Well, folks, another legal punch has landed on President Donald Trump’s doorstep, as a federal judge just threw out his lawsuit against veteran journalist Bob Woodward over some eyebrow-raising audio tapes, as The Hill reports.
In a nutshell, the case, centered on recordings from interviews for Woodward’s 2020 book Rage, was dismissed on Friday by U.S. District Judge Paul Gardephe, marking a notable setback for Trump’s legal team.
Let’s rewind to the beginning: Trump sat down for 19 interviews with Woodward for the book, fully aware they were being recorded with his consent.
Trump launches battle over tapes
Fast forward to January 2023, and Trump filed a hefty $49 million lawsuit against Woodward, Simon & Schuster, and its then-parent company, Paramount Global, claiming they had no right to peddle the audio recordings separately.
Paramount has since offloaded Simon & Schuster to a private investment firm, but the core issue remained — Trump argued he should be considered a joint author of the tapes, a claim that didn’t sit well with the court.
After all, if you agree to chat on the record, can you really cry foul when the tapes go public? It’s a bit like handing over the mic and then demanding the sound booth.
Judge rejects copyright claims
Enter Judge Gardephe, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, who took a year and a half to rule on Woodward’s dismissal motion, much to the frustration of Trump’s legal squad.
They even pressed the judge to speed things up after months of waiting, only for Gardephe to calmly note in December that he was “at work” on the case, refusing to rush his decision.
Turns out, patience wasn’t on Trump’s side — Gardephe ultimately ruled that Trump’s responses in the interviews don’t grant him copyright ownership, even if he wasn’t deemed a joint author.
Court sides with Woodward
Quoting the judge, “There is almost no support” for an interviewee claiming copyright over their answers, a stance Gardephe said clashed with the very spirit of copyright law.
Now, that’s a legal smackdown if I’ve ever seen one — hard to argue you own the words when you willingly spilled them on tape. It’s a reminder that not every spoken thought is a golden ticket to ownership.
Trump’s team wasn’t thrilled, with a spokesman lamenting, “In another biased action” by a New York court, claiming the decision denied Trump a fair hearing.
Simon & Schuster celebrates outcome
Biased or not, let’s be real — courts don’t rule on feelings, and this case seems to hinge on a straightforward question of legal rights, not personal grudges. Still, you can’t help but sympathize with the frustration of waiting endlessly for a ruling only to get the short end of the stick.
On the flip side, Simon & Schuster couldn’t hide their relief, with a representative stating, “We’re very pleased” the court dismissed the case. That’s corporate speak for “we dodged a pricey bullet,” and who can blame them for popping the champagne?
At the end of the day, this ruling also tossed out Trump’s state law claims, with the judge noting they were overridden by federal copyright law. It’s a double whammy that underscores how tough it is to win on shaky legal ground, no matter how much grit you bring to the fight.
Click this link for the original source of this article.
Author: Mae Slater
This content is courtesy of, and owned and copyrighted by, https://www.conservativejournalreview.com and its author. This content is made available by use of the public RSS feed offered by the host site and is used for educational purposes only. If you are the author or represent the host site and would like this content removed now and in the future, please contact USSANews.com using the email address in the Contact page found in the website menu.
