Investigating the investigators? Why not?

[Old Trapper]

Tell that to Larry Sinclair .....

You might have had sex with Sinclair, Obama didn't.

 

[Old Trapper]

He is not required to show any tax records. That's the law. He has not lied about them either.

He is when Congress requests them.

He doesn't have to answer them. I wouldn't pay Mueller much attention either.

Then why lie about answering them as Trump did?

No, you are lying, just like other Democrats.

Typical tripe of the mindless right wing. Don't have an intelligent response so just lie some more.

Already am. You are not. You wish to destroy the Constitution of the United States.

Ahh yes, another typical lie. Is that why your Repugnant ones ignore it all the time? That and the rule of law.

 

[CharacterAssassin]

He is when Congress requests them.



Then why lie about answering them as Trump did?



Typical tripe of the mindless right wing. Don't have an intelligent response so just lie some more.



Ahh yes, another typical lie. Is that why your Repugnant ones ignore it all the time? That and the rule of law.

Great effort, but your casting your pearls before swine with that one.

 

[Into the Night]

He is when Congress requests them.

Nope. The Constitution does NOT give authority to Congress to demand any such thing. The 1st and 4th amendments specifically prohibit such a thing.

Then why lie about answering them as Trump did?

He didn't, liar.

Typical tripe of the mindless right wing. Don't have an intelligent response so just lie some more.

You are just projecting yourself again.

Ahh yes, another typical lie.

Nah. You really do want to destroy the Constitution of the United States.

Is that why your Repugnant ones ignore it all the time? That and the rule of law.

No, it is YOU that is ignoring the rule of law.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Do you really think the Russians consider themselves subject to Mueller's indictments???

Whether they do or not has no bearing on the fact that they were indicted as a result of the investigation into Russian interference. They are subject to the indictments because those individuals are now subject to arrest if they visit any country which has an extradition treaty with the US. The bottom line is the indictments of the Russians are clearly indictments that go the core of stated reason for the investigation.

I do. I think it's obvious. They wanted to make an example of him.

That is a possibility and wouldn't be the first time they have done that to make an example. But we do know that they didn't contact CNN to tell them before hand. CNN just happened to be staking out Stone's house because of what was happening outside the court room the previous day.

He wasn't armed, dude. Even if he did have a gun, that does NOT warrant a pre-dawn raid and scheduling CNN to film the whole thing! You are REALLY reaching.

We don't know if he had a gun in the house or not. You are making up facts that aren't in evidence. CNN has said it wasn't scheduled to film it, they just go lucky to have a crew there based on a producer that thought something might be happening soon.

He did not threaten any judge. You are making crap up.

I did not make up Stone's instagram post. It exists. The judge clearly felt it was enough to sanction Stone. Googling "Stone threatens Judge" will get you multiple news stories. Stone says he didn't mean it as a threat but the reaction of others was to see it that way.

Irrelevance fallacy. You are forgetting all the special treatment she got by getting a pass for all the laws she broke.

It seems you don't know what logical fallacies are. There is no such thing as an "irrelevance fallacy" in logic. My questioning your statement as being factual is hardly a logical fallacy. All the laws she broke? When you can cite the laws she broke with evidence of how she broke them then we can discuss any special treatment. Just because you claim something to be true does not make it true. My questioning your "facts" isn't a logical fallacy. Your failure to provide supporting evidence of your "facts" but instead just repeating the claim would be an example of argumentum ad nauseam. (We can discuss the facts of Stone's instagram after you google it. In the case of Hillary breaking several laws the overriding authority is Comey's statement where he states there is no crime that could be reasonably prosecuted.)

Trump does not have to agree to be interviewed by the FBI. The FBI is his department. Did you forget that?

Since you want to talk fallacies you have just introduced the red herring fallacy as well as the appeal to ridicule. Trump refused to be interviewed by the FBI. Hillary agreed to and was interviewed by the FBI. Claiming the FBI is Trump's department is a red herring and has nothing to do with the fact that Trump refused to be interviewed.

 

[Vasquezrocks]

You might have had sex with Sinclair, Obama didn't.

No ....he sucked Obama's dick ..... But, that's not "sex" is it . Lol !

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Nope. The Constitution does NOT give authority to Congress to demand any such thing. The 1st and 4th amendments specifically prohibit such a thing.

Congress is given it's power in Art I of the Constitution. It is granted 2 powers that would apply.
It is granted the power to create tax law and the power to pass any law necessary and proper for the execution of any power granted under the Constitution.

Let's look at how the first and the fourth amendments might apply.
AMENDMENT I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Taxes aren't religion, the press, a peaceable assembly or a petition for a redress of grievances. That would mean you are claiming freedom of speech applies here but Congress only can't abridge freedom of speech. It says nothing about privacy of a document provided to the government. You would have to argue that somehow by looking at a tax return Congress is forcing a citizen to speak in a manner they don't wish to. The citizen is no longer in control of that document when it is given to the government under the power to tax. It is not a speech issue at all. The law actually states Congress can't release the document to the general public without the citizen's consent. The only issue here is which branch of the government can see the document the government possesses. That is hardly a free speech issue. The law is what controls who can see the document and prevents its release to the public. The law clearly states Congress can look at it if they request to do so.

As for the 4th amendment :
AMENDMENT IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

There are a couple things about trying to apply this. First of all the document in question is not in the control of the person. It has been submitted to the government. Secondly, Congress can't charge anyone with a crime. They can certainly submit something for prosecution. It is when prosecution is a possibility that the 4th amendment would come into question. Prior to that most courts would probably say since there is no threat of prosecution there is no reason to apply the 4th amendment to a document that the government already possesses.

 

[Into the Night]

That is a possibility and wouldn't be the first time they have done that to make an example. But we do know that they didn't contact CNN to tell them before hand. CNN just happened to be staking out Stone's house because of what was happening outside the court room the previous day.

Bull. CNN just 'happened to be there' when the pre-dawn raid team arrived, eh? Why was CNN even in the neighborhood? What other reason was there for them to even be there?

We don't know if he had a gun in the house or not.

Irrelevance fallacy. Having a gun in the house does NOT warrant a pre-dawn raid of that sort.

You are making up facts that aren't in evidence.

No, you are making an argument out a straw man.

CNN has said it wasn't scheduled to film it, they just go lucky to have a crew there based on a producer that thought something might be happening soon.

Sure, buddy. Sure. You really believe that too, doncha?

I did not make up Stone's instagram post. It exists. The judge clearly felt it was enough to sanction Stone. Googling "Stone threatens Judge" will get you multiple news stories. Stone says he didn't mean it as a threat but the reaction of others was to see it that way.

It was not a threat.

It seems you don't know what logical fallacies are.

A logical fallacy is an error in logic, just like an error in math. Logic is a closed system, just like mathematics.

There is no such thing as an "irrelevance fallacy" in logic.

Yes there is. There is no 'official list' of fallacies. An irrelevance fallacy is the use of irrelevant information to form or support an unrelated argument.

My questioning your statement as being factual is hardly a logical fallacy.

Not the reason for the fallacy, dude. You were bringing up an irrelevant point. You have lost context here. This portion is done.

All the laws she broke?

Yes. I listed them.

When you can cite the laws she broke

I already did. Pay attention.

with evidence of how she broke them

Public record, dude.

then we can discuss any special treatment.

You don't want to discuss anything about special treatment. You want to nitpick.

Just because you claim something to be true does not make it true.

Just because you claim something is false does not make it false.

My questioning your "facts" isn't a logical fallacy.

Argument by repetition fallacy.

Your failure to provide supporting evidence of your "facts" but instead just repeating the claim would be an example of argumentum ad nauseam.

I am not repeating the claim. You repeat yours though.

(We can discuss the facts of Stone's instagram after you google it. In the case of Hillary breaking several laws the overriding authority is Comey's statement where he states there is no crime that could be reasonably prosecuted.)

Irrelevant. This has nothing to do with the predawn raid or why it happened.

Since you want to talk fallacies you have just introduced the red herring fallacy

Fallacy fallacy. No red herring or redirection was attempted at all.

as well as the appeal to ridicule.

Not a fallacy in all cases, dude.

Trump refused to be interviewed by the FBI.

So what? It's his choice. He doesn't have to be interviewed by the FBI.

Hillary agreed to and was interviewed by the FBI.

So what? Irrelevance fallacy. It has nothing to do with her crimes.

Claiming the FBI is Trump's department is a red herring

WRONG. Fallacy fallacy. The fact that the FBI is in the executive branch makes a requirement that he be interviewed by the FBI rather irrelevant.

and has nothing to do with the fact that Trump refused to be interviewed.

Actually, it does. He has the choice to not be interviewed by his own department.

 

[Into the Night]

Congress is given it's power in Art I of the Constitution. It is granted 2 powers that would apply.
It is granted the power to create tax law and the power to pass any law necessary and proper for the execution of any power granted under the Constitution.

WRONG. It is not granted the power to create tax law. It is given the power to lay certain taxes. It is also restricted in how those taxes are levied. They cannot tax one group and not another. Note that it required an amendment to authorize taxing incomes.

Let's look at how the first and the fourth amendments might apply.
AMENDMENT I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Taxes aren't religion, the press, a peaceable assembly or a petition for a redress of grievances. That would mean you are claiming freedom of speech applies here but Congress only can't abridge freedom of speech. It says nothing about privacy of a document provided to the government. You would have to argue that somehow by looking at a tax return Congress is forcing a citizen to speak in a manner they don't wish to. The citizen is no longer in control of that document when it is given to the government under the power to tax. It is not a speech issue at all. The law actually states Congress can't release the document to the general public without the citizen's consent. The only issue here is which branch of the government can see the document the government possesses. That is hardly a free speech issue. The law is what controls who can see the document and prevents its release to the public. The law clearly states Congress can look at it if they request to do so.

Making an accusation without evidence is not providing a redress of grievances, dude.

As for the 4th amendment :
AMENDMENT IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

There are a couple things about trying to apply this. First of all the document in question is not in the control of the person.

It is, but it doesn't have to be.

It has been submitted to the government.

Under duress. Submitting such information under duress violates the 4th and 5th amendments in and of itself.

Secondly, Congress can't charge anyone with a crime.

If they accuse someone using evidence gathered illegally, or using no evidence, they are violating the constitution.

They can certainly submit something for prosecution.

No, they cannot submit that information.

It is when prosecution is a possibility that the 4th amendment would come into question.

That is why they cannot submit such information to the prosecution.

Prior to that most courts would probably say since there is no threat of prosecution there is no reason to apply the 4th amendment to a document that the government already possesses.

No court has the authority to change the Constitution of the United States, dude. Consensus is not a valid method of changing the Constitution of the United States either. Obviously, you don't care about that document and what it says.

 

[Old Trapper]

No, it is YOU that is ignoring the rule of law.

I'm going to ignore the usual ignorance demonstrated by the right wing class of idiots, and give you something else to lie about, or act like a dumb f**k in regards to Trump:

"Section 6103(f)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) reads:

Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, or the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Secretary [of the Treasury] shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request, except that any return or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure."

Articles 4, and 5, do not apply since Trump filed the returns, and it he lied, which he more then likely did, he has already incriminated himself.

 

[CharacterAssassin]

I'm going to ignore the usual ignorance demonstrated by the right wing class of idiots, and give you something else to lie about, or act like a dumb f**k in regards to Trump:

"Section 6103(f)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) reads:

Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, or the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Secretary [of the Treasury] shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request, except that any return or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure."

Articles 4, and 5, do not apply since Trump filed the returns, and it he lied, which he more then likely did, he has already incriminated himself.

He's far too fucking stupid to understand something even as black and white as that law is.

 

[Old Trapper]

No ....he sucked Obama's dick ..... But, that's not "sex" is it . Lol !

Probably in your mentally deranged mind. But what the hell, you love f**king dogs so why not lie about others. Tell us what does dog cum taste like?

 

[Vasquezrocks]

Probably in your mentally deranged mind. But what the hell, you love f**king dogs so why not lie about others. Tell us what does dog cum taste like?

Did you miss the news conference Larry Sinclair gave ?

Don't know about dog cum .... Ask a liberal .

 

[USFREEDOM911]

I'm going to ignore the usual ignorance demonstrated by the right wing class of idiots, and give you something else to lie about, or act like a dumb f**k in regards to Trump:

"Section 6103(f)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) reads:

Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, or the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Secretary [of the Treasury] shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request, except that any return or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure."

Articles 4, and 5, do not apply since Trump filed the returns, and it he lied, which he more then likely did, he has already incriminated himself.

I like this part:

(g)Disclosure to President and certain other persons

(1)In generalUpon written request by the President, signed by him personally, the Secretary shall furnish to the President, or to such employee or employees of the White House Office as the President may designate by name in such request, a return or return information with respect to any taxpayer named in such request. Any such request shall state—

(A)the name and address of the taxpayer whose return or return information is to be disclosed,
(B)the kind of return or return information which is to be disclosed,
(C)the taxable period or periods covered by such return or return information, and
(D)the specific reason why the inspection or disclosure is requested.

 

[Into the Night]

I'm going to ignore the usual ignorance demonstrated by the right wing class of idiots, and give you something else to lie about, or act like a dumb f**k in regards to Trump:

"Section 6103(f)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) reads:

Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, or the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Secretary [of the Treasury] shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request, except that any return or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure."

Articles 4, and 5, do not apply since Trump filed the returns, and it he lied, which he more then likely did, he has already incriminated himself.

The Internal Revenue Code does not override the Constitution of the United States, dude.
Being required to file the returns is in and of itself a violation of the 4th and 5th amendments.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Bull. CNN just 'happened to be there' when the pre-dawn raid team arrived, eh? Why was CNN even in the neighborhood? What other reason was

Your response is argument from incredulity. Just because you don't believe it does not make their claims false. Their claim is well laid out and reasonable. One need only apply Occam's razor.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/25/politics/roger-stone-raid/index.html

Irrelevance fallacy. Having a gun in the house does NOT warrant a pre-dawn raid of that sort.

If those serving the warrant think the person may harm themselves or others they will conduct a no knock raid. They will also do that if they suspect evidence may be destroyed.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/warrant-execution-unreasonable-police-behavior.html
(There is no such thing as an "irrelevance fallacy. Repeating that claim doesn't make it so. Until you can point me to a credible source for such a fallacy you are simply resorting to argumentum ad nauseam.)

No, you are making an argument out a straw man.

A straw man requires I misstate your argument and then attempt to defeat it. I was defending my statement by providing more details after you didn't believe me. Hardly a straw man.

Sure, buddy. Sure. You really believe that too, doncha?

argument from incredulity

It was not a threat.

That is your conclusion. It was not the way it was taken by others.

A logical fallacy is an error in logic, just like an error in math. Logic is a closed system, just like mathematics.

I hope you aren't as bad at math as you are at logic.
4 <---- a number but not math
2+2=4 <--- math
The media reported it as a threat. <---- Statement of fact. While this could be seen as a premise it isn't a conclusion on my part so it can't be a logical fallacy.
You don't think it was a threat <----- a conclusion on your part so it could be a logical fallacy.

Yes there is. There is no 'official list' of fallacies. An irrelevance fallacy is the use of irrelevant information to form or support an unrelated argument.

There are many lists of fallacies. What you are referring to is actually called a relevance fallacy.

Not the reason for the fallacy, dude. You were bringing up an irrelevant point. You have lost context here. This portion is done.

If I have lost context it would actually be a red herring fallacy. But I didn't lose context. I was responding directly to your statement and pointing out you were begging the question when you claimed Clinton was let off easy for her crimes. I asked you to show us her crimes. You failed to do so and still refuse to do so. That would make my question very relevant to your failure to support your argument.

Yes. I listed them.

I already did. Pay attention.

Public record, dude.

No. The public record is here...
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/p...-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system
"No charges are appropriate in this case." That would mean there are no chargeable crimes.

You don't want to discuss anything about special treatment. You want to nitpick.

Pointing out facts that directly contradict your opinion is hardly nitpicking. It goes straight to the heart of the matter.

Just because you claim something is false does not make it false.

No. It doesn't. That is why I post how to find the information that supports what I am saying. You still haven't posted anything in support of your claim that Clinton committed crimes.

Argument by repetition fallacy.

I am not repeating the claim. You repeat yours though.

Irrelevant. This has nothing to do with the predawn raid or why it happened.

Fallacy fallacy. No red herring or redirection was attempted at all.

Not a fallacy in all cases, dude.

So what? It's his choice. He doesn't have to be interviewed by the FBI.

So what? Irrelevance fallacy. It has nothing to do with her crimes.

WRONG. Fallacy fallacy. The fact that the FBI is in the executive branch makes a requirement that he be interviewed by the FBI rather irrelevant.

Actually, it does. He has the choice to not be interviewed by his own department.

You really have no clue how fallacies work. Argument by repetition requires that no support be given but a statement just be repeated. If support is given it can't be argument by repetition. Not addressing a specific statement but bringing up another topic is a red herring. It is an appeal to ridicule when you don't support your argument at the same time.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

WRONG. It is not granted the power to create tax law. It is given the power to lay certain taxes. It is also restricted in how those taxes are levied. They cannot tax one group and not another. Note that it required an amendment to authorize taxing incomes.

How can Congress lay taxes if they can't create tax law? You do realize your argument is idiotic, don't you?

Making an accusation without evidence is not providing a redress of grievances, dude.

That statement doesn't even make sense. If they made an accusation without evidence and then jailed the person without a trial one could make an argument they did not provide an avenue for redress of grievances but there are other amendments that would take precedence at that point.

It is, but it doesn't have to be.

Under duress. Submitting such information under duress violates the 4th and 5th amendments in and of itself.

Irrelevant piffle. Submitting tax documents in no way violates the 4th and 5th amendment. There is a rather long history of people trying to make that claim to avoid taxes. Some of them have spent time in jail for making such frivolous arguments. Many have avoided jail time for their ignorance but they still paid taxes and penalties.

If they accuse someone using evidence gathered illegally, or using no evidence, they are violating the constitution.

Let's examine this. If someone is accused without evidence then the person doing so violated the Constitution. Would you agree that is the essence of your statement?
If we accept your statement at face value it leads us to a couple of things.
1. You accused Hillary of committing crimes but have provided no evidence in support of that claim even though you were asked to do so. That means you have violated the Constitution.
2. Trump has accused certain persons with the FBI of crimes but provided no evidence in support of his claim. That means Trump has violated the Constitution. Trump took an oath to uphold the Constitution. What do you think we should do about his failure to uphold the Constitution?

No, they cannot submit that information.

That is why they cannot submit such information to the prosecution.

More irrelevant piffle. You are assuming a conclusion that hasn't happened.

No court has the authority to change the Constitution of the United States, dude. Consensus is not a valid method of changing the Constitution of the United States either. Obviously, you don't care about that document and what it says.

I never once said a court has the authority to change the Constitution. This would be a good example of a straw man on your part.
Since the government has the document they can't be accused of seizing it from anyone else. There is no fourth amendment case based solely on possession of the document. There can only be a case based on the law which restricts who can see the tax returns. In the case of the law, it is quite clear that Congress can request to see it. If the tax return leads directly to a prosecution then a 4th and 5th amendment argument could be made because it would no longer be moot.

 

[Old Trapper]

The Internal Revenue Code does not override the Constitution of the United States, dude.
Being required to file the returns is in and of itself a violation of the 4th and 5th amendments.

Then take it to court. Whoa, how much you want to bet that it already has been?

But then, try answering a couple of questions.

1. What crimes do you think Trump is trying to hide by not releasing his tax filings?

2. Have you ever not filed a tax return?

https://www.bna.com/taxpayer-wins-tax-b57982063641/

 

[Robo]

I'm going to ignore the usual ignorance demonstrated by the right wing class of idiots, and give you something else to lie about, or act like a dumb f**k in regards to Trump:

"Section 6103(f)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) reads:

Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, or the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Secretary [of the Treasury] shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request, except that any return or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure."

Articles 4, and 5, do not apply since Trump filed the returns, and it he lied, which he more then likely did, he has already incriminated himself.

Problem is friend that's not an article or amendment to our Constitution. Read amendment 4. Congress cannot make any law that overrides any article or amendment in the Constitution except by an amendment. Your post contains NO amendment to the Constitution!!!!!

 

[Into the Night]

Your response is argument from incredulity.

Fallacy fallacy. Compositional error fallacy.

Just because you don't believe it does not make their claims false.

Never said it did. Similarly, just because you believe it does not make their claims True.

Their claim is well laid out and reasonable.

No, it isn't. It is based on a hatred for Trump and anyone associated with him.

One need only apply Occam's razor.

Occam's razor doesn't have any meaning here, and it is not a proof.

If those serving the warrant think the person may harm themselves or others they will conduct a no knock raid. They will also do that if they suspect evidence may be destroyed.

Sorry dude, you can't justify a predawn raid like that using what if's and circular arguments.

(There is no such thing as an "irrelevance fallacy.

Yes there is. It is making irrelevant arguments. Depending on the context, it may also be referred to as a non-sequitur fallacy, a strawman fallacy, a redirection fallacy, or a red herring fallacy.

Repeating that claim doesn't make it so.

I am not repeating the claim. You are.

Until you can point me to a credible source for such a fallacy

Logic. But you deny it.

you are simply resorting to argumentum ad nauseam.)

Fallacy fallacy.

A straw man requires I misstate your argument and then attempt to defeat it.

WRONG. A strawman argument requires no such misstatement. It is simply a redirection to an irrelevant argument and defeating it.

I was defending my statement by providing more details after you didn't believe me. Hardly a straw man.

No, you weren't. You are not defending anymore except your own illiteracy.

That is your conclusion. It was not the way it was taken by others.

No just my conclusion, dude. You are deluded.

I hope you aren't as bad at math as you are at logic.
4 <---- a number but not math

It is math. All numbers are defined by proofs extending the axioms of mathematics.

2+2=4 <--- math

Also math. The addition binomial is also defined by the axioms of mathematics.

The media reported it as a threat. <---- Statement of fact.

Not a fact. An argument. Learn what a 'fact' is.

While this could be seen as a premise it isn't a conclusion on my part so it can't be a logical fallacy.

Try English. It works better.

You don't think it was a threat <----- a conclusion on your part so it could be a logical fallacy.

Nope. That does not make it a fallacy.

There are many lists of fallacies.

Yes there are. NONE of them are authoritative.

What you are referring to is actually called a relevance fallacy.

False authority fallacy. There is no official or authoritative list of fallacies.

If I have lost context it would actually be a red herring fallacy.

No, it simply means you have lost context. You are losing more and more context as you concentrate on showing off your illiteracy in logic and math.

But I didn't lose context.

Yes you did.

I was responding directly to your statement

Void argument fallacy. You can't even recall the statement in question.

and pointing out you were begging the question when you claimed Clinton was let off easy for her crimes.

Not the context. Try again. I am not begging any question with this statement either.

I asked you to show us her crimes.

I did.

You failed to do so and still refuse to do so.

I did.

That would make my question very relevant to your failure to support your argument.

I did.

No. The public record is here...
...deleted link to FBI...

No, the FBI is not the only public record.

"No charges are appropriate in this case." That would mean there are no chargeable crimes.

WRONG. It simply means they are not going to make any charges. A chargeable crime may still exist.

Pointing out facts that directly contradict your opinion is hardly nitpicking.

You are nitpicking. You are showing off your illiteracy in logic and math doing it, too.

It goes straight to the heart of the matter.

Void argument fallacy. You can't even describe what the heart of the matter is anymore.

No. It doesn't. That is why I post how to find the information that supports what I am saying. You still haven't posted anything in support of your claim that Clinton committed crimes.

Don't need to. Anyone can look it up.

You really have no clue how fallacies work.

They don't 'work'. The simply are.

Argument by repetition requires that no support be given but a statement just be repeated.

No, it simply means the argument be repeated without regard to any counter-argument.

If support is given it can't be argument by repetition.

Yes it can.

Not addressing a specific statement but bringing up another topic is a red herring.

It can be. It is what you are doing.

It is an appeal to ridicule when you don't support your argument at the same time.

Ridiculing another's argument is not a fallacy in and of itself. Counter-arguments are real arguments.