Roberts read aloud a piece of the court of appeals ruling on Thursday and asked Michael Dreeben, a Department of Justice (DOJ) counselor to the special counsel, if he agreed with it.

“The court of appeals below, whose decision we’re reviewing, said, ‘A former president can be prosecuted for his official acts because the fact of the prosecution means that the former president has allegedly acted in defiance of the laws.’ Do you agree with that statement?” Roberts asked.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

the statement is SPAM - wasting Robert's time and patience

another thing to note is chinese germans democrats have SPAMMED THE INTERNET with incorrect logical fallicies

there are only 7 logic, democrats have made it into 33 or more (SPAM)

there are many fallicies but only 7 logic fallicies they fall under (the rest are exluded all by one which is conclusion by facts not related to the arguement - non-sequitur - which is only 1 logical fallicy not 30 of them)

the supporting truth by asserting a term still in question, generally

logic fallicy: the supporting truth by asserting the truth can exist does not prove which truth should exist - faulty conclusion - denying the question

you can spam 50 or more things "can call them logical fallicy" but you ONLY NEED 7

but google is listing "the rules of debate" (such as whether attire is influencial) as logical fallicy

they are simplly un-educated and spamming and defecating on what they never actually read

the rules of debate (which are the premise of the rules of the Court) are not logical fallicy - they are a separate article and set of rules

logical fallicy are ONLY about whether an (attempted) logical conclusion is disrupted - not about an entire debate's truthfullness

are they not called "logical" fallicy?

most specifically: a person's attire has 0 todo with anything logical

Robert's job is extremely simple here

the USSC decides whether lower court decisions are correct

the arguement that "if lower courts act they act correctly" is Constitutionally incorrect

(the presumption of innocense by the lower Court is assumed ONLY WHEN THERE IS NO EVIDENCE otherwise - presumption of guilt can be applied to lower courts - the Constitution doesn't say it won't be)

a simple key for people who wish to study debate is that socrates mentioned anything outside the debate brought in is questionable or possibly not allowed

* proprius - props - stage props
* anything unrelated to debate brought in from ouside the debate
articles proposed as evident whos origins have no chain of accountability or are unrelated
* any predicted future

these can spawn a hundred fallicy but really only a few are needed to name all of them

before studying debate one needs to study logic fallicy

but before studying logic fallicy one needs to study the difference between scientific understanding, knowlege, and fact

if you don't - you'll forever be doing things incorrectly in all matters at hand

and before studying fact - you need to study definition of words and verbs

(avoid webster's, they've intently made every word the same as the other so that nothing said has meaning it used to have - a form of terrorism really)

the fallicy of

* charictarization of a set (calling all from one set the same when that is in question)

* misrepresentation of the set (the number) of choices (asserting two choices when there are a set of)

* non-sequitur - a faulty logic applied; concluding something is true when the logic did not say so then asserting logic was used when it was not

* Argumentum ad Ignoratiam - begging the question - assuming the hypothesis is true when it hasn't been proven yet

* Post Hoc - drawing a conclusion from the outcome (this denies the question) (after fact)

* asserting the conclusion is true , while missing any arguement of truth

xxxxxxx not logical

* xxx Straw Man is not logical but important - presenting an easily attacked argument to influence others to lead away from what is the truth - facists don't need such techniques obviously

* xxx Post hoc (false cause) - calling two events related by time (one after another) that leaves questions still. note this is actually generalization

You should see why there are only 7; the rules are absolute and strict and broad and limited in scope to logic. they do not cover all good logic - only misuse of logic that were presented as logic

i've only found 6. i can tell you if you know all 7 and try to make 8 your making the mistake of splitting things that do not need to be split

The Strawman Fallacy: Misrepresenting an opponent’s position and proceeding torefute the misrepresentation rather than what the opponent actually claims.

one could say scientific reasoning, knowlege, understanding, and fact; anyway they are very different one must be careful which one is dealing with

i have to underline that use of words is really important and a teaching of socrates and plato

listing "any fallacy" as a logical one is mis-use of words

SAYING WHAT YOU MEAN IS REALLY IMPORANT

let's categorize ONLY 5 fallicy of debate

* refusing to appear

* refusing to argue

* STALLING FOR NO DECISION

* attacking the opponent physically

* misleading onlookers (lying) - who perportedly have some say (perhaps they do NOT which is of course facism or feudal)

* THREATENING THE ONLOOKERS

oh, that was 6, sorry, at least it wasn't 100 !

little red riding hood

* refusing to argue

ie, propagandizing while never answering

CHINA GERMANY UK "DELETING PAST LOGICAL FALLICY AND REPLACING THEM WITH LISTS OF 100 CONVOLUTED ONES"

IS A TIME BOMB - A MILITARIZED ATTACK ON THE PUBLIC - STALLING THE PUBLIC

IT REQUIRES BREAKING AND ENTERING - DAMAGE OF PUBLIC PROPERTY - AND MORE

* Post Hoc - drawing a conclusion from the outcome (this denies the question) (after fact)

i should say the logic was correct but drawn to another fact which is not related; the fault is after the correct logic

according to wikipedia china uk germany "post hoc and non-sequitor" are the same - this of course is a bomb on the public

sequitur is sequence, meaning out of sequence - the fault is in sequencing of logic

if we say logic is sequencing of true and false by logical rules, we can say the falt is "anywhere in a logical sequence"

the fallicy of

* Argumentum ad Ignoratiam - begging the question - assuming the hypothesis is true when it hasn't been proven yet

* asserting the conclusion is true , while missing any arguement of truth

* charictarization of a set (calling all from one set the same when that is in question)

* misrepresentation of the set (the number) of choices (asserting two choices when there are a set of)

* Post Hoc - drawing a conclusion from the outcome (this denies the question) (after fact)

i should say the logic was correct but drawn to another fact which is not related; the fault is after the correct logic

* non-sequitur - a faulty logic applied; concluding something is true when the logic did not say so then asserting logic was used when it was not

sequitur is sequence, meaning out of sequence - the fault is in sequencing of logic

if we say logic is sequencing of true and false by logical rules, we can say the falt is "anywhere in a logical sequence"

* change of definition - redefining a truth inside the arguement to change it's outcome - equivocation

7 logical fallicy

* asserting the conclusion is true , while missing any logic, fault of no logic

* Argumentum ad Ignoratiam - begging the question - assuming the hypothesis is true when it hasn't been proven yet, or asserting anything not proven false is true

* mis-charictarization of a set (calling all from one set the same when if they are is in question)

* mis-representation of the set in nuber of choices (asserting two choices when there are more than two)

* Post Hoc - drawing a conclusion from the outcome (this denies the question) (after fact). the logic was correct but conclusion drawn to a fact which is not related; the fault is after the correct logic

* non-sequitur - the fault is incorrect logic method; concluding something is true when the logic did not say so and asserting logic was used when it was not. sequitur is sequence. if we say logic is sequencing of true and false by logical rules, we can say the falt is "anywhere in a logical sequence"

* change of definition - redefining what is a truth inside the arguement to change it's outcome - equivocation. applying correct logic with altered truths.

i didn't find my page or notes on that no time i went by memory instead

words are important - not manging their definition is essential - saying what you mean

science reason, knowlege, understanding, fact (measurement) must be understood. logic is one reasoning there are othr.

7 logic fallicies means that, kinda. it's meant to be a broad complete succint list but only of the topic identified by the words. it certainly doesn't include "any kind of lie in debate" (there are 5 topics one of which can be split into 100). for debate i thing 5 or 6 was pretty thorough.

the logic ancient and new are and are not the same - we have some new words

7 logic fallicies include that the logic is used to prove an arguement which is actually a little wider topic but is curtailed as much as possible when we say "logic" fallicy and we aren't speaking of math but ancient speech analysis

in easier modern sense (not using latin phrases). it is simply claimed but never done, false beginning, false during, or false end - we do nothing special but what was asked.

* a claim of logic without any logic presented (failure of never beginning)

* a failure in the precept (a failure of choosing logic, neither T/F)

* a failure in process (incorrect mathematics)

* characterization of data or alteration of logic rules without proof (ruling what is in a set that is not so ruled, altered logic of ruling all not proven false are true without proof). (there are kinds of sets which math cannot populate) (these are failure of process but increase our list length for emphasis of what may not be obvous to everyone)

* an alteration of precept/truth/data during logic (correct logic) (again offered for emphasis)

* a failure in conclusion drawn upon logic (either induction deduction)

* failure of no closure (claiming something is logical, perhaps offering a few logic steps for acceptance as logic without ever prooving it was T or F and never showing any answer)

so beginning, process, end - quite predictable