Frankel's op-ed was premised on widespread public knowledge of Trump's actions. He specifically noted that while "pledges of sanctions relief" made while Trump was a mere candidate were "unseemly at best," such promises are "not in itself illegal." It was clearly labeled an opinion piece, and Trump is the very definition of a public figure—he would punch you if you told him otherwise. And the Trump campaign's claims, at least in the draft, are riddled with errors. Among them: claims that the Mueller report exonerated Trump, and claims that the Times would have known the op-ed was false because of the Mueller report ... which had not yet been released.

So there seems to be no plausible grounds for actually filing such a lawsuit. It's difficult to imagine how it could not be considered frivolous, it's a clear affront to First Amendment protections—and it's difficult to comprehend why Team Trump would single out that year-old essay as defamatory when much worse and far more speculative opinions about President SmellsLikeBeans are published every single day.

For example: I suspect that Donald Trump is genuinely a Russian asset. I suspect he has been shored up by laundered Russian cash to such an extent that he would gladly betray the country to pay off a few dollars’ worth of interest. I believe that Ivanka is actually a Russian nesting doll of smaller and smaller spies. I'm almost certain that Trump's diet would consist, if he did not have minders watching his every move, entirely of placemats and electrical sockets.

Explaining the known facts of how Russian intermediaries approached Trump's campaign with promises of Hillary Clinton "dirt," only to hint broadly at their interest in a future President Dumpster Fire reversing sanctions against their country if the election went his way, isn't defamatory. If anything, we might suspect that Team Trump chose that specific column because it said "Quid Pro Quo" in the title, which sent President Fascist Rapeguy into such a fit that he's still obsessing about it almost a full year later.

Note, too, that this is the Trump "campaign" claiming it’ll be filing this thing, not Trump the person, which may or may not be an effort to circumvent discovery. (It doesn't seem likely to work, given that claims about the specific actions of Trump and family are at the heart of the lawsuit's claims.)

Coupled with Trump ally Rep. Devin Nunes plastering Virginia courtrooms with lawsuits against his critics under somewhat sketchy circumstances, it's worth wondering whether harassing critics with frivolous lawsuits is becoming a wider Republican plan. It requires little effort but can cause great financial damage to anyone unable to counter the deep pockets of whatever Trump political allies are floating the bills for these things.

The New York Times is not going to be one of those small, easy-to-intimidate targets, though. So it's a good bet that this is a publicity stunt by President Tinythumbs' underlings, possibly intended more as a way to sucker the base rubes into sending more cash, or a devised scheme to hush President Early Bedtime up for a while so the grown-ups around him can get some sleep.