— —
Since I took a few symbolic logic courses at college, I found this one paragraph from today’s Court of Appeals ruling particularly interesting. You never know when sound logically reasoning will let you express your philosophical leanings, program a solid application — or ‘argue your way out of a paper bag’ …
Apparently Trump’s illogical-Defense team has failed to learn any of these important life lessons.
CNN — Feb 6, 2024
Donald Trump is not immune from prosecution for alleged crimes he committed during his presidency to reverse the 2020 election results, a federal appeals court said Tuesday.
The ruling is a major blow to Trump’s key defense thus far in the federal election subversion case brought against him by special counsel Jack Smith. The former president had argued that the conduct Smith charged him over was part of his official duties as president and therefore shield him from criminal liability.
“For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant. But any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as President no longer protects him against this prosecution,” the court wrote.
Here is that one particularly interesting and readable paragraph from the Appeals Court ruling. It occurs in the concluding sections of their ruling. It starts out saying that the former guy’s main defense is a “red flag” — which presumes that the Framers did not know “how to explicitly grant criminal immunity in the Constitution”. Pay no attention to the fact that they did exactly that, elsewhere in the very same Constitution.
Then, the unanimous Court goes on slams the Trump defense as a simplistic “logical fallacy” which basically — and INCORRECTLY — turns the rules of If-Then conditional logic upside down, and on its head.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
APPELLEE
v.
DONALD J. TRUMP,
APPELLANT
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia
Decided February 6, 2024
[pages 43-44]
To begin, former President Trump’s reliance on a negative implication is an immediate red flag: The Framers knew how to explicitly grant criminal immunity in the Constitution, as they did to legislators in the Speech or Debate Clause. See U.S. CONST. art. I, § 6, cl. 1. Yet they chose not to include a similar provision granting immunity to the President. See Vance, 140 S. Ct. at 2434 (Thomas, J., dissenting) (“The text of the Constitution explicitly addresses the privileges of some federal officials, but it does not afford the President absolute immunity.”). The Impeachment Judgment Clause merely states that “the Party convicted” shall nevertheless be subject to criminal prosecution. The text says nothing about non-convicted officials. Former President Trump’s reading rests on a logical fallacy: Stating that “if the President is convicted, he can be prosecuted,” does not necessarily mean that “if the President is not convicted, he cannot be prosecuted.” See, e.g., N.L.R.B. v. Noel Canning, 573 U.S. 513, 589 (2014) (Scalia, J., concurring) (explaining “the fallacy of the inverse (otherwise known as denying the antecedent): the incorrect assumption that if P implies Q, then not-P implies not-Q”).
—
As we shall see in a moment this mistake in reasoning is amateurish, and unworthy of a first-year Law student, pulling an all-nighter to get his term paper turned in. “Denying the antecedent” is exactly the kind of logical mistake that signals to the professor, that you just don’t get it. That, or you just don’t care about sound logic or reasoning.
Here are few examples of “denying the antecedent” in action. The implications of asserting such rationales, says more about your own sloppiness/cluelessness, than it does about the merits of your [falsely arrived at] conclusions:
Denying the Antecedent — www.studocu.com
[...]
The general form of this fallacy is:
If P, then Q.
Not P.
Therefore, not Q.
Here are six examples of denying the antecedent [that are obviously false] :
- If it is raining, then the ground is wet. It is not raining. Therefore, the ground is not wet.
[...]
- If you study, then you will pass the exam. You did not study. Therefore, you will not pass the exam.
[...]
- If a dog is a poodle, then it is a mammal. The dog is not a poodle. Therefore, it is not a mammal.
[...]
- If you are in Paris, then you are in France. You are not in Paris. Therefore, you are not in France.
[...]
As today’s Court of Appeals ruling put it:
“if the President is convicted, he can be prosecuted,”
that does not logically mean:
“if the President is not convicted, he cannot be prosecuted” …
—
Likewise, if that kind of faulty reasoning were true, it would be like saying
“if Joe Biden is the certified winner of the 2020 Election, he will be President,
which obviously implies that:
“if Trump denies the 2020 Election certification, so Trump is still president.”
Trump’s Immunity claims are so faulty, that they were true, it’s like saying ...
“if Trump keeps repeating the same lies over and over, some people will believe him”
but that does not imply that:
“if Trump stops repeating the same lies over and over, those same people will stop believing him.”
—
Afterall the first rule of MAGA club is:
1. Toss your common sense out the window.
And the second rule of MAGA club is:
2. Never ever question the ramblings of the club leader.
Cuz as Dorothy famously said to her dog after catching that improbable ride over the rainbow:
“Toto, I don’t think we’re in Kansas anymore.”
Soon we shall see if the Supremes want to venture into that Trump-land of Oz. Afterall, their own reputations will be at stake, after such a harsh take-down, by the Federal Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit. My hunch is the SCOTUS will let their ruling stand. Good enough for them, no need for additional pile on, my bet.
— —