When is a Lie Not a Lie

Have you noticed how often the word “lie” is coming up in this presidential campaign? Both candidates have charged the other as being a liar. As they say, “all’s fair in love and war and politics.” That’s to be expected. But among most commentators, the majority of whom appear to be anti-Trump, I’ve noticed three things. First, they keep expanding what counts as a lie. Second, although they accuse Donald Trump of lying, they never use that word when referring to Hillary Clinton, even though they admit that a good deal of what she has said is not exactly true.  Instead, Hillary is “cagey”, “deceptive”, and sometimes speaks “shades the truth”– but apparently she doesn’t actually “lie.” Third, they think the commentators are engaging in a “false equivalence.”

I think these folks have it exactly backwards. That may be understandable. As the polls ebb and flow the Hillary zombie like supporters are candidly freaking out. Most of Donald Trump’s controversial statements are uninhibited oversimplifications or hyperboles or the result of faulty recollection or inadvertent misstatements of fact or mere blow hard statements. If Trump were on the witness stand and testifying under oath, almost nothing he has said in his presidential campaign would put him in jeopardy of a charge of perjury. The same cannot be said of Hillary Clinton.

But first, what is a blow hard statement? I liken it to a “puffy” assertion. This has long been recognized in the law of contracts. Common law regards statements like that as expressions of opinion, not warrants of fact. Puffing or blow hard statements are a subset of a class of statements that “no reasonable person” would take literally in any normal context. In no courtroom in America would any of these statements be taken as assertions of fact. It’s too bad more members of the chattering class didn’t take a course in business law as I, prior to changing majors following my first year of college.