Page 2 and 3 of the Motion to Dismiss on Trump v. Murdoch states that the defendant believes the article is true and it is not defamatory.
What the defense contends is that the article is substantially true (the main point is true), sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. The prosecution can’t prove that the article is not substantially true, which in this case is a letter with his signature on it.
"Even if it had reported that President Trump personally crafted the letter—and it does not—"
"Here, Plaintiff’s claim for defamation per se is based on the allegation that the Article
“falsely pass[es] off as fact that President Trump, in 2003, wrote, drew, and signed this letter,” see
Compl. at 2 (emphasis in original). This mischaracterizes the Article, which never makes this
allegedly defamatory assertion. Rather, the Article says the letter “bears Trump’s name” and that
“it isn’t clear how the letter with Trump’s signature was prepared.”
It reads to me that the letter itself existing, a piece of paper that exists, is what the WSJ is defending as real; not the authenticity of the letter's contents being "real", as in a letter that Trump actually did write and actually did send to Epstein.
Of course, as journalism does, there's a greater implication that is intended by deceptive framing, but not outright stated. Very weasely behavior, but to be expected from journalists.
