And Mann has stated he will appeal the verdict REGARDLESS of the result. He & his deep-pocketed friends want to drag National Review back into court. Basically he’s trying to bankrupt any conservative entity that dares to criticize him.
Whoever is paying for this should be sued for "maintenance." It's not clear if this tort is still recognized in the District of Columbia, but maybe there's a connection with another jurisdiction.
Some excerpts from Wikipedia:
Champerty and maintenance are doctrines in common law jurisdictions that aim to preclude frivolous litigation:
• Maintenance is the intermeddling of a disinterested party to encourage a lawsuit. It is: "A taking in hand, a bearing up or upholding of quarrels or sides, to the disturbance of the common right."
In Giles v Thompson, Lord Justice Steyn declared: "In modern idiom maintenance is the support of litigation by a stranger without just cause. ...
At common law, maintenance and champerty were both crimes and torts …. ... Champertous contracts can still, depending on jurisdiction, be void for public policy or attract liability for costs.
This concept exists in American jurisprudence but is disdained by "fans of entrepreneurial lawyering in the academy and elsewhere".[27]