46
votes
People are lying to you and will continue to lie about the merits of the Donald Trump US indictment - be aware
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Title
- People Are Lying To You About The Trump Indictment
- Authors
- Ken White
- Word count
- 2330 words
I think it's really important to notice the goalpost-shifting that occurs here
when Trump was being impeached for his actions on January 6th, his defenders claimed that he shouldn't be impeached, that the proper venue was criminal prosecution.
from the National Review, in 2021:
from an op-ed in the San Diego Union-Tribune, also 2021:
but now that he's facing criminal prosecution, the argument shifts to "this should have been handled by impeachment". these are not serious people, arguing in good faith.
they are also either outright saying bullshit, or incredibly naive, with stuff like this:
Well, really, this is like yelling in a storm. The average reader doesn't have a clue and we're in this mess because the reader can't discern fact from fiction due to a lack of education and time and interest, all things that favor one party in particular.
This article points out what he's actually being charged with versus what has been said he's been charged with. The courts will do what they'll do and the verdict and trial will be understood based on the charges filed. But to the average person the end result will be the same. If he walks free, the justice system will be seen as broken, class warfare will ramp up, government will be seen as corrupt. If he goes to jail, great.
Knowing the finer details of the law doesn't really add or detract from how the readers mind has polarized the thing anyway. All the media has done is tell the reader over and over he's being charged with things and indited with things. What those things are is where most of the population would get a D- at best as they try and guess.
I guess it matters in showing what has had to be done to charge this slippery guy, how politicians evade charges, how the justice department lacks teeth and so forth but maybe someone else can weigh in here.
Does this article sound like it's splitting hairs?
I'm a lawyer and I enjoyed it. Because of my background I can't speak to how interesting it is to others without my background, but there are nerds like me who like to read into specialties that aren't their own.
Edit, also telling a lawyer that they are splitting hairs is a little bit like telling an electrician they risk getting shocked. Hair splitting done correctly or incorrectly has significant legal consequences with real world implications.
I'm busy today and I am going to be offline until Tuesday but if you want to discuss further, we could do that later.
It sounds like Ken White is known to the National Review and what he writes may have some effect on them, so that’s enough reason for him to write it.
For us, I think you’re basically right about the bigger picture. There’s no reason we need to pay attention to this case at all, since we’re unlikely to have any effect on it or on public opinion.
But we can read about things just because we find them interesting. Being curious about how the law works is enough motivation to want to know how it works in this case, since it’s a pretty interesting case. It can also be a jumping-off point for learning more about law in general.
You write really well, and I think most people are glossing past this comment due to that. It seems like you are arguing that no one understands the US legal system, the charges don't really matter, and it's all about the news and how it portrays things.
I don't agree with any of these things.
Thanks for the feedback.
I'm saying outside of scholastic interest, and a pensive "hm...", what would the average reader get from knowing the subtle difference of what Trump is being charged with? Another user made a valid comment and expanded on the author of the article in that we need to point out flaws such as this as part of our defense against weaponized lies and propaganda.
That is a good purpose to the article.
I'm critiquing the article's strong verbature and call to action. Being told we're all being lied to usually leads to some kind of effect. The effect here is almost a philosophical one. The call to action is to understand propaganda happens accidentally, willingly, and subconsciously and it's all dangerous. The anti-virus is us calling out lies 24/7.
The average reader picking this article up wouldn't necessarily get that. I, for example, expected actionable information on what to do upon discovering the lies and got clarification here on the importance of it.
But yes, the average man does not understand how to interpret or navigate the justice system. Or the tax system. Or how voting works. That's all a problem. We're raised by television, now cellphones. We open ourselves up to exploitation and don't even know it because information is still power and we don't have it anymore.
I rather like Mr. White's opening line here:
That really sums up where we're at doesn't it? It cuts right through the hand-wringing about when and under what conditions we can reasonably assume good faith.
Thinking of it like wartime brings to mind how much propaganda is used in a wartime footing (more so than not), and how much that propaganda is designed to evoke a response, not to be actually accurate.
Looking at this whole situation in that light definitely makes me rethink how I read things, especially after reading through this article
This is a very good point. In times like these it's absolutely necessary to call out all fouls because the time to stand up and against is now. The gloves have to come off. In this light, the author illuminates even subtle propaganda, accidental propaganda. It is interesting to see how lies and incorrect information is weaponized so easily.
Shakespeare is kinda like that.