Reply With Quote
It helps that I have some of her books at hand and understand what she's saying, rather than repeating other people's propaganda.Eh, you obviously can marshal more facts than I abot Coulter.it doesn't concern me enough to do a cursory search.
It's something that gets her in the news enough that she sells her books more. It makes her money to be controversial.
I was actually surprised at that find. She is seldom wrong about something she says. Still, the group that exists does not have the attributes she was claiming in a group of lawyers that didn't exist. She meant there was no charitable group of "Trial Lawyers" that gets guilty people off. She probaly just made the name up for illustrative purposes, and by coincidence, a group with that name existed. The group with that name has good intent. The example she portrayed does not exist. Call her wrong on that account if you wish. That's an insignificant detail to what she clearly meant.
As a matter of history, people have repeatedly tried to discredit her work. Nobody to date has been able to discredit the facts and sources she uses, to any relevant degree. You can easily giver her a better than 99% record on her facts. You can search for hours and fins a thing or two that has some merit, but they are trivial like the naming of footnote vs. endnote. Everything I have seen people say she was wrong about had to be skewed in some way to make that assessment. What you found on the naming of "Lawyers Without Borders" is about as far off the facts as I've ever seen anyone come up with on her writings. It was nothing more than a unlucky coincidence she was wrong, in that, she was still right in the point she was making.
How far am I willing to go? In written text alone, without context, not far. That's only because you have to parse her sense of humor too. When something she states as fact is given though, I believe it. She has that good of a record.
