From my Facebook post 5/19/2026:
Andrew Weissmann noted in his just-released book " Liar's Kingdom, " which focused on the claims of fraud in the 2020 election, and made a statement about it on TV that particularly got my attention. Every judge who looked at such claims brought their courts of the 2020 steal, dismissed the cases, and could find no probable cause in the evidence presented to even permit the case to go on.
The lie has been the Trump administration's stated rationale for the plan to rig the 2026 November midterm elections so they could win while losing the popular will as well as the treatment of January 6 participants to pay them off, pardon, and stick a middle finger at jury trials and due legal process.
The next question I ask is why this lie (stop the steal) has lived on and now fuels the Trump plan to rig the results of the November 2026 midterm elections.
Trump's plan is no secret: ICE at every polling place in potentially swing districts where those looking Hispanic could be intimidated, grabbing the election ballots, destroying their integrity when in the hands of partisans, and the extreme gerrymandering boundary drawings.
Trump loyalists nod their heads in support of the lie when challenged because either they blindly believe it because it came out of the mouth ot Trump or because they approve of what Trump wants, too.:Tte result
Trump is seeking to win despite the dismal polls, when they should have lost.
More thoughts not in the Facebook post.
Weissmann answers a question of why those who lie in pursuit of a political position can get away with it, while those who defame or defraud a person or a consumer when they know they are lying can face a jury and either jail or a large financial penalty or restitution. I always assumed the reason was the First Amendment, and it is under that umbrella that a marketplace of ideas is where winners are chosen by voters. The problem is that voters themselves may not have access or knowledge of an intentional lie to make that kind of intelligent decision, and even opponents do not have the ammunition to call them out. I also believe that there are those who, for other reasons, ignore evidence even when they know it is a lie because they have self-serving reasons and motivations to use it to accomplish other goals driven by. racial, social conformity, or economic self-interest. That issue has festered in my mind, though Weissmann tackled it and gave me pause to reconsider just passing it off as "the value of the marketplace of ideas" and people exercising their First Amendment rights. He presents some solutions to that seeming contradiction in the second half of the book..which I have yet to fully digest, but get the gist and skimmed. That part is the best grist for the law student, law professor, or the legislation drafting mill.
I was the administrator of a district attorney's consumer fraud office for nearly seven years, followed by a position in the city administration that also made me an elections official for nearly seven years. Freedom of political speech, and civil, and/or criminal consumer fraud consumed me for much of my professional years. Although I'm not a lawyer, I made an impact in that position, setting priorities and advocating for fair treatment in voting and the consumer marketplace. As AI technology and the ability to manipulate photos and videos become common, the question of lying in the political marketplace of ideas is no longer nagging, but it has an urgency to be considered and addressed. Weissmann's book is very important and timely. Weissmann drew on how other Western democracies split hairs about walking the fine line between free speech and doing harm with lies to the system or to citizens. It was not without a smile that I read his description of how Brazil treated political lies as similar to the truth-in-advertising approach in consumer protection. The penalties were to "disbar" or deny the one found guilty from running for office for x years. (US impeachment and a guilty verdict disbars forever. In the meantime, lies can be exposed by investigative reporters and congressional hearings, which explains why the midterms and who is in the majority in Congress are such high stakes to both sides in November.
