>>2926144 (pb Q post)

>If [RR] is dirty, Mueller must also be dirty.

>if Mueller is dirty, [RR] must also be dirty.

This is a valid argument form:

If p then q.

p.

So, q.

Round 1:

'p': 'If [RR] is dirty, Mueller must also be dirty.';

'q': [RR] is dirty.

'r': Muller is dirty.

Define "dirty": In this context it relates to SC election investigation.

This is not a valid argument. Mueller is not "dirty" as it relates to these matters.

Round 2:

'p': 'If Mueller is dirty, [RR] must also be dirty.'

'q': Mueller is dirty.

'r': [RR] is dirty.

Define "dirty": In this context it relates to Uranium 1 issues (and who knows what else).

This time, the argument IS valid. They're both dirty as all hell.

My reconcile:

Logic says that in terms of the current SC investigation Mueller is actually going to behave and nail everyone to the wall in trade for not becoming [Mueller] in the Uranium 1 problem.

>>2929431

Oh jeez….put the bot crap away.

My point really comes down to that we need to take each line of that drop as independent statements.

Getting into circular references just creates a fallacy that isn't there. Each sentence refers to a different set of circumstances.