Counterpoint: How do you know those documents weren't her property? Where does it say that the documents must be left intact where they were placed?
Another Strawman
These documents are provided by the government and remain its property.
Where does it say that the documents must be left intact where they were placed?
You certainly aren't very familiar with these speeches or you wouldn't ask that question.
These aren't strawman arguments. These are legitimate questions.
You've been attempting to shut down each of my questions claiming logical fallacies, but the questions I've been asking are the ones which will be brought up by a defense team and ones that I want to legitimately know the answer to. You appear to be much more familiar with these situations; can you enlighten me on the details so I won't make the same kinds of mistakes again?
These aren't strawman arguments.
They are. You're the one claiming that destroying documents is free speech. It's not.
Free "speech" isn't freedom to "destroy" documents provided by the government for a defined purpose.
Show me videos of other politicians who have been doing the same thing (on purpose), like she did.
It was a premeditated provocation caused by her TDS, a demonstration of how powerful she thinks she is.
You can clearly see that she was getting impatient with the speech to end, and when it did, she immediately grabbed the documents and tore them up.
can you enlighten me on the details so I won't make the same kinds of mistakes again?
Passive aggressive sarcasm
(post is archived)