There’s a very broad range of plausible arguments about how to read American law. Saying “my interpretation is that this violates the First Amendment” or “I think the better reading is that obstruction of an official proceeding requires violence or perjury” are not lies, even if they are bad arguments.

But some people are absolutely lying to you about the law and how it applies to the indictment of Donald Trump — or, at the most charitable, Cliff Clavening it by speaking confidently from a place of deliberate ignorance.

  • stickyShift@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I probably did a poor job of summarizing, as I’m not a lawyer; here’s the key quote from the article:

    That doesn’t mean that it will be easy for the Special Counsel to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Donald Trump had the requisite mental state to violate the law. It means that his actions plausibly violate the law.

    My point was that contrary to the previous commenter’s implication that anyone telling you to watch out for lies is just going to feed you their own propaganda, this article is fairly objective.