Mark Eiglarsh

specifically at the very words that were used.

And this, what we just played in that SOT, is a mixture, if you will, of opinions and allegations of fact.

And in order to prevail on a defamation claim, it has to be essentially a false statement of fact.

And of course, there's some nuances to that.

A false statement of fact.

And the burden of proof is on the plaintiff.

In this case, it would be Melania to prove that those were false and, in fact, defamatory.

So you mentioned that he's gone to court first.

There's a type of law called a SLAPP statute, and it stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.

And the word strategic is in there for a reason, because as you pointed out, this allows the would-be defendant to go into court first.

And then he has to prove, now that he's the plaintiff though, he, Wolf, is going to have to prove that his comments were not defamatory.

So he's basically changed the burden of proof, if you will.

I think it was probably not a good idea to do that.

The best thing to do would have been to just take it down and move on as the letter from Melania Trump's lawyers asked them to do.

That would have been the smarter thing.

But now we're in court and we're going to have judges and all sorts of people back and forth debating, is this a fact or is this an opinion?

Oh, and by the way, if all we're doing is regurgitating the words of Jeffrey Epstein, then Wolf is going to say, technically, my statement is true because this is exactly what Epstein said.

And that's why this is going nowhere.

If you're repeating defamations.

Just doesn't make sense.