Turley
Dershowitz:
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/16520/cnn-lawsuit-dershowitz
Basman:
“That misrepresentation was not a matter of interpretation. The New York Times took a clearly unrelated posting and portrayed it as incitement for murder. Dershowitz conversely is undermined by the very fact that his argument was so nuanced.”
And, so, Turley seeks to distinguish the basis of Sarah Palin’s defamation case from Dershowitz’s. The claimed defamation in Palin’s case is a straight ahead misrepresentation, having nothing to do with interpretation but the basis of Dershowitz’s claim is hobbled by its nuances and *is* a matter of interpretation.
This distinction is mistaken.
It may be that on the question of motive Dershowitz is unclear or so nuanced that his proposition is subject to interpretation—though I don’t think so—but that’s not the gist of his complaint.
It’s that CNN purposefully edited out the anchor of his argument, namely that the *quo* of the quid pro quo MUST be illegal or unlawful.
By doing so, CNN turned his argument on its head, purporting him to be arguing that a president’s belief that his illegal act would lead to him being re-elected and his belief that that is in the public interest absolve him of any impeachable wrong doing.
To use Turley’s words on this precise point, “That misrepresentation was not a matter of interpretation.” On this precise point, namely non interpretable misrepresentation, no principled distinction exists between Palin’s claim and Dershowitz’s.
No comments:
Post a Comment