500 ex-prosecutors say Trump should be charged with obstruction
May 7, 2019 01:37:53 #
Now the only ones surprised are conservatives who thought Barr had completely exonerated Tump of obstruction of justice. No doubt they suspect this is either f**e news or all democrats prosecutors who are so biased that they aren't to be trusted. Such is the way of the world of conservatism--if it doesn't jive with the way you believe then it is f**e new or democrat corruption.
Anyway, this is for the rest of the world--not Trumps 35%--and the rest of the world see Barr of the shill that he is trying to protect someone who should be locked up and not in the White House...
https://www.dw.com/en/us-500-ex-prosecutors-say-trump-should-be-charged-with-obstruction/a-48628700
Anyway, this is for the rest of the world--not Trumps 35%--and the rest of the world see Barr of the shill that he is trying to protect someone who should be locked up and not in the White House...
https://www.dw.com/en/us-500-ex-prosecutors-say-trump-should-be-charged-with-obstruction/a-48628700
May 7, 2019 01:39:55 #
Via Hand Delivery
The Honorable William P. Barr
Attorney General of the United States
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave. N. W.
Washington D.C. 20530
Dear Mr. Attorney General
I write on behalf of the Office of the President to memorialize concerns relating to the form of the Special Counsel's Office ("SCO") Report ("SCO Report" or "Report") and address executive privilege issues associated with its release.
The SCO Report suffers from an extraordinary legal defect: It quite deliberately fails to comply with the requirements of governing law. Lest the Report's release be taken as a "precedent" or perceived as somehow legitmating the defect, I write with both the President and future Presidents in mind to make the following points clear.
I begin with the SCO's stated conclusion on the obstruction question. The SCO concluded that the evidence "[prevent[ed] [it] from conclusively determining that no criminal occurred." SCO Report v.2. p2. But "conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred" was not the SCO's assigned task, because making conclusive determinations of innocence is never the task of the federal prosecutor.
What prosecutors are supposed to do is complete an investigation and then either ask the grand jury to return an indictment or decline to charge the case. When prosecutors decline to charge, they make that decision not because they have "conclusively determined that no criminal conduct occurred", but rather because they do not believe that the investigated conduct constitutes a crime for which all the elements can be proven to the satisfaction of a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Prosecutors simply are not in the business of establishing innocence, any more than they are in the business of "exonerating" investigated persons. In the American justice system, innocence is presumed: there is never any need for prosecutors to "conclusively determine" it. Nor is there any place for such determination. Our country would be a very different (and very dangerous) place if prosecutors applied the SCO standard and citizens were obliged to prove "conclusively . . . that no criminal conduct occured.
Because they do not belong to our criminal justice vocabulary, the SCO's inverted-proof-standard and "exoneration" statements cn be understood only as political statements issuing from persons (federal prosecutors) who in our system of government are rightly expected never to be political in the performance of their duties. The inverted burden of proof knowingly embedded in the SCO's conclusion shows that the Special Counsel and his staff failed in their duty to act as prosecutors and only as prosecutors.
Second, and equally importantly: In closing its investigation, the SCO had only one job - to "provide the Attorney General with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached by Special Counsel." 28 C.F.R 600.8(c). Yet the one thing the SCO was obliged to do is the very thing the SCO--intentionally and unapologetically - refused to do. The SCO made neither a prosecution decision nor a declination decision on the obstruction question. Instead, it t***smitted a 182 page discussion on raw evidentiary material combined with its own inconclusive observations on the arguable legal significance of the gathered content. As a result, none of the Report's Volume II complied with the obligation imposed by the governing regulation to "explain the prosecution or declination decision reached."
The SCO instead produced a prosecutorial curiosity - part "t***h commission" report and part law school exam paper. Far more detailed than the text of any known criminal indictment or declination memorandum, the Report is laden with factual information that has never been subjected to adversarial testing or independent analysis. That information is accompanied by a series of inexplicably inconclusive observations (inexplicable, that is, coming from a prosecutor) concerning possible applications of law to fact. This species of public report has no basis in the relevant regulation and no precedent in the history of special/independent counsel investigations.
An investigation of the President under a regulation that clearly specifies a very particular form of closing documentation is not the place for indulging creative departures from governing law. Under general prosecutorial principles, and under the Special Counsel regulation's specific language, prosecutors are to speak publically through indictments or confidentially in declination memoranda. By way of justifying this departure, it has been suggested that the Report was written with the intent of providing Congress with some kind of "road map" for congressional action. See, e.g. Remarks of House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, 4/18/19 (Press Conference) If that was in fact the SCO's intention, it too serves as additional evidence of the SCO's refusal to follow applicable law. Both the language of the regulation an its "legislative" history make plain that the "closing documentation" language was promulgated for the specific purpose of preventing the creation of this sort of final report. Under a constitution of separated powers, inferior Article II officers should not be in the business of creating "road maps" for the purpose of t***smitting them to Article I committees.
With the release of the SCO Report, and despite all the foregoing, the President has followed through on his consitent promise of t***sparency. He encouraged every White House staffer to cooperate fully with the SCO and, so far as we are aware, all have done so. Voluntary interviews included Counsel to the President, two Chiefs of Staff, the Press Secretary, and numerous others. In addition approximately 1.4 million pages of documents were provided to the SCO. This voluntary cooperation was given on the understanding (reached with the SCO) that information gathered directly from the White House or White House staffers and having to do with P**********l communications, White House deliberations, law enforcement information, and perhaps other matter may be subject to a potential claim of executive privilege and, for that reason, would be treated by the SCO as presumptively privileged. Volume II of the report contains a great deal of presumptively privileged information, largely in the form of references to, and descriptions of, White House staff interviews with the SCO. It also includes reference to presumptively privileged documentary materials.
The President is aware that, had he chosen to do so, he could have withheld such information on executive privilege grounds, basing such an assertion on the established principle that to permit release of such information might have a chilling effectt on a President's advisors, causing them to be less than fully frank in providing advice to the President. Notwithstanding his right to assert such a privilege, and with a measure of reluctance born of concern for future Presidents and their advisors, the President has in this instance elected not to assert executive privilege over any of the presumptively privileged portions of the report. As a consequence, not a single redaction in the Report was done on advice or at the direction of the White House.
The President therefore wants the following features of his decision to be known and understood:
(1) His decision not to assert privilege is not a waiver of executive privilege for any other material or for any other purpose;
(2) His decision to permit disclosure of executive-privileged portions of the report does not waive any privileges or protections for the SCO's underlying investigative materials such as, for example, FBI Form 302 witness interview summaries and presumptively privileged documants made available to the SCO by the White House.
(3) His decision does not affect his abilities as President to instruct his advisors to decline to appear before congressional committees to answer questions on these same subjects. It is one thing for a President to encourage complete cooperation and t***sparency in a criminal investigation conducted largely within the Executive Branch: It is something else entirely to allow his advisors to appear before Congress, a coordinate branch of government, and answer questions relating to their communications with the President and with each other. The former course reflected the President's recognition of the importance of promoting cooperations with a criminal investigation. The latter course creates profound separation of powers concerns and - if not defended aggressively - threatens to undermine the integrity of Executive Branch deliberations. The President is determined to protect from congressional scrutiny not only the advice rendered by his own advisors, but also by advisors to future Presidents.
A great deal is said these days about the rule of law and the importance of legal norms. In that spirit, and mindful of the frenzied atmosphere accompanying the Report's release, the following should not be forgotten. Government officials, with access to classified information derived from a counterintelligence investigation and from classified intelligence intercepts, engaged in campaign of illegal leaks against the President. Many of those leaks were felonies. They disclosed the identity of a U.S. person in violation of his civil rights; they misused intelligence for partisan political purposes; and they eroded public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of our intelligence services. The criminal investigation began with a breach of confidentiality executed by a very senior adminstration official who was himself an intelligence service chief. This leak of confidential information, personally directed by the former Director of the FBI, triggered the creation of the SCO itself - precisely what he intended to do.
Not so long ago, the idea that a law enforcement official might provide the press with confidential governmental information for the proclaimed purpose of prompting a criminal investigation of an identified individual would have troubled Americans of all political persuasions. That the head of our country's top law enforcement agency has actually done so to the President of the United States should frighten every friend of individual liberty. Under our system of government, unelected Executive Branch officers and intelligence agency personnel are supposed to answer to the person elected by the people - the President - and not the other way around. This is not a Democratic or a Republican issue; it is a matter of having a government responsible to the people - and, again, not the other way around. In the partisan commotion surrounding the released Report, it would be well to remember that what can be done to a President can be done to any of us.
These leaks and this investigation also caused immense and continuing interference with the functioning of the Executive Branch. Our constitution makes the President the sole constitutional officer "for whom the entire Nation v**es, and who represents the entire Nation both domestically and abroad. As a result, "interference with President's ability to carry out his public responsibilities is constitutionally equivalent to interference with the ability of the entirety of Congress, or the Judicial Branch, to carry out its public obligations. It is inarguable that the now-resolved allegation of "Russian collusion" placed a cloud over the Presidency that has only begun to lift in recent weeks. The pendency of the SCO investigation plainly interferred with the President's ability to carry out his public responsibility to serve the American people and to govern effectively. These very public and widely felt consequences flowed from, and were fueled by, improper disclosures by senion government officials with access to classified information. That this continues to go largely unremarked should worry all civil libertarians, all supporters of investigative due process, and all believers in limited and effective government under the Constitution.
I respectfully ask you to include a copy of this letter in the Department's records relating to the SCO investigation.
Sincerely,
Emmett Flood
WHSC
The Honorable William P. Barr
Attorney General of the United States
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave. N. W.
Washington D.C. 20530
Dear Mr. Attorney General
I write on behalf of the Office of the President to memorialize concerns relating to the form of the Special Counsel's Office ("SCO") Report ("SCO Report" or "Report") and address executive privilege issues associated with its release.
The SCO Report suffers from an extraordinary legal defect: It quite deliberately fails to comply with the requirements of governing law. Lest the Report's release be taken as a "precedent" or perceived as somehow legitmating the defect, I write with both the President and future Presidents in mind to make the following points clear.
I begin with the SCO's stated conclusion on the obstruction question. The SCO concluded that the evidence "[prevent[ed] [it] from conclusively determining that no criminal occurred." SCO Report v.2. p2. But "conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred" was not the SCO's assigned task, because making conclusive determinations of innocence is never the task of the federal prosecutor.
What prosecutors are supposed to do is complete an investigation and then either ask the grand jury to return an indictment or decline to charge the case. When prosecutors decline to charge, they make that decision not because they have "conclusively determined that no criminal conduct occurred", but rather because they do not believe that the investigated conduct constitutes a crime for which all the elements can be proven to the satisfaction of a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Prosecutors simply are not in the business of establishing innocence, any more than they are in the business of "exonerating" investigated persons. In the American justice system, innocence is presumed: there is never any need for prosecutors to "conclusively determine" it. Nor is there any place for such determination. Our country would be a very different (and very dangerous) place if prosecutors applied the SCO standard and citizens were obliged to prove "conclusively . . . that no criminal conduct occured.
Because they do not belong to our criminal justice vocabulary, the SCO's inverted-proof-standard and "exoneration" statements cn be understood only as political statements issuing from persons (federal prosecutors) who in our system of government are rightly expected never to be political in the performance of their duties. The inverted burden of proof knowingly embedded in the SCO's conclusion shows that the Special Counsel and his staff failed in their duty to act as prosecutors and only as prosecutors.
Second, and equally importantly: In closing its investigation, the SCO had only one job - to "provide the Attorney General with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached by Special Counsel." 28 C.F.R 600.8(c). Yet the one thing the SCO was obliged to do is the very thing the SCO--intentionally and unapologetically - refused to do. The SCO made neither a prosecution decision nor a declination decision on the obstruction question. Instead, it t***smitted a 182 page discussion on raw evidentiary material combined with its own inconclusive observations on the arguable legal significance of the gathered content. As a result, none of the Report's Volume II complied with the obligation imposed by the governing regulation to "explain the prosecution or declination decision reached."
The SCO instead produced a prosecutorial curiosity - part "t***h commission" report and part law school exam paper. Far more detailed than the text of any known criminal indictment or declination memorandum, the Report is laden with factual information that has never been subjected to adversarial testing or independent analysis. That information is accompanied by a series of inexplicably inconclusive observations (inexplicable, that is, coming from a prosecutor) concerning possible applications of law to fact. This species of public report has no basis in the relevant regulation and no precedent in the history of special/independent counsel investigations.
An investigation of the President under a regulation that clearly specifies a very particular form of closing documentation is not the place for indulging creative departures from governing law. Under general prosecutorial principles, and under the Special Counsel regulation's specific language, prosecutors are to speak publically through indictments or confidentially in declination memoranda. By way of justifying this departure, it has been suggested that the Report was written with the intent of providing Congress with some kind of "road map" for congressional action. See, e.g. Remarks of House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, 4/18/19 (Press Conference) If that was in fact the SCO's intention, it too serves as additional evidence of the SCO's refusal to follow applicable law. Both the language of the regulation an its "legislative" history make plain that the "closing documentation" language was promulgated for the specific purpose of preventing the creation of this sort of final report. Under a constitution of separated powers, inferior Article II officers should not be in the business of creating "road maps" for the purpose of t***smitting them to Article I committees.
With the release of the SCO Report, and despite all the foregoing, the President has followed through on his consitent promise of t***sparency. He encouraged every White House staffer to cooperate fully with the SCO and, so far as we are aware, all have done so. Voluntary interviews included Counsel to the President, two Chiefs of Staff, the Press Secretary, and numerous others. In addition approximately 1.4 million pages of documents were provided to the SCO. This voluntary cooperation was given on the understanding (reached with the SCO) that information gathered directly from the White House or White House staffers and having to do with P**********l communications, White House deliberations, law enforcement information, and perhaps other matter may be subject to a potential claim of executive privilege and, for that reason, would be treated by the SCO as presumptively privileged. Volume II of the report contains a great deal of presumptively privileged information, largely in the form of references to, and descriptions of, White House staff interviews with the SCO. It also includes reference to presumptively privileged documentary materials.
The President is aware that, had he chosen to do so, he could have withheld such information on executive privilege grounds, basing such an assertion on the established principle that to permit release of such information might have a chilling effectt on a President's advisors, causing them to be less than fully frank in providing advice to the President. Notwithstanding his right to assert such a privilege, and with a measure of reluctance born of concern for future Presidents and their advisors, the President has in this instance elected not to assert executive privilege over any of the presumptively privileged portions of the report. As a consequence, not a single redaction in the Report was done on advice or at the direction of the White House.
The President therefore wants the following features of his decision to be known and understood:
(1) His decision not to assert privilege is not a waiver of executive privilege for any other material or for any other purpose;
(2) His decision to permit disclosure of executive-privileged portions of the report does not waive any privileges or protections for the SCO's underlying investigative materials such as, for example, FBI Form 302 witness interview summaries and presumptively privileged documants made available to the SCO by the White House.
(3) His decision does not affect his abilities as President to instruct his advisors to decline to appear before congressional committees to answer questions on these same subjects. It is one thing for a President to encourage complete cooperation and t***sparency in a criminal investigation conducted largely within the Executive Branch: It is something else entirely to allow his advisors to appear before Congress, a coordinate branch of government, and answer questions relating to their communications with the President and with each other. The former course reflected the President's recognition of the importance of promoting cooperations with a criminal investigation. The latter course creates profound separation of powers concerns and - if not defended aggressively - threatens to undermine the integrity of Executive Branch deliberations. The President is determined to protect from congressional scrutiny not only the advice rendered by his own advisors, but also by advisors to future Presidents.
A great deal is said these days about the rule of law and the importance of legal norms. In that spirit, and mindful of the frenzied atmosphere accompanying the Report's release, the following should not be forgotten. Government officials, with access to classified information derived from a counterintelligence investigation and from classified intelligence intercepts, engaged in campaign of illegal leaks against the President. Many of those leaks were felonies. They disclosed the identity of a U.S. person in violation of his civil rights; they misused intelligence for partisan political purposes; and they eroded public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of our intelligence services. The criminal investigation began with a breach of confidentiality executed by a very senior adminstration official who was himself an intelligence service chief. This leak of confidential information, personally directed by the former Director of the FBI, triggered the creation of the SCO itself - precisely what he intended to do.
Not so long ago, the idea that a law enforcement official might provide the press with confidential governmental information for the proclaimed purpose of prompting a criminal investigation of an identified individual would have troubled Americans of all political persuasions. That the head of our country's top law enforcement agency has actually done so to the President of the United States should frighten every friend of individual liberty. Under our system of government, unelected Executive Branch officers and intelligence agency personnel are supposed to answer to the person elected by the people - the President - and not the other way around. This is not a Democratic or a Republican issue; it is a matter of having a government responsible to the people - and, again, not the other way around. In the partisan commotion surrounding the released Report, it would be well to remember that what can be done to a President can be done to any of us.
These leaks and this investigation also caused immense and continuing interference with the functioning of the Executive Branch. Our constitution makes the President the sole constitutional officer "for whom the entire Nation v**es, and who represents the entire Nation both domestically and abroad. As a result, "interference with President's ability to carry out his public responsibilities is constitutionally equivalent to interference with the ability of the entirety of Congress, or the Judicial Branch, to carry out its public obligations. It is inarguable that the now-resolved allegation of "Russian collusion" placed a cloud over the Presidency that has only begun to lift in recent weeks. The pendency of the SCO investigation plainly interferred with the President's ability to carry out his public responsibility to serve the American people and to govern effectively. These very public and widely felt consequences flowed from, and were fueled by, improper disclosures by senion government officials with access to classified information. That this continues to go largely unremarked should worry all civil libertarians, all supporters of investigative due process, and all believers in limited and effective government under the Constitution.
I respectfully ask you to include a copy of this letter in the Department's records relating to the SCO investigation.
Sincerely,
Emmett Flood
WHSC
May 7, 2019 01:58:23 #
proud republican
Loc: RED CALIFORNIA
Blade_Runner wrote:
b Via Hand Delivery br br The Honorable William ... (show quote)
WOW!!!..Where did you get this from??
May 7, 2019 02:29:49 #
Blade_Runner wrote:
b Via Hand Delivery br br The Honorable William ... (show quote)
Is this the standard cover letter you pull it out anytime the t***h might be getting a little too close for comfort? Here are 500 prosecutors who have read the Mueller report and state that there is enough evidence presented by the finding to charge the president with obstruction of justice. Now, these prosecutors are only talking about the findings of the report not whether Mr. Mueller was supposed to look for guilt or innocence--that would have been determined through a trial or impeachment hearing.
Now if you were able to think for yourself instead of relying on others to think for you, you would have understood how out of place Mr. Floods attempt to cover for his president was in this case. The question had nothing to do with Mueller's conduct but the findings of the report which Flood's letter didn't address at all.
So put your letter back from whence it came as it doesn't apply to the question at hand. And think next time you are trying to protect Donald from the T***h that will either see him impeached or someone else ushered into his office come January 2021...
May 7, 2019 02:34:27 #
proud republican
Loc: RED CALIFORNIA
PeterS wrote:
Is this the standard cover letter you pull it out ... (show quote)
He wont be impeached....He will be reelected again in 2020 and we will watch you Rats losing your minds on National TV again!!!...Cant wait!!!
May 7, 2019 02:40:10 #
proud republican wrote:
WOW!!!..Where did you get this from??
WOW!!! You didn't even realize that this letter from Mr. Flood didn't even apply to the question at hand did you? You shouldn't be so impressed by bobbles and trinkets PR. Here we have 500 former prosecutors who have all read the Mueller report and agree that there is enough evidence to charge your fearless leader with Obstruction of Justice. What is a red herring and irrelevant is Mueller and any statements he made or how he conducted himself for that matter. The only thing that matters is that these 500 prosecutors looked at the evidence and decided it was significant enough to charge DT with Obstruction of Justice.
Now Blade Runner lives in a world of logical fallacies so he naturally thought that a red herring somehow meant something here where in t***h it meant absolutely nothing, not if your interest was the T***h--something I've found Blade-Runner seldom interested in...SAD...
May 7, 2019 02:45:11 #
PeterS wrote:
Now the only ones surprised are conservatives who ... (show quote)
So much for consensus opinions...
May 7, 2019 02:51:39 #
PeterS wrote:
WOW!!! You didn't even realize that this letter fr... (show quote)
Actually, Pete, if you understood the letter you would have a different opinion. The letter isn't about Mueller's conduct. It's about his disregard for the obligations he accepted as special council... his disregard of the law governing his mandate. It's about the damage he has attempted to do to the American theory of justice and the legal system.
It should worry the crap out of you.
May 7, 2019 02:54:18 #
proud republican wrote:
He wont be impeached....He will be reelected again in 2020 and we will watch you Rats losing your minds on National TV again!!!...Cant wait!!!
I don't think he will be impeached either but so far the polls show him losing to the top 5 Democratic contenders. Now the polls could be wrong, they have been in the past, but Trump has done ZERO to try to expand his base past the 35 to 40 percent that its always been and he can't win the presidency if the only people who v**e for him are those who are madly in love with him right now. And contrary to what you cons might think the rest of the country doesn't scare as easily as you might think. They aren't afraid of universal healthcare or having the problems with our educational system addressed. Nor do they think that a wall along our border is going to solve the problems with our immigration system. These are what you people believe and one of the reasons you are v****g for Trump.
Well, Trump needs to appeal to the 20 percent in the middle that is responsible for electing the president and until Trump does something to try to attract those people the only way he can be reelected is if Hillary were to run again...
May 7, 2019 02:57:19 #
PeterS wrote:
I don't think he will be impeached either but so f... (show quote)
Aren't those the same people who polled 92% certainty Hillary would be President...
May 7, 2019 03:07:04 #
PeterS wrote:
Now the only ones surprised are conservatives who ... (show quote)
500 out of 5,000 ex prosecutors say...…
Grasping at imaginary straws, how pathetic.
May 7, 2019 03:14:23 #
JW wrote:
Actually, Pete, if you understood the letter you would have a different opinion. The letter isn't about Mueller's conduct. It's about his disregard for the obligations he accepted as special council... his disregard of the law governing his mandate. It's about the damage he has attempted to do to the American theory of justice and the legal system.
It should worry the crap out of you.
It should worry the crap out of you.
Actually, I think Barr and Trump had done more damage to the Rule of Law than Mueller might have done and no it doesn't worry me. The issue of obstruction that the prosecutors were discussing stems from the evidence presented not by Mueller conduct as SOC. The only thing you have is to attack Mueller which is why he's being attacked now but it's the findings of the report that deal with Obstruction of Justice stand because it's the report that is important, not Robert Mueller.
Like I said to PR, Blade is trying to inject a red herring because logical fallacies are the only way he knows how to construct an argument.
May 7, 2019 03:17:26 #
Gatsby wrote:
500 out of 5,000 ex prosecutors say...… br br i... (show quote)
And how is that grasping at imaginary straws? 500 of 5000 is ten percent which is more than what is necessary for a representative statistical sample. No grasping necessary for the straws are far from imaginary...thanks for your input and pointing that out.
May 7, 2019 03:22:14 #
PeterS wrote:
I have every right to access and expose any information regarding this issue, and doing so is a result of thinking for myself. Is this the standard cover letter you pull it out ... (show quote)
I posted precise information from a named officer in the Executive Branch, and you appeal to a mob of UNNAMED FORMER prosecutors without one damned word about what their conclusions are or how they arrived at them. Who's thinking for himself here?
Who gives a shyte what your anonymous prosecutors think? So what they read the report, they no longer have any standing in the legal matters at hand and their opinions of whether or not there is evidence of anything regarding this issue doesn't mean a hill of beans.
However, As a high level official in the Executive Branch, Emmet Flood does have legal standing, and his analysis of the Mueller Report has more juice than a mob of sky screamers bellowing in the wilderness of progressive political bulls**t.
Flood was a law clerk for Judge Ralph K. Winter of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States Antonin Scalia. He also advised President Bill Clinton during his impeachment process, and his law firm represented Hillary Clinton on matters relating to the Clinton email controversy.
As Flood points out clearly in his letter to AG Barr, the bottom line is that Mueller's job as a special prosecutor (special counsel or special investigator), is to determine. based on evidence, whether to file charges or to decline from doing so. And, since no such evidence was sufficient to file charges, he essentially declined. The investigation is OVER, it's done, Kaput, fini. All the pipe dreams, wishful thinking, drum beating and sky screaming isn't going to change that.
You really need to get over your "logical fallacy" meme, you've worn that thing down to the bone.
May 7, 2019 03:26:35 #
PeterS wrote:
Is this what you call the Straw Man fallacy?And how is that grasping at imaginary straws? 500 of 5000 is ten percent which is more than what is necessary for a representative statistical sample. No grasping necessary for the straws are far from imaginary...thanks for your input and pointing that out.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.