Donald Tales

You guys sure didnt seem to care when Obama used executive privilege to shutdown the Fast and Furious investigation.

How could You possibly know what "You Guys" cared about when President Obama was in office?

I think you're saying you didn't like Obama and you don't like Trump but you're not being clear.

To claim Trump has obstructed justice, there would need to be, at a minimum, charges that state so. As Mueller did not bring charges, per policy, there is no credible basis to say "Trump obstructed justice". Even the Democrat leadership refuses to bring charges on such grounds.

As to me "being the only person saying Trump didn't obstruct justice", that would also be inaccurate. Democrat lawyer and scholar, Alan Dershowitz also stated that Trump has not obstructed justice based on the claims part 2 of the Mueller Report.

So to recap, people are in a faux outrage about claims that Trump obstructed justice, especially liberals. They had no problem with Obama shutting down the Fast and Furious investigation via Executive Privilege, but they are up in arms over Trump firing Comey which is within his authority as President to do.

To claim Obama has obstructed justice, there would need to be, at minimum, charges that state so. Perhaps you can get John 'Salty Tears' Boehner and Mitch 'Our sole goal is to make sure Obama is a one term President' McConnell to get the Do Nothing Congress to bring charges on such grounds.

By the logic employed from "Trump obstructed justice by firing Comey" it stands that "Obama obstructed justice by using executive privilege to stop the fast and Furious investigation".

That was the point, if Obama didn't obstruct, which he didn't, than neither did Trump.

Also dumb dumb, McConnell has nothing to do with bringing the charges, as the charges would need to be brought up by the House while McConnell is in the Senate. The Senate would then vote whether or not to convict and remove Trump.

Once again we see just how little you know, but just how little you acknowledge what you don't know. Or, the Dunning-Kruger effect. Thanks for demonstrating this perfectly, again.

Because you don't know who John Boehner that I mentioned was?

Because you don't know Mitch McConnell had said this:
"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

Because despite saying that, he and and blubbering Boehner and the rest of the GOP simply gave Obama a pass on his horrendous abuse of the Office and obeyed his wishes?

You really aren't pretending to be an idiot, are you?

It's YOUR point, as you yourself pointed out, you completely idiotic whiny pussbag.

Even if you were simply bs'ing it's still beyond stupid.

Everyone can see what's really going on. You can copy paste faux Fox propaganda all you like. It never changes reality but, you keep trying to rock it though. It suits you.

All he does is wing bs hoping it'll stick when the only thing that's sticking is his bucket of fermented manure to his silly face.

He deflects, claiming he has an argument but won't divulge it, then calls others ignorant for not knowing what he claims to secretly know but won't say what it is because he's saving it for a really important occasion.

I cited a Democrat Harvard Law professor and lawyer who is widely respected for his legal analysis, but "I drank the Kool-Aid"?

Gosh, your like a deer in the headlights, you just panic when your opponent actually challenges your opinions, so instead of defending your opinions, you attempt to shut down the discussion by invoking Fox News.

Cited Fox News wha?

Are you totally oblivious to your own bot lines, Dunning?
Oh, that's right, you are.

Scroll up to see WHOM you cited.

I cited Dershowitz, who is not a Fox news personality like Napolitano who has his own show. Yes Dershowitz provides commentary to Fox, but his career is that of a Harvard Law Professor.

Of course the nuance is lost on intellectual Giants such as yourself.

Google: "Appeal to Authority"

HINT: The word "Authority" is pertinent to the defintion.

FREE BONUS: It's not called an "Appeal to the Wrong Authority" Fallacy for a reason.

Words mean things.

Citing people with authority is not necessarily a logical fallacy. If this was true, there would be no purpose for expert witness testimony.

There are times when appealing to authority is a fallacy. For instance, in matters related to science. In science evidence is proved empirically via repeated testing and recording of observation, hence authority is not relevant.

However in the matter related to subject knowledge, authority is relevant. As we see with expert witnesses.

You didn't cite what he said, you cited HIM, and in terms of validating your assertion simply because of his name/position/qualifications.
THAT'S the fallacy.

You can't be this stupid.

This begins to bores me, and as per usual, you haven't said a single thing ALL DAY other than ad hominems - also a Logical Fallacy.

Dinner beckons, dunning, night.

False, claiming authority is not necessarily a fallacy. This has been debated in academia ad naseum, with no final conclusion.

Again if it's a fallacy to seek an authority, why does our legal system, our medical community etc all use this?

Enjoy your dinner from the trough.

'Curiously' you did manage to forgot to cite one renowned Fox News authority on law regarding Trump obstruction of justice, Judge Napolitano.

It also makes sense to cite an authority on Constitutional Law in regards to Obstruction of Justice claims made against a President.

It would be a fallacy had I quoted someone recognized as an authority in a field unrelated to Law.

I never cited Fox News, and according to you Fox News is not trustworthy yet here you are giving credence to a Fox News persona when it suits you.

Seems intellectually dishonest and opportunistic.

You still think "Harvard" invokes automatic respect.

I think his decades long career as a respected Constitutional lawyer does, but nice try at deflecting with a red herring argument