As I said (repeatedly now) I doubt he can prove it. But the lawsuit is not frivolous merely because a plaintiff has a high hurdle to overcome.
His claim is a legally valid one - subject to the usual requirement for a plaintiff to persuade a judge.
Also - it’s not just stuff that one could class as satire or parody, he’s suing about. Sure most of it is, but there’s also stuff in there which is flat out accusations that he’s committed crimes.
The pleading is a bloated mess of crap that any sensible judge should require be trimmed to a core of actually potentially actionable statements asap but there is some stuff in there that goes beyond satire or parody or mere political comment.
I also wouldn’t take whether any particular person was sued over something by someone or not as a guide to whether what was said was actionable.
Especially in the field of defamation of political figures there are all sorts of reasons why people don’t sue.
Among them is the difficulty of proving your case to the required standard but also the utter pointlessness of it.
Whether you sue or not doesn’t change whether people believe it. If there was going to be any damage, it’s already been done. If you do sue, it looks like your opponents got to you. You also draw a lot more attention to the story and you look petty and vindictive even though you are the one claiming to have been wronged. You spend a lot of money and time fighting a case which you’re never going to get any real benefit out of - time and money you could be spending doing other more productive stuff.
It’s generally a bad idea. But some people you just can’t help. So you get what we have here…
And of course some are just petty and vindictive or genuinely think there’s a massive conspiracy out to get them.
