# Is equivalence a fallacy? Libby/Clinton **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 29, 2005, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-equivalence-a-fallacy-libby-clinton/328415 "2005-10-29T03:04:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2005, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-equivalence-a-fallacy-libby-clinton/328415/41 "2005-10-29T21:03:30Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Because it ain’t about the perjury, which btw isn’t the only charge against Libby, not at all, although the OP has conveniently ignored them in an attempt to draw yet another false equivalence. It wasn’t the only charge against Clinton either, for whatever that’s worth. He was also impeached for obstruction of justice. Libby faces one count of obstruction and two each of perjury and making false statements. ---
**Author:** ![Dishfunctional](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/35a633/32.png) [@Dishfunctional](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dishfunctional)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2005, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-equivalence-a-fallacy-libby-clinton/328415/42 "2005-10-29T21:44:03Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > So, going back to an earlier post, suppose we have one person convicted of perjury over a matter thant involves stealing a can of peas, and one person convicted of perjury over a matter that involves murder. Both are sentenced to, say, three years in prison. That judge ought to be hung. > [@](#): > > In each case, the prosecutor pursues the perjury case because he cannot secure a conviction on the original charge. > > Are we all happy about that? I know I am not. I would consider three years in prison over a can of pea theft to be a gross miscarriage of justice. I would consider three years in prison over murder to be the same. All of which I would hope would be addressed during sentencing, assuming the fact-finding phase of the proceedings produced a finding of guilt. > [@](#): > > Perjury is the crime in either case, but the underlying events, the **heart of the matter** , consists of two very different things. Very different, indeed, but it still seems to me they would be irrelevant to guilt or innocence. > [@](#): > > The legitimacy of the legal system does not derive simply from how stringently it enforces its rules, but on whether or not it redresses wrongs, and on the extent to which that redress is appopriate to the crime, a point lawyers seem to frequently miss. Might the concept you seem to be searching for here be “Justice”? When seeking relief from perceived injustice, I would more likely turn to a good friend, a priest or a mobbed-up knee-capper than a lawyer. But that’s just me. > [@](#): > > For the legal system to have any legitimacy at all, it must make a difference whether or not a perjury is made to conceal a blowjob or made to conceal treason. One is a personal matter, the other is a betrayal of the nation. At the risk of sounding repetitive, I believe it does this every day. The way I understand the system, if and when guilt is established, both sides typically present their best argument and recommendations to the sentencing judge or jury, and it is at that point that the defendant’s entire scope of conduct is brought into play. As for the continued juxtaposition of “blowjob” versus “treason”, you should remember that pretty much half the nation, rationally or not, considered much of Clinton’s behavior treasonous, too. > [@](#): > > Therefore, the equivalency is false, to say the least. I would argue that it’s inherently damaging to the respect for law in the US. People notice these things. I agree. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2005, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-equivalence-a-fallacy-libby-clinton/328415/43 "2005-10-29T21:51:52Z")
Apropos of nothing, it strikes me that had the Senate removed Clinton from office, President Gore would likely have won the 2000 election. Hmm, maybe I should start a thread. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2005, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-equivalence-a-fallacy-libby-clinton/328415/44 "2005-10-29T21:57:26Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > It wasn’t the only charge against Clinton either, for whatever that’s worth. He was also impeached for obstruction of justice. What’s impeachment got to do with it? We are discussing _charges_. You know, the legal system? Clinton was never charged with a damn thing. > [@dishfunctional](#): > > courts are not about determining ethics Not in general, maybe, but the defined, codified portion of it called “the law”, certainly. > [@](#): > > And some would say the problem is the constant attempt to use a blowjob as justification for perjury, not to mention the presumption of guilt for crimes not even alleged. Um, no, the blowjob (an entirely legal act, ya know) happened first. What “presumed guilt” are you referring to, btw? [quote=You, however, are making some very broad and sweeping charges that have yet to be proven.[/quote] What additional evidence would you need, here in the court of public opinion, to be satisfied that that’s what these asswipes did? > [@](#): > > I can’t really blame folks for gloating. I’m sure it feels good. Fuck you too. Can you really not grasp that for some, many, even most of us, it’s about love of country? That there’s a great sense of relief that some of the gang that has so badly betrayed what our country stands for are finally being brought to account for it, even peripherally? That some responsibility is being restored to the Administration whose activities affect us all? Or are you just one of the “party before country Republicans”? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2005, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-equivalence-a-fallacy-libby-clinton/328415/45 "2005-10-29T22:00:31Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > The “perjury” trap?..Maybe I missed something though. [Further discussion about perjury traps](http://www.perkel.com/politics/clinton/perjury.htm). > [@](#): > > In the case of United States vs. Chen, 933 F.2d 793, 796-97, A perjury trap is created when the government calls a witness before the grand jury for the primary purpose of obtaining testimony from him in order to prosecute him later for perjury. United States v. Simone, 627 F. Supp. 1264, 1268 (D. N.J. 1986) (perjury trap involves “the deliberate use of a judicial proceeding to secure perjured testimony, a concept in itself abhorrent”). It involves the government’s use of its investigatory powers to secure a perjury indictment on matters which are neither material nor germane to a legitimate ongoing investigation of the grand jury. See United States v. Crisconi, 520 F. Supp. 915, 920 (D. Del. 1981). Such governmental conduct might violate a defendant’s fifth amendment right to due process, Simone, 627 F. Supp. at 1267-72, or be an abuse of grand jury proceedings, Crisconi, 520 F. Supp. at 920. See generally Gershman, The “Perjury Trap”, 129 U. Pa. L. Rev. 624, 683 (1981). > > The Chen case goes on to say, “If a court divines that the purpose of repetitious questioning is to coax a witness into the commission of perjury . . . such conduct would be an abuse of the grand jury process.” ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2005, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-equivalence-a-fallacy-libby-clinton/328415/46 "2005-10-29T22:04:52Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > What’s impeachment got to do with it? We are discussing _charges_. You know, the legal system? Clinton was never charged with a damn thing. I know that. You noted that Libby is not charged with just perjury, and I was noting that the accusations were similar in that respect. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2005, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-equivalence-a-fallacy-libby-clinton/328415/47 "2005-10-29T22:16:02Z")
Huh? “More charges” is similar to “no charges”? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2005, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-equivalence-a-fallacy-libby-clinton/328415/48 "2005-10-29T22:32:19Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > The sex question **s** were ruled to be material. I don’t expect to convince _you_ of that, but it is a fact. Materiality is determined at trial, not during a deposition. Practically anything can be asked during a deposition, that doesn’t mean the sex question would have been admissable at trial. > [@](#): > > The “perjury” trap? Clinton lied. I didn’t see Starr’s hand up his ass, moving his mouth, and making Clinton lie. Maybe I missed something though. You know and I know that Starr fed Jones’ lawyers the question solely so that he could gull Clinton into lying under oath. The question had nothing to do with the civil case for which Clinton was being deposed and if Starr had not planted that question he would have had no ground to prosecute Clinton for anything. He suckered Clinton into denying a personal (and legal) sexual affair for no other reason than to able to accuse hm of a crime. It was a slightly more sophisticated version of cops dressing up like hookers and hoping to get solicited by randy truck drivers. ---
**Author:** ![Dishfunctional](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/35a633/32.png) [@Dishfunctional](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dishfunctional)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2005, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-equivalence-a-fallacy-libby-clinton/328415/49 "2005-10-29T23:30:19Z")
> [@Dishfunctional](#): > > courts are not about determining ethics > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Not in general, maybe, but the defined, codified portion of it called “the law”, certainly. Again, I don’t think that’s correct. Ethics can be described as a lot of things: a philosophical study of moral values and rules, the science or study of morality, even a set of moral principles, but I can find nowhere that it’s defined as “law”, or vice versa, for that matter. > [@Dishfunctional](#): > > And some would say the problem is the constant attempt to use a blowjob as justification for perjury, not to mention the presumption of guilt for crimes not even alleged. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Um, no, the blowjob (an entirely legal act, ya know) happened first. First… last… I see no relevant distinction. My point was that some people consider the references to “blowjob” as an attempt to inappropriately use motive as the justification for the crime, that’s all. I guess I’m also asking you to at least acknowledge that point of view, not agree with it. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > What “presumed guilt” are you referring to, btw? Just the last five words of your statement: “The problem is the constant attempt to compare a blowjob with **lying us into a war**.” If that ever turns out to be adjudicated guilt, then I’m right there with you, brother. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > What additional evidence would you need, here in the court of public opinion, to be satisfied that that’s what these asswipes did? Barring a confession or video tape, my minimum standard is pretty radical: A finding of guilt by a jury of equal asswipes. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Fuck you too. Can you really not grasp that for some, many, even most of us, it’s about love of country? That there’s a great sense of relief that some of the gang that has so badly betrayed what our country stands for are finally being brought to account for it, even peripherally? That some responsibility is being restored to the Administration whose activities affect us all? Or are you just one of the “party before country Republicans”? Fuck me for what? For having the same visceral reaction to a president I and about half the rest of the country found as repugnant as you find George W. Bush? For such an apparently bright guy, you seem to think you’re the only one who’s entitled to an opinion around here. Let me be the first to clue you in on the fact that the most angry invective I’ve ever heard hurled at GeeDubya by the most enraged partisan pales in comparison to those aimed at Clinton during his heyday. It’s a two-way street, buddy, and I for one am kinda glad you’re finally getting a taste of what it’s like having what you believe to be the future of the republic hinge on the outcome of a politically charged legal process. My advice: By lots of Rolaids, and don’t be so quick to judge. ---
**Author:** ![Dishfunctional](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/35a633/32.png) [@Dishfunctional](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dishfunctional)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2005, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-equivalence-a-fallacy-libby-clinton/328415/50 "2005-10-29T23:37:59Z")
Oh, by the way, Elvis, I don’t think this Libby thing, on its face, is that big a deal. Now, if it turns out that there is, like in the case with Clinton, more shit under every rock, then it’s a whole new ball of wax… to mix equally slippery metaphores. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2005, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-equivalence-a-fallacy-libby-clinton/328415/51 "2005-10-29T23:46:04Z")
The charge that was being investigated was not whether the Bush adminsitration lied to lead us into a war, as much as some would like to make it a referundum on that. The original mission was to determine if there was a violation of that 1982 law that would have made the leak a crime; no one, including Libby, has been indicted for that. Period. Libby was indicted for lying during the investigation of this crime that no one is being charged with. Whatever your feeling regarding Bush’s “lies,” that’s not a factor here. No one is being indicted for lies that led us to war. I see this being very equivalent with the witch hunt perpetrated against Clinton in that regard: both were partisan-politically motivated (or at least strongly influenced thusly), creating a circumstance where apparently no crime was committed prior to the investigation (no original “charge” stuck to either), but somehow a “crime” emerged as a result of the investigation. I think Clinton lied, and Libby may well have too, but it all stinks to me. It stunk when they did it to Clinton (I switched parties over it), and it smells bad now, too. You think there were criminal lies perpetrated by the administration that led us to war? Then get evidence enough to make a charge. Otherwise, it’s just more of the same to me. Gleeful dancing on one side of the aisle, rationalizations on the other. Wait ten years and the sides will change yet again. ---
**Author:** ![Noctolator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Noctolator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Noctolator)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2005, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-equivalence-a-fallacy-libby-clinton/328415/52 "2005-10-29T23:54:18Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > You think there were criminal lies perpetrated by the administration that led us to war? Then get evidence enough to make a charge. Otherwise, it’s just more of the same to me. Gleeful dancing on one side of the aisle, rationalizations on the other. Wait ten years and the sides will change yet again. That’s where obstruction of justice charges come in my good sir. Libby lied, obstructed and perjured himself in the aforementioned investigation according to his indictment. I don’t consider it a closed matter. What I see happening is that slippery thing called the Truth will begin to ooze out and maybe we’ll begin to see that treason was committed in ruining Ms. Plame’s cover. By the way, the aforementioned investigation also isn’t closed yet. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2005, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-equivalence-a-fallacy-libby-clinton/328415/53 "2005-10-30T00:11:45Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Fuck you too. Not in **GD**. You are out of line and you have been around long enough to know it. Consider this an official Warning to avoid such behavior in **GD**. [/Moderator Mode] ---
**Author:** ![Dishfunctional](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/35a633/32.png) [@Dishfunctional](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dishfunctional)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2005, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-equivalence-a-fallacy-libby-clinton/328415/54 "2005-10-30T01:00:20Z")
> [@Noctolator](#): > > That’s where obstruction of justice charges come in my good sir. Libby lied, obstructed and perjured himself in the aforementioned investigation according to his indictment. I don’t consider it a closed matter. That makes you a rare bird here, Noctolator. Many seem to be of the opinion that indictment = guilt. > [@](#): > > What I see happening is that slippery thing called the Truth will begin to ooze out and maybe we’ll begin to see that treason was committed in ruining Ms. Plame’s cover. Maybe, indeed. Hopefully, before all that happens, we’ll learn if Mrs. Wilson, as they’ve gone to calling her now, even had a cover. Call me a stickler for details, but not one fact, as it relates to Plame/Wilson’s “cover” being blown, as of yet has been introduced into the case against Libby, save large quantities of breathless speculation. As the good prosecutor said, maybe we should all step back and take a deep breath. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2005, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-equivalence-a-fallacy-libby-clinton/328415/55 "2005-10-30T01:13:23Z")
The good prosecutor siad her cover was blown. He used the exact words “her cover was blown.” Her status was classified. That is not in dispute no matter what Sean Hannity and Anne Coulter tell you. ---
**Author:** ![Dishfunctional](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/35a633/32.png) [@Dishfunctional](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dishfunctional)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2005, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-equivalence-a-fallacy-libby-clinton/328415/56 "2005-10-30T01:26:39Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > The good prosecutor siad her cover was blown. He used the exact words “her cover was blown.” Her status was classified. That is not in dispute no matter what Sean Hannity and Anne Coulter tell you. Yes, I also heard him use those words at the press conference, but not in court, not yet. I don’t know what Hannity **or** Coulter have had to say about the matter, but AFAIK, “classified” is one thing and “covert” is another. I’ve yet to find any authoritative reading on whether or not she was “covert”, which is the bar that must be met for all this talk of treason to amount to anything. If you have one, I would seriously welcome it. From what I understand, her assignment at the time of the “outing” was as a functionary at Langley. Had a parking space and everything. Not exactly Bond. But at least I’m trying to keep an open mind and not assume you get your news from Al Franken. ---
**Author:** ![Noctolator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Noctolator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Noctolator)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2005, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-equivalence-a-fallacy-libby-clinton/328415/57 "2005-10-30T01:37:10Z")
> [@Dishfunctional](#): > > That makes you a rare bird here, Noctolator. Many seem to be of the opinion that indictment = guilt. Ah thanks. As it happens, I see it this way: Either Libby lied to cover something up or he cannot remember the difference between Tim Russert and Dick Cheney. In either of these cases, since he’s either a coverup liar or merely incompetent [I’m not terribly important and I diary my calls, business discussions] the most important thing is that he has been removed from his high stress, high clearance job of national importance. Nothing else that happens to him within a court of law or without has any real effect on my opinion about the whole fiasco. Whether or not I am personally vindicated in these results will not change that which is objective about the situation – as it is discovered and adjudicated in court. > [@Dishfunctional](#): > > Maybe, indeed. Hopefully, before all that happens, we’ll learn if Mrs. Wilson, as they’ve gone to calling her now, even had a cover. Call me a stickler for details, but not one fact, as it relates to Plame/Wilson’s “cover” being blown, as of yet has been introduced into the case against Libby, save large quantities of breathless speculation. As the good prosecutor said, maybe we should all step back and take a deep breath. If it is not understood that she had cover, don’t you think that would have been a threshold issue? I think that the pervasive opinion, legally and in the political arena is in fact that this damage is done. Even crony Bob Woodward claims the CIA did a Damage Assesment of the outing. Would they have done this if her desk job in CIA:DO did not link her to lots of other under-cover folks? She was in DO yo. ---
**Author:** ![Noctolator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Noctolator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Noctolator)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2005, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-equivalence-a-fallacy-libby-clinton/328415/58 "2005-10-30T01:38:27Z")
D.O./Directorate of Ops. I didn’t mean to make that funny face. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2005, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-equivalence-a-fallacy-libby-clinton/328415/59 "2005-10-30T01:49:14Z")
> [@Dishfunctional](#): > > Yes, I also heard him use those words at the press conference, but not in court, not yet. I don’t know what Hannity **or** Coulter have had to say about the matter, but AFAIK, “classified” is one thing and “covert” is another. I’ve yet to find any authoritative reading on whether or not she was “covert”, which is the bar that must be met for all this talk of treason to amount to anything. If you have one, I would seriously welcome it. From what I understand, her assignment at the time of the “outing” was as a functionary at Langley. Had a parking space and everything. Not exactly Bond. But at least I’m trying to keep an open mind and not assume you get your news from Al Franken. > **[Plame's Identity Marked As Secret](https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/20/AR2005072002517.html)** > [@](#): > > Plame’s Identity Marked As Secret > Memo Central to Probe Of Leak Was Written By State Dept. Analyst > > … > > The paragraph identifying her as the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV was clearly marked to show that it contained classified material at the “secret” level, two sources said. The CIA classifies as “secret” the names of officers whose identities are covert, according to former senior agency officials. > > Anyone reading that paragraph should have been aware that it contained secret information, though that designation was not specifically attached to Plame’s name and did not describe her status as covert, the sources said. It is a federal crime, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, for a federal official to knowingly disclose the identity of a covert CIA official if the person knows the government is trying to keep it secret. That is what we know so far. But, IIRC there are more things Valerie Plame was doing when her cover was blown, I do think Chenney, Rove and Scooter thought she was just stationed at Langley and this stunt was going to affect the CIA just a little, but I do suspect the true scope of the damage this did to the US will remain a secret so as to minimize that damage. I would not be surprised that the grand jury had access to some of that info. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2005, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-equivalence-a-fallacy-libby-clinton/328415/60 "2005-10-30T02:22:49Z")
> [@Noctolator](#): > > That’s where obstruction of justice charges come in my good sir. Libby lied, obstructed and perjured himself in the aforementioned investigation according to his indictment. I don’t consider it a closed matter. I’m not sure what point of mine this is in response to, my good sir. All indictments related to Libby are from actions that he conducted after the investigation began. That was my point. If the truth oozes out and it is determined that Libby or anyone else unlawfully outed a CIA agent, throw the book at him. Seriously, I would want nothing else. Until then, we effectively have an indictment of a cover-up of a crime he has yet to be charged with. And lest my other point be lost, even in that event, this is not a proof that Bush and his administration lied to lead us to war, despite the strong affection some in this thread seem to have for that notion. That is not a charge currently in play, AFAIK. Even if we concede the lies / war scenario, the one does not prove the other. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-equivalence-a-fallacy-libby-clinton/328415.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-equivalence-a-fallacy-libby-clinton/328415.md?page=4)