What is the deal with all these indictments?

Author: Greyparrot
FBI

Posts

Total: 88
#31
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@HistoryBuff
-->
@<<<TWS1405_2>>>
I don’t need to make an argument as there is no argument to make when it has already been made for me in literal detail via the legal analysis given by Shapiro. One in which, given my own legal background, I could not find fault with. 
then why are you here? This is a debate website.

YAWN!!!!! You sound just like Double_R. A broken record on this invalidated point. 
Yes, it is a debate website, but this website is demarcated into two distinct sections: (1) Debates and (2) Forum. We are in the latter, the forum, NOT the former, debates. Be cognizant of not only that glaring fact, but the reality of discussions within the forum section. There are NO formal debates within the forum section, just open discussions. So just knock it off with the asinine debunked "this is a debate website," "why are you here" garbage. 

you obviously either have no opinion of your own or lack the capacity to argue it.
I've given my opinion, you - like Double_R - refuse to acknowledge it or just lack reading comprehension skills to understand an opinion when it is given vs other info given. 

If you just want to give links to other people's opinions then you might be more at home on some right wing echo chamber. 
And yet others have done the same damn thing and I do not see you - or Double-R - bitching at them about it. Posting links to videos and/or articles in support of the opinion(s) given. When you refuse to acknowledge the facts contained therein, that's intellectual cowardice denialism, in addition to a genetic fallacy within as you discount the source without even factually discrediting it with actual facts and not your ignorant emotively driven subjective denialism of the source and the information contained therein. 

Using statutes that were designed for things other than what Smith twisted and stretched like a Mr Stretch Armstrong stretch doll into some superfluous verbose legal theories ≠ an actual crime with clearly outlined criteria to be established in order to prove that the defined alleged crime actually occurred. 
ok, that is at least part of an argument. What about those statutes is not supposed to be used this way?
Well shit, had you clicked the link and listened to Shapiro break it down you would know the answer to this question. 

More than that, much of the garbage is pinned to what Trump did or did not know and knowingly knew or didn’t know and did or said it (1A) anyway. Unless Smith is a psychic or has Trump’s brain activities on video…no one can prove such a case. It’s purely a political indictment, not  a legal one. 
1) none of these charges have anything to do with the 1st amendment. You are allowed to say you think the election was rigged. You are not allowed to take steps to overthrow the election. That is what he is charged with.

2) trump spoke with many, many people about the crimes in question. If he ever said that some of the things he was claiming weren't true, then that would show his "brain activities". And reportedly they have at least one conversation from him where he called some of these arguments crazy, but then went on to make them anyway. 
Thank you for your unsubstantiated subjective emotively driven opinion. 



#32
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@Greyparrot
-->
@Double_R
 It becomes illegal when he uses the lies he told to advance illegal activity

So why are there no indictments for insurrection?

Exactly!! Not to mention sedition conspiracy as well. 
#33
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
YAWN!!!!! 
Yawn and 6 exclamation points. That’s brilliant 

#34
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
So why are there no indictments for insurrection?
Exactly!! Not to mention sedition conspiracy as well.
Let’s remember Mitch McConnell said Trump should be charged with crimes when he declined to impeach Trump because he had already lost reelection.

So on the one hand, Trump psychophants say he did nothing wrong. On the other hand they ask why isn’t he being charged with treason. That’s beautiful 

Topic's author
#35
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
Why isn’t he being charged with treason?

Well said.
#36
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
So why are there no indictments for insurrection?
Probably because the bar in a court of law would be too high.
Topic's author
#37
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
But even you admit simply charging him would be enough to have him removed from the political race. Winning the case in court isn't nearly as  important.
#38
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,594
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

See: Trump Represents Satan Here on Earth: But the Judgment, this Second Coming Will Remove him and his Followers from the Earth. Rev. 12:9-12. Paperback – December 18, 2019     by Youssef Khalim (Author)
Topic's author
#39
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@FLRW
See: Trump Represents Satan Here on Earth: But the Judgment, this Second Coming Will Remove him and his Followers from the Earth. Rev. 12:9-12. Paperback – December 18, 2019     by Youssef Khalim (Author)

This is yet another instance illustrating the extent to which President Joe Biden's politically influenced Department of Justice is willing to push boundaries in its attempts to undermine his primary political rival, especially during an ongoing presidential election. The central objective of the Biden Administration's actions is a matter of deep concern for all.

The numerous indictments, each piling up against former President Donald Trump, unmistakably appear to serve the purpose of diverting his attention away from his campaign and compelling him to confront a multitude of legal battles. This calculated approach seems designed to exhaust both him and his campaign's resources, leaving them unable to focus on the actual process of campaigning and vying for election victory.

The framers of our nation envisioned a society governed by the rule of law, not the arbitrary actions of individuals. However, the current scenario raises alarming concerns, particularly with regard to the First Amendment. When we consider the combined weight of these various allegations and charges, it paints a picture of a Department of Justice that has become deeply enmeshed in partisan politics. This taint disqualifies it from effectively carrying out the monumental responsibility entrusted to it.

This is evident as the Department of Justice seems to be deploying its power to target political adversaries, specifically Donald Trump and his supporters. Additionally, it is troubling to observe the Department of Justice being instrumentalized to shield members of the Democratic elite, most notably President Joe Biden and, by extension, Hunter Biden. This demonstrates how a politicized Department of Justice is being manipulated to achieve dual objectives that ultimately undermine both the welfare of the American people and the integrity of our nation's democratic foundations.

As we can see, all of these indictments: count after count after count being thrown at former president Donald Trump is clearly an effort to divert his Focus away from the campaign and towards fighting on multiple fronts in these lawsuits; and to completely drain him and his campaign of of resources so they can't focus on on actually campaigning and trying to win this election.

The founders envisioned that our country would be a country of laws not of men; and what we're seeing here most concerning as it relates to the First Amendment. But you take all of these different attacks and indictments in whole what we're seeing is a politicized department of justice that has disqualified itself from being able to fulfill the awesome responsibility that they're entrusted with because they are using it first of all to go after their political opponents, namely Donald Trump and his supporters and also using the Department of Justice to protect the Democrat Elite, namely President Joe Biden and by extension Hunter Biden. So we're seeing how this politicized department of justice is being used to achieve both of those purposes both of which harm the American people's interests the interests of our country and our democracy.

#40
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TWS1405_2
What about those statutes is not supposed to be used this way?
Well shit, had you clicked the link and listened to Shapiro break it down you would know the answer to this question. 
The indictment alleges that Trump engaged in a scheme to defraud the United States. Ben Shapiro's entire breakdown refutation was to look at each action individually and claim none of these actions are individually a crime. He missed the entire point.

It's not illegal to lie and claim I have seats behind the dugout when they're really nose bleed seats.

It's not illegal to sell nosebleed seats for the price of seats behind the dugout.

Put those two things together, you now have fraud, which is a crime.
#41
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@Double_R
Dumb analogy which proves it is to YOU who missed the point, entirely. As usual. 

Shapiro is a lawyer, you’re not. 
He has credibility, you do not.
His argument(s) is sound.
Yours is not.

You’re Dismissed.
#42
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@TWS1405_2
 There are NO formal debates within the forum section, just open discussions. So just knock it off with the asinine debunked "this is a debate website," "why are you here" garbage. 
so you're lazy and can't or wont make any actual arguments. You expect me to go and watch idiots spew nonsense for hours on end so I can try and guess what your point is so that I can debunk it. You will then move the goal posts or just repeat nonsense at me and I will have wasted my time. I will pass. make an argument like a big boy or I will just assume you are incapable of doing so. 

I've given my opinion, you - like Double_R - refuse to acknowledge it or just lack reading comprehension skills to understand an opinion when it is given vs other info given. 
you haven't given your opinion. You have refused to do so. All you've done is try to make me watch right wing grifters. But that isn't your opinion. That is the opinion of someone who is paid to lie to you. 

Thank you for your unsubstantiated subjective emotively driven opinion. 
lol, so I actually explain how the law works and it's "unsubstantiated subjective emotively driven opinion". but when shapiro gets paid millions to lie to you, that is gospel? you are just sad.
#43
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@HistoryBuff
 There are NO formal debates within the forum section, just open discussions. So just knock it off with the asinine debunked "this is a debate website," "why are you here" garbage. 
so you're lazy and can't or wont make any actual arguments.
And I have, and still like your doppleganger Double_R, you refuse to see it let alone accept it as such. Blind in one eye, can't see out the other.

You expect me to go and watch idiots spew nonsense for hours on end
Ben Shapiro and/or Mark Levin are no idiots, but you're certainly living up to that self-ascribed label to the proverbial "T" with this banal name calling genetic fallacy retorts.

so I can try and guess what your point is so that I can debunk it. You will then move the goal posts or just repeat nonsense at me and I will have wasted my time. I will pass. make an argument like a big boy or I will just assume you are incapable of doing so. 
You couldn't debunk a bowl of alphabet soup; one in which I could eat and shit a better position than you and your redundant psychological projection. 

I've given my opinion, you - like Double_R - refuse to acknowledge it or just lack reading comprehension skills to understand an opinion when it is given vs other info given. 
you haven't given your opinion. You have refused to do so. All you've done is try to make me watch right wing grifters. But that isn't your opinion. That is the opinion of someone who is paid to lie to you. 
Yes, I have. Your intellectual cowardice denialism of that fact knows no bounds.

Thank you for your unsubstantiated subjective emotively driven opinion. 
lol, so I actually explain how the law works and it's "unsubstantiated subjective emotively driven opinion". but when shapiro gets paid millions to lie to you, that is gospel? you are just sad.
Remind us all again where you matriculated to earning a degree in some area of the legal field/arena that would equip you with the requisite knowledge to even know how 'the law' even works! Better yet, whereas you worked in some area of the law that would equally equip you with the same requisite knowledge. Well?

Yeah, that's what I thought. Nowhere in both scenarios. 

You simply could not explain how a tampon works much less the law within the context of this discussion. 

Claiming Shapiro lies without proving it is childish. 

Claiming Shapiro makes millions per podcast is equally childish.

It is to you, Double_R, who refuses to engage others in debate. It is to you who refuses to review the cited material of others.  
It is to you who is the failure here, not I. 

Bugger off and go play with the rest of the neighborhood children and stop spamming the forum with your nonsense. 




#44
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
Ben Shapiro and/or Mark Levin are no idiots, but you're certainly living up to that self-ascribed label to the proverbial "T" with this banal name calling genetic fallacy retorts.
they are, yes. They are paid millions to keep right wing assholes angry. So they will lie and twist the truth to make sure their viewers stay mad. And since trump became a cult leader, they also now need to defend him pretty much 24/7, because they can't cross him. 

Claiming Shapiro makes millions per podcast is equally childish.
i never said he makes millions per podcast. I said he makes millions. You really need to check your reading comprehension. 

Bugger off and go play with the rest of the neighborhood children and stop spamming the forum with your nonsense. 
lol literally all you are doing is giving out links to right wing grifter podcasts, then insulting people who try to actually debate with you. You clearly don't want to actually debate. You just want to link to other people and do absolutely no thinking or work for yourself. you want us to all the work for you. I've seen children that can debate better than this. 

#45
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@HistoryBuff
I think TWS is sweet on Shapiro. 
#46
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
Claiming Shapiro lies without proving it is childish. 
Talking the way you do is moronic 

#47
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@HistoryBuff
Claiming someone twists the truth and lies without proving it is so easy even an amoeba could do it. Takes zero intellectual intelligence to do it. 

Proving someone you claim twists the truth and lies takes actual emotional and intellectual intelligence.

So far after one too many retorts all you’ve proven is that you are = to an amoeba’s ability to make baseless emotive claims. In other words, intellectual cowardice denialism. 

A position has been made. Said position has been supported by two highly educated lawyers and you, like a child in the schoolyard, hurls ad hominems at them in your denialism of the legal analysis (truth) you refuse to listen to. 

Furthermore, you failed to establish your academic and/or professional experience in some area within the field of the law that would equip you with the requisite knowledge to understand how the law works. No surprise there, as previously noted. As such, you could no more explain how the law works than you could how a tampon works. 

You have failed herein to either establish a substantiated position of your own, or in substantiating a counter argument to the supported position that I proffered. Epic failure. 

You’re done here. 

Here end of the lesson. 
#48
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
Claiming Shapiro lies without proving it is childish. 
Talking the way you do is moronic 

Of course it does. Always will to the undereducated. 
#49
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
Here end of the lesson. 
It’s endeth, genius.

Here endeth the lesson. Get it?

You remind me of Archie Bunker. 

#50
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
Here end of the lesson. 
It’s endeth, genius.

Here endeth the lesson. Get it?

You remind me of Archie Bunker. 
No 💩 Sherlock. God you’re so predictable. 
Infamous line in ‘The Untouchables’ spoken by Sean Connery. Seen it a dozen times and spoken it as many times. I just knew you, of all people, would jump all over it if I put end vs endeth. 😂 Still pompous and predictable. 😆 
#51
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
But even you admit simply charging him would be enough to have him removed from the political race. Winning the case in court isn't nearly as  important.
I've never said nor suggested that simply being charged of a crime should remove him or anyone else from a political race. The question is what the individual is being charged with and what is the evidence against them. The public needs to weigh the case accordingly.

The case against Trump is overwhelming, and most of it occurred right there in plain site. His legal team isn't even contesting most of the key facts, they're just trying to spin this into an attack on his free speech, which is ridiculous.

The court of public opinion does not have the same standards or requirements as a court of law and for good reason; we're not debating whether citizen Trump should retain his freedom, we're debating whether we should entrust him with the most powerful and consequential job on earth. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not apply here.
#52
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TWS1405_2
Shapiro is a lawyer, you’re not. 
And I could show you a thousand lawyers who agree with me. So what?

He has credibility, you do not.
Her had credibility among the MAGA base. No one outside of that takes him seriously.

His argument(s) is sound.
Yours is not.
Do you even know what sound argument is? Hard to tell given that all you ever post are these stupid and childish "I'm right and you're wrong, so there" posts.
#53
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@Double_R
Shapiro is a lawyer, you’re not. 
And I could show you a thousand lawyers who agree with me. So what?
Cherry picking attorneys espousing factually inaccurate legal assessments (like Bill Barr) to support your wrong interpretation is by definition an appeal to authority fallacy. 

And if you even could find some attorneys (it won’t be thousands), they would be easily debunked. 

The point is you have zero credibility in your failed position put forth with illogical baseball ticket analogies, whereas Shapiro has credibility given his legal, academic and professional background establishing his credibility. 

He has credibility, you do not.
Her had credibility among the MAGA base. No one outside of that takes him seriously.
You don’t speak for others, only for yourself. This salient fact of credibility is so in your face, but alas out comes the classic intellectual cowardice denialism. Err rather classic narcissism you so often exude. 

His argument(s) is sound.
Yours is not.
Do you even know what sound argument is? Hard to tell given that all you ever post are these stupid and childish "I'm right and you're wrong, so there" posts.
ah yes, retort with a strawman in the form of a personal attack. I never retort with posts the likes that you claim. Such a claim is just proof that you can never debunk my positions when that retort of yours comes up. It’s equal to putting up the 🤚 of intellectual cowardice denialism. And yes, I will keep ascribing that observation to you since it is the perfect and most descriptive way in addressing your narcissistic refusal to accept the possibility that you’re wrong and someone else is more correct than you claim to be. 

This entire reply of yours was so predictable. What would anyone expect from one exhibiting classic signs of narcissism. 

#54
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TWS1405_2
Cherry picking attorneys espousing factually inaccurate legal assessments (like Bill Barr) to support your wrong interpretation is by definition an appeal to authority fallacy. 

And if you even could find some attorneys (it won’t be thousands), they would be easily debunked. 

The point is you have zero credibility in your failed position put forth with illogical baseball ticket analogies, whereas Shapiro has credibility given his legal, academic and professional background establishing his credibility. 
Is this a joke?

You are the one invoking an authority (Ben Shapiro), I am pointing out why your "argument" is not an argument at all (because it is nothing more than an appeal to authority fallacy - hence the "so what" at the end of that sentence).

So you are responding to my pointing out that you are committing a logical fallacy by lecturing me about that same logical fallacy.

And you don't even see the irony here.

But even looking past the fallacy that you are engaging in, the remarkable logic pretzel you are contorting yourself into is quite impressive. You claim that Ben Shapiro, a podcaster and political commentator who has about 10 months experience in law, none of it in the criminal justice system, is somehow a more reliable source here than Donald Trump's own hand picked attorney general.

They're really are no words.

I never retort with posts the likes that you claim
You just did.

You posted a link to the Ben Shapiro show explaining why this indictment doesn't hold up. I refuted it in a few sentences. You responded without a single word responding to my argument. You're entire post was to tell me I have no credibility and Ben Shapiro knows better.

You cannot seriously think what you provided was anything reassembling an intellectual point.
#55
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@Double_R
-->
@<<<TWS1405_2>>>
Cherry picking attorneys espousing factually inaccurate legal assessments (like Bill Barr) to support your wrong interpretation is by definition an appeal to authority fallacy. 

And if you even could find some attorneys (it won’t be thousands), they would be easily debunked. 

The point is you have zero credibility in your failed position put forth with illogical baseball ticket analogies, whereas Shapiro has credibility given his legal, academic and professional background establishing his credibility. 
Is this a joke?
On you, sure, since you cannot grasp the truth in the wake of your obvious confirmation bias and narcissism.

"While experts are often the best people to reference for credible information, it’s possible to use an expert’s statement in a way that isn’t logically sound."

In no way shape or form have I cited Shapiro in a way that was unsound. His legal analysis is on point. Therefore, my appeal to his authority is proper and NOT a fallacy. On the other hand, if you find one or two other attorneys (clearly a leftist progressive democrat who hates Trump) that will support your stupid Ticketmaster baseball dugout analogy, that, by definition, would in fact be a logical fallacy - the appeal to authority fallacy.  

To date you have NOT refuted any single aspect of Shapiro's legal analysis of the J6 indictment. FACT!

You are the one invoking an authority (Ben Shapiro), I am pointing out why your "argument" is not an argument at all (because it is nothing more than an appeal to authority fallacy - hence the "so what" at the end of that sentence).
No, it is not. My citation is proper and legally sound. See above. And your "so what" = intellectual cowardice denialism.

So (sic) you are responding to my pointing out that you are committing a logical fallacy by lecturing me about that same logical fallacy.

And you don't even see the irony here.
There is no irony at my end, just yours. 
I have committed no fallacy, but you would be if you cited Bill Barr.

But even looking past the fallacy that you are engaging in, the remarkable logic pretzel you are contorting yourself into is quite impressive. You claim that Ben Shapiro, a podcaster and political commentator who has about 10 months experience in law, none of it in the criminal justice system, is somehow a more reliable source here than Donald Trump's own hand picked (sic) attorney general.
I have engaged in no fallacy; and doubling or even tripling down on claiming it without disproving any of the legal analysis proffered by Shapiro with an actual legal argument of your own just makes you look not only desperate but also affirms that obvious intellectual cowardice denialism on your part. Something you are so flagrantly awesome at this site. 

They're really are no words.
Not surprised. You rarely have anything remotely on point to say. Just total and complete obfuscation with word salads and nonsensical analogies.

I never retort with posts the likes that you claim
You just did.
No, I did not. 

You posted a link to the Ben Shapiro show explaining why this indictment doesn't hold up. I refuted it in a few sentences.
No, you refuted nothing. 

You responded without a single word responding to my argument.
More obvious intellectual cowardice denialism. I sure has hell did. You just refuse to acknowledge it. 
Mr. Know-it-All Double_R knows all, sees all, and is never wrong but everyone else is.
Fucking poster child for the Dunning Kruger Effect to the Proverbial "T"!!!

You're entire post was to tell me I have no credibility and Ben Shapiro knows better.
Yup. FACT!

You cannot seriously think what you provided was anything reassembling an intellectual point.
Of course not, it was a cold hard visual observation that cannot be denied, unless you're you. Then you will deny it, obviously. 




#56
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TWS1405_2
In no way shape or form have I cited Shapiro in a way that was unsound. His legal analysis is on point. Therefore, my appeal to his authority is proper and NOT a fallacy.
The appeal to authority fallacy is when you cite someone to advance your argument who is not an authority. Ben Shapiro is not an authority. He's a political commentator who spent about 10 months practicing law which was not even criminal law.

If you want to argue his analysis is sound, you are free to do so, Shapiro at that point would be irrelevant. You have not even attempted to do so, and when I explained in a few simple sentences why his analysis fails all you have in response is to tell me about my denialism. You should really spend some time reflecting on why you are so averse to making your own arguments.

On the other hand, if you find one or two other attorneys (clearly a leftist progressive democrat who hates Trump) that will support your stupid Ticketmaster baseball dugout analogy, that, by definition, would in fact be a logical fallacy
So far Bill Barr, Micheal Cohen, and Ty Cobb have all publicly talked about how the indictment is sound and Trump's defense is laughable. All of which have personally represented Trump and one that was handpicked by Trump to be his attorney general. Not to mention Chris Christy, a former republican governor and prosecutor. Tell me again about how the only one's who agree with me are leftists.

And those are just the ones I have personally seen interviewed, I have no idea how many more haber stated the same publicly.

To date you have NOT refuted any single aspect of Shapiro's legal analysis of the J6 indictment. FACT!
Post #40. Learn to read.

There is no irony at my end, just yours. 
I have committed no fallacy, but you would be if you cited Bill Barr.
Right, a right wing commentator who makes millions feeding the MAGA base what it wants to hear who has never practiced criminal law is an authority on Trump's indictment. But Trump's own hand picked attorney general is not.

I would ask if you're serious but you've made that clear.

You need help.
#57
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,919
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Sidewalker
@TWS1405_2
"I NEED ONE MORE INDICTMENT TO ENSURE MY ELECTION!"  -  Donald Trump

The icon profile of Trumpet behind bars and you caption.  Well Done!!!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
Ganster mob types have often ruled the cult cronies from behind bars.

Chatty Lying Charlie threatens others and incites riots before, during and after his presidency and soon he will do so from behind bars, if the rule of law in USA is not followed. I think the Fl court judge lady ---a Trumpet cult follower--- is on the way out of the mess she is creating for herself. Good Riddance!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Troll on america troll on, troll on america troll on, your trolls are turning the dawn to darkness, troll on you Trumpist cultist's, troll on.....  Sung to tune of Columbia River song, of electric power changing a darkness to dawn.

How many Trumpet cultist trolls exist in USA? 60 million?  How many globally? ? ? ?

Is it written in the Bible Trumpet waved around to crowd he incited at DC, that,...... 'the trolls are always with us'....

If you cant be poor, then be a troll. Support Trumpet lies till the end of the rule of USA law, on Earth. 


#58
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@Double_R
-->@<<<TWS1405_2>>>
In no way shape or form have I cited Shapiro in a way that was unsound. His legal analysis is on point. Therefore, my appeal to his authority is proper and NOT a fallacy.
The appeal to authority fallacy is when you cite someone to advance your argument who is not an authority.
LOL!!!! What part of the cited source defining what an appeal to authority fallacy is - and is NOT!?!

"Legitimate appeals to authority
As we mentioned earlier, there are some instances where supporting a claim with an expert’s insight is logically sound. For an appeal to authority to be legitimate, the authority must be qualified to speak on the subject being discussed, and their statement must be directly relevant to that subject."

Ben Shapiro is qualified to speak on the subject being discussed, and their statement is directly relevant to that subject being discussed. 

Ben Shapiro is not an authority. He's a political commentator who spent about 10 months practicing law which was not even criminal law.
Yes, he is. He has the academic and professional credentials in the legal arena, having graduated from Harvard Law School and worked for one of the largest law firms in the world.  One doesn't need to practice criminal law in order to read, interpret, understand and accurately analyze the law and apply said understanding based on their academic and professional experience equipping him with the requisite knowledge to do so. He is also an author of 11 books, and given his business experience, makes him an excellent researcher as well. Ben Shapiro is an authority on this subject, you are not. That is a fact. Period. Fact. Period. You have ZERO CREDIBILITY here. No academic and/or professional experience in the legal arena on par or better than Shapiro. His legal analysis was spot on. Your stupid baseball ticket analogy is way off and completely irrelevant to this discussion. 

If you want to argue his analysis is sound, you are free to do so, Shapiro at that point would be irrelevant.
No, it would not make Shapiro irrelevant, for it is his legal analysis, not mine. He is the source of the legal analysis, not I. I do not plagiarize. I give credit where credit is due.
I, unlike you, do have a legal background (academic, professional and personal experience) and reviewed his analysis. There was nothing factually inaccurate about his analysis.
I am not a parrot, as such I do not merely repeat what another says when you (and anyone else) can hear it for yourself (themselves).

You have not even attempted to do so, and when I explained in a few simple sentences why his analysis fails all you have in response is to tell me about my denialism. You should really spend some time reflecting on why you are so averse to making your own arguments.
Your few idiotic sentences were irrelevant to the topic under discussion premised on the three charges in the J6 indictment. Your refusal to address the legal analysis provided by Shapiro with a legal argument of your own in rebuttal, in addition to your stupid irrelevant analogy, and your continued narcissistic back and forth claiming you right, me wrong. 

Shapiro's analysis IS my argument, you daft or what!?! 
I agree with him. Therefore, you (and the others) need to discredit that analysis with a better legal rebuttal, thereby discrediting both Shapiro and I in the process.

On the other hand, if you find one or two other attorneys (clearly a leftist progressive democrat who hates Trump) that will support your stupid Ticketmaster baseball dugout analogy, that, by definition, would in fact be a logical fallacy
So far Bill Barr, Micheal Cohen, and Ty Cobb have all publicly talked about how the indictment is sound and Trump's defense is laughable.
Ah yes, all going on CNN, MSNBC, and every other leftist legacy media source to exhibit their Trump Derangement Syndrome with patently obvious personal biases. Their analysis is not impartial, focusing on the law and the history of Smith's novel legal theories trying to go after public figures. Being a mouth piece without a full legal analysis of how and why Smith's novel legal theories are sound legal arguments doesn't discredit the legal analysis Shapiro provided. In other words, just saying so without providing factually accurate legal arguments to substantiate the claim = appeal to authority fallacy. 

To date you have NOT refuted any single aspect of Shapiro's legal analysis of the J6 indictment. FACT!
Post #40. Learn to read.
BWAAAHAAAHAAAA!!! That is not a refutation. That's a subjective - non-legal - opinion based on a stupid irrelevant baseball ticket analogy asserted in a failed attempt to discredit 3 different legal analysis on 3 different charges within the J6 indictment.  I have made this observation each time you keep doubling down on it, it is to YOU who needs to learn to read. 

There is no irony at my end, just yours. 
I have committed no fallacy, but you would be if you cited Bill Barr.
Right, a right wing (sic) commentator who makes millions feeding the MAGA base what it wants to hear who has never practiced criminal law is an authority on Trump's indictment. But Trump's own hand picked (sic) attorney general is not.
Genetic fallacy x3. 
And no. Barr's biases discredit him, and in all his appearances he gave no legal argument that would discredit Shapiro's analysis, which remains sound and factually accurate to date. 

I would ask if you're serious (sic) but you've made that clear.
Absolutely serious. And you've STILL failed, and epically so, from discredit Shapiro's legal analysis on the 3 charges in the J6 indictment.

You need help.
Ad hominem. Typical of one exhibiting intellectual cowardice denialism and narcissism via the Dunning-Kruger Effect whereas this topic of discussion is concerned. 
#59
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TWS1405_2
"Legitimate appeals to authority
As we mentioned earlier, there are some instances where supporting a claim with an expert’s insight is logically sound. For an appeal to authority to be legitimate, the authority must be qualified to speak on the subject being discussed, and their statement must be directly relevant to that subject."

Ben Shapiro is qualified to speak on the subject being discussed
Again, you are appealing to someone who has never tried a criminal case in his life as an authority on a criminal indictment. If you can't see the issue with that I cannot help you.

He has the academic and professional credentials in the legal arena, having graduated from Harvard Law School and worked for one of the largest law firms in the world.  One doesn't need to practice criminal law in order to read, interpret, understand and accurately analyze the law and apply said understanding based on their academic and professional experience equipping him with the requisite knowledge to do so.
Do you understand that there are different types of lawyers? Would you go to a criminal defense attorney to represent you in a real estate deal?

His legal analysis was spot on.
Then you are relying on your understanding of the subject, not his. Why then, are you so determined to hide behind him? Why not present your own arguments and defend them against rational scrutiny? Are you afraid of that? 

Post #40. Learn to read.
BWAAAHAAAHAAAA!!! That is not a refutation. That's a subjective - non-legal - opinion based on a stupid irrelevant baseball ticket analogy asserted in a failed attempt to discredit 3 different legal analysis on 3 different charges within the J6 indictment.  I have made this observation each time you keep doubling down on it, it is to YOU who needs to learn to read.
Great argument.

Barr's biases discredit him
Barr is an extreme right wing legal expert who was handpicked by Trump to be his attorney general and has argued many times that he doesn't believe presidents should be prosecuted. His biases would be towards Trump.

You are very clearly just disqualifying anyone who disagrees with you. From the same person who accuses me of denialism, the projection is astounding.
#60
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@Double_R
->
@<<<TWS1405_2>>>
"Legitimate appeals to authority
As we mentioned earlier, there are some instances where supporting a claim with an expert’s insight is logically sound. For an appeal to authority to be legitimate, the authority must be qualified to speak on the subject being discussed, and their statement must be directly relevant to that subject."

Ben Shapiro is qualified to speak on the subject being discussed
Again, you are appealing to someone who has never tried a criminal case in his life as an authority on a criminal indictment. If you can't see the issue with that I cannot help you.
Psychological projection and intellectual cowardice denialism, still. 
What part of the cited quote did you obviously fail to comprehend!?! -- the authority must be qualified to speak on the subject being discussed, and their statement must be directly relevant to that subject." 

Shapiro graduated law school. He passed the bar. He is a licensed attorney. 
He does not need to have a trial under his belt, let alone a criminal trial, in order to read, interpret, understand and correctly apply legal analysis debunking the novel legal theories within it. You doubling down on that irrelevant point is nothing short of an ignoratio elecnhi fallacy. 

He has the academic and professional credentials in the legal arena, having graduated from Harvard Law School and worked for one of the largest law firms in the world.  One doesn't need to practice criminal law in order to read, interpret, understand and accurately analyze the law and apply said understanding based on their academic and professional experience equipping him with the requisite knowledge to do so.
Do you understand that there are different types of lawyers? Would you go to a criminal defense attorney to represent you in a real estate deal?
Out comes the narcissistic obnoxious ad hominem... This topic is about a legal analysis of the novel legal theories in a flawed indictment by one attorney of that criticizing another attorney. This discussion has nothing to do with seeking legal counsel on a real estate deal from a criminal attorney. Strawman and red herring fallacy right there. 

His legal analysis was spot on.
Then you are relying on your understanding of the subject, not his. Why then, are you so determined to hide behind him? Why not present your own arguments and defend them against rational scrutiny? Are you afraid of that? 
If I agree with his analysis, that translates to his analysis being my analysis since I agree with it in its entirety. I am not going to parrot what he said when you can listen to what he said for yourself. So, fuck off on this stupid irrelevant red herring fallacy of yours. In order to prove me wrong, you need to prove him wrong. 

Post #40. Learn to read.
BWAAAHAAAHAAAA!!! That is not a refutation. That's a subjective - non-legal - opinion based on a stupid irrelevant baseball ticket analogy asserted in a failed attempt to discredit 3 different legal analysis on 3 different charges within the J6 indictment.  I have made this observation each time you keep doubling down on it, it is to YOU who needs to learn to read.
Great argument.
Yup. And you just dropped rebutting it. I'll accept that as your concession. 

Barr's biases discredit him
Barr is an extreme right wing legal expert
His political leaning is completely irrelevant!!!

who was handpicked by Trump to be his attorney general
Irrelevant.

and has argued many times that he doesn't believe presidents should be prosecuted. His biases would be towards Trump.
And there is the concession right there. Thank you. You finally admit it. He is biased against (towards) Trump. He doesn't like Trump. So much so he is just waiting by the phone for the call to come testify against him in the J6 trial.

You are very clearly just disqualifying anyone who disagrees with you. From the same person who accuses me of denialism, the projection is astounding.
No. You disqualify yourself in your utter ignorant failure to rebut the legal analysis heaped upon each novel legal theory (charges) in the J6 indictment. That's ALL on YOU! 

I've denied nothing since you've provided no legal analysis on point that would debunk the legal analysis provided by Shapiro (and by extension, mine as well since I agree with them 100%, word for word).

Epic fail on your part...20x over, comment after comment exhibiting your intellectual cowardice denialism.