Turned out Walman's entire post here was devoted to the very question I was about to ask...almost.
That such lawsuits are even possible...and the victim is required to pay for his defense is a fact of the law RIGHT NOW. Even before Trump takes office...even if Trump had never been heard of.
I don't know if this was part of the reason he won the election, But American "justice" has been understood to be .... ah, hard on the poor?....for a very long time. and in spite of some journalists and "activists" pointing it out from time to time, it does not get better. Even a Supreme Court Justice said as much years ago. Sorry I can't remember which one or exactly what he said. Maybe someone who knows more can help me. But the facts are common knowledge.
the opposite case is also true. you cannot afford to sue someone who has defrauded you because the legal fees will be more than you would likely get even if you won...and that is less likely than you might suppose. i could tell you a story, but then i would probably get sued.
Trump and Hitler: Frail Leaders, Big Lies, and the Press Under Siege
Donald Trump’s latest tantrum against the press—threatening lawsuits and jail for journalists—is a sad echo of Adolf Hitler's more violent war on media freedom. Trump, like Hitler, cannot abide criticism. Both men, frail and insecure, have decided that the best way to protect their fragile egos is by attacking the very foundation of democracy: a free press.
Trump has launched a series of defamation lawsuits against media outlets he dislikes, including one against ABC over a factual error and another against the Des Moines Register for publishing a poll he didn’t like. It's a classic move for a man who can’t handle the truth: if the press doesn't bow to you, sue them into submission. But Trump's strategy isn't just about seeking justice—it’s about using the legal system to drown out dissent. And with his pick for FBI director promising retribution against journalists, the chilling effect is already here.
Hitler, meanwhile, didn’t bother with lawsuits. He simply seized control. The Reich Press Law of 1933 turned independent journalism into state-approved propaganda, and anyone who resisted was either silenced or executed. No lawsuits needed—just the brute force of a regime that crushed free speech under the weight of its own delusions of grandeur. The Nazis even had their own term for “fake news”: Lügenpresse (lying press), a phrase weaponized to delegitimize dissent and discredit the media entirely.
Both leaders, in their own ways, use the media as a scapegoat for their insecurities. Trump calls the press “fake news” whenever it dares to report facts he dislikes, just as Hitler's Reich Ministry of Propaganda spun every inconvenient truth into a lie. Neither man can stomach the idea that their weak, insecure leadership might actually be questioned.
Tyranny doesn’t spring up overnight; it’s built piece by piece, first with threats and then with silence. Trump and Hitler are cut from the same cloth: insecure, petty men who would rather rule with fear than face the truth. Their war on the press is the first step in eroding democracy itself—and it must be resisted at all costs.
i realize you are not asking me. but i would guess zero. unless the legislation allows a judge to look at the suit and make a decision that it is "frivolous" and fines the plaintiff and its lawyers, forcing them to become defendants against a charge of filing a frivolous or SLAPP lawsuit.Law utimately depends on the honesty and judgement of thepeople who admisiter it, which has not proved reliable in the past.
Bob Iger's decision to cave to Trump to protect the Disney brand from his probable harassment may lead not only to more and more frivolous bullying lawsuits by the Orange Turd, but also to a massive boycott of Disney. Unintended consequences come to those who sell out without a fight.
You should read your material. Bottom line, the Mueller report exonerated Trump from these claims. But, don't let facts get in the way.
Meanwhile, Rachel Meadow became a very wealthy woman (3 mil a year) spouting pretty vile lies about Trump and his people, at the same time Hunter Biden's laptop Was labeled disinformation, but was then evidence in a trial. Ies, lie, lies.And now the Biden family is pardoned way back to 2014. And TRUMP is the problem? At least he's talking to Russia. Biden has been arming a war on its border, and hasn't had a word with Putin in , now, years. Great
actually not very hard to guess which "lies" you are referring to" the prosecutors', or Trump's, But that makes you part of the problem. Everything you don't want to believe is fake news, right
The NY state prosecution for "fraud" was over the top, especially since the supposedly defrauded party, Deutsch bank, had officers on the stand that were fine with the deals, they'll do more. And then the judge, not a jury, took all his money and shut him down. All of it. Top business leaders (most who reside and operate in NY) were appalled at the decision. And the NY state appeals court was, too, in the initial hearing. 10-1 that's going away soon.
Latita James literally ran on a platform that "I'll get Trump". She claimed she didn't, but there's plenty of her shouting into a megaphone on YouTube she did. How she was even allowed to conduct such a biased prosecution shows how bad ethical standards are in the NY bar.
Then he was prosecuted on a he said/ she said sexual assault charge. How convenient.
The federal charges? Gone soon, and Jack Smith, that angry bulldog, didn't get the chance to "Get Trump" before the election.
He ran on a catch phrase " Lock her up", but, did he even try? Meanwhile, they threw four years of lies and conspiracies at him, and tried to lock him up with glee. The Democratic party is corrupt and rotten to the core, and needs to further implode and go away. We need a new populist third party. Somehow.
"According to the U.S. intelligence community, the operation—code named Project Lakhta[3][4]—was ordered directly by Russian president Vladimir Putin.[5][6] The "hacking and disinformation campaign" to damage Clinton and help Trump became the "core of the scandal known as Russiagate".[7] The 448-page Mueller Report, made public in April 2019, examined over 200 contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian officials but concluded that there was insufficient evidence to bring any conspiracy or coordination charges against Trump or his associates."
There's much, much more here on Wikipedia about Russiagate.
And PBS has a report published in 2019 that discusses the Mueller Report and Trump's efforts to obstruct justice.
William Brangham: "So what did (the Mueller Report) find? First, that the Russians attacked the 2016 election. The Mueller report is loaded with examples of how Russian operatives launched what they call information warfare on the U.S. They wanted to distract and inflame voters to benefit Donald Trump's candidacy and to damage Hillary Clinton's."
Lisa Desjardins: "And while Mueller shows the Trump campaign worked with individual Russians, he found the evidence didn't show any conspiracy or coordination by the Trump campaign."
President Donald Trump: "There was no collusion with Russia. There was no obstruction, and none whatsoever."
William Brangham: "That's been the president's mantra ever since Mueller's report came out. And like Lisa said, on the collusion-conspiracy issue, the president is right. The Mueller report doesn't establish any such wrongdoing. But on the issue of obstruction, Mueller doesn't agree with the president."
Lisa Desjardins: "To Mueller, obstruction is a crime of paramount importance. He went out of his way to say that in public last week."
Robert Mueller: "When a subject of an investigation obstructs that investigation or lies to investigators, it strikes at the core of the government's effort to find the truth and hold wrongdoers accountable."
Lisa Desjardins: "Mueller's report lays out a long string of examples where it finds evidence, sometimes substantial evidence, that the president tried to obstruct justice."
William Brangham: "For example, the president asked FBI Director James Comey to let go of one investigation. He told his White House counsel, Don McGahn, that Mueller has to go, and later told him to lie and deny that conversation ever happened. In other cases, Mueller says what seems like suspicious activity wasn't obstruction, like when President Trump tried to bury e-mails showing how his son welcomed a meeting with Russians who were offering dirt on Hillary Clinton. Mueller concludes that didn't affect the investigation."
Lisa Desjardins: "Overall, Mueller writes: "The evidence does point to a range of personal motives animating the president's conduct. Those include concerns the investigation would call into question the legitimacy of his election and whether certain events could be seen as criminal activity by the president, his campaign or family."
William Brangham: "But, despite that, Mueller decided not to indict the president. The reason, he said, is a Justice Department opinion issued during the Watergate scandal. It says that a sitting president cannot be indicted. This is internal agency policy from 1973, not a law or court ruling. Because of this policy, on the issue of obstruction, Mueller put his conclusion this way:"
Robert Mueller: "If we had had confidence that the president clearly didn't commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime."
Lisa Desjardins: "Mueller seems to understand this is not a satisfying conclusion for anyone, saying the case raises difficult issues. But he writes: "U.S. law rests on the fundamental principle that no person in this country is so high that he is above the law."
On the question of what to do now, Mueller points to Congress."
Robert Mueller: "The Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing."
William Brangham: "He's talking, of course, about the impeachment process. This is why the stakes are so high with this investigation. But the report, written as a legal document, is tough to absorb.
Lisa Desjardins: "Mueller actually writes that he wants to help readers. He does this in the appendix with a glossary of 211 people and entities mentioned in the report, as well as the president's full written answers to Mueller's questions. Both are worth checking out.
William Brangham: "OK, so what did this investigation produce? Mueller lists all of the court cases triggered by his probe. So far, a total of 34 people have been indicted. The vast majority of those are Russian nationals. But the investigation also led to a three-year prison sentence for Trump's former lawyer Michael Cohen on fraud and campaign finance violations. Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort is serving seven-and-a-half years on charges unrelated to the campaign. Manafort's deputy, Rick Gates, and former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn both pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI and have yet to be sentenced."
Lisa Desjardins: "Meanwhile, another big case is heading to trial. Trump confidant Roger Stone is charged by Mueller with obstruction and lying to Congress about his contacts with WikiLeaks and the release of Democratic documents stolen by the Russians."
William Brangham: "And there are more than a dozen other ongoing cases Mueller cites, but those are fully redacted, and we just don't know who or what is involved. The report leaves open its most wrenching and difficult question, whether the president himself broke the law."
Lisa Desjardins: "The report's final conclusion is that single, complicated paragraph you may have heard before. It reads in part: "If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly didn't commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report doesn't conclude that the president committed a crime, it also doesn't exonerate him."
William Brangham: "Mueller so far has spoken publicly for just nine minutes about this report. He indicated he wants to leave the stage and return to private life. Whatever Mueller's future, his report remains a challenge for America's leaders on all sides."
"By now you’re probably asking, “Okay, so what are the key pillars of Democratic identity?” Alas, it’s a complicated question, and that too is something we’ll have to wait for a future post to address in full. Stay tuned."
Turned out Walman's entire post here was devoted to the very question I was about to ask...almost.
That such lawsuits are even possible...and the victim is required to pay for his defense is a fact of the law RIGHT NOW. Even before Trump takes office...even if Trump had never been heard of.
I don't know if this was part of the reason he won the election, But American "justice" has been understood to be .... ah, hard on the poor?....for a very long time. and in spite of some journalists and "activists" pointing it out from time to time, it does not get better. Even a Supreme Court Justice said as much years ago. Sorry I can't remember which one or exactly what he said. Maybe someone who knows more can help me. But the facts are common knowledge.
btw
the opposite case is also true. you cannot afford to sue someone who has defrauded you because the legal fees will be more than you would likely get even if you won...and that is less likely than you might suppose. i could tell you a story, but then i would probably get sued.
Trump and Hitler: Frail Leaders, Big Lies, and the Press Under Siege
Donald Trump’s latest tantrum against the press—threatening lawsuits and jail for journalists—is a sad echo of Adolf Hitler's more violent war on media freedom. Trump, like Hitler, cannot abide criticism. Both men, frail and insecure, have decided that the best way to protect their fragile egos is by attacking the very foundation of democracy: a free press.
Trump has launched a series of defamation lawsuits against media outlets he dislikes, including one against ABC over a factual error and another against the Des Moines Register for publishing a poll he didn’t like. It's a classic move for a man who can’t handle the truth: if the press doesn't bow to you, sue them into submission. But Trump's strategy isn't just about seeking justice—it’s about using the legal system to drown out dissent. And with his pick for FBI director promising retribution against journalists, the chilling effect is already here.
Hitler, meanwhile, didn’t bother with lawsuits. He simply seized control. The Reich Press Law of 1933 turned independent journalism into state-approved propaganda, and anyone who resisted was either silenced or executed. No lawsuits needed—just the brute force of a regime that crushed free speech under the weight of its own delusions of grandeur. The Nazis even had their own term for “fake news”: Lügenpresse (lying press), a phrase weaponized to delegitimize dissent and discredit the media entirely.
Both leaders, in their own ways, use the media as a scapegoat for their insecurities. Trump calls the press “fake news” whenever it dares to report facts he dislikes, just as Hitler's Reich Ministry of Propaganda spun every inconvenient truth into a lie. Neither man can stomach the idea that their weak, insecure leadership might actually be questioned.
Tyranny doesn’t spring up overnight; it’s built piece by piece, first with threats and then with silence. Trump and Hitler are cut from the same cloth: insecure, petty men who would rather rule with fear than face the truth. Their war on the press is the first step in eroding democracy itself—and it must be resisted at all costs.
For a deeper look into how Trump’s tactics echo those of pre-WWII Hitler, read my full article here: https://substack.com/home/post/p-153103008.
It explores their shared strategies of exploiting grievances, manipulating followers, and undermining democracy.
Subscribe for more insights on the dangerous rise of authoritarianism and the fight to protect our freedoms.
Would the legislatiom co sponsored by Kiley and Wyden to prevent frivolous lawsuits against journalists address this? What's it's chance of passing?
Edie
i realize you are not asking me. but i would guess zero. unless the legislation allows a judge to look at the suit and make a decision that it is "frivolous" and fines the plaintiff and its lawyers, forcing them to become defendants against a charge of filing a frivolous or SLAPP lawsuit.Law utimately depends on the honesty and judgement of thepeople who admisiter it, which has not proved reliable in the past.
Bob Iger's decision to cave to Trump to protect the Disney brand from his probable harassment may lead not only to more and more frivolous bullying lawsuits by the Orange Turd, but also to a massive boycott of Disney. Unintended consequences come to those who sell out without a fight.
You should read your material. Bottom line, the Mueller report exonerated Trump from these claims. But, don't let facts get in the way.
Meanwhile, Rachel Meadow became a very wealthy woman (3 mil a year) spouting pretty vile lies about Trump and his people, at the same time Hunter Biden's laptop Was labeled disinformation, but was then evidence in a trial. Ies, lie, lies.And now the Biden family is pardoned way back to 2014. And TRUMP is the problem? At least he's talking to Russia. Biden has been arming a war on its border, and hasn't had a word with Putin in , now, years. Great
Trump is a career criminal. If you deny that, you’re either stupid, a liar or both.
"to report honestly on the next president"
Really. After all the Russiagate lies? After all the frivolous prosecutions the media cheerleaded? Please
Benny
actually not very hard to guess which "lies" you are referring to" the prosecutors', or Trump's, But that makes you part of the problem. Everything you don't want to believe is fake news, right
The NY state prosecution for "fraud" was over the top, especially since the supposedly defrauded party, Deutsch bank, had officers on the stand that were fine with the deals, they'll do more. And then the judge, not a jury, took all his money and shut him down. All of it. Top business leaders (most who reside and operate in NY) were appalled at the decision. And the NY state appeals court was, too, in the initial hearing. 10-1 that's going away soon.
Latita James literally ran on a platform that "I'll get Trump". She claimed she didn't, but there's plenty of her shouting into a megaphone on YouTube she did. How she was even allowed to conduct such a biased prosecution shows how bad ethical standards are in the NY bar.
Then he was prosecuted on a he said/ she said sexual assault charge. How convenient.
The federal charges? Gone soon, and Jack Smith, that angry bulldog, didn't get the chance to "Get Trump" before the election.
He ran on a catch phrase " Lock her up", but, did he even try? Meanwhile, they threw four years of lies and conspiracies at him, and tried to lock him up with glee. The Democratic party is corrupt and rotten to the core, and needs to further implode and go away. We need a new populist third party. Somehow.
Russiagate was real. Inform yourself, troll:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections
"According to the U.S. intelligence community, the operation—code named Project Lakhta[3][4]—was ordered directly by Russian president Vladimir Putin.[5][6] The "hacking and disinformation campaign" to damage Clinton and help Trump became the "core of the scandal known as Russiagate".[7] The 448-page Mueller Report, made public in April 2019, examined over 200 contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian officials but concluded that there was insufficient evidence to bring any conspiracy or coordination charges against Trump or his associates."
There's much, much more here on Wikipedia about Russiagate.
And PBS has a report published in 2019 that discusses the Mueller Report and Trump's efforts to obstruct justice.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/what-came-out-of-the-mueller-report-heres-what-you-need-to-know-in-6-minutes
William Brangham: "So what did (the Mueller Report) find? First, that the Russians attacked the 2016 election. The Mueller report is loaded with examples of how Russian operatives launched what they call information warfare on the U.S. They wanted to distract and inflame voters to benefit Donald Trump's candidacy and to damage Hillary Clinton's."
Lisa Desjardins: "And while Mueller shows the Trump campaign worked with individual Russians, he found the evidence didn't show any conspiracy or coordination by the Trump campaign."
President Donald Trump: "There was no collusion with Russia. There was no obstruction, and none whatsoever."
William Brangham: "That's been the president's mantra ever since Mueller's report came out. And like Lisa said, on the collusion-conspiracy issue, the president is right. The Mueller report doesn't establish any such wrongdoing. But on the issue of obstruction, Mueller doesn't agree with the president."
Lisa Desjardins: "To Mueller, obstruction is a crime of paramount importance. He went out of his way to say that in public last week."
Robert Mueller: "When a subject of an investigation obstructs that investigation or lies to investigators, it strikes at the core of the government's effort to find the truth and hold wrongdoers accountable."
Lisa Desjardins: "Mueller's report lays out a long string of examples where it finds evidence, sometimes substantial evidence, that the president tried to obstruct justice."
William Brangham: "For example, the president asked FBI Director James Comey to let go of one investigation. He told his White House counsel, Don McGahn, that Mueller has to go, and later told him to lie and deny that conversation ever happened. In other cases, Mueller says what seems like suspicious activity wasn't obstruction, like when President Trump tried to bury e-mails showing how his son welcomed a meeting with Russians who were offering dirt on Hillary Clinton. Mueller concludes that didn't affect the investigation."
Lisa Desjardins: "Overall, Mueller writes: "The evidence does point to a range of personal motives animating the president's conduct. Those include concerns the investigation would call into question the legitimacy of his election and whether certain events could be seen as criminal activity by the president, his campaign or family."
William Brangham: "But, despite that, Mueller decided not to indict the president. The reason, he said, is a Justice Department opinion issued during the Watergate scandal. It says that a sitting president cannot be indicted. This is internal agency policy from 1973, not a law or court ruling. Because of this policy, on the issue of obstruction, Mueller put his conclusion this way:"
Robert Mueller: "If we had had confidence that the president clearly didn't commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime."
Lisa Desjardins: "Mueller seems to understand this is not a satisfying conclusion for anyone, saying the case raises difficult issues. But he writes: "U.S. law rests on the fundamental principle that no person in this country is so high that he is above the law."
On the question of what to do now, Mueller points to Congress."
Robert Mueller: "The Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing."
William Brangham: "He's talking, of course, about the impeachment process. This is why the stakes are so high with this investigation. But the report, written as a legal document, is tough to absorb.
Lisa Desjardins: "Mueller actually writes that he wants to help readers. He does this in the appendix with a glossary of 211 people and entities mentioned in the report, as well as the president's full written answers to Mueller's questions. Both are worth checking out.
William Brangham: "OK, so what did this investigation produce? Mueller lists all of the court cases triggered by his probe. So far, a total of 34 people have been indicted. The vast majority of those are Russian nationals. But the investigation also led to a three-year prison sentence for Trump's former lawyer Michael Cohen on fraud and campaign finance violations. Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort is serving seven-and-a-half years on charges unrelated to the campaign. Manafort's deputy, Rick Gates, and former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn both pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI and have yet to be sentenced."
Lisa Desjardins: "Meanwhile, another big case is heading to trial. Trump confidant Roger Stone is charged by Mueller with obstruction and lying to Congress about his contacts with WikiLeaks and the release of Democratic documents stolen by the Russians."
William Brangham: "And there are more than a dozen other ongoing cases Mueller cites, but those are fully redacted, and we just don't know who or what is involved. The report leaves open its most wrenching and difficult question, whether the president himself broke the law."
Lisa Desjardins: "The report's final conclusion is that single, complicated paragraph you may have heard before. It reads in part: "If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly didn't commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report doesn't conclude that the president committed a crime, it also doesn't exonerate him."
William Brangham: "Mueller so far has spoken publicly for just nine minutes about this report. He indicated he wants to leave the stage and return to private life. Whatever Mueller's future, his report remains a challenge for America's leaders on all sides."
You recently wrote:
"By now you’re probably asking, “Okay, so what are the key pillars of Democratic identity?” Alas, it’s a complicated question, and that too is something we’ll have to wait for a future post to address in full. Stay tuned."
Do you still plan to address?
Yes! But I'm not sure exactly when. Things are coming at us fast, and there's a lot to deal with...