Could existing organizations, like the ACLU , fill this role? The ACLU is technically non-partisan; their organization and resources could be bolstered by a campaign targeted at counteracting bully lawsuits. Anthony Romero, national ACLU director talked about the orgs role on Rachel Maddow 12/16.
I love the aclu for what it does. Which is critical. But I think this is different and I don’t think it’s a role they’re really equipped for. That said, I don’t think there’s going to be a shortage of people victimized by Trump. So more the merrier.
Yes, most of the frivolous lawsuits won't go much of anywhere and the vast majority of attempted indictments will be total failures because of the grand jury/jury system but it will cost a lot of $ in the mean time.
What makes you think he's going to submit to Court Proceedings.
We've already seen mobile phones, 2 way radios & e-scooters take out opponents in other countries this year.
Don't think the USA isn't up to the task if DIRECTED by President to do so.
Amen, brother. A fund is urgently needed.
Starting long before he entered politics, Trump has abused the legal system by filing sometimes laughably frivolous lawsuits which, nonetheless, force the other party to spend ruinous amounts on legal fees even when they prevail.
Why play defense when you can go on offense?
Find people who want to sue Trump for false inflammatory statements he has made. Bring enough suits for enough money at Trump drops his.
Presidents have no immunity from civil suits.
How can concerned Americans support quality legacy journalism? Can we create a legal fund to be used for counter suits and to support institutions and journalist who are victims of MAGA revenge?
"Ladies and Gentlemen! I am The Litigator! The people's defender, destroyer of demagogues! I hold the corrupt accountable. You thought you could twist the law, loot the nation, and skate by on lies? Guess what, Grifter?! Your immunity’s expired. I will body slam your lawsuits."
Amen. We need to be pro active not Reactive. Why are the Dems “always playing Defense???”
If we don’t start learning from and then using how the Reps are winning, all is lost. The rule have changed and Democracy is at stake. The high ground has been lost my friend. Time to change strategy.
2/2 However, like Bruce Bartlett, a member of Ronny Raygun's administration, I'll vote for sane over crazy any day. Thus, I haven't cast a ballot for any candidate who wasn't a Democrat since 1988.
1/2 When I matured politically and around 1990 woke up to the fact that Republiwhigs had been prosecuting a war against decent real Americans, I changed by voter registration to "No Party Preference," not "Democrat." Why? Because Democrats don't recognize reality and fight fire with fire.
Let’s do this. Someone start a fund and they probably be more money than we’ll ever need because they will be millions of anti-Trumper’s donating like their life depended on it. I’m ready to go.
Once upon a time some of our neighbors wanted to tax us and keep us under the command of a King, so we shot them and burned down their homes. Just kidding, it wasn't "once upon a time" it was only 3.5 average lifetimes ago
Check the many correct assumptions embedded in your analysis. 1. Armies of lawyers are used to bankrupt those who can’t afford unrelenting defense. 2. This isn’t about hiring a few good or great lawyers, volume matters. 3. The judiciary is incapable of handling bogus lawsuits appropriately.
Wouldn't this be something a group like CREW should work on tackling?
Wholly agreed there needs to be a
lawfare offense strategy aimed at not just offenders themselves but doing the same draining of the coffers of their enablers.
A great idea but where will the money come from, and how much? Huge amounts of cash are needed. Thiel created the template for this when he destroyed Gawker. You need billionaires of your own to defend against such a thing and as you’ve pointed out, they are all getting on Team Trump.
This is an excellent and needed proposal. Will you be monitoring the effort and keep your followers informed when the funding mechanism/s is/are up and running?
I donate to @markzaidesq.bsky.social @crew.bsky.social & @marcelias.bsky.social. Each of these law firms/lawyers have fought fascism in its various forms, including the defense of whistleblowers. If there were a general legal fund whose trustees would tap these resources, I would 100% donate to it.
Everyone deserves legal representation. Will the ABA be more proactive during the Trump regime's terror on US citizens he doesn't like? Can district courts make a ruling now regarding frivolous cases filed by Trump and PACs funded to do Trump's dirty work?
I really feel that. That's the language we're talking about here. It's like we're starting a podcast in Romania and we want to speak English. That's not going to work.
Yeah. The people we hire to do the work are not going to be fluent in the language. I think they'll literally need a writer (or writers' room) to give them lines, like a talk show host.
Legal Eagle has a popular YouTube channel and is currently suing the Justice Department for documents from the curtailed Trump prosecutions, he might be a good one to help shepherd this into existence.
The salt in the wound is that Trump has a virtually unlimited pool of money, our taxpayer revenues, to investigate and prosecute whomever he decides to target. Won't cost him a nickel.
I think there's quite a lot of money out there from people who would like to fund a Goliath to get into the ring with Trump every time he wants to rumble.
The giving of blanket pardons is legally problematic - and there are DT targets who will miss out. Think about how MAGA randomly targeted Shaye Moss and her mother, Ruby Freeman. (Also groups / individuals should be considering preemptive lawsuits against DT etc.)
In this case, the BEST lawyers don't need a "mountain of cash" or a pile of money from small donors. They do need a client with the courage to stand up for something bigger than themselves.
Agreed but I'm not sure how we go about building a group that speaks the "language of our times" without being at least tangentially associated with the politics of our times. What do you have in mind?
I’m not saying it shouldn’t be associated with politics. I’m saying it should have a clear focus and not distract from that by digressing into more ideological points or electoral politics.
Why couldn’t it be the ACLU? It’s already a well known leftie and legal brand with solid infrastructure and legal resources. Or are you thinking it ought to be a brand new organization?
This is all so smart, and it's alarming that this doesn't exist yet. It's the most inevitable thing in the world that it will be needed, even before this week's capitulation by ABC and the the felon's vow to go after Ann Selzer.
Seems to me that groups like the Lincoln Project and MeidasTouch who have enriched themselves by taunting Trump ought to share some of their profits to help this cause
Comments
We've already seen mobile phones, 2 way radios & e-scooters take out opponents in other countries this year.
Don't think the USA isn't up to the task if DIRECTED by President to do so.
Starting long before he entered politics, Trump has abused the legal system by filing sometimes laughably frivolous lawsuits which, nonetheless, force the other party to spend ruinous amounts on legal fees even when they prevail.
Find people who want to sue Trump for false inflammatory statements he has made. Bring enough suits for enough money at Trump drops his.
Presidents have no immunity from civil suits.
"Ladies and Gentlemen! I am The Litigator! The people's defender, destroyer of demagogues! I hold the corrupt accountable. You thought you could twist the law, loot the nation, and skate by on lies? Guess what, Grifter?! Your immunity’s expired. I will body slam your lawsuits."
Raise money for small media outlets so they don't buckle like WaPo, ABC, LaTimes!
If we don’t start learning from and then using how the Reps are winning, all is lost. The rule have changed and Democracy is at stake. The high ground has been lost my friend. Time to change strategy.
Wholly agreed there needs to be a
lawfare offense strategy aimed at not just offenders themselves but doing the same draining of the coffers of their enablers.
Us laymen need the legal and political communities to tell us the best way to support them to help these targets.