{"id":127546,"date":"2025-07-21T14:41:29","date_gmt":"2025-07-21T22:41:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/07\/21\/notorious-p-grabber-sues-wsj-for-suggesting-he-drew-boobs\/"},"modified":"2025-07-21T14:41:29","modified_gmt":"2025-07-21T22:41:29","slug":"notorious-p-grabber-sues-wsj-for-suggesting-he-drew-boobs","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/07\/21\/notorious-p-grabber-sues-wsj-for-suggesting-he-drew-boobs\/","title":{"rendered":"Notorious P-Grabber Sues WSJ For Suggesting He Drew Boobs"},"content":{"rendered":"

On Friday, a federal judge in New York dismissed<\/a> Donald Trump\u2019s copyright suit against Bob Woodward and Simon and Schuster. So much for the president\u2019s plan to extort $50 million from the publisher for conspiracy to collate and cobble<\/a>! But when God closes a door, she opens a window. And so that very same day, Trump filed a $10 billion dollar defamation suit against the Wall Street Journal and its owner Rupert Murdoch.<\/p>\n

Trump denies that in 2003 he contributed a crude drawing to a book of \u201cbawdy letters\u201d compiled for pedophile Jeffrey Epstein\u2019s 50th birthday, as reported by journalists Khadeeja Safdar and Joe Palazzolo in their blockbuster article<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe Wall Street Journal printed a FAKE letter, supposedly to Epstein,\u201d he screeched<\/a> on social media. \u201cThese are not my words, not the way I talk. Also, I don\u2019t draw pictures.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"\"
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The New York Times<\/a> and Washington Post<\/a> promptly published articles documenting numerous line drawings the president contributed over the years to charities. Like the one described in the Journal<\/em>, many of them are rendered in thick, black Sharpie and feature his unmistakable echocardiogram signature.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

\u201cI\u2019m gonna sue The Wall Street Journal just like I sued everyone else,\u201d he blustered in an attempt to ward the paper off of publication.<\/p>\n

And that much at least is true<\/em>. Trump has a long history of suing news outlets for publishing unflattering stories. Twenty years ago, he sued New York Times reporter Tim O\u2019Brien for reporting that his net worth was somewhere between $150\u2013$250 million, far below Trump\u2019s self\u2011reported $2.7\u2013$6 billion. O\u2019Brien ultimately prevailed, although the case dragged on through 2011.<\/p>\n

\u201cI spent a couple of bucks on legal fees, and they spent a whole lot more. I did it to make his life miserable, which I\u2019m happy about,\u201d Trump sneered<\/a>.<\/p>\n

And that seems to be the president\u2019s guiding philosophy when it comes to litigation: It doesn\u2019t matter what happens in court as long as you make the other guy bleed.<\/p>\n

Which is a lucky thing, because Trump always<\/em> loses in court. His lawsuit against CNN got tossed<\/a>. As did his suits against the New York Times<\/a> and Washington Post<\/a>. His RICO trollsuit against Hillary Clinton, James Comey, and half of DC cost him a million dollars in sanctions<\/a>. And his tortious deplatforming suits<\/a> against YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter went nowhere<\/a> until he got elected again and Mark Zuckerberg used his as a vehicle for a peace offering, AKA a bribe<\/a>.<\/p>\n

In fact, Trump\u2019s only courtroom \u201cwins\u201d have been settlements extorted after his election from media companies cutting their losses when faced a with a madman controlling the levers of power.<\/p>\n

In some sense, this newest suit against the Journal<\/em> is of a piece with all the others. It\u2019s ridiculous on its face and only \u201cworks\u201d as an angry press release stapled to a $402 check to cover the federal filing fee. And yet it cannot be divorced from the larger context, in which Trump\u2019s base is tearing itself apart over Jeffrey Epstein. After years of winking at Qanon and Pizzagate hoaxers, Trump finds himself unable to halt the conspiratorial frenzy \u2014 particularly after the FBI and Attorney General Pam Bondi spectacularly bungled<\/a> the much hyped release of the \u201cEpstein Files.\u201d<\/p>\n

Garbage pleadings<\/h2>\n

The complaint itself is par for the Trump course, consisting of just 18 threadbare pages larded with inflammatory rhetoric and screenshots of the supposedly defamatory story and its republication on social media. As to actual law \u2026 not so much.<\/p>\n

It alleges that calling Trump Epstein\u2019s \u201cpal\u201d and saying he drew women\u2019s breasts amounts to defamation per se, a subset of defamation involving allegations of crime or moral turpitude. Clearly it is not defamatory at all (much less defamatory per se) to report that a notorious philanderer drew boobs for his friend\u2019s birthday.<\/p>\n

But if the defamatory bit was \u201cto attempt and inextricably link President Trump to Epstein,\u201d well, Trump was<\/em> Epstein\u2019s pal 25 years ago. We\u2019ve all seen that nasty video of them gawking at young women on the dance floor and read the New York magazine<\/a> piece where Trump said \u201cI\u2019ve known Jeff for 15 years. Terrific guy. He\u2019s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.\u201d<\/p>\n

As for the actual malice standard required by NYT v. Sullivan<\/em>, the complaint merely states in conclusory fashion that is satisfied:<\/p>\n

\n

The statements were published by Defendants with actual malice, oppression and fraud in that they were aware at the time of the falsity of the publication and thus, made said publications in bad faith, out of disdain and ill-will directed towards Plaintiff without any regard for the truth.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

How do we know that the Journal<\/em> was \u201caware at the time of the falsity of the publication?\u201d Because Trump called up Murdoch to yell at him and deny it.<\/p>\n

\n

Notably, Murdoch and Thomson authorized the publication of the Article after President Trump put them both on notice that the letter was fake and nonexistent.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Except that it is well established<\/a> that mere denial by the plaintiff will not establish that the defendant knew<\/em> the story was false as required by the Sullivan<\/em> standard. And just two weeks ago, an 11th Circuit panel, including two Trump appointees, affirmed<\/a> the dismissal of golfer Patrick Reed\u2019s defamation claims against the Golf Channel because \u201cReed\u2019s complaints include a litany of conclusory allegations that are merely formulaic recitations of the \u2018actual malice\u2019 element which, alone, are insufficient.\u201d<\/p>\n

(Reed was pissed because commentator Brandel Chamblee criticized him for decamping from the PGA to the Saudi-backed LIV golf. Trump hosted merger talks between the rival tours at his Florida golf club after welcoming Prince \u201cBonesaw\u201d<\/a> back to polite company. Fire the writers!)<\/p>\n

Trump is represented here by Alejandro Brito, a commercial litigator from Coral Gables who rode along for the disastrous CNN suit, but also for the successful attempt to wring cash out of ABC after George Stephanopoulos inartfully referred to Trump as an \u201cadjudicated rapist.\u201d<\/p>\n

This latest complaint also contains some hilarious typos.<\/p>\n

\"\"
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

\u201c$10 billion dollars?\u201d Is that like ten billion dollars SQUARED? By our math that is ONE HUNDRED QUINTILLION DOLLARS.<\/p>\n

\"\"
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

But whyyyyy?<\/h2>\n

It\u2019s not clear what Trump actually \u201cwants\u201d here. He\u2019s had good luck lately filing ridiculous trollsuits leveraging unsubtle threats by executive agencies as a means to extract obeisance from media companies. But it\u2019s one thing to file a SLAPP suit against the Des Moines Register<\/em> for tortious whiffing a poll. The worst thing that can happen there is your lawyers stepping on every rake in Iowa<\/a> as they explore the vagaries of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It\u2019s quite another to pour gas on a fire that\u2019s engulfing your administration and threatening to divide your base.<\/p>\n

Because Safdar and Palazzolo are very<\/em> experienced reporters. In fact, Palazzolo won a Pulitzer Prize for breaking the news about Michael Cohen paying Stormy Daniels $130,000 to keep quiet about her encounter with Trump. It is very unlikely that Safdar, Palazzolo, and the Wall Street Journal<\/em> would go to press without all their ducks in a row, and so they are almost certainly in a position to call Trump\u2019s bluff. Just as The Atlantic<\/em> responded to White House denials that cabinet members discussed classified war plans over Signal by publishing the screenshots<\/a>, the Journal<\/em> can punch back by publishing the sketch. And even if it doesn\u2019t, this imbroglio is fraught with peril for Trump himself.<\/p>\n

Specifically, the article claims that \u201cPages from the leather-bound album\u2014assembled before Epstein was first arrested in 2006\u2014are among the documents examined by Justice Department officials who investigated Epstein and Maxwell years ago, according to people who have reviewed the pages.\u201d If that is correct, then the DOJ has this document, and its failure to produce it will just feed accusations of a coverup.<\/p>\n

Moreover, there appear to be multiple participants in the event, including Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein\u2019s girlfriend\/procurer, who compiled the messages from Epstein\u2019s \u201cpals\u201d and is currently serving a 20-year prison sentence. The reporters also spoke to \u201cpeople who were involved in the process\u201d of assembling the birthday book, which was printed by New York City bookbinder, Herbert Weitz.<\/p>\n

Put simply, this isn\u2019t the apocryphal pee tape<\/em>. There are clearly witnesses and a paper trail that will make this maximally unpleasant for Trump if he keeps dragging the story into the next news cycle \u2014 and that\u2019s before this case even gets to discovery.<\/p>\n

And the Journal<\/em> seems to have no interest in backing down. Dow Jones, the paper\u2019s parent company, put out a statement saying, \u201cWe have full confidence in the rigor and accuracy of our reporting, and will vigorously defend against any lawsuit.\u201d<\/p>\n

So, now what?<\/h2>\n

The case was filed in the Southern District of Florida and will almost certainly be assigned to a judge today. There are a fair number of Trump appointees in this district, including the infamous Judge Aileen Cannon. But it was docketed in the Miami division, so he\u2019s unlikely to wind up in her courtroom in Fort Pierce.<\/p>\n

Notably this is the same district where Judge Anuraang Singhal, another Trump pick, dismissed<\/a> Trump\u2019s CNN suit because their reporting calling him out for \u201cthe Big Lie\u201d was \u201copinion, not factually false statements, and therefore are not actionable.\u201d Judge Singhal also dismissed<\/a> Alan Dershowitz\u2019s LOLsuit against CNN for supposed \u201cdefamatory\u201d reporting on his comments about the first Trump impeachment.<\/p>\n

Dershowitz was deeply enmeshed in the Epstein story: He negotiated Epstein\u2019s first disgracefully lenient plea deal<\/a>. He, too, contributed a page to the birthday book. And he admits he got a massage at Epstein\u2019s house, but insists that it was from an old Russian woman, and he kept his underpants on because he and his wife have a \u201cperfect, perfect sex life.\u201d<\/a> (Fire the writers again! And vomit!)<\/p>\n

Last week, Dersh penned an opinion piece<\/a> in the Journal<\/em> \u2014 where else? \u2014 insisting that there was no Epstein client list, and if there was it wouldn\u2019t include \u201cany current officeholders.\u201d Ummmm \u2026<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n

All of which is to say that this is an odd time for a lawsuit reminding the public of all the allegations<\/a> made against Trump and Dersh by Epstein\u2019s victims. Trump seems to have lodged his foot in a trap of his own making, and is attempting to shoot the thing off with a very big gun.<\/p>\n

Careful what you sue for, \u2018cause you just might get it.<\/em><\/p>\n

Subscribe to read more at Law and Chaos\u2026.<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n

\n

Liz Dye<\/a>\u00a0produces the Law and Chaos\u00a0Substack\u00a0<\/a>and\u00a0podcast<\/a>.<\/strong><\/em> You can subscribe to her Substack by clicking the logo:\"\"<\/a><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

The post Notorious P-Grabber Sues WSJ For Suggesting He Drew Boobs<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"\"
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(Photo by Win McNamee\/Getty Images)\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

On Friday, a federal judge in New York dismissed<\/a> Donald Trump\u2019s copyright suit against Bob Woodward and Simon and Schuster. So much for the president\u2019s plan to extort $50 million from the publisher for conspiracy to collate and cobble<\/a>! But when God closes a door, she opens a window. And so that very same day, Trump filed a $10 billion dollar defamation suit against the Wall Street Journal and its owner Rupert Murdoch.<\/p>\n

Trump denies that in 2003 he contributed a crude drawing to a book of \u201cbawdy letters\u201d compiled for pedophile Jeffrey Epstein\u2019s 50th birthday, as reported by journalists Khadeeja Safdar and Joe Palazzolo in their blockbuster article<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe Wall Street Journal printed a FAKE letter, supposedly to Epstein,\u201d he screeched<\/a> on social media. \u201cThese are not my words, not the way I talk. Also, I don\u2019t draw pictures.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"\"
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The New York Times<\/a> and Washington Post<\/a> promptly published articles documenting numerous line drawings the president contributed over the years to charities. Like the one described in the Journal<\/em>, many of them are rendered in thick, black Sharpie and feature his unmistakable echocardiogram signature.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

\u201cI\u2019m gonna sue The Wall Street Journal just like I sued everyone else,\u201d he blustered in an attempt to ward the paper off of publication.<\/p>\n

And that much at least is true<\/em>. Trump has a long history of suing news outlets for publishing unflattering stories. Twenty years ago, he sued New York Times reporter Tim O\u2019Brien for reporting that his net worth was somewhere between $150\u2013$250 million, far below Trump\u2019s self\u2011reported $2.7\u2013$6 billion. O\u2019Brien ultimately prevailed, although the case dragged on through 2011.<\/p>\n

\u201cI spent a couple of bucks on legal fees, and they spent a whole lot more. I did it to make his life miserable, which I\u2019m happy about,\u201d Trump sneered<\/a>.<\/p>\n

And that seems to be the president\u2019s guiding philosophy when it comes to litigation: It doesn\u2019t matter what happens in court as long as you make the other guy bleed.<\/p>\n

Which is a lucky thing, because Trump always<\/em> loses in court. His lawsuit against CNN got tossed<\/a>. As did his suits against the New York Times<\/a> and Washington Post<\/a>. His RICO trollsuit against Hillary Clinton, James Comey, and half of DC cost him a million dollars in sanctions<\/a>. And his tortious deplatforming suits<\/a> against YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter went nowhere<\/a> until he got elected again and Mark Zuckerberg used his as a vehicle for a peace offering, AKA a bribe<\/a>.<\/p>\n

In fact, Trump\u2019s only courtroom \u201cwins\u201d have been settlements extorted after his election from media companies cutting their losses when faced a with a madman controlling the levers of power.<\/p>\n

In some sense, this newest suit against the Journal<\/em> is of a piece with all the others. It\u2019s ridiculous on its face and only \u201cworks\u201d as an angry press release stapled to a $402 check to cover the federal filing fee. And yet it cannot be divorced from the larger context, in which Trump\u2019s base is tearing itself apart over Jeffrey Epstein. After years of winking at Qanon and Pizzagate hoaxers, Trump finds himself unable to halt the conspiratorial frenzy \u2014 particularly after the FBI and Attorney General Pam Bondi spectacularly bungled<\/a> the much hyped release of the \u201cEpstein Files.\u201d<\/p>\n

The complaint itself is par for the Trump course, consisting of just 18 threadbare pages larded with inflammatory rhetoric and screenshots of the supposedly defamatory story and its republication on social media. As to actual law \u2026 not so much.<\/p>\n

It alleges that calling Trump Epstein\u2019s \u201cpal\u201d and saying he drew women\u2019s breasts amounts to defamation per se, a subset of defamation involving allegations of crime or moral turpitude. Clearly it is not defamatory at all (much less defamatory per se) to report that a notorious philanderer drew boobs for his friend\u2019s birthday.<\/p>\n

But if the defamatory bit was \u201cto attempt and inextricably link President Trump to Epstein,\u201d well, Trump was<\/em> Epstein\u2019s pal 25 years ago. We\u2019ve all seen that nasty video of them gawking at young women on the dance floor and read the New York magazine<\/a> piece where Trump said \u201cI\u2019ve known Jeff for 15 years. Terrific guy. He\u2019s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.\u201d<\/p>\n

As for the actual malice standard required by NYT v. Sullivan<\/em>, the complaint merely states in conclusory fashion that is satisfied:<\/p>\n

\n

The statements were published by Defendants with actual malice, oppression and fraud in that they were aware at the time of the falsity of the publication and thus, made said publications in bad faith, out of disdain and ill-will directed towards Plaintiff without any regard for the truth.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

How do we know that the Journal<\/em> was \u201caware at the time of the falsity of the publication?\u201d Because Trump called up Murdoch to yell at him and deny it.<\/p>\n

\n

Notably, Murdoch and Thomson authorized the publication of the Article after President Trump put them both on notice that the letter was fake and nonexistent.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Except that it is well established<\/a> that mere denial by the plaintiff will not establish that the defendant knew<\/em> the story was false as required by the Sullivan<\/em> standard. And just two weeks ago, an 11th Circuit panel, including two Trump appointees, affirmed<\/a> the dismissal of golfer Patrick Reed\u2019s defamation claims against the Golf Channel because \u201cReed\u2019s complaints include a litany of conclusory allegations that are merely formulaic recitations of the \u2018actual malice\u2019 element which, alone, are insufficient.\u201d<\/p>\n

(Reed was pissed because commentator Brandel Chamblee criticized him for decamping from the PGA to the Saudi-backed LIV golf. Trump hosted merger talks between the rival tours at his Florida golf club after welcoming Prince \u201cBonesaw\u201d<\/a> back to polite company. Fire the writers!)<\/p>\n

Trump is represented here by Alejandro Brito, a commercial litigator from Coral Gables who rode along for the disastrous CNN suit, but also for the successful attempt to wring cash out of ABC after George Stephanopoulos inartfully referred to Trump as an \u201cadjudicated rapist.\u201d<\/p>\n

This latest complaint also contains some hilarious typos.<\/p>\n

\"\"
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

\u201c$10 billion dollars?\u201d Is that like ten billion dollars SQUARED? By our math that is ONE HUNDRED QUINTILLION DOLLARS.<\/p>\n

\"\"
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

It\u2019s not clear what Trump actually \u201cwants\u201d here. He\u2019s had good luck lately filing ridiculous trollsuits leveraging unsubtle threats by executive agencies as a means to extract obeisance from media companies. But it\u2019s one thing to file a SLAPP suit against the Des Moines Register<\/em> for tortious whiffing a poll. The worst thing that can happen there is your lawyers stepping on every rake in Iowa<\/a> as they explore the vagaries of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It\u2019s quite another to pour gas on a fire that\u2019s engulfing your administration and threatening to divide your base.<\/p>\n

Because Safdar and Palazzolo are very<\/em> experienced reporters. In fact, Palazzolo won a Pulitzer Prize for breaking the news about Michael Cohen paying Stormy Daniels $130,000 to keep quiet about her encounter with Trump. It is very unlikely that Safdar, Palazzolo, and the Wall Street Journal<\/em> would go to press without all their ducks in a row, and so they are almost certainly in a position to call Trump\u2019s bluff. Just as The Atlantic<\/em> responded to White House denials that cabinet members discussed classified war plans over Signal by publishing the screenshots<\/a>, the Journal<\/em> can punch back by publishing the sketch. And even if it doesn\u2019t, this imbroglio is fraught with peril for Trump himself.<\/p>\n

Specifically, the article claims that \u201cPages from the leather-bound album\u2014assembled before Epstein was first arrested in 2006\u2014are among the documents examined by Justice Department officials who investigated Epstein and Maxwell years ago, according to people who have reviewed the pages.\u201d If that is correct, then the DOJ has this document, and its failure to produce it will just feed accusations of a coverup.<\/p>\n

Moreover, there appear to be multiple participants in the event, including Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein\u2019s girlfriend\/procurer, who compiled the messages from Epstein\u2019s \u201cpals\u201d and is currently serving a 20-year prison sentence. The reporters also spoke to \u201cpeople who were involved in the process\u201d of assembling the birthday book, which was printed by New York City bookbinder, Herbert Weitz.<\/p>\n

Put simply, this isn\u2019t the apocryphal pee tape<\/em>. There are clearly witnesses and a paper trail that will make this maximally unpleasant for Trump if he keeps dragging the story into the next news cycle \u2014 and that\u2019s before this case even gets to discovery.<\/p>\n

And the Journal<\/em> seems to have no interest in backing down. Dow Jones, the paper\u2019s parent company, put out a statement saying, \u201cWe have full confidence in the rigor and accuracy of our reporting, and will vigorously defend against any lawsuit.\u201d<\/p>\n

The case was filed in the Southern District of Florida and will almost certainly be assigned to a judge today. There are a fair number of Trump appointees in this district, including the infamous Judge Aileen Cannon. But it was docketed in the Miami division, so he\u2019s unlikely to wind up in her courtroom in Fort Pierce.<\/p>\n

Notably this is the same district where Judge Anuraang Singhal, another Trump pick, dismissed<\/a> Trump\u2019s CNN suit because their reporting calling him out for \u201cthe Big Lie\u201d was \u201copinion, not factually false statements, and therefore are not actionable.\u201d Judge Singhal also dismissed<\/a> Alan Dershowitz\u2019s LOLsuit against CNN for supposed \u201cdefamatory\u201d reporting on his comments about the first Trump impeachment.<\/p>\n

Dershowitz was deeply enmeshed in the Epstein story: He negotiated Epstein\u2019s first disgracefully lenient plea deal<\/a>. He, too, contributed a page to the birthday book. And he admits he got a massage at Epstein\u2019s house, but insists that it was from an old Russian woman, and he kept his underpants on because he and his wife have a \u201cperfect, perfect sex life.\u201d<\/a> (Fire the writers again! And vomit!)<\/p>\n

Last week, Dersh penned an opinion piece<\/a> in the Journal<\/em> \u2014 where else? \u2014 insisting that there was no Epstein client list, and if there was it wouldn\u2019t include \u201cany current officeholders.\u201d Ummmm \u2026<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n

All of which is to say that this is an odd time for a lawsuit reminding the public of all the allegations<\/a> made against Trump and Dersh by Epstein\u2019s victims. Trump seems to have lodged his foot in a trap of his own making, and is attempting to shoot the thing off with a very big gun.<\/p>\n

Careful what you sue for, \u2018cause you just might get it.<\/em><\/p>\n

Subscribe to read more at Law and Chaos\u2026.<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n

\n

Liz Dye<\/a>\u00a0produces the Law and Chaos\u00a0Substack\u00a0<\/a>and\u00a0podcast<\/a>.<\/strong><\/em> You can subscribe to her Substack by clicking the logo:\"\"<\/a><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

On Friday, a federal judge in New York dismissed Donald Trump\u2019s copyright suit against Bob Woodward and Simon and Schuster. So much for the president\u2019s plan to extort $50 million from the publisher for conspiracy to collate and cobble! But when God closes a door, she opens a window. And so that very same day, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":127496,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-127546","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/xira.com\/p\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/law-and-chaos-logo-liz-dye-300x153-K2iuyR.jpeg?fit=300%2C153&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/127546","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=127546"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/127546\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/127496"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=127546"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=127546"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=127546"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}