Daily Caller Reporter Breaks Down House Republicans’ ‘10% For The Big Guy’ Smoking Gun

[essentialsaltes]

Non distributio medii

Non sequitur
However, it is an argumentum ad odium

 

[essentialsaltes]

If the President was complicit with James in that act; it might be bad for the President.

Sure, but that badness stems from aiding and abetting a crime. The payment (which has an innocuous explanation - a loan repayment) is entirely a red herring.

If Comer had evidence of criminality, he could be presenting that instead of presenting innocuous payments that might be not-innocuous if only there were a crime involved.

 

[HARK!]

Non sequitur

Nonsense

However, it is an argumentum ad odium

That too.

 

[HARK!]

Sure, but that badness stems from aiding and abetting a crime. The payment (which has an innocuous explanation - a loan repayment) is entirely a red herring.

If Comer had evidence of criminality, he could be presenting that instead of presenting innocuous payments that might be not-innocuous if only there were a crime involved.

This is conjecture on your part. Oh, and Comer does have evidence of criminality. He's gathering more too.

 

[essentialsaltes]

This is conjecture on your part.

Suppose James robs a bank and later uses some of the money to pay Joe back on Tuesday for the hamburger he mooched off him last week.

A receipt for the hamburger repayment is a red herring with respect to the bank robbery. It doesn't implicate either James or Joe. It's a red herring.

Oh, and Comer does have evidence of criminality.

Why didn't he show us any at his first pre-impeachment hearing?
Why did the witnesses he himself called have no knowledge of any such evidence?

 

[DaisyDay]

This is conjecture on your part. Oh, and Comer does have evidence of criminality. He's gathering more too.

Sure, he will be presenting it next Wednesday....

 

[essentialsaltes]

Nonsense

Sure, here's a genuine non distributio medii for you to ponder:

P1: All money laundering involves moving money among several different bank accounts.
P2: The Biden family finances involved moving money among several different bank accounts.
C: Therefore the Biden family is money laundering.

 

[HARK!]

Suppose James robs a bank and later uses some of the money to pay Joe back on Tuesday for the hamburger he mooched off him last week.

A receipt for the hamburger repayment is a red herring with respect to the bank robbery. It doesn't implicate either James or Joe. It's a red herring.

Your analogy is a red herring.

Here is a better one:

Suppose that Joe's family sets up a bunch of shell corporations, like criminals do to cover their tracks; so that Joe can fly under the radar from the family's influence peddling scheme; and all of the players can benefit from the scheme.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Here is a better one:

Suppose that Joe's family sets up a bunch of shell corporations, like criminals do to cover their tracks;

I see you did ponder my example in #27. Great job creating your own example!

P1: Criminal organizations set up shell companies.
P2: The Biden family set up shell companies.
C: Therefore the Biden family is a criminal organization.

 

[HARK!]

Sure, here's a genuine non distributio medii for you to ponder:

P1: All money laundering involves moving money among several different bank accounts.
P2: The Biden family finances involved moving money among several different bank accounts.
C: Therefore the Biden family is money laundering

P1 is a false premise too.

Let's work on a more logical argument.

P1: Banks flag transactions for suspicious activity.
P2: Banks flagged the transactions of James and Hunter, over 150 times, for suspicious activity.
C: James and Hunter were involved in suspicious activity.

 

[HARK!]

I see you did ponder my example in #27. Great job creating your own example!

P1: Criminal organizations set up shell companies.
P2: The Biden family set up shell companies.
C: Therefore the Biden family is a criminal organization.

You have a great gift for presenting logical fallacies.

Lets put some logic in this argument.

P1: When criminal organizations filter money through multiple shell corporations; it raises suspicions.
P2: The Biden family filtered money through multiple shell corporations.
C: Therefore it raises suspicions.

 

[essentialsaltes]

P1: When criminal organizations filter money through multiple shell corporations; it raises suspicions.
P2: The Biden family filtered money through multiple shell corporations.
C: Therefore it raises suspicions.

Great, your argument requires an unstated assumption that the Biden family is a criminal organization, and your 'conclusion' is a suspicion.

P1: Banks flag transactions for suspicious activity.
P2: Banks flagged the transactions of James and Hunter, over 150 times, for suspicious activity.
C: James and Hunter were involved in suspicious activity.

P1 is a false premise.

Banks generate 'suspicious activity reports' for transactions over $10,000 whether they are actually suspicious or not.

The misleading claim that bank reports show Hunter Biden ‘committed serious crimes’​

The Treasury also requires all cash transfers that exceed $10,000 to be separately reported.

a filing of a SAR does not mean a bank believes a client has committed a crime, as Comer claimed. In fact, Comer should well know this. He has posted on the committee’s minority website a Sept. 2 letter from a Treasury official that plainly states that SARs are “preliminary and unverified tip-and-lead information on possible violations of law.”

 

[HARK!]

P1 is a false premise.

Banks generate 'suspicious activity reports' for transactions over $10,000 whether they are actually suspicious or not.

False.

Under the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), financial institutions are required to assist U.S. government agencies in detecting and preventing money laundering, and:

• Keep records of cash purchases of negotiable instruments;
• File reports of cash transactions exceeding $10,000 (daily aggregate amount); and
• Report suspicious activity that might signal criminal activity (e.g., money laundering, tax evasion).

Suspicious Activity Reports (SAR) | OCC

Under the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), financial institutions are required to assist U.S. government agencies in detecting and preventing money laundering.

www.occ.treas.gov

A check is not a cash transaction.

>> IS 99.99% OF AMERICANS WILL

1:22
NEVER GET A SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY

1:23
REPORT.

1:23
THESE WERE CREATED AFTER

1:24
SEPTEMBER 11TH FOR THE

1:27
GOVERNMENT TO BE ABLE TO TRACK

1:29
SUSPICIOUS FOREIGN TRANSACTIONS.

1:31
IT’S EXPANDED OVER TIME TO TRACK

1:33
THINGS LIKE MONEY LAUNDERING.

1:35
BUT WHEN A BANK FILES A

1:37
SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY THE REPORT,

1:38
THAT’S NOTIFYING THE FEDERAL

1:40
GOVERNMENT THAT WE’RE PRETTY

1:41
CERTAIN OUR CLIENT HAS COMMITTED

1:43
A CRIME.

1:44
HUNTER BIDEN AND JIM BIDEN HAS

1:46
AT LEAST 150 OF THESE, WE

1:47
BELIEVE JOE BIDEN’S NAME WAS ON

1:49
SOME OF THOSE ACCOUNTS.

1:50
THAT’S WHY WE WANT TO -- BUT THE

1:52
SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY REPORTS ARE

1:55
VERY DETAILED AS TO WHY THE BANK

1:57
SUSPECTED CRIMINAL ACTIVITY WAS

1:59
TAKING PLACE BY THE BIDENS.

2:01
MARIA: I’VE SAID FROM DAY ONE,

2:03
THIS IS NOT A HUNTER BIDEN

2:04
STORY, THIS IS A JOE BIDEN

2:06
STORY, BECAUSE THEY WERE

2:07
BASICALLY SELLING ACCESS TO JOE

2:09
BIDEN.

2:09
WE HAVE ALL THE E-MAILS, THE BIG

2:11
GUY E-MAIL WHERE JOE BIDEN WAS

2:13
SUPPOSED TO BE HOLDING 10%

2:15
EQUITY E INTO CEFC, THE CHINESE

2:18
ENERGY COMPANY.

 

[HARK!]

Great, your argument requires an unstated assumption that the Biden family is a criminal organization,

No it doesn't; but you are free to make that assumption.

 

[essentialsaltes]

False.

• Keep records of cash purchases of negotiable instruments;
• File reports of cash transactions exceeding $10,000 (daily aggregate amount); and

A check is not a cash transaction.

Sporfle. It's awfully kind of those drug lords to report their movement of giant stacks of cash to the banks.

What do you suppose a negotiable instrument might be?

What Is a Negotiable Instrument? ​

Common examples of negotiable instruments include personal checks,



IOW, when you "write a check" you are purchasing a negotiable instrument with the cash in your account.

 

[essentialsaltes]

No it doesn't; but you are free to make that assumption.

Certainly it does

P1: When criminal organizations filter money through multiple shell corporations; it raises suspicions.
P2: The Biden family filtered money through multiple shell corporations.
C: Therefore it raises suspicions.

By P1: Suspicions are raised when criminal organizations do this.

So your conclusion only holds if "The Biden family" is subject to P1. This would necessitate "The Biden family" being a criminal organization, which has not been premised or demonstrated.

Honestly, you are non distributio medii-ing all over the place here.

John Dillinger wore a size 10 shoe, and is a suspicious character.
Joe Biden wears a size 10 shoe.
Therefore Joe Biden is a suspicious character.

 

[HARK!]

P1: When criminal organizations filter money through multiple shell corporations; it raises suspicions.
P2: The Biden family filtered money through multiple shell corporations.
C: Therefore it raises suspicions.

By P1: Suspicions are raised when criminal organizations do this.

So your conclusion only holds if "The Biden family" is subject to P1. This would necessitate "The Biden family" being a criminal organization, which has not been premised or demonstrated.

Honestly, you are non distributio medii-ing all over the place here.

John Dillinger wore a size 10 shoe, and is a suspicious character.
Joe Biden wears a size 10 shoe.
Therefore Joe Biden is a suspicious character.

Well that point seems to have zinged right over your head.

An organization in and of itself doesn't raise suspicions. It's the structure of the organization, or the activities of the organization, that raise the suspicions.

It's the structure and the activities of the Bidens' family business that are raising suspicions.

I'll spell it out a little more clearly for you.

P1: When criminal organizations filter money through multiple shell corporations; it raises suspicions.
P2: The Biden family filtered money through multiple shell corporations,
C: Therefore the Biden family filtering money through multiple shell corporations, raises suspicions.

The distributed terms are "filtering money, and "shell corporations,"

The distributed terms were distributed,

 

[HARK!]

Sporfle.

Is that even English?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Is that even English?

Per WIktionary, yes.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Well that point seems to have zinged right over your head.

Whether it did or it didn't, the form of your syllogism is faulty.