Mueller Investigation pt4

Status
Not open for further replies.
PhantomWolf said:
He is also literally the single person in the entire world that is best placed to order an investigation of Government wrong doing in 9/11 too, does that mean that if he got concerned over it being an inside job that such an investigation or belief would have any validity?

Yes, your posts are often hilarious, though I doubt you meant them to be.
Click to expand...

looks around... are you talking to me with that nonsense? Seriously?

He is the attorney general of the united states, yes if he ordered the ******* DoJ/FBI to investigate it, the investigation would have validity.

It is hilarious that you thought you were "scoring" points, tho.

hilarious!
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Twitter thread consisting of video clips of the highlights of Whitaker's testimony
Click to expand...

Umm... I'm not sure if I should say thanks or not, given Whitaker's performance. It looked a bit like Whitaker was effectively there for the sake of being able to claim that... he was there, in hopes that there would be no followup. That could probably be guessed, of course, given his excellent "cooperation" from the start. He started with a rant about a border wall. Because border wall. That was soon followed by exchanges like... Congressman - "Did X happen?" Whitaker - "What's the source of your claim?" Congressman - "Irrelevant, answer the question." Whitaker - "What's the source of your claim?" Repeat, repeat, repeat.
 
Whitaker will almost certainly be replaced next week when Burr is confirmed. The only "interesting" thing about Whitaker now is, why the hell is he in that job in the first place? Did Trump stupidly think Whitaker could obstruct the investigation?
 
Last edited:
WilliamSeger said:
Whitaker will almost certainly be replaced next week when Burr is confirmed. The only "interesting" thing about Whitaker now is, why the hell is he in that job in the first place? Did Trump stupidly think Whitaker could obstruct the investigation?
Click to expand...
Ding ding ding!
 

Attachments

  • D1E3B37E-A7A3-4D73-ADBD-6F38120BD87E.jpeg
    D1E3B37E-A7A3-4D73-ADBD-6F38120BD87E.jpeg
    34.4 KB · Views: 195
The Big Dog said:
You'd say... rolls eyes...

I am not dodging anything, you used the definition of a formal fallacy to describe an informal fallacy, that is what you did, not The Big Dog.

let me help:

Attorneys general can order investigations
Bob ordered an investigation
Bob is the attorney general.

Formal fallacy or informal fallacy?

Attorneys general can order an investigation.
Whitaker is the attorney general
Whitaker can order an investigation

response: Whitaker was appointed by orange man and orangeman bad!

Formal fallacy or informal fallacy?
Click to expand...

I Am The Scum said:
Neither of these are arguments. None of the statements contain an informal fallacy.

Happy to help!
Click to expand...

I think the last line of each triplet is supposed to be a conclusion, but he didn't make it explicit. Let me write it as many logic texts do:

Attorneys general can order investigations
Bob ordered an investigation
So, Bob is the attorney general.

Attorneys general can order an investigation.
Whitaker is the attorney general
So, Whitaker can order an investigation

Now we can see the first triple is the fallacy of denying the consequent, while the second is a fallacy of equivocation (AGs can order investigations, in the sense that they have the power to do such a thing, but it does not follow that they can order any damned investigation they want, which seems to be the content of the conclusion in the second argument).

I can drive a car, but I cannot drive any damned car I want.
 
I'm not even sure of the reason for the questioning in the first place. Although I'm glad they did it.

smartcooky said:
Maria Butina sentencing delayed to 26 Feb

Michael Cohen testifying before Congress delayed to 28 Feb

Trump/Kim meeting in Hanoi, Vietnam, 27-28 Feb

Hmmmmm.....
Click to expand...

I noticed that, too. If the meeting actually does take place, I'm sure The PDJT will have a good time. I think he's going to be actually shocked when he returns at how far it's fallen apart.
 
WilliamSeger said:
Whitaker will almost certainly be replaced next week when Burr is confirmed. The only "interesting" thing about Whitaker now is, why the hell is he in that job in the first place? Did Trump stupidly think Whitaker could obstruct the investigation?
Click to expand...
Maybe its trump's plan to speed Burr's confirmation... Have a temporary guy so horrible you will want to replace him with the permanent guy as soon as possible.

Sent from my LG-K121 using Tapatalk
 
Segnosaur said:
Maybe its trump's plan to speed Burr's confirmation... Have a temporary guy so horrible you will want to replace him with the permanent guy as soon as possible.

Sent from my LG-K121 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that Trump stupidly thought Whitaker could and would somehow impede the investigation and then take all the heat for it, leaving Trump with "plausible deniability." Nope, there's nothing Whitaker could do that wouldn't leave Trump's fingerprints all over an obstruction of justice crime scene.
 
The Big Dog said:
As for Seth's spin, I can only suggest that those who are so inclined read the ARTICLE for themselves to understand the blatant lies and ridiculously unfounded conclusions that Seth tries to foist upon the gullible.
Click to expand...

Wow. I also recommend this.

I think reading the actual article, not just ellipsisied (new word, it’s mine) excerpts are the opposite of what a trumpeter would want.

Protip! It says the opposite of what a certain person would have you believe!

K
 
phiwum said:
Now we can see the first triple is the fallacy of denying the consequent, while the second is a fallacy of equivocation (AGs can order investigations, in the sense that they have the power to do such a thing, but it does not follow that they can order any damned investigation they want, which seems to be the content of the conclusion in the second argument).

I can drive a car, but I cannot drive any damned car I want.
Click to expand...

I laughed! Fallacy fallacy! Good job.

You will note that my second statement was not only not fallacious, but your assertion does not contradict my statement.

Rather we have a concession (AG's can order investigations) and a new claim(but they can't any damned investigation they want) a claim that is notably lacking in any support whatsoever, of course.

What is the basis for the claim that the AG cannot investigate potential leaks to the media? Before y'all twist yourself in knots, let me give ya a couple of hints: they can, and McCabe.
 
The Big Dog said:
Ay, chihuahua! Actually at the point where not liking Trump and his appointments means that they should not investigate potential leaks because reasons.

Que será, será
Whatever will be, will be
The future's not ours to see
Que será, será
What will be, will be
Click to expand...

I’m two or three pages out.

I don’t think I’ll make it.
But to the future, just to try and prevent the pain;

This is every argument the puppy has ever made.

Save yourselves and your time.

Your arguments and logic can’t touch him, and he will keep going and going until you are dead.
 
autumn1971 said:
Wow. I also recommend this.

I think reading the actual article, not just ellipsisied (new word, it’s mine) excerpts are the opposite of what a trumpeter would want.

Protip! It says the opposite of what a certain person would have you believe!

K
Click to expand...

"For now, Burr appears to have arrived at his answer. "If we write a report based upon the facts that we have, then we don't have anything that would suggest there was collusion by the Trump campaign and Russia," he said."

Note the actual lack of ellipses folks....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom