems to me like a pretty plausible standard. Frankly, I think I I think it would not be a a a tremendous stretch to try to go into court there and be able to demonstrate, especially with the beauty of discovery, that there is actual malice from Jen Sakiall people against our Trump. Surely that is not an insurmountable threshold. I if nothing else, I'm very happy to see these people dragged into court and and I wish Eric Trump nothing nothing the best in his possible lawsuit there on the actual facts here. The the question is to whether or not he's on the board of all five company. That that is a very easily verifiable question of fact. I I I think about this other high-profile defamation case that's currently happening. I mentioned Candace Owens. She she's being sued by Breijg Mcronone, the first lady of France there. Candace Owen says that Breijg Mcronone is a man.

[00:02:46]Mcronone quite reasonably says I'm a woman not a man. That's an easily verifiable statement. So when it comes to to this kind of thing, Rita, you can prove it one way or the other there. And to me that makes it a a more plausible legal case.

[00:03:00]>> Now let's talk about that China trip. Uh what were the key takeaways? Uh other than improving trade relations was much else accomplished.

[00:03:11]So the key takeaway is that Xiinping is even more allin on Taiwan than I think many of us thought. This apparently was what he led with in his two plus hour sitdown in in the great hall in Beijing with Donald Trump there as as the media has has reported there. He started talking about what historians refer to as the thousadis trap. This notion that a rising power can overcome a a declining power. It's a lot of Chinese Communist Party propaganda there. But he really really really went all in on the Taiwan issue. Now, for what it's worth, Rita, what what I've heard is is that Donald Trump definitely talked a lot of nice talk about China, but what I heard from people who weren't on the trip or were very close to those who were on the trip, so I heard this secondhand, is that [snorts] Donald Trump apparently didn't even actually eat the food that he was served. They had a private chef there. They were so distrustful of the Chinese there that he wouldn't even eat the food that was served the dinner. So, I I think a lot of this, a lot of these optics of our two countries being on the same page there is just that actually is just optics. It's kind of classic Trump, by the way. Donald Trump does this time and time again. I think back sometimes to 2018 in Helsinki, Finland. He had a press conference with Vladimir Putin that the media were tearing him up for.

[00:04:18]He was saying Putin's a strong leader.

[00:04:19]They're like, "Oh my god, he he's he's a Putin candidate, a manurian candidate.

[00:04:23]He's soft on Putin there." No, he's not.

[00:04:25]No, he's not. He's not soft on Putin there. It's It's a very It's the same exact thing here. Donald freaking Trump is not soft on China. He has been hardcore on the China issue for decades and decades and decades there. So he's he's making it sound like I think that we're on the same page. And by the way, by the way, if China actually wants to help out America when it comes to to to Iran, when it comes to Ukraine and and Russia, when it comes to anything, Cuba right off our shore here in Florida there, great. I say great there. I don't trust people ultimately, Rita. I don't trust them as far as I can throw them.

[00:04:54]And I'm pretty sure Donald Trump feels the exact same way based again the fact that he wouldn't apparently even eat the food that he was served.

[00:04:59]>> Incredible. That that's incredible. And I saw when he did the toast, he barely had a sip of of the drink. He he had the teeniest tiniest little sip. Um again, serious trust issues there understandably. So, >> what would be the Trump administration's attitude, do you think, if China did go ahead and invade Taiwan?

[00:05:22]What would we expect to see from America at that point?

[00:05:26]>> So, it's an unambiguously nightmare scenario and it's one that US war planners, strategists have have been gaming out for decades, decades now. If I'm being very honest with you, Rita, uh the the the war games folks in the Department of War and elsewhere in in the think tank world, universe, etc. there, this ends up being something of a 50/50 proposition there. There are some war games where if there's a full-scale war, the United States wins. There are many scenarios where China actually wins. It would essentially be a home war for them. Taiwan, of course, being roughly 50 mi off the shore of mainland China. that that that is a very unenviable proposition if you are the United States and already spread pretty thin throughout the world. So all that means is that we really really really really don't want to test this hypothetical there. And what that means in concrete terms is to basically arm the crap out of Taiwan to arm the crap out of Japan and the Philippines. I would argue India obviously Australia your country America's key allies there in that part of the world there. The more that we can have our allies do our deterrent dirty work for us there, obviously with our American citizens there, I think that is the best way possibly to to try to preclude a People's Liberation Army invasion of Taiwan, which would be truly catastrophic, unfortunately, if it happens.

[00:06:41]>> And catastrophic certainly for us here in Australia. Josh Hammer, thank you so much for your time tonight. Thank you as always for reading.