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....
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.
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.
People Are Lying To You About The Trump Indictment ( popehat.substack.com )
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....