On one thread, Dorkus accuses me of "assigning motivations" to Pelosi when I say this:
thinks it is politically better to have 5 legislative Committees investigating Trump than one judicial Select Committee on Impeachment, even though that Committee would have enhanced subpoena power.
#10 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER AT 2019-05-23 02:58 PM
And he retorts with:
One might have thought that even the Montessori School of Real Estate Law would have taught about the logical fallacy of assigning motivation in argument.
When Nancy gets desperate enough to need your opinion on what Dems should do, I'm sure she'll call you.
#11 | POSTED BY CORKY AT 2019-05-23 03:07 PM
Then I point out that setting forth someone's stated position is not "assigning motivation":
Raskin -- a former law professor -- said he wasn't advocating impeaching Trump but suggested that opening an impeachment inquiry would strengthen their legal position while allowing Democrats to move forward with their legislative agenda.
Pelosi dismissed this argument, asking Raskin whether he wanted to shut down the other five committees working on Trump investigations in favor of the Judiciary Committee.
#17 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER AT 2019-05-23 03:20 PM
Corky responds with predictable ad hominum, then adopts it as his own position in this thread's #18:
Nancy is wise to wait on them to catch up.... there is no hurry at the moment with 5 current investigations that are winning court cases and getting new docs.
It's almost like he thinks his prior posting history is invisible...