(NOTE) Trump sues when a book author includes unflattering anecdotes in their book, or when someone who knows him authors an unflattering opinion. But that's not really "news" he's trying to suppress—it's just "color." Maybe we should ask what type of book Trump *can't* sue over?
1/ There are books out there—yes, Proof of Corruption is one—whose authors aren't restricted by NDAs or executive privilege claims but also are writing about damaging hardcore investigative reports Trump can't sue over as he has no grounds *and* can't risk the discovery process.
2/ Every time Trump threatens to sue an author, a) the book goes to #1 in America, b) media covers the book as a news story and thereby ensures the book *stays* at #1, and c) the book is released and we find that the brouhaha was largely about unflattering anecdotes and opinions.
3/ This thought came to me as I was watching MSNBC today. (Full disclosure: MSNBC has invited me on 12 times and cancelled 12 times due to breaking news.) Omarosa was on—and I asked myself "What was so shocking in Omarosa's book?" Because media coverage made the book a brief hit.
4/ I own the book, have read it, and couldn't remember anything from it that went beyond unflattering anecdotes and opinions. So I asked myself, "By threatening to sue any book with an unflattering anecdote about him, does Trump distract attention from *actually* damaging books?"
5/ I'm not implying some grand strategy on Trump's part. I believe many of Trump's best plays are instinctive rather than reflexive. But I wonder if media is playing into Trump's hands by chasing down (and making bestsellers) *primarily* the Trump books he threatens to sue over?
6/ With a typical civil litigant you'd think well, they'll only sue if a book is *really* damaging. But (a) Trump doesnt use the legal system in a normative way, and (b) we have a long track record now of him threatening to sue or suing books/authors that don't *really* hurt him.
7/ Imagine—instead—the following possibility: the most damaging book to Trump is a viral primer on his many crimes that reads like a spy novel but is entirely true and fully sourced. Wouldn't that endanger Trump with moderates far more than a few anecdotes about how stupid he is?
8/ I'd just ask folks to consider this: are the Trump books deemed "most dangerous" to Trump because he threatened to sue over them—with media therefore "automatically" assuming they pose the most danger to the man—actually the ones media should most be encouraging folks to read?
9/ Maybe those who've read the Trump "gossip" books Trump was angriest about can weigh in: did they blow the lid off everything in a way that matters? I'm talking, e.g., about the books by Wolff, Woodward, [Omarosa] Manigault Newman and Bolton. Did the media guess right on those?
10/ In any event, obviously my views and biases on this question are clear: I think America needs a primer on Trump's crimes to go viral—as I think personal anecdotes or opinions in a Trump book are largely superfluous and don't hurt him at all, his lawsuits notwithstanding. /end
PS/ The relevant term here is one I teach in nonfiction workshops: "narrative distance." It's the distance between the authorial perspective and the narrated events. Trump sues over books with close narrative distance because they offend him most—not because they damage him most.
PS2/ Indeed, this is exactly what I learned when I represented criminal defendants for many years: *most* didn't want their stories told from a great narrative distance, as that distance made them look terrible. At a close narrative distance they—we—could contest almost anything.
PS3/ Trump is a career criminal. He'll tell you that what upsets him the most is when authors tell his story with a close narrative distance. My experience as a criminal defense lawyer tells me what he's *most* afraid of is the narrative of his actions told from a great distance.
PS4/ I feel like media would know this if two things were the case: if it accepted that the Trump presidency isn't a political story, but a criminal case; if it had more interest in showcasing the tactics/knowledge bases of criminal defense lawyers rather than prosecutors on-air.
PS5/ This thread dovetails nicely, I think, with this one I just saw by @adamdavidson:
