False equivalency at its finest.
Only the lines you’ve connected in your mind could lead to such a conclusion.
Yeah, because I’m the only one crazy enough to believe that a politician could do something just as illegal as any normal person could do, LOL.
Hillary Clinton stole classified information, fled the country, and intentionally disseminated it to news organizations?
You consider their alleged crimes to be “just as illegal”. This is a false equivalency because 1) if Hillary were guilty, it would be of some form of negligence (willful or not), not treason, and 2) Hillary hasn’t been charged with a crime even after extensive FBI investigation, no matter how much you wish she had been.
False equivalency at its finest.
Only the lines you’ve connected in your mind could lead to such a conclusion.
Yeah, because I’m the only one crazy enough to believe that a politician could do something just as illegal as any normal person could do, LOL.
Did you try to misinterpret what he was saying? I don’t know where any of that came from.
Yes. This represents a pattern of behavior. I don’t know if it’s a debate tactic to shift the goalpost and therefore his argument or just an obtuse misreading of the facts.
How do you know it represents a behavior if you don’t even know whether it’s a debate tactic or an obtuse reading? We differ in opinion on their matter of guilt and this is what you come up with?
😦