I see what you did there.
Again, I’m enjoying the sweet, sweet schadenfreude. This thread is a spot of sunshine in a dark world.
I agree. Seeing people reap what the sow is therapy for me. I’m so disgusted with these people, It’s nice to see them get what’s coming to them.
What a bunch of babies.
Has this been mentioned?
" NEW YORK (AP) — Former President Donald Trump on Tuesday sued his estranged niece and The New York Times over a 2018 story about his family’s wealth and tax practices that was partly based on confidential documents she provided to the newspaper’s reporters.
Trump’s lawsuit, filed in state court in New York, accuses Mary Trump of breaching a settlement agreement by disclosing tax records she received in a dispute over family patriarch Fred Trump’s estate."
If the tax records contain evidence of a crime or crimes, then I don’t think a non-disclosure agreement is valid or enforceable. (IANAL.)
And someone will have told Donald that, over and over again, to the point that he probably actually knows it.
Note that the suit is about actions that took place over a year ago. Speculation is that Donald is desperately trying to change the subject away from…something. The new Woodward/Costa book? Or something even more damaging?
I enjoy wondering about that.
Donald doesn’t think that far ahead. You’re giving him too much credit for brains. He’s suing because he’s butthurt that a family member doesn’t think the world revolves around him.
“…over a year ago…” It’s taken that long to find a lawyer willing to work for free. 
My guess would be this. Trump can’t stand not being the center of attention if it isn’t fawning and the Eastman memo is incredibly damning regarding the insurrection. Not that anyone will ever hold him accountable but gaslighting and distraction is in his DNA.
It could be worse than that. I saw a Raw Story article today, reporting that Trump biographer David Cay Johnston suggests that Trump had better be more careful what he wishes. He suggests that, just as @Johnny_L.A suggests, courts may find the NDA cannot be enforced to hide incriminating evidence – which may in turn render ALL of Trump’s multitudinous NDAs unenforceable. Oops.
Perhaps McConnell is simply trying a different tack; seeing that neither Gingrich nor Delay managed to achieve long-term success, McTurtle thought: hmmm, crafting legislation didn’t work for them. Let’s try just blocking everything. Once that gets us to political hegemony, we can go to town and start creating the reactionary utopia Mr. Koch and Mr. Scaiffe and all their buddies have been paying for.
See? Old Mitch won’t feel that he’s EARNED the money until he’s delivered the goods. What an honest, upstanding guy! He’s exactly like Abraham Lincoln walking fifty miles to repay a three-cent debt!
Not a major occurrence, but it should be noted in this thread: Trump Unity Bridge involved in multi-vehicle Flint crash - mlive.com
I heard speculation that Trump is pursuing this suit in order to intimidate other people with NDAs who might be thinking about cooperating with law enforcement; for example, employees of the Trump organization. This seems plausible to me.
Perhaps but if he loses and the NDAs are declared legally unenforceable, that puts him up the creek.
Then again, giving him credit for strategic thought even to the level of a game of checkers is a rather silly thing to do.
Kind of reminds me of the Monty Python sketch where a council housing building existed only because people believed it was there. One guy expressed doubt and the whole thing came tumbling down,
I think it’s a tactic that he has used before. I think he just doesn’t have the imagination to do anything other than suing someone.
He probably won a lawsuit years ago, and is hoping lightning will strike twice.
Did you know Trump once sued comedian Bill Maher for suggesting that he (Trump) was fathered by an orangutan? Trump ended up dropping the case.
Did the orangutan sue too?
He’s used to using legal threats against small time contractors and suppliers for his hotels. It never got through to his (presumably existing) gray matter that such threats don’t work against people who can also afford lawyers rather than folks who can’t spare the money or time for a protracted legal battle.