When you lose a case, you can answer the finding or you can rename it. After the Supreme Court declined to hear his appeal on June 29 - leaving in place a jury's finding that he sexually abused and defamed the writer E. Jean Carroll - Donald Trump chose to rename it. "I will continue the fight against this Weaponization and Lawfare Case against me," he wrote, "including the ridiculous claim of Defamation." [1][2][3]

Three words are carrying the whole post. Take them one at a time.

"Weaponization"

The word conjures a weapon, aimed by the powerful at a target. Look at who actually brought this case: E. Jean Carroll, a private citizen, an advice columnist, suing in civil court over what was done to her and what was said about her. [2][3] No prosecutor. No Justice Department. No political party. A civil jury, ordinary people, weighed the evidence and ruled, and an appeals court affirmed. [2] "Weaponization" inverts the picture: in this exchange, the man with the most power is the one who was held to account.

"Lawfare"

"Lawfare" recasts a lawsuit as warfare by other means, litigation as a political weapon. The frame only works if you forget the plaintiff. Carroll did not run against him or prosecute him. She sued the man a jury then found had assaulted and defamed her. A person using the courts to seek a remedy for a harm done to them is not waging war. That is what the courts are for.

"The ridiculous claim of Defamation"

Call a finding "ridiculous" and you are excused from answering it. The defamation claim was sustained by a jury, and there was a second one: a separate jury ordered him to pay $83 million for defaming her. [3] A claim that a jury upholds, an appeals court affirms, and the Supreme Court declines to disturb is, by every available measure, the opposite of ridiculous. [2][3]

The move

The technique is older than this case, and you will see it again before the week is out: relabel a loss as a persecution, so the verdict never has to be addressed and the person who won becomes the aggressor. The receipts run the other way. A private citizen brought a civil claim, juries agreed with her, and the highest court let the judgment stand. [2][3] "Weaponization" is not what happened to him. It is what he would like you to call what happened.