Trump threatens to sue somebody, anybody for something, anything regarding release of Epstein files -- proving his ignorance on the rule of law is boundless

(Instagram)

Donald Trump says he intends to sue over his name being prominently featured in the Epstein files, proving he is too ignorant to hold any public office, much less the presidency. How did we come to that conclusion? We will address that question in a bit, but first, let's take a look at this article from Raw Story under the headline "'We'll certainly sue: Trump vows vengeance after being named 3,000 times in Epstein files." Alexander Willis writes:

President Donald Trump was named more than 3,000 times in the Justice Department’s release Friday of around 3.5 million files on Jeffrey Epstein, and on Saturday, Trump vowed vengeance against author Michael Wolff and potentially the Epstein’s estate for what the president alleged was a conspiratorial effort to damage him politically.

“Wolff, who’s a third-rate writer, was conspiring with Jeffrey Epstein to hurt me politically or otherwise and that came through loud and clear,” Trump told reporters Saturday, The Independent reported Sunday. “So we’ll probably sue Wolf on that… maybe the Epstein estate, I guess. I don’t know. But we’ll certainly sue Wolff.” 

Trump does not seem terribly sure about who he would sue. And he is so clueless about what grounds he might have for the lawsuit that he doesn't even address the issue. That is in keeping with Trump's usual legal strategy of "let's file a lawsuit now and worry about the facts and the law later -- hopefully after the other side reveals a squishy backbone and writes us a nice, big check." This strategy has been remarkably successful so far, as shown in the following items:

(1) CBS News and Paramount Global agreed to pay $16 million to resolve a Trump lawsuit over a 60 Minutes interview last summer with Kamala Harris that Trump contended was deceptively edited to make  Harris appear more favorable;

(2) YouTube agreed to pay $24.5 million to Trump and several others, settling a lawsuit over YouTube’s suspension of their accounts following the events at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021;

(3) Meta settled for $25 million, on claims similar to those in the YouTube case;

(4) X agreed to a $10 million settlement less than a month later also for deplatforming Trump after Jan. 6;

(5) One law firm, Willkie Farr & Gallagher, reached an agreement with Trump  to commit $100 million in pro bono work to causes that both the firm and Trump champion;

(6) Milbank LLP also agreed to commit $100 million in pro bono work;

(7) Another firm, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, reached an agreement to avoid an executive order. And the Paul Weiss firm reached an agreement to have an executive order rescinded;

(8) Columbia University agreed to a $221-million resolution regarding federal investigations into allegations of discrimination;

(9) The federal government and Brown University reached an agreement with the Rhode Island institution to restore its research funding. As part of the agreement, the university will pay $50 million in grants over the next decade to workforce development organizations in Rhode Island. Brown has said it will also take steps to combat antisemitism, refrain from considering race in the admissions process, and ban transgender women from competing in women’s sports.

(10) In a case that so far has gone against Trump, a federal judge ruled in favor of Harvard University, finding the Trump administration illegally froze more than $2 billion in federal research funding as retaliation for protected First Amendment-related activities. The court blocked the funding freeze, and the administration has since announced an appeal of the decision;

(11) In another case that went against Trump, A federal judge ordered the Trump administration to restore more than $500 million in National Science Foundation (NSF) and other federal research grants to UCLA. The funding, which supported hundreds of health and science projects, was initially frozen due to federal claims that UCLA failed to adequately address antisemitism on campus. U.S. District Judge Rita F. Lin issued a preliminary injunction forcing the restoration of funding, ruling that the NSF violated an earlier order by cutting funds. By October 2025, UCLA successfully regained nearly all of the roughly 500 suspended grants. The Trump administration, showing its willingness to deal in glorified extortion, sought a $1.2-billion settlement, which involved demands for addressing antisemitism, potential bans on certain international students, and the hiring of an outside monitor.

As for Trump's threat to sue somebody, anybody over release of the Epstein files, the information released certainly isn't flattering, as Raw Story's Alexander Willis makes clear:

(A) In the latest batch of Epstein files, new allegations against Trump have been unearthed. One woman told the FBI in 2016 under penalty of perjury that she had personally witnessed Trump threaten to “disappear” a girl and have her entire family killed, and that she had personally witnessed Trump sexually  abuse “minor females.”

(B) Another inclusion in the files was a child sex abuse tip against Trump that was passed to the FBI for further investigation, and another, was an allegation that Epstein’s associate Ghislaine Maxwell had attempted to “effectively pimp” a young girl to Trump.

Despite the newly unearthed allegations, Trump has not, and is not, facing any criminal charges related to his past relationship with Epstein, and has denied  wrongdoing.

 How did we come to conclude that Trump would be stupid, moronic, brain dead (well . . . you get the idea) to sue anybody regarding release or the Epstein files? The following thoughts came to our mind:

1. Re: Item B above, the sworn statement to the FBI was signed on June 18, 2016. Trump had wrapped up the GOP primary by that point and went on to defeat Hillary Clinton under curious circumstances in that year's general election. How does he prove that a conspiracy hurt him politically? How does he prove damages? After all, he "won" at every step along the way;

2. Is Trump trying to claim defamation? How does he prove this information, given under penalty of perjury, is false? Does Trump even know the legal basis of a defamation claim?

3. What if Wolf, the Epstein estate, or some other defendant refuses to cave and fights back with a countersuit, forcing Trump into the discovery process, with the president and his allies likely having to sit for depositions under oath and engage in production of documents.

4. What if defendants go on to prevail in a bench or jury trial, allowing them to recover damages for the expense and trouble Trump put them through. They also might seek sanctions against Trump and his attorneys for pursuing a baseless lawsuit. Between damages and sanctions, it could put a significant dent in Trump's wallet.

5. Many of the documents in the Epstein files appear to be based on court documents, which almost certainly would be open to public review. Since Congress ordered the files to be released, they would be deemed public. (Per AI Overview: "Documents released by Congressional action are generally deemed public. Under U.S. copyright law, works created by the federal government—including Congress—as part of their official duties are not eligible for copyright protection and are automatically in the public domain.") With all he and his DOJ (Pam Bondi and Kash Patel) have done to keep the files hidden, does Trump now want to deal with them becoming an open book.

6. Finally, in the ultimate irony, Trump seems to have forgotten that he also signed the legislation that Congress passed, forcing the files to be released. Does that mean Trump plans to sue himself for allowing the Epstein files to become public. That would be a legal first and make Trump a worldwide laughingstock in the process. Given his notoriously thin skin, it's doubtful the president could handle that.