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.
Calling out lies as lies, not mere differences of opinions, is justified and this author does a good job of pointing out two direct lies. I’ve always respected the “you can have your own opinion, but you can’t have your own facts” mentality. That’s basically all he’s saying.
First, he points out that some coverage indicates the laws used to prosecute Trump are ONLY for Civil War era crimes. Which is just complete bullshit and deserves to be called out. That would be like saying the financial regulatory overhauls that came from 2008 are ONLY applicable to the 2008 crisis. Laws may be enacted for a specific purposes, but they can and should be applied to future wrongs.
Second, he points out that some coverage indicates there is a legal requirement for specific monetary connections. But that just isn’t true under the statutes used for the charges, and the report he’s pointing to literally cites an entirely unrelated statute and precedent. Once again, this is not a difference of interpretation. It is an intentional misleading of their audience and refusal to acknowledge the truth. It deserves to be called out for what it is.
Critical thinking is being lost. Pieces like this that call out bold-faced lies are valuable and I wish more journalists (and debate moderators) would be willing to do so with the same brutality as this piece.
They’re all lying to you, but you can trust me. Said every blogger ever
You can tell which ones are lying to you when you check their sources. And if they don’t offer any, you shouldn’t trust what they’re saying.
Simping for liars isn’t a great look.
I think in this case it’s a pretty fair post - tl;dr: the blogger doesn’t offer a view on whether or not Trump broke the law, only that his actions could plausibly be illegal based on the sections of the constitution used to prosecute him, and that it’s not an obvious win for the prosecutors as it depends on the state of mind that led to the actions.
It doesn’t depend at all on “Trump’s state of mind”. We know that his coup was preplanned before the election. And it is his actions that will be prosecuted.
Reminder that Steve Bannon frankly confessed Trump’s Start the Steal conspiracy plans to a group of Trump insiders before the election.
https://www.npr.org/2022/07/22/1112138665/jan-6-committee-hearing-transcript
…audio from Trump advisor, Steve Bannon, surfaced from October 31st, 2020, just a few days before the Presidential election.
Let’s listen. [Begin Videotape]
STEVE BANNON: And what Trump’s going to do is declare victory, right? He’s going to declare victory, but that doesn’t mean he’s a winner. He’s just gonna say he’s a winner. The Democrats — more of our people vote early that count. Theirs vote in mail. And so they’re going to have a natural disadvantage and Trump’s going to take advantage — that’s our strategy.
He’s gonna declare himself a winner. So when you wake up Wednesday morning, it’s going to be a firestorm. Also — also if Trump is — if Trump is losing by 10 or 11:00 at night, it’s going to be even crazier. Because he’s gonna sit right there and say they stole it. If Biden’s wining, Trump is going to do some crazy shit.
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.
This isn’t some random unknown blogger though, Ken White and the others at Popehat have pretty good track records
In peace there’s nothing so becomes an opinion writer as charity and humility.
Solid article, but what the FUCK is this opening sentence?
deleted by creator
