I read the ruling. They did a “Let’s assume for the sake of argument that everything said against the Democratic party was true” – and listed them one by one and then following even if those things were all true, the people suing had no grounds to sue for damages. Assuming for the sake of argument is different from “Yes, we found these things are true”. I think when the article writer said “Read it for yourself”, they know most people won’t and if they do, they’ll “misread it for themselves” and not read what it’s saying, which is, “your case is a nothingburger”.

I read the ruling. They did a “Let’s assume for the sake of argument that everything said against the Democratic party was true” – and listed them one by one and then following even if those things were all true, the people suing had no grounds to sue for damages.

Assuming for the sake of argument is different from “Yes, we found these things are true”.

I think when the article writer said “Read it for yourself”, they know most people won’t and if they do, they’ll “misread it for themselves” and not read what it’s saying, which is, “your case is a nothingburger”.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


five × 6 =

Leave a Reply