Well, folks, it looks like President Donald Trump just hit a legal brick wall in his battle with journalist Bob Woodward.
In a ruling that dropped on Friday, U.S. District Judge Paul Gardephe tossed out Trump’s lawsuit over audio recordings from interviews used in Woodward’s 2020 book, Rage, marking a significant setback for the former president’s claims, as The Hill reports.
Let’s rewind to the beginning: Trump sat down for 19 interviews with Woodward, fully aware they were being recorded for the book, and even gave his blessing for the taping.
Trump’s legal fight over audio tapes
Fast forward to January 2023, and Trump files a whopping $49 million lawsuit against Woodward, his publisher Simon & Schuster, and their then-parent company, Paramount Global, claiming they had no right to sell the audio recordings separately.
Trump’s argument? He insisted he was a joint author of the tapes, deserving a slice of the copyright pie.
But Judge Gardephe, appointed by George W. Bush, wasn’t buying what Trump was selling, and after a year and a half of deliberation, he finally ruled against these claims.
Judge rejects joint authorship claim
Speaking of the judge’s decision, Gardephe stated, “There is almost no support” for an interviewee owning copyright over responses.
Now, isn’t that a polite way of saying, “Nice try, but no cigar”? The judge went further, ruling that even if Trump wasn’t a co-author, his interview answers are still protected under federal copyright law, effectively slamming the door on state law claims as preempted.
Trump’s legal team wasn’t thrilled with the wait, grumbling about the months it took for this dismissal motion to be decided, and even pushed for speed after recent events, though the judge held firm in December, noting he was “at work” on the case.
Trump’s team vows continued fight
A spokesman for Trump’s legal team fired back with, “In another biased action” by a New York court, they felt Trump was denied basic due process without a hearing.
While I sympathize with the frustration over perceived judicial slow-walking, let’s be real—courts aren’t exactly known for sprinting, and crying bias doesn’t change the legal scoreboard. Still, they’ve promised to keep pushing against what they see as wrongdoing.
On the flip side, Simon & Schuster couldn’t hide their glee, stating, “We’re very pleased” the court sided with them and dismissed the case.
Broader implications revealed
Well, color me unsurprised that a publisher would cheer a ruling that keeps their profits safe, but this decision does raise eyebrows about where the line is drawn on copyright in interviews.
For conservatives like us, wary of overreaching progressive agendas in media, this case is a reminder that legal protections often favor established players like big publishers over individuals, even someone as prominent as Trump. It’s a tough pill to swallow when the system seems stacked, but the fight for fair treatment must go on within the bounds of law and reason.
And let’s not forget, while Paramount Global, once tied to Simon & Schuster, has since sold the publisher to a private firm, the core issue remains — big media often gets the upper hand, leaving folks like Trump to navigate an uphill battle. Turns out, in the courtroom, even a heavyweight can get outmaneuvered.
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.
