You have to say this for Donald Trump: He’s caused many Americans to learn about laws and regulations they might never have encountered in the course of perfectly normal lives. Like it or not, we’ve become conversant with the emoluments clause, intricacies of campaign finance law, congressional subpoena power, Justice Department policies shielding a president from indictment, whistleblower protection requirements and the difference between collusion and conspiracy, to name a few. With apologies to everyone who doesn’t wish to learn any more about the law, I’d like to add one more to the list: Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, designed to hold lawyers to a defined standard of truth. It’s past time to deploy Rule 11 against the small army of mini-Giuliani's and mini-Barr's who are importing Trump’s factual and intellectual dishonesty into our courtrooms. In August the Washington Post clocked Trump in at over 12,000 lies. But a lie is not a crime unless it’s made under oath, or intended to defraud someone who reasonably relies on it to some detriment. Ironically, Trump could defend himself by pointing out that, by now, no one can reasonably rely on anything he says. Here’s a test: try to remember the last time something he said was true. In contrast to lies shouted on the White House lawn while helicopter blades whine in the background, Rule 11 punishes people who lie in court. An attorney’s signature on a court filing certifies that it “is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification or reversal of existing law.” In addition, a lawyer’s signature certifies that a paper is not filed “for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.”

The way to hinder ... Trump’s malfeasance is to punish the hired guns who are willing to go to court with any claim he fabricates, no matter how phony.

A court can decide that Rule 11 has been violated entirely on its own initiative, or in response to a motion from the opposing party. The most common penalty is an award of attorneys’ fees and other costs that can be supplemented by punitive damages — all in a judge’s discretion. Judges are empowered to fine and discipline the lawyers themselves, a surefire way to capture their attention. The House is scheduled to vote on a resolution that will initiate the public phase of the impeachment inquiry as early as this week. And as impeachment looms, Trump is certain to ratchet up his use of obstruction and spurious counter-attacks. More than enough time has passed to demonstrate that Trump and his cronies have had ample opportunity to comply with discovery requests and subpoenas. Trump himself has been perversely helpful by openly blocking witnesses and defying Congress. This type of chest-beating may play well at campaign rallies and on Fox News, but it doesn’t do so well in court pleadings. Judges across the country are calling him out: The New York attorney general’s investigation of the Trump Foundation. Trump’s attorneys have argued that the Constitution renders sitting presidents immune from criminal investigations. But federal district court Judge Victor Marrero, sitting in the Southern District of New York, wasted no time in declaring this claim “repugnant to the nation’s governmental structure and constitutional values.” Unable to take a hint, the Trump legal team appealed the decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (a decision is still pending) where they argued that Trump’s remark about freedom to shoot someone on Fifth Avenue was a correct statement of law while he is in office.

[Trump] ... uses court obstruction to energize his base and, for all of this, has suffered no consequence.