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.