Lawyers warn 'stupid defamation lawsuits are a real threat' following WSJ win

President Donald Trump's $10 billion lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal, NewsCorp, Rupert Murdoch and others has been thrown out of court.

U.S. District Judge Darrin P. Gayles in Florida, an appointee from President Barack Obama, ruled that “Because President Trump has not plausibly alleged that defendants published the article with actual malice, both Counts must be dismissed."

The judge also said that Trump could file a new amended lawsuit if he wishes, but he only has until April 27 to do so.

Last year, the WSJ reported that there was a book celebrating trafficking Jeffrey Epstein's 50th birthday. In the book, Trump submitted a little skit of a conversation about "secrets" the two shared. It was within a drawing of a woman. Trump alleged it was false, but the page was revealed showing that the drawing did exist.

As an appellate lawyer, Gabriel Malor said, "Trump can replead."

Economist Teresa Fort commented, "There needs to be some penalty for bringing lawsuits that will be dismissed like this. There is a huge cost for defendants to deal with them."

A few people suggested that the WSJ sue Trump.

"Since most everything Trump does is illegal or a lie, fighting back pays off. He banks on the fact that his victims can’t afford to do so. Those who can, win," said Michael Curry.

"Stupid defamation lawsuits are a real threat to free speech. The story was true. It was well documented. And the President still managed to make a newspaper pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to report it," wrote lawyer Andrew Fleischman.

He explained that the WSJ was denied legal fees because Trump could still amend his complaint and suit.

"I am still surprised they did not raise the failure to give five days notice before suing, which has been successful in Florida federal district courts," said Fleischman.

He also recalled, "Republicans used to be all about tort reform. But many lack the stomach to support a federal anti-SLAPP to deter these stupid lawsuits until our litigant in chief shuffles off this mortal coil."

"In dismissing (without prejudice) Trump’s lawsuit vs WSJ over that Epstein birthday card, the judge shows why a reporter — asking someone for comment and quoting their response fully — is a smart legal, as well as ethical, thing to do," explained journalist Bill Grueskin.

"Yeah, tough to prove actual malice over a newspaper printing a real document you signed," quipped reporter David Weigel. "And lied about," added lawyer Scott Greenfield.