Lol suckers
1 Like
*there
1 Like
Sounds like a legal argument to me. Trump’s lawyers want CNN to issue a retraction. They are threatening to sue, and they are saying that they don’t need to prove election fraud to win, rather that CNN would need to prove that Trump knew he was lying.
However, I don’t think their legal strategy is a lock.
For one, they bring up a dictionary definition of “lying” that includes knowingly saying something false (rather than simply being mistaken). However, there are plenty of definitions of lying that don’t include that caveat.
Merriam Webster Online: LYING : marked by or containing untrue statements
So if the lawyers are going to get pedantic, the same pedantry can save CNN.
Also, I don’t think any of this is a tacit admission that Trump’s claims are untrue, just that they don’t want to try to prove as much, which is very telling in and of itself.
If they had evidence that there was election fraud, they could simply present it and catch CNN as a much larger disadvantage. Alas, they don’t have the proof they need, and they never did.
You basically summed up my thoughts 305.
The only place I would offer substance in addition is around definitions.
COULD the court use a Miriam Webster or some brand name? Sure. It would be out of character though. Typically they would default to a legal dictionary like Black’s Law Dictionary or something similar.
These legal dictionaries go the extra mile to cite past cases and how the word was used and in proper context.
But I agree, this case looks like, if it is heard, that it will hinge on that very definition.
I don’t have access to Black’s but I would imagine that
- Knowledge of the information being a lie
- Intent to deceive
- A person (or persons) accepted it as truth
There could also be a contingency that forces the plaintiffs to prove the statement is true which is why the lawyers hedged on “subjective belief.”
That is an impossible thing to “prove” materially or factually so they’ve attempted to shield themselves from the burden of such a demand.
Oh it is total legal BS, couldn’t agree more.
Kind of like the “no reasonable person would believe what I’m saying” defense.
It is also a tacit admission, without admitting he is wrong too.
You have an interesting point, but Trump’s own lawyers opted for a non-law definition in their threat, so those are fair game.
I don’t have access to Black’s either but I suppose they may not have used it because it didn’t fully support their argument. I found this on lawinsider:
Lying means making a false or misleading statement or providing false or misleading information with knowledge of its falsity or misleading character or with careless disregard as to its truth or accuracy.
In other words, no matter what Trump believed, if he is peddling unproven/debunked conspiracy theories as fact, it could constitute careless disregard for accuracy.