Former DOJ national security chief says that Trump likely violated the Espionage Act and a separate federal statute

You actually expect me to do your own homework. You're as crazy and lazy as trump.
I do
if you tell me I’m missing something thats just lib hot air till you say what it is
 
Argument from Authority fallacy. Fail! Next!
"

Appeal to authority​


Definition: Often we add strength to our arguments by referring to respected sources or authorities and explaining their positions on the issues we’re discussing. If, however, we try to get readers to agree with us simply by impressing them with a famous name or by appealing to a supposed authority who really isn’t much of an expert, we commit the fallacy of appeal to authority.


Example: “We should abolish the death penalty. Many respected people, such as actor Guy Handsome, have publicly stated their opposition to it.” While Guy Handsome may be an authority on matters having to do with acting, there’s no particular reason why anyone should be moved by his political opinions—he is probably no more of an authority on the death penalty than the person writing the paper.


Tip: There are two easy ways to avoid committing appeal to authority: First, make sure that the authorities you cite are experts on the subject you’re discussing. Second, rather than just saying “Dr. Authority believes X, so we should believe it, too,” try to explain the reasoning or evidence that the authority used to arrive at his or her opinion. That way, your readers have more to go on than a person’s reputation. It also helps to choose authorities who are perceived as fairly neutral or reasonable, rather than people who will be perceived as biased."

You can pretend all you want she isn’t a relevant expert but you just sound dumb
 
I do
if you tell me I’m missing something thats just lib hot air till you say what it is
I know how this works. And then you reject everything I said on other frivolous grounds. I'm not playing you're sick little game goodbye already. Go troll somebody else.
 
Trump brought his own kind of corruption into the White House and Congress and supreme Court.
So nominating conservative justices for the Suprme Court is a form of corruption to you? Who do you expect a Republican President to nominate? Elections have consequences.

If Trump has been so corrupt why hasn’t he been charged? Perhaps the evidence of corruption is simply not there. Anybody with half a brain would realize that if the DOJ and the FBI could do come up with a good reason to prosecute Trump, they would so fast your head would spin.
 
I know how this works. And then you reject everything I said on other frivolous grounds. I'm not playing you're sick little game goodbye already. Go troll somebody else.
I probably wont agree with you

But if you are going to jump in with your opinions you have to expect pushback
 
I probably wont agree with you

But if you are going to jump in with your opinions you have to expect pushback
All this started because I published the historians viewpoint about presidents. It's a fact, not an opinion, that they rated Obama a very good president and Trump one of the worst. You tried to nitpick at their conclusions, then you're just continued with personal attacks on me I'm sorry but that's not the way a discussion board is supposed to run you make your point I make my point you make your counter points etc. What you're doing here is just plain bullshit. And I'm done with it. I made my counterpoint 20 posts ago. You're just wasting your time and mine.
 
So nominating conservative justices for the Suprme Court is a form of corruption to you? Who do you expect a Republican President to nominate? Elections have consequences.

If Trump has been so corrupt why hasn’t he been charged? Perhaps the evidence of corruption is simply not there. Anybody with half a brain would realize that if the DOJ and the FBI could do come up with a good reason to prosecute Trump, they would so fast your head would spin.
Progs believe being a Republican is a crime.
 
Its a fact that the lib historians have a negative opinion of trump

But their opinion is not a fact

Its only their opinion
Build a More Perfect Digital Experience | FullStory>quantitative data What is quantitative data ? How to collect and analyze it. - Full Story June 22nd., 2022. It is not nearly an opinion, it's science. The end result of science is that it produces facts. Do I have to teach you everything ?
 
Based on what information?

The warrant hasn't even been made public and dissected by legal minds, that would be more revealing, no?
Even more so the affidavit, which they will fight to keep secret, and likely release a heavily redacted version, or a fake version if forced to.
 
Even more so the affidavit, which they will fight to keep secret, and likely release a heavily redacted version, or a fake version if forced to.
This is a grave offense. They're not giving trump any advantages. He's intimidated witnesses before. Witness tampering is also a crime.
 
See above.
If anyone is intimidating witnesses, it's Garland and the FBI. handcuffing and shackling them while they're waiting in the airport for a plane is the most blatant intimidation I can imaging. Threatening them with long prison sentences is intimidation.

You're obviously the lowest kind of NAZI douchebag.
 

Forum List

Back
Top