Trump USES GHISLAINE to Try to Cover Up DARK PAST!

Añadido: 2026-05-30

[00:00:00]Trump is going head-to-head against Rupert Murdoch, refiling a10 billion dollar lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal. And front and center is testimony that Gain Maxwell gave to Todd Blanch back in July 2025. You remember that interview where we thought that Todd Blanch was actually acting as Trump's personal attorney and not a representative of the American people, an employee of the Department of Justice. Well, sure enough, a quote from theirs is right in this refiled complaint where Trump is demanding $10 billion dollar from the Wall Street Journal. My name is Dena Dah with the Midas Touch Network. Let's get into this. Now, as we know, the Wall Street Journal published back in July 17th of 2025. The very first evidence of this letter, the letter written by Trump in the birthday book. Gain Maxwell had evidently compiled a birthday book back in 2030 for Epstein's or 2003 for Epstein's 50th birthday and and it was a letter from Trump the drawing and the the poem the poem that ended with the line written evidently a script between Trump and Epstein and the line at the end of it was happy birthday and may every day be another wonderful secret.

[00:01:21]Now, we have not at that point seen this drawing. In September, the House Oversight Committee obtained this book and we were all able to see the drawing and the poem. But at that time, it was just a description of it. The Wall Street Journal in their article said that Trump denied this letter, that he said he this was not his letter, this was not his drawing. The Wall Street Journal also put in the article that they reached out to the Department of Justice and they reached out to the FBI.

[00:01:53]The Department of Justice had no comment. The FBI did not respond and they said they also sent an interview request to Gileain Maxwell and didn't hear back. So, they went ahead and published the article. And sure enough, Trump went ahead and filed a $10 billion defamation lawsuit saying that they printed this and they shouldn't have and they defamed him. Well, this was dismissed last month by Judge Gail. He this was out of the Southern District in Florida, federal district court, who said, "You have not even created a reasonable inference that there is malice. you need a standard of malice in order to prove defamation when somebody is a public figure or it's a public matter here. It's really both. You're dealing with somebody who's literally president at the time and you're talking about the Epstein files. So, you have to prove that the newspaper in this case either knew what they were saying was false or had reckless disregard to the truth. And at the very beginning of the case, this lawsuit, you just need a reasonable inference. You don't need to actually prove it. You're not going that far along. Obviously, if this goes to a jury, then you're going to have to prove it. But you just have to plead enough facts to get over a motion to dismiss, to have a reasonable inference. The problem is Trump had none of that because the Wall Street Journal did their job. They said that they had reviewed the book themselves. They reached out to everybody involved. They did enough investigating. So the judge dismissed it outright, said, "You have not really even have any reasonable inference as to facts." But gave Trump a chance to refile. And of course, Trump refiled. It's very interesting, just as a side note, that Murdoch is fighting this lawsuit as opposed to ABC that settled their defamation case. CBS, as we know, was trying to get their Pyramont deal. They sued. Meta sued.

[00:03:55]Whether or not Trump thought that Murdoch was just going to hand him some money or not, Murdoch did it. He fought it and he won. So Trump is reuing $10 billion, the same amount he actually sued the American people for. He seems to like that number, even if there's no factual basis for that number.

[00:04:14]So in this lawsuit he now this new complaint he brings in a detail about that Todd Blanch interview of Glain Maxwell. As we know they were very happy with what Gain Maxwell told Todd Blanch because she was sent to that very cushy prison where she got a lot more benefits after that interview. Trump quotes from that interview where she said that she had no recollection of whether or not Trump sent in a letter to that birthday book. And he says in this refile complaint that she said it under a penalty of perjury to a federal officer.

[00:04:56]Of course, this federal officer was Todd Bland, who has been Trump's personal criminal attorney, who was Trump's attorney during the defense of the civil case of Eugene Carol, which of course now we see the Department of Justice even looking into criminal charges against Eugene Carol despite the fact that she'd beat Trump twice. This Todd Blanch and also the fact that we know that Gain Maxwell has perjured herself before. But regardless of all of that, it actually means nothing in this case because whether or not Glain Maxwell said something about that letter after the article was published has nothing to do with the publication of the article because it's at the time the article was published, what information they knew about it. The fact that she said to a federal officer after the fact means nothing except this is this is more confirmation of what we all thought that Tubland hurried up and went and interviewed Galain Maxwell about a week after that article was published about a week after Trump filed it and collected some evidence that Trump then used in this lawsuit. We were all wondering whether or not Todd Blanch was acting in our interest or not, or whether or not he was acting as Trump's personal attorney. Those actions seem to be more about Trump's personal attorney.

[00:06:28]Certainly, what we've seen Tom Blanch do with that IRS10 billion lawsuit where he hasn't filed one motion of defense, but allowed a $1.776 billion settlement fund to appear. He has a lot of actions where he seems to be acting as Trump's personal attorney, but the timing of that interview and then the use of a statement made to now try to get money.

[00:06:54]Biologica is a drinkable daily supplement that goes well beyond a multivitamin. They brought together a comprehensive vitamin, mineral foundation, probiotics, electrolytes, and clinically researched botanicals all in one drink. No more juggling a handful of pills trying to cover your bases. It is so easy to use. It's a powder. You just mix it with your water and it tastes great. No pills, no complicated routine. It's made with clean ingredients, no added sugar, and developed alongside women's health experts who actually understand how much our nutritional needs change over time.

[00:07:30]The Midlife Essentials supports sleep quality, mood, mental clarity, and energy. and it contains trademarked clinically studied ingredients. So head to biologica.com/misttrial to get started. Take their quick hormonal life stage quiz to find the formula that's right for you. And right now subscribers can receive up to 32% off their purchase. Again, make sure to go to biologica.com/mistrial and get up to 32% off your first subscription order today.

[00:08:06]Perhaps Murdoch will stand up to him.

[00:08:08]Perhaps he won't. He certainly thinks that people in the past have not stood up to him. Also, interestingly, another fact in this complaint that was not an initial one is he says that Murdoch, he called Murdoch and he said this is not true, like basically you cannot publish this. And let's just take a step back here for a second. The fact that you have a sitting president of the United States suing a private publication at all for defamation is in itself so anti-democratic because we need robust reporting.

[00:08:47]to have somebody who has the power of the presidency behind them try to intimidate a publication and is in itself just exactly against what you would expect the protections of the first amendment to be. But this is what he does sitting as a president. He calls up this owner of this newspaper and says basically this isn't true. Don't uh publish it. And evidently Murdoch according to this complaint says quote I will take care of it. And Trump says in the complaint that he had a reasonable, you know, it was reasonable for him to assume that this would not get published.

[00:09:28]First of all, this has nothing to do with whether or not this was malice.

[00:09:35]Trump had already told the Wall Street Journal, the press secretary had already told the Wall Street Journal, his lawyers had already told the Wall Street Journal that this wasn't true. That is not enough to not publish an article because again, nobody is usually going to admit if a story about them that is bad is true. So their own denial is not enough if the investigation shows the reporters and the newspapers enough to believe it is true. So Trump saying that he spoke to the owner and the owner said I will take care of it was somehow evidence of malice. That is not evidence malice. So both of the new facts that he puts in this complaint, Galain Maxwell's statement, Rupert Murdoch's statement, neither one of them help his malice claim. Perhaps they are both meant to be a PR strategy because of course this is now out into the American public. Perhaps this is meant to intimidate Murdoch. certainly meant to intimidate other newspapers and other news outlets. And let's talk about the dollar amount because he says that he has been damaged, that he needs the $10 billion. And he specifically says he has had reputational damage. I don't see how it's possible for him to have reputational damage. Here is somebody who on tape talks about grabbing women in their genitals on Access Hollywood.

[00:11:05]In his own words, this is somebody who has lost the civil lawsuit to Egene Carroll where a jury found that he was liable for sexual assault.

[00:11:16]If he were a regular person, his reputation around sex and women would be very bad. He could not prove any kind of damages even close to$10 billion. Even if he could prove malice, he doesn't have this sterling reputation.

[00:11:40]He has enough incidences with Epstein.

[00:11:44]He has enough incidences and found a jury found him liable for sexual assault. So regardless, there's no he doesn't have a reputation that could have been net harmed by this. Certainly not by the $10 billion, but also this malice standard. He's not going to be able to overcome. These new facts are revealing just in that Todd Blanch seems to have acted truly as his personal attorney and also the fact that he was trying to intimidate the owner of a private newspaper.

[00:12:13]But also in context, Alan Dersuit is up in front of the Supreme Court trying to change that malice standard. He sued CNN about how they portrayed him with the impeachment hearings with Trump.

[00:12:29]He's asking the Supreme Court to change the stata standard instead of it being reckless disregard for the truth.

[00:12:36]Foolish disregard for the truth which has no actual legal standard. There is no such standard in the law that somebody is foolish. It would be extremely difficult to be able to prove that because we don't have a body of case law where that is a standard. Plus, he wants to say that if somebody's a public figure but not actually employed by the government, that malice wouldn't apply. The C uh the Supreme Court, rather than just deciding not to take the case outright, has asked CNN their side of the story. So, we're waiting to see whether or not the Supreme Court wants to redo the defamation standard alto together. Of course, a defamation standard came about because of New York Times versus Sullivan, a New York Times publication where the Supreme Court held of we need a robust reporting of public events and public figures.

[00:13:26]Trump here of course so many ways whether it's the Pentagon taking away press passes or hear him intimidating publications trying to hurt the First Amendment. We're going to cover it all here on the Midas Touch Network. Be sure to subscribe if you haven't already and be sure to follow the Mistrial podcast wherever you listen to audio podcast and check out our sponsors for the Mistrial podcast in the description below. So grateful for the Mistrial uh sponsors.

[00:13:54]They're great products and companies, but also they do not censor what I have to say, which is so critical in this moment.

[00:14:01]>> Want to stay plugged in? Become a subscriber to our Substack at midasplus.com. You'll get daily recaps from Ron Philipski, add free episodes of our podcast, and more exclusive content only available at midasplus.com.