New Lawsuit Against Trump Could Backfire Over The Use of Labels Like “China Virus” and ‘Wuhan Flu”

A new lawsuit by the Chinese American Civil Rights Coalition has garnered national attention in the media where former President Donald Trump is being sued for his use of such terms as the “Chinese Virus,” “China Virus,” “Wuhan Flu,” and “Kung Flu.” What is most interesting about this lawsuit is how it is arguably meritless under both tort and constitutional law. However, there has been little pushback from a host of lawyers who have spent months calling for sanctions against Republican lawyers for filing lawsuits viewed legally or factually meritless. This lawsuit seems designed to amplify a public relations campaign without substantial legal support. The question is whether it states just enough to avoid sanctions and whether the Trump team wants to seek such sanctions under Rule 11.  Trump is being sued in his official and personal capacities.

I previously criticized some Trump lawyers like Rudy Giuliani for making unsupported claims in press conferences about electoral fraud and explored how he and others could be sued for defamation by companies like Dominion (which later did file such actions). After Trump campaign and Republican Party counsel filed an array of lawsuits challenging electoral results in 2020, a long list of legal experts called for disbarments and sanctions for filing frivolous actions. Some of those complaints are still pending.  However, these same lawyers are largely silent in the face of meritless actions from the left. There was no outcry or calls for sanctions, let alone disbarments.

The lengthy complaint is long on political rhetoric and short on legal support. It recounts every use of these terms by Trump as well as violence against Asian individuals. These attacks are horrific and many reasonable view the use of these terms as fueling such anger.

However, terms like the “Chinese virus” have been widely used by various experts and commentators, including in scientific journals. Indeed, two Chinese experts referred to this as the “Wuhan virus” until they were pressured to take down their column.

While it is widely viewed as racially insensitive and inflammatory, the use is also heavily imbued with political meaning. Many, including members of Congress continue to use this term because of its origins. Moreover, many object that China has lied about the origins of the virus and arrested scientists who tried to tell the world about its dangers. It is political speech. (I have not used the term and instead to “COVID-19” OR “coronavirus” but it is chilling to see a public university encouraging students to stop others from referring to the “Chinese” or “Wuhan” virus.) This remains a point of political debate.

This is not about the merits of such labels but the legal basis to seek damages for their use. There is no legal basis in my view, though other may differ in that assessment.

The use of such labels is common in science and politics. People still refer to the “London variant” and “South Africa variant” of Covid. Other virus and diseases have been associated with areas where they originated like Zika, or Ebola. While the “Spanish flu” may not have started in Spain, it is still the common label for that epidemic.  Indeed, it was the term used by many scientists in the early stages and even liberals. HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher noted correctly “Scientists, who are generally pretty liberal, have been naming diseases after the places they came from for a very long time.”

Chinese American Civil Rights Coalition is demanding $22.9 million, or $1 for every Asian American and Pacific Islander living in the United States. (The relief section states that “Plaintiff will donate the award (a & b) to establish a museum that will showcase the history of Asian American and Pacific Islanders communities and their contribution to the United States of America.”). The damage demand reflects the symbolic character of the complaint.  However, lawyers are not supposed to use courts for political or symbolic statements.

Rule 11 states in part:

(b) Representations to the Court. By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:

(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;

(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a non-frivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;

(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and

(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.

While a claim could be raised under the first category, it is the second category that would seem relevant to this complaint.  Three major problems stand out in the complaint.

Is this Defamation or Related Tortious Conduct?

First and foremost, the use of such terms is not in my view defamatory or a cognizable basis for a claim of intentional or negligent emotional distress.  This is an opinion. While the complaint briefly notes that some might claim opinion, it insists:

Labeling a statement an opinion does not automatically make it an opinion or make it safe from the possibility of it being defamatory. If a reader or listener could reasonably understand that the communication as stating a fact that could be verified, the communication will not be considered an opinion, especially if it is sufficiently derogatory to hurt the subject’s reputation. Also, a communication that is presented in the form of an opinion may be considered defamatory if it implies that the opinion is based on defamatory facts that have not been disclosed.

The first outbreak of Covid was traced to Wuhan, China and there continue to be allegations that it may have escaped from a virology lab in that city. As a locational reference, there is support for the term. The best argument against the use of the term is that it is inflammatory, not that there is no connection to China or Wuhan.  Trump could argue truth as a defense and fall back on opinion is needed in any litigation.

This is a classic example where opinion is protected under tort and constitutional law. It is also a statement from a public official or public figure.

Generally, parties must show (1) a defamatory statement of fact concerning the plaintiff; (2) publication to a third party; (3) fault [or in some cases actual malice for public officials or figures]; (4) falsity of the defamatory statement; and (5) special damages or per se accountability (defamatory on its face). See e.g.,  Biro v. Conde Nast, 883 F. Supp. 2d 441, 446 (S.D.N.Y. 2012).

The standard for defamation for public figures and officials in the United States is the product of a decision decades ago in New York Times v. Sullivan. Ironically, this is precisely the environment in which the opinion was written and he is precisely the type of plaintiff that the opinion was meant to deter. The Supreme Court ruled that tort law could not be used to overcome First Amendment protections for free speech or the free press. The Court sought to create “breathing space” for the media by articulating that standard that now applies to both public officials and public figures. In order to prevail, West must show either actual knowledge of its falsity or a reckless disregard of the truth.

Trump has prevailed in past defamation cases. As we discussed previously, Trump was sued by political strategist and TV pundit Cheryl Jacobus after Trump slammed her during the campaign.  She triggered the ire of Trump by going on television to criticize Trump as a “bad debater” who “comes off like a third grader faking his way through an oral report on current affairs.” Trump fired back on Twitter and said that Jacobus “begged us for a job. We said no and she went hostile. A real dummy!” Another tweet said Jacobus “begged my people for a job. Turned her down twice and she went hostile. Major loser, zero credibility!” Jacobus insisted that she was asked to apply and withdrew over her disagreement with Trump’s then-campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski. The court ruled that such tweets are manifestly opinion and not facts for the purposes of defamation law.

“Trump’s characterization of plaintiff as having ‘begged’ for a job is reasonably viewed as a loose, figurative, and hyperbolic reference to plaintiff’s state of mind and is therefore, not susceptible of objective verification . . . To the extent that the word ‘begged’ can be proven to be a false representation of plaintiff’s interest in the position, the defensive tone of the tweet, having followed plaintiff’s negative commentary about Trump, signals to readers that plaintiff and Trump were engaged in a petty quarrel.”

Courts have repeatedly stressed that parties should not try to litigate such differences of opinion in courts. In Ollman v. Evans 750 F.2d 970 (D.C. Cir. 1984), Novak and Evans wrote a scathing opinion piece that labeled a professor a Marxist who used his classroom for revolutionary purposes. The column goes on to take apart Ollman’s past writings, including what Ollman stated were clear misrepresentations. The court acknowledges that “the most troublesome statement in the column . . . [is] an anonymous political science professor is quoted as saying: ‘Ollman has no status within the profession but is a pure and simple activist.’”  Nevertheless, Judge Kenneth Starr wrote for the D.C. Circuit in finding no basis for defamation. This passage would seem relevant for secondary posters and activists using the article to criticize the family:

The reasonable reader who peruses an Evans and Novak column on the editorial or Op-Ed page is fully aware that the statements found there are not “hard” news like those printed on the front page or elsewhere in the news sections of the newspaper. Readers expect that columnists will make strong statements, sometimes phrased in a polemical manner that would hardly be considered balanced or fair elsewhere in the newspaper. National Rifle Association v. Dayton Newspaper, Inc., supra, 555 F.Supp. at 1309. That proposition is inherent in the very notion of an “Op-Ed page.” Because of obvious space limitations, it is also manifest that columnists or commentators will express themselves in condensed fashion without providing what might be considered the full picture. Columnists are, after all, writing a column, not a full-length scholarly article or a book. This broad understanding of the traditional function of a column like Evans and Novak will therefore predispose the average reader to regard what is found there to be opinion.

A reader of this particular Evans and Novak column would also have been influenced by the column’s express purpose. The columnists laid squarely before the reader their interest in ending what they deemed a “frivolous” debate among politicians over whether Mr. Ollman’s political beliefs should bar him from becoming head of the Department of Government and Politics at the University of Maryland. Instead, the authors plainly intimated in the column’s lead paragraph that they wanted to spark a more appropriate debate within academia over whether Mr. Ollman’s purpose in teaching was to indoctrinate his students. Later in the column, they openly questioned the measure or method of Professor Ollman’s scholarship. Evans and Novak made it clear that they were not purporting to set forth definitive conclusions, but instead meant to ventilate what in their view constituted the central questions raised by Mr. Ollman’s prospective appointment.

The association also raises collateral claims like emotional distress. However, those claims run directly counter to Supreme Court cases. One such case is Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011). I previously wrote that such lawsuits are a direct threat to free speech, though I had serious problems with the awarding of costs to the church in a prior column.  I was therefore gladdened by the Supreme Court ruling 8-1 in favor of the free speech in the case, even if it meant a victory for odious Westboro Church. Roberts held that the distasteful message cannot influence the message:

“Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and — as it did here — inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker.” Roberts further noted that “Westboro believes that America is morally flawed; many Americans might feel the same about Westboro. Westboro’s funeral picketing is certainly hurtful and its contribution to public discourse may be negligible. As a nation we have chosen a different course — to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.”

The Court in cases like New York Times v. Sullivan have long limited tort law where it would undermine the first amendment:” Given that Westboro’s speech was at a public place on a matter of public concern, that speech is entitled to “special protection” under the First Amendment.” Ironically, the Lincoln Project could ultimately echo the position of the lone dissenter: Justice Alito. The dissent  gave little credence to concerns over the constitutional rights raised in the case. He insisted that “[i]n order to have a society in which public issues can be openly and vigorously debated, it is not necessary to allow the brutalization of innocent victims like petitioner.”

Ironically, even the media recently has been seeking to broaden their own protections for what constitutes opinion in the characterization of actions as in the recent Veritas litigation.

This is not a close question in my view. There is no basis for this action based on the use of such common terms.

Group Libel

The complaint is filed on behalf of the organization but reads like a group libel action for every Asian American.  They are seeking damages on behalf of every Asian American.

Such lawsuits are very difficult to maintain.  In Neiman-Marcus v. Lait (1952), a New York federal district court addressed a defamation claim arising from the publication of the book “U.S.A. Confidential.” The author wrote that “some” models and “all” saleswomen at the Neiman-Marcus department store in Dallas were “call girls.” It also claimed that “most” of the salesmen in the men’s store were “faggots.” The store had nine models, 382 saleswomen and 25 salesmen. The court found the size of the group of women was too big to satisfy a group libel standard. However, the size of the group of salesmen was viewed as sufficiently small to go to trial.  This was one of the very view successful cases and it was only partially successful (decades ago).

A claim of defamation of every Asian American (the majority of whom are not Chinese) would seem ripe for dismissal under these cases.


A third problem is the nexus of the injury from these statements to the injuries experienced by all Asian Americans. Putting aside the claim that this organization should be able to claim the right to argue for all Asian Americans, it suggests that not only were all of these millions of citizens injured in the same way but that the injury is directly tied to Trump. These terms are ubiquitous and used by an array of public figures and commentators.

There are other problems in this complaint, but it is difficult to see the complaint surviving a motion to dismiss on any of these grounds alone. The question is whether President Trump will seek Rule 11 sanctions. Much like the insurrection lawsuits by figures like Rep. Eric Swalwell and Rep. Maxine Waters, this lawsuit could afford Trump an opportunity not only to highlight allegedly frivolous legal claims made against him but to get a ruling on his use of these controversial terms.  He might even seek to get a court opinion that the use of the term could be supported under a truth defense as the presumed origin of the virus.  For Asian Americans, such a ruling would undermine their continuing campaign against the use of these terms.

In my view, this lawsuit was not just politically ill-advised but legally unfounded. Some would likely differ in that assessment based on different readings of this precedent.  The issue is whether the cases are so clear that no reasonable lawyer would file such an action. That is a high standard and itself can be fraught with subjectivity.  The Chinese American Civil Rights Coalition could claim that these standards are not cut and dry on what constitutes opinion so it had a good-faith basis for the filing. While I do not see any chance of prevailing in the lawsuit, some judges could conclude that, while weak, these claims satisfy the minimum showing necessary under Rule 11. A court could also avoid the sensitive political elements by dismissing the case while rejecting sanctions. Nevertheless, Trump was given the advantage and can file a good-faith motion under Rule 11.

362 thoughts on “New Lawsuit Against Trump Could Backfire Over The Use of Labels Like “China Virus” and ‘Wuhan Flu””

  1. What a setup. First the groundwork was laid. Has anyone noticed all the attention recently put forth by the Democratic Party and the MSM concerning attacks on Asians? The stage has been set and now the attacks on Trump for calling it the China flu have begun. Because Trump called it the Wuhan flu he must be racist. The Democrats have made their living race baiting Blacks so why not use the same tactics to try to win over Asians? They know how good it feels to be a victim. Has anyone noticed that the majority of Attacks on Asians are made by Black men? What does it matter when you’ve got a narrative to sell? The Democrats are just afraid of Trump and the 74,000,000 Americans who voted for him. They don’t attack people who have no power.

    1. The Democrats are afraid of the 74,000,000 who voted for Trump because they’re afraid of that many Americans who seem to have lost any sense of integrity or intelligence.

      Sue Trump for whatever reason you can.

      Pile it on.

      Bury him in legal bills and BS.

      One can only hope that Trump has the same effect on the Republican Party that Hitler had on the Nazi Party.

      1. Sorry Ben, I forgot that you are one of the chosen ones. As to your comparison to Hitler, the Nazis took men, women and children into the woods and shot so many of them in the back of the head that the clothing of the shooters was covered with blood and bone fragments. Your trivialization of such events to make your little points shows your lack of historical education and any real empathy for the victims. Your suggestion to use the law to attack ones political enemies was a well used tactic by the Hitler and Stalin regimes. The more you post the more we know.

        1. My great uncle Emmanuel Schafer was “the Butcher of Belgrade.” He murdered 7,000+ Jews and other undesirables in a Sauer gas van in Belgrade, Serbia.

          On the other hand, my father is descended from Romanian/Transylvanian gypsy Jews and some of them were probably killed by the Nazis.

          So I wonder: How could the Germans do that?

          But the support for Trump by the dumbest, most gullible 50% of America helps me understand how the German people could have supported Nazism and Hitler out of ignorance, arrogance, fear, racism, greed, sutpidity, insecurity, laziness and self interest.

          Trump was and is a buffoon and not nearly as dangerous as Hitler, but still…..

          One can only hope Trump has the same effect on the Republican party that Hitler had on the Nazi party.

          1. Ben, first you compare Trump to Hitler and now you say he isn’t as bad as Hitler. Next you compare Trump supporters to Germans under Hitler. Will you tell us now that Trump supporters are not as bad as Germans under Hitler. If these things are true then why make the comparison at all. You recommend using the law as it was practiced in Nazi Germany to attack political enemies. To you frivolous attacks don’t matter as long as your cause is bolstered. You only tone down the rhetoric when your made to look the fool. The more you post the more we know.

            1. No that’s the scary thing.

              Trump is a buffoon but his supporters are really at fault.

              No American should be that dumb and/or gullible.

              So Trump might not have been as scary as Hitler but Trump supporters are as scary as Hitler supporters.

              That’s my point.

              Trump supporters are a bunch of saps on a Trump Casino Bus wearing stupid hats being herded to a Trump Casino thinking he’s going to make them rich.

              He’s not.

              He’s only going to enrich himself.

              Was it PT Barnum or WC Fields who said “There’s a sucker born every minute?”

              There are 74 million suckers in America.

          2. If you are looking to understand hitler, and the Germans, or Stalin, or Mao, or Chavez, or …

            Look to the left – not the right.

            Genocide always comes from zealots on the left.

            The reason for this is that acepting leftist ideology requires rejecting reality.
            Once you learn how to ignore the cognative disonance of leftism – genocide is easy.

            You have called Trump supporters dumb.

            Yet they did not beleive or sell the colusion delusion.
            They did not beleive or sell the Rusian bounty nonsense.
            They did not beleive or sell the nonsense about lockdowns.
            They were skeptical that C19 came from chinese wet markets.
            They did not beleive Hunter Bidens laptop was russian disinformation.

            On these and hundreds of other issues – YOU, and the left have been WRONG – over and over.

            As I have said repeately – tin foil hat Alex Jones has been right more than left media anchors.
            He has been right more than YOU – and Jones is bat$hit crazy.

            Regardless, you should not be calling others stupid.

            If Trump supporters have an average IQ of 100 – yours is 80.

            1. I totally agree sir…Marcus and followers dismiss all of us who disagree with him as being stupid or mentally ill…he should read the book Hillbilly Elegy by J.D. Vance…just because we have a southern accent…live in the hills…went to public schools…farm…hunt and fish…drive pick-up trucks…go to church every Sunday…probably drink to much sometimes…especially good moonshine and Tennessee whisky…love our families and raise them to be good citizens…struggle financially…live in trailers sometimes…homeless sometimes…served in the armed forces…does NOT mean we are stupid…it just means we are patriots and want freedom and just left alone in peace…we are honest hard working country folks…just don’t make us mad by living in some mental ivory tower thinking you can control us…now that would be very STUPID!…if you slap me I will turn my cheek only once but if you slap me twice I will fight you until God takes me home…and that’s a promise!

              1. HJF, Marcus is a liar, braggart and story teller. When asked to prove a singular point he won’t. He has more than one alias appearing and reappearing in different forms but remains the same liar, braggart and story teller.

              2. How is it that some of the purportedly stupidest people in the country – most lacking a college degree, have over the past several years been right more often than anyone else ?

                I am sorry the collusion delusion was an IQ test – and the left failed.

                There is very little one needed to know to grasp that Putin favored Clinton not Trump.

                Russian oligarchs gave the Clinton Foundation $140M dollars.
                Bill Clinton received a 1/2M speaking fee from Russia.
                Trump desparately wanted to build a Trump tower in Moscow and that never happened.

                Russian power is dependant on dominance in oil and natural gas.

                Trump’s policies on energy were harmful to Russia
                Clinton’s were beneficial.

                Unless you beleive that Putin does not give a $hit about the interests of his own people.

                No person with a brain would conclude that Russia wanted Trump.

                Trump begged Putin to release emails from Clintons basement mail server.
                Russia with certainty had them.
                If Putin whated Trump elected – the release of a single classified email would have put Clinton in jail.

                You have to be retarded to beleive Putin wanted trump.

                Yet, myriads of purported intelligent people bought that nonsense.

                Why would anyone want people who can beleive such total nonsense to have any power at all ?

                The country would be far safer in the hands of Vance’s people.

          1. Nope.

            He’s real.

            Sitting at Whole Foods in Malibu, listening to Shelly playing her banjo, waiting for Coty to get out of the surf, enjoying the sunshine, arguing politics online with a bunch of know-nothing, right-wing numbskulls.

          2. HESW

            Agree and hope that Marcus is a troll.

            Anybody who brags about his great uncle like that has sociopathic tendencies.

            Seems like an ugly person.

            1. I wasn’t bragging. Just pointing out a historical/ancestral fact to make a point that went sailing way over your pointy little head.

          3. He’s a cut and paste wizard, sourcing the stuff from someone else that’s pulling his strings, He too unware to know he’s being used.

            1. He too unaware?


              It’s proper spelling and grammar that distinguish us from the Mongol races.


              Ain’t nothing there but steers and craft beers.

              Iowa. Right.

      2. Ben Marcus is the direct and mortal enemy of America and the Constitution.

        Ben Marcus is a communist desirous of the full implementation of the Communist Manifesto and the “dictatorship of the proletariat.”

        Ben Marcus is terrified of the scope, breadth and dominion of American constitutional freedom and free enterprise.

      3. Ben Marcus. That’s a false premise. You’re presenting your opinion, that if someone voted for Trump they have no integrity or intelligence, as if it were a fact.

        Since it’s not, what you’re really doing is false logic.

        Think for a minute about what this Democrat bigoted behavior towards conservative means, since your premise that those millions of people are stupid and without integrity is wrong.

        It’s just the Left punishing political dissidents, by dehumanizing them and abusing the legal system, as they have in totalitarian regimes multiple times throughout history. Don’t be a useful tool doing their dirty propaganda work.

      4. Ben,

        You have learned nothing.

        Stormy Daniels went after Trump. She ended up paying his legal bills.

        If you file lawsuits without sufficient justification or you continue them after any justification has evaporated – then YOU are going to be the one with the insurmountable legal bills.

        An I agree with many on the left – we need to end Qualified immunity – so that we can hold PROSECUTORS who persue criminal complaints where there is no basis accountable.

        If you use the power of government outside the law – you are lawless, immoral and unethical.
        And should personally be held accountable.

    2. I find the left’s assorted nonsense hypocritical and idiotic.

      My children are Asian – most of the prejudice they face is from blacks.

      The plurality of attacks on Asians come from blacks.

      The left fawns over asians – except when it hates them.

      The left rants constantly about the plight of blacks in this country.
      The chinese exclusion act barred asians from coming to the US for almost a century.
      When they did they were restricted to narrow bits of the country.

      Unlike other ethnic groups China Towns did not arise because chinese people like to live together but because they were not allowered to live elsewhere.

      It was not until 1965 that any consequential immigration of asians was allowed.

      The left says Trump prefers white people to brown people.

      Yet few whites immigrate to the US – the largest immigrant group is asians.
      And there were few restrictions on asian immigration while Trump was president.

      The left fawns over arabs and muslims. Yet these are among the most intolerant people in the world.

      Fred Phelps is more tolerant of homosexuality than moderates in islam.

      We have spent 60 years fawning over a sub group of the palestinians.
      There are plenty of palestinians living in Israel, with fun rights of citizenship.
      These are the ones who never left, and they are accepted in Israel.

      Those who chose to leave, who chose to fight with Egypt and Jordan and Syria against israel
      Have not been allowed to return to israel.

      The israelis have graciously allowed them to create their own country in the parts of israel that were recaptured after the 1948 war.

      Instead these palestinians want to continue war with israel.
      They attack and murder israeli’s – and are surprised when Israel attacks back.

      The US gallumfed all over the mideast crushing nations right and left over 19 hijackers attacking us in 2001.
      And the left was on board with this at the time – and far too many still are.

      Yet Israel is not allowed to defend its own people, from groups that still seek to exterminate them ?

      Only a leftist could buy or sell this rot.

      All arabs and muslims are not evil.
      But the most intolerant culture in the world – outside the american left, is muslim.

  2. Go look up all the montages of reporters all across the media, from CNN to MSNBC, repeatedly calling it the “Chinese virus”, and similar.

    This is nothing but a push by the CCP to deflect criticism for its behavior both in the source, and its initial handling, of the virus that caused a global pandemic, plowed economies into the ground, impoverished, and killed people all over the world.

    This is also why any attempts to investigate the BSL4 lab that studied gain of function in zoonotic bat coronaviruses, and which turned out papers on weaponizing a SARS virus, are called racist. Can’t have the world looking too closely into that line of questioning. Look out, Australia. China might bomb you for asking too many questions or have an opinion on Taiwan.

  3. China deliberately released “China Flu, 2019” to reduce its elderly population, oppose the reelection of President Donald J. Trump and adversely affect the West.

    “China is missing 500,000,000 – 700,000,000 tax payers, potential military and labor under forty years old because of their famous One Child Only Policy. Their labor force began to shrink for the first time two years ago and their demographic dividend will certainly fade. Theoretically China could fix this issue with immigration but they would have to annex Indonesia completely, three times. And besides they are xenophobic. Their decline will be slow and certain and cannot be reversed. Regarding their apparent success in all categories, consider the source of the data.”

    – Anonymous Demographer

    “Aging of China”

    “China’s population is aging faster than almost all other countries in modern history.[1][2] In 2050, the proportion of Chinese over retirement age will become 39 percent of the total population. China is rapidly aging at an earlier stage of its development than other countries. Current demographic trends could hinder economic growth and create challenging social problems in China.[1]”

    – Wiki

    Through multiple redundant systems, it was virtually impossible for “China Flu, 2019” to escape from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, if that were the intent of the operators and communist government.

    Alternatively, China caused massive, global, physical and financial destruction by “accidentally” releasing “China Flu, 2019” through gross negligence and dereliction.

    China is directly liable for scores of trillions of dollars of damages globally.

    China can, may and must NOT be allowed to escape its direct and irrefutably responsibility for scores of trillions of dollars worth of global destruction caused by its witting or unwitting release of “China Flu, 2019.”

    Affected countries, in the International Court of Justice or an ad hoc forum, must litigate, or devise an adverse and hostile “treaty,” to assign responsibility for damages and to demand and require payment/compensation for the prodigious and historic damages caused by China.

    The Spanish Flu – Another China Flu – China was the origin – It was named the Spanish Flu because Spain was the only country in wartime with a free press and Spain is where publication of the news of the outbreak began.

    Hong Kong Flu – China was the origin.

    SARS – From China; bats, animals.

    Black Plague – From the Black Sea – The plague emerged into Europe from the Black Sea.

    Polio – Natural virus – improved hygiene delayed exposure which stopped infants from contracting polio early and forming antibodies.

    Swine Flu – From Mexican pigs.

    Salk Vaccine – Polio

    Sabine Vaccine – Polio

    Trump Vaccine – China Flu, 2019

  4. Ludicrous. Next, Spain will be filing claims against USA for the use of “Spanish Flu,” which BTW, didn’t originate in Spain.

    I think Covid should be referred to as Wuhan-Lab Virus. Or, more appropriately, Wuhan-Lab Virus Bioweapon.

    1. A lawsuit by Louisiana Cajuns and New Englanders of French descent against everyone who uses the term French fries (to denote a food that is understood to cause health problems) would be similarly meritorious.

    2. The left demands control of language – shades of 1984.

      This rot is the result of the crappy education we inflict on our children.

      If you do not teach them truth, facts, history responsibiity,
      they will have to learn all of these the hard way.

      Unfortunately the rest of us must suffer too as they learn

  5. “What is most interesting about this lawsuit is how it is arguably meritless under both tort and constitutional law. However, there has been little pushback from a host of lawyers who have spent months calling for sanctions against Republican lawyers for filing lawsuits viewed legally or factually meritless.”

    Let’s make it easy:

    The normal FRCP Rule 11 standard does not apply when fighting for “social justice”. It only applies in the other direction.

    Similar to “mostly peacefully protesting” to the tune of $2 billion in damages in the summer of 2020 or blocking highways. Laws against such behavior only apply to “fascists” and all right thinking people know that a “fascist” is anyone who disagrees with the leftist message of social justice.


    1. It’s just a nuisance suit to nuisance a nuisance.

      Everyone should sue Trump.

      America should file a class-action lawsuit against Trump for failed leadership.

      1. Ben, anyone calling for mass lawsuits against people they disagree with should beware of karma. Your words are ill chosen, fascistic, juvenile and moronic. But hey, keep doing you.

        1. Well everyone is suing Trump, from the Chinese to the SDNY.

          I hope the family of the cop killed during the Capitol riot sues Trump.


          Karma is working its magic on Trump right now.

          All we need is a tsunami to take out Mar A Lago.

          That would be a nice bit of karma.

          1. It would be hard for that officer to sue.
            Because he was not killed by or during the capital protest.

            The only one killed was Alishi and she was murdered.

            But then those on the left do not care about the facts.

      2. I’m guessing that you didn’t follow the “real” news about all the good done for the USA during the Trump administration! That was when “make America great again” was the mantra — but now followed by “make America LAST again” due to the controllers/minders of biden during the last 4 +months.

  6. I wonder if the CCP is contributing human or financial resources to this suit?

    1. Young, in different ways the CCP has been contributing both human and financial resources to so many things that I am forced to believe that in some way they are contributing to this as well.

    2. Who cares ?

      This is a problem of both the left and the right.

      We spent 4 years ranting that Russia “interfered in our election” – by doing WHAT ?

      Did they screw with our election systems ? If so that is an act of war and should be dealt with.

      Did they attempt to persaude people ? That is something they are free to do and we can not stop should we want to.

      If the CCP is funding legal attacks on Trump – so what. There is no basis for this case.
      Trump should receive legal fees – from the CP if they are involved.

      At the same time – as a political move Trump should donate ON HIS OWN the amount requested to asains int eh way HE chooses.

      And continue to call Covid the Chinese virus.

      This is a stupid lawsuit it is far to easily turned on those pushing it.

  7. Professorm what is Old Dominion’s Problem with Trump?? Did they lose one of his OTH shipments?

  8. The Courts as a partisan institution – sounds like a 21st Century poli sci class

  9. First, why does Prof. Turley insist on repeating himself in his blog? He keeps referring to what he’s protested in the past, making his posts practically monotonous. Now, just what is an “Asian American,” a “Mexican American,” an “Italian American” an “African American,” etc. and etc. Except for African used for blacks, such terms are of fairly recent origin. Yes, Chines and Japanese were referred to by the land of their ancestry but they weren’t called “Chinese American” or “Japanese American” until the media started using the terms. (The media is responsible for ALL of the linguistical baloney in this country.) Look, the real question is just where do these peoples real loyalties lie? If they are immigrants, why do they continue to identify with the countries or regions they came from if they really want to be American? Just what, exactly, have Asians “contributed” to the United States? Yes, Chinese laborers were brought to California to work on the western section of the transcontinental railroad but the eastern portion was built by Europeans for the most part. Slaves from Africa tended tobacco and, later, cotton. In short, Chinese and Africans performed jobs that today are performed by machines; they made no contribution to the building of the nation as a whole. I’m happy to have their descendants here but bear in mind that the vast majority of blacks go back for many generations in America and are only associated with Africa because their ancestors came from there hundreds of years ago. Chinese are more recent immigrants but there are millions of Americans of Chinese ancestry whose families have been here for many generations; the same goes for Japanese. Personally, I suspect this group has connections to the Chinese government, the Chinese Communist Party, and their intent is to stir strife for political purposes, not to actually seek any kind of retribution. Incidentally, the situation with Japanese immigrants in World War II was complicated because many had divided loyalties. By the way, the Japanese units in World War II were made up of Nisei, young Americans of Japanese ancestry and in ever case but one, they were used exclusively in Europe. (The exception was an aerial gunner from Nebraska who flew missions in B-24s in Europe then managed to get an exception to fly missions over Japan in B-29s.) As for “Mexican-Americans,: there are Americans of Mexican ancestry whose ancestors in what is now the United States go back to the 1840s when Texas became a state and the American Southwest was later ceded to the United States by Mexico as part of the treaty ending the Mexican War and then there are more recent, often illegal, immigrants who have crossed the border more recently and remained here. My personal ancestry in America goes back for thousands of years as well as to the early nineteenth century, as does the ancestry of millions of other Americans. The irony is that so many claim they somehow “built” America when they are really the descendants of people who came to a nation that had already been built so they could profit by it. If someone really wants to be American, drop the prefixes. By the way, there are no “native” Americans or native anywhere else. The human population is made up of migrants.

    1. Dude don’t hold back, just come out and say what you really think: “Let’s nuke all the n@$$Ers and Ch@$$s and Sp@$s and J@#ps and anyone with the bad taste to not be born white.

      Kill ’em all, let Trump sort ’em out.

      1. I’m betting that most of those who post on this site today are hoping that you are getting mental health care. It’s hard to believe that a well person would post your 2 items today.

        1. That was facetiousness. Facetiousism. I was being facetious.

          Next time you’re on the Home Shopping Network, buy a sense of humor.

    2. Semcgowanjr:

      “Look, the real question is just where do these peoples real loyalties lie? If they are immigrants, why do they continue to identify with the countries or regions they came from if they really want to be American?”

      Whenever I hear Nativists complain about how Mexican or Muslim immigrants will not assimilate, I wonder why they don’t ask why the Amish and the Mennonites won’t get with the program? Those groups along with the Hasidim do everything they can NOT to assimilate to the modern West culture! And yet no complaints on the Right.

      Personally, I’m against assimilation. I like San Francisco’s Chinatown. I enjoy hearing foreign languages, and I don’t mind being stuck behind a horse and buggy while motoring through Amish country!

      1. “Whenever I hear Nativists complain about how Mexican or Muslim immigrants”

        Jeff’s use of numbers and comparisons is abominable. All three communities Jeff talks about represent a tiny percent of the American population. For the most part, they speak English, obey the law, stay where they live, and are not actively advocating to change the government into a despotic one similar to the government they fled.

      2. The Amish and Mennonites produce more than they consume, and their net productivity is greater than that of the average American. Why would we want them to assimilate downward?

        1. William_JD says:

          “The Amish and Mennonites produce more than they consume, and their net productivity is greater than that of the average American. Why would we want them to assimilate downward?”

          I did NOT suggest so! I was wondering why Nativists demand that all Muslim immigrants assimilate, but they are not insisting that the Amish and Haredi give up their 18th and 19th Century lifestyles.

          1. Admit it Anonymous the Stupid. You didn’t know what you were talking about. Now you are all about excuses. That is why you post under an anonymous name and have so many pretend friends.

          2. Americans do not demand that anyone assimilate – up or down.

            They merely expect that you do not come here with the intent to convert the country into the $hithole you came from.
            If so – then do us all a favor and stay where you were.

            This country has a higher standard of living than nearly all of the world because of its principles and values.

            IF you come here for the higher standard of living – do not trash the values that produced them.

  10. A nuisance suit for a nuisance.

    I actually agree with Trump on this one.

    Why isn’t China being held responsible for launching a virus and a pandemic that has killed millions and caused tens of trillions in economic damages?

    Why didn’t Blinken sound China on that in Alaska?

    Chuck Fina – a grotesquely overpopulated country forced to eat bats to feed 1.4 billion people every day.

    1. What are you ? Two ?

      The chinese are not “forced to eat bats”.
      China is one of the worlds largest food producers and the 4th largest food exporter in the world.
      Behind the US, the UK and Germany.
      The US BTW exports as much food as the UK, Germany and China combined.

      The Chinese have different tastes in food that americans.

      At this point the Zoonotic theory of Covid 19 is pretty close to dead.
      It is near certain that C19 did not come from chinese “wet” markets.

      BTW it is likely that as we move into laboratory grown meat that even americans are likely to consume ever more exotic meats.

      The Chinese government – like all big governments made errors that resulted in C19 gaining a foothold both in China and throughout the world.

      Why didn’t Blinken ….. ?

      Because the children are in charge of the country and they have no clue what they are doing.

      With respect to stupid claims of “overpopulation” – please learn some facts.

      With current technology that is already in use atleast in the US, using only the land currently used for farming, we are capable of feeding a global population of 50-80B people.

      Since 1965 when the population bomb was first published, there are more than twice as many people in the world, they consume twice as many calories per day – starvation globally only exists today as a result of government failures.
      There is not a country in the world that can not feed its own people without importing food – absent wars, warlords and other stupidity from government.

      And we are doing this on LESS farmland than in 1965.

      Today only a small portion of the worlds land is used for food production – small increases in that would radically increase the number of people we could feed.

      Next from 1975 until a few years ago China’s infamous “one child policy” resulted in the murder of 350M children

      Watch “One Child Nation” – it is available on Amazon.

      1. Sure. I used to hang out with one of Norman Borlaug’s granddaughters. Thanks for nothing!

  11. Trump should flip this and actually give $22.9M to promite Asian American culture – HIS Way.
    And keep calling C19 the Wuhan or CCP virus.

    1. I only use the term “CCP virus.” When someone, as a clerk in a store, asks what I mean I use the long form: Chinese COMMUNIST Party virus.

  12. My advice to Trump would be to LOUDLY do exactly as the group asks and to donate 22.9M to the Asian American Cultural advancement of HIS choice, and to continue to call the virus the “Wuhan virus” the CCP Virus, etc.

    It is a FACT that China mishandled Covid initially. that china was more concerned with supressing what was going on than stopping it.

    That it thwarted full inquiry into its origins.

    Ultimately there appears to be plenty of guilt to go arround. Plenty of americans were involved in the Gain of Function research that may have lead to this.

    But we can not learn from our mistakes if we do not have the information to confront them.

    Initially we were told that this came entirely from nature.

    It is increasingly unlikely that is true.

    Most of the lab leak proponents argue that this was an accidental leak, and that it was in health research.

    But there are dark shadows that suggest that what is being hidden is a military bioweapons program – that the US participated in.
    That appears to be less likely – but only a few months ago the lab leak theory was debunked.
    Now it is the more probable.

  13. It seems as though global warming doesn’t melt political “snowflakes.”

  14. What about the ‘Indian Variant’ and ‘South African Variant’ of Covid. The only country we are never to mention is the country where it originated. Stuff it.

    1. The only country we are never to mention is the country where it originated
      You know who controls you by who you cannot mock. So those with the real power here in the United States are doing the bidding of China. Try to wrap your head around that when you identify the Lawyers and Judges that are participating.

  15. Were Trump’s statements factual and reasonable?
    PolitiFact removes 2020 report stating theory that COVID leaked for Wuhan lab ‘debunked conspiracy’
    PolitiFact added an editor’s note Monday retracting the “pants on fire” claim.

    PolitiFact, a Pulitzer Prize winning fact check group, has retracted a September 2020 report calling a Hong Kong virologist’s analysis that COVID-19 originated in a lab a “debunked conspiracy theory.”

    “The claim is inaccurate and ridiculous,” the original fact check reads, according to The Epoch Times. “We rate it Pants on Fire!”

    An editor’s note Monday said the group has removed but archived the original statement.
    House GOP report: Likely U.S. engaged in ‘dangerous’ research in China, COVID escaped lab
    Nunes cites “overwhelming circumstantial evidence” of lab leak, asks U.S. intel to reveal what it knew, and when.

    [Fauci involvement in other articles]

    House Intelligence Committee Republicans reported Wednesday evening they believe the U.S. government has engaged in “dangerous scientific research with China” that lends increasing credibility to the theory that COVID-19 may have accidentally leaked from a lab in Wuhan as early as October 2019. …
    • A U.S. State Department memo from January revealing that “several researchers at the Wuhan lab were sickened with COVID-19-like symptoms in fall 2019.”
    • Media reports that there was no cell phone activity inside the WIV between Oct. 7, 2019 and Oct. 24, 2019, suggesting a possible shutdown or blackout at the facility.
    • Warnings from U.S. diplomats in China in 2017 that the Wuhan lab was “conducting dangerous research on coronaviruses without following necessary safety protocols, risking the accidental outbreak of a pandemic.”
    • A recent scientific study concluding that COVID-19 has “several characteristics that, when taken together, are not easily explained by a natural zoonotic origin hypothesis.”
    • China has a history of viral leaks from its research labs, including one in 2004 in Beijing tied to an outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome, an earlier coronavirus known as SARs.

    “Significant circumstantial evidence raises serious concerns that the COVID19 outbreak may have been a leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology,” the GOP report stated, adding it was “crucial for health experts and the U.S. Government to understand how the COVID-19 virus originated.”…

    The report also cited work funded by Dr. Anthony Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases that appeared to directly or indirectly involve controversial “gain of function” research in which coronaviruses were made “more infectious in humans.” The report confirmed earlier reporting by Just the News.

  16. Can you imagine what life in America will be like if the Lefties have their way?

    Conservatives cowed into silence by meritless lawsuits bankrupting them; conservative demonstrators being raided by the FBI using “no-knock” warrants, and liberal censors canceling the disfavored.

    In short, a Facist regime.

    We have to teach them American ways – even if we have to use German methods.

    1. “In short, a Facist regime.”

      Perhaps a Faucist regime? (Fauci ist)

    2. Monument,

      You are a class act! Turley must be so very proud to have you as one of his admirers.

  17. Does the group that is suing Trump have any nexus to the Democrat Party? Would love to know…and, what are the politics of the attorneys who would bring such a flimsy lawsuit? The only merit seems to be that by sung Trump, they garner headlines and talking head attention.

Comments are closed.