The Reductio ad Absurdum/reduction to nonsense/proof by contradiction is a venerable logical device, important to Euclid and many others. But we are not used to the Reductio ad Nihilum, the reduction to nothing at all that E. Jean Carroll recently remarked on.
'He is nothing': E. Jean Carroll on the biggest surprise of confronting Trump in court
Now, if he had realized that he is nothing, that his maniacal narcissism has always been a snare and a delusion, that would be a Big Deal, and the best possible news—what Zen Buddhists call a kensho or an Awakening to No-Self. I’ll tell you about that in a koan post on Sunday, along with Jewish and Christian and Muslim and other examples.
But no, that is too much to hope for today. Instead, we have this—a court calling out Trump’s lawyers for a bonehead move in the most elementary logic.
One particularly interesting Paragraph from today’s Court of Appeals Ruling — cites Error in Logic
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.”
This is the Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent. As a result of this and other nonsense, the Court has ruled that there is no Emperor Trump, just Citizen Trump, subject to indictment and trial like any other (alleged) citizen criminal, and then possibly to conviction and sentencing.