Transcript

Trump’s OWN LAWSUIT Suddenly BACKFIRES in HIS FACE

From MeidasTouch · Episode page · Watch on YouTube

· 15 min · 2,537 words · 18 timestamped sections

This is the full, timestamped transcript of "Trump’s OWN LAWSUIT Suddenly BACKFIRES in HIS FACE", an episode of MeidasTouch published December 19, 2025 (15 min, about 2,537 words). It mentions 8 people, works and ideas, including Discovery (law), Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, 47th president of the United States, Midas+, Pulitzer Prize Board.

What this episode is about

Donald Trump's lawsuit against the Pulitzer Prize board, in which he claims emotional distress and financial harm over the awarding of prizes to reporters for their coverage of his ties to Russia, has backfired significantly. The board not only rejected his claims but also demanded extensive documentation, including his financial and medical records, highlighting the potential repercussions of his litigious approach.

Key takeaways

  • Trump sues Pulitzer for billions; board hits back, demanding tax, medical records, hilarity ensues.
  • Pulitzer lawsuit exposes Trump's defamation obsession; board plays legal chess, demands juicy disclosures.
  • Donald's litigious antics: sues Pulitzer, ignores truth; board ripostes with discovery requests, grabbing popcorn.
  • Pulitzer Board poses a zinger: 'Trump, prove your distress with taxes, health records, or fold.'
  • Filing frivolous suits seems Trump's hobby; Pulitzer retorts by exposing his endless legal theatrics.

Who speaks in this episode?

What is discussed, and when

  1. – 3:00: Pulitzer Prize Board
  2. – 15:00: Summary judgment

Notable quotes from "Trump’s OWN LAWSUIT Suddenly BACKFIRES in HIS FACE"

  • Puliter Prize Board? So Trump lodges a complaint several years ago and the Pulitzer Prize Board responds. We've reviewed the complaint by Donald Trump and we confirm that there…
    about Pulitzer Prize Board · at
  • Go for the discovery. take his deposition and then my opinion is then file the summary judgement afterwards, but take the guy's depo because he refuses to show up for him and…
    about Summary judgment · at

Who and what is mentioned in this episode?

Companies & orgs

Concepts & topics

Full transcript with timestamps

Donald Trump's petty billiondoll lawsuits are backfiring in his face. One of the most recent examples we saw as Donald Trump sued the Puliter Prize board for billions of dollars. and he says that he was emotionally distressed and financially damaged because the Puliter Prize board awarded the New York Times and the Washington Post writers Puliter prizes for writing about Donald Trump's connections with Russia. Donald Trump lodged a complaint at first to the Puliter Prize Board. I mean, who does that? Who lodges complaints with the Puliter Prize Board? So Trump lodges a complaint several years ago and the Pulitzer Prize Board responds. We've reviewed the complaint by Donald Trump and we confirm that there was nothing inaccurate in the reporting by the New York Times and the Washington Post and so therefore we're not taking away their pullet surprise. So, Donald Trump, like the petty, feeble, latigious, weak piece

of you know what that he is, goes, "Aha!" by you saying that the reports deserve the Puliter Prize in response to my complaint demanding you investigate. You've now adopted those articles as though it was your own Puliter Prize, and I'm declaring that those articles were defamatory. So secondarily, you're defaming me by giving them awards when they defame me. So I'm coming after you. Puliter prize board is like, "Okay, coming after the board. We're not settling with you. I mean, we're we're we're not, you know, ABC, George Stephanopoulos. We're not CBS. We're the freaking Puliter Prize board, okay? And we're not set we're not giving you money." So what we will do though is we'll give you something else. Requests for production of documents about 30 plus requests for production of documents that says to Donald, "Okay, here's what we want. Give us your financial records. Give us your tax returns. Give us your medical records to

the extent you're claiming emotional distress or some sort of physical injury. Give us your last 10 years of medical records." And then brilliantly, the Pulitzer board goes lawsuit by lawsuit that Donald Trump has recently filed where he claims that he was defamed his lawsuit against CBS over his saying they edited Kla Harris before the election and he goes that cost me the election or Donald Trump suing the Wall Street Journal regarding their publication of the letter Donald Trump sent to Epstein for Epstein's 50th birthday where Trump says that defame me or Donald Trump's lawsuit against ABC where he said Stephanopoulos defame me when he used the Rword to refer to what I was found civily liable of when it was not that it was sexual assault that I was found civily liable of a civil jury found that I sexually assaulted a woman using my finger not my genitals so I feel defamed finger versus genitals

could you imagine though just while we're on that topic if ABC didn't so cowardly settle with Donald Trump. What that deposition would look like, what that discovery would look like. Request for admission. Admit that you were found liable in a civil case for using a finger to sexually assault a woman. Admit or deny. Admit that you're claiming that you were defamed because George Stephanopoulos used a different word for it. The R word for it, rape. used people know what I'm saying. Why aren't you say sometimes for the YouTube algorithm if you say the word a lot they'll sometimes they'll um not show the video. So any that's why I say the way I say it just I I I want to say what it is. But um and Donald Trump will say because it was found to be that that's not what I did and I did that. I mean you were found civily liable for a horrific thing and and and like what what are you talking about? And so in

any event Puliter Prize is saying let's go. We're not backing down. We want all of these documents. And so essentially all of these cases, let's bring in Harry Litman from the Talking Feds YouTube and Talking Feds Substack. Harry, on these cases where we've seen big media capitulate, the Pulit surprise, not only asking for medical records, financial records, they're now adopting the role of the defendant in those cases and saying this is what what their claim is. Well, if you're saying they defamed you and hurt your reputation and we defamed you and hurt your reputation, then we should look at defamation as one big pie. And what p and if you're this is going to go in front of the jury, what percentage are you saying really emotionally distressed you when it came to uh what Stephanopoulos said, what CBS did, what we did because you say that everybody defames your reputation. So that's why we get to now do discovery

into those cases as well. And Harry, just to be clear, it's not normal for any human being to file this many defamation cases in their life. I suppose a high-profile person technically may have more situations where they may where there may be more defamation cases than say a reg, you know, someone who's not. But the fact that Trump files defamation cases, it feels on an almost monthly basis for billions of dollars against some entity is really not normal behavior at all. Especially when you have the highest office in the land. And even if you thought that you were being defamed, when a case like the Puliter Prize, to me, in my opinion, it's like one of the most frivolous cases, but I share my first amendment protected opinions on this show. But but but but at the end of the day, it's like you you can't rise above that either. Like you're that pathetic and weak. But Harry, what do you think about this new strategy?

I don't know if it's new. Cuz here's the point, Ben. All of these cases, without exception, all of these bogus throwing around defamation arguments plucking billions of dollars out of thin air are legally bankrupt. And you're right, nobody would do it normally because it has no legal rationale. They are all and without exception about lousy claims that he wants to use for either PR reasons or leverage. And we have had these unfortunate, you could call them shameful, you could call them, uh, settlements by a couple of the big media consortions. Not because they thought for a moment that there was any kind of actual exposure and the idea that a jury might find that um for example in the in the Stephanopoulos case it you actually had a finding by a judge that this was R. But in any event you could never find the sort of mental state needed of purposely defaming etc. but he goes in there for political reasons, gets the

headline, makes us think he's right. And then we have in addition, and this has sort of been the signature achievement, if you want to call it, of Trump 2.0, is getting uh uh big segments of civil society, like law firms, like media, like universities to cowttow and completely quiver. not because of the law, but because he is threatening quite clearly to use his powers corruptly uh really if anything unconstitutionally, but he's protected by the Supreme Court to make other trouble. So, they better succumb here. He'll if they don't uh do this, he'll hold up a merger or if they don't do this, he'll come and try to make an investigation for anti-semitic activity by universities and the like.

So all Pulitzer is doing, and this is what, by the way, uh ABC and Disney said they would do initially. It was a laughable lawsuit. But just like the law firms, they were like, "Oh no, this is a ruthless, corrupt guy who wants to look like he's right and he's going to make other trouble for us. We better sign somewhere." because all of the suits that he's done, you can actually go back to the Pam Bondi uh Trump college suit, they they've been the ones brought against him have been largely meritorious, but certainly the ones brought by him have just been bogus. And the difference, if there's been a difference, is that as president, he's been able to shake out some uh money, but not because of the merits of his suit. So, this a very good example. It's of course um what it the claim you know it was always is true. Uh so there's you know nothing that to be said about it.

The emotional distress part is interesting. There's also very strong law at the Supreme Court. You can't sue a first amendment company and say well maybe you told the truth but it hurt me that that also comes under the ambit of first amendment protections in New York Times versus Sullivan. So it it should be seen as nothing but a a kind of bully boy intimidation tactics buoied by not a centilla of legal merit but uh by as you say the president of the United States and as you also say certainly not a good not a class act right uh doing this and uh basically threatening ancillary damage if they don't um cowttow so Pulitzer you know it's going to be really interesting now we've als also seen from him. This is his his latigious side has been very big for taco. He, you know, he'll do them and then say never mind. If the court says that seems fair, you know, let's see your medical records, that I think will be the end of

that this uh this lawsuit. Uh and which which by the way, did you see it styled? President Donald Trump, I mean, he really wants to have it both ways, the majesty of the office and the pettiness of the suit uh itself. So, it's it there like every other suit he's brought. No jury is ever going to hold for him, but he's hoping some combination of PR hit and um uh interrum effect on the um defendant will somehow shake loose something, but it ain't happening with Pitzers. And then we we know what his tried and trueue strategy is, which is just uh you know uh close up his tent and declare victory or just pretend it never happened. None of it. Just to to answer your main question, who's ever heard of this? Nobody. And that's because nobody in their right mind or even not in their right mind like Trump would do it for bonafide legal reasons.

It's got a complete other agenda. Harry Litman, Talking Feds YouTube channel, Talking Feds Substack, and the Talking Feds podcast. Everybody, make sure you subscribe. It's where I get my legal news from. And Harry, as we talk about these other, you know, every week Trump files a one of these ones, but he filed one this week against the BBC,

right? He said, you know, and he said, "Well, look, you know, the BBC put words in my mouth and they stitched together two portions of the January 6th insurrection speech and made it sound like this was the sentence when in reality the sequence was inaccurate." He's suing based on the way they they merged the sequence. And he goes, "I said this at first and then at the end I said this and then they cut it so it looked like I was just saying the full sentence." But in my opinion, it's just still we all know what happened on January 6th and like if if BBC, you know, stands on business here, you know, and to me, in my opinion, they showed a lot of weakness even right away. It's like, okay, we all know what happened on January 6th. Like, we know what he did, you know, we saw it with our own eyes.

We know right now that he's, you know, he gets he blames the FBI. Some days he's pardoned all the January 6th insurrectionists. What would that defam? It's a stupid lawsuit. What would that case look like if it was brought to, you know, if it was brought to trial? Like, so just you need to follow what Pulitzer is doing. And frankly, what Michael Cohen did when he was sued by Donald Trump. Cohen took document requests right away and then took Trump's deposition. And Trump did everything he can to avoid the deposition. And finally, after like five attempts of trying to avoid the deposition, the judge says enough is enough. You either dismiss this case or show up. and Trump dismissed the case. So, do that. You know, so many of these litigants like the New York Times and others, they they approach it from uh let's file these long lengthy motions and I understand, you know, they file what's called the

12B6 and then Trump asks for an extension and then he'll file an amended complaint. And so from lawsuit filing to when the cases get dismissed because Trump asks for and the law gives you these extensions if because no one views you as going to abuse it. These cases get dismissed 18 months later when you file the motion to dismiss versus just go for the discovery. you know, take his deposition and then my opinion is then file the summary judgement afterwards, but take the guy's depo because he refuses to show up for him and it's just pathetic. But Harry, anything you want to say before we go?

Jess, your one your one point like Donald Trump on deposition is the you know um litigate litigator's equivalent of a total train wreck you would do it. I know someone who just had a few questions with him and it's just so easy to rile him up to get him to lie to, you know, to ad admit things. Uh, and yeah, it's a any anybody invite. Now, it's an interesting thing. He seems in this uh iteration to be a little bit impervious to actual legal advice and does whatever he feels like. Did you see just this morning uh in Vanity Fair, Susie Willis's chief of staff says he's got an alcoholics personality. Not that he's an alcoholic, but that he's, you know, always thinks he can do it and be right, etc. And that is the definition of somebody who someone like you and I would think me could just carve up for lunch in a deposition. [clears throat] And he's just, you know, a classic uh, you know, disaster when it comes to

raising his right hand. Again, subscribe to Harry Litman's YouTube channel. It's called Talking Feds. He's got a Substack and a podcast as well by the same name. Thank you, Harry.

Thank you, Ben. Want to stay plugged in? Become a subscriber to our Substack at midasplus.com. You'll get daily recaps from Ron Philipki, ad free episodes of our podcast, and more exclusive content only available at midasplus.com.

Questions about this episode

Who speaks in "Trump’s OWN LAWSUIT Suddenly BACKFIRES in HIS FACE"?

Ben Meiselas (Host), Harry Litman (Guest), Ron Filipkowski (Guest).

What is "Trump’s OWN LAWSUIT Suddenly BACKFIRES in HIS FACE" about?

Donald Trump's lawsuit against the Pulitzer Prize board, in which he claims emotional distress and financial harm over the awarding of prizes to reporters for their coverage of his ties to Russia, has backfired significantly. The board not only rejected his claims but also demanded extensive documentation, including his financial and medical records, highlighting the potential repercussions of…

What is mentioned in this MeidasTouch episode?

8 people, works and ideas are mentioned, including Discovery (law), Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, 47th president of the United States, Midas+, Pulitzer Prize Board, Summary judgment. Each one on this page links to its own page with every episode that mentions it.

How long is "Trump’s OWN LAWSUIT Suddenly BACKFIRES in HIS FACE"?

The episode runs 15 min; the transcript is about 2,537 words in 18 timestamped sections.

More from MeidasTouch

About this transcript: the episode's spoken words as captioned on YouTube, split into timestamped sections. Reclip.Me locates every person, work and idea in the text, keeps the time it is first named, and quotes the words around it verbatim. Last updated January 24, 2026.