More Subjects
Post
Michael Cohen, the former attorney of President, reveals the horrible side of Donald Trump. He criticizes the negative role played by him in America, starting from his election campaigning. However, there are many fallacies in the argument made by Cohen that makes his position doubtful. Cohen himself worked with Trump for many years and now regret his association with him. He claims that Trump has promoted emotions of hatred and intolerance for winning the election. Cohen states that he is ashamed of working with the President and is guilty because he had protected and promoted him. He further claims that he had concealed Trump's illicit acts rather than listening to his own conscience.
Cohen's fallacy is visible as he mentions, "he is a racist, he is a conman, and he is a cheat." Trump knew Stone spoke with Wikileaks about the DNC email leak. The speaker has attempted to harm the reputation of Trump by bringing his real face in front of the public. However, this also proves his unreliable because he continued to support the president for many years. It is difficult to believe if he really is ashamed of his support and protection towards Trump or taking for his personal interest. Here Cohen is using Ad Hominem fallacy for attacking Trump and putting his reputation on stake. Whatever he said is not proved. Also, Cohen had used evidence from the past when Trump was not a president. He used his business details but didn't prove where he had been involved in illicit conducts. He has attacked the character of the president for providing him guilty and wrong.
He further claims that Trump had paid in hush money. Cohen states, "Trump directed his nonprofit to repay fake auction bidder." He fails to prove his point against exhibits the use of fallacy. At most of the places, the speaker has been unable to justify his claims. He relies on minor evidence that is not adequate for proving the cunning nature of Trump. It can also be witnessed that the allegations made are a reflection of personal belief. What Cohen claims seems like he is motivated by his interest because he accepts that he lied and supported Trump, so it is difficult to believe if he is telling the truth now.
The reason for blaming Trump is to convince the audience that he is a cheat and wrong Americans who lack the capability of taking the role of president. In accusing Trump, Cohen has ignored that he already faced much criticism in election campaigns. Irrespective of all the claims, Trump won the election by getting the majority vote. This was because people chose him and rejected all the fallacies that attempted to prove him wrong or corrupt. Another weakness in Cohen's argument is an emphasis on past events. The speaker has not mentioned or proved any current issue that explains the corruption of the president. It is also not appropriate to mix the personal life of Trump with political life CITATION CNN19 \l 1033 (CNN, 2019).
If Cohen still attempts to fool the audience, he must consider that he lost his credibility. People are less likely to fall for his fallacy. The man could have come up before the election if it really mattered of people and America. But he preferred to attack Trump in his presidency that reveals some personal interest. In conclusion, it is irrational to believe the words of Cohen because he fails to provide evidence for his claims. It can also be seen that the speaker has relied on fallacy for criticizing Trump that is a less intelligent approach.
Responses
I agree with the views of Dean B Adams who has focused on the credibility and reliability of Cohen. He recognizes the act of Cohen as irrational because he has only used words to claim the President. I agree with Dean that Cohen has used fallacy for deceiving the listeners because he has not supported the argument with evidence. It is also difficult to accept his views because he himself is incredible. Cohen has supported Trump for a long time and gained benefits. Now the reason for turning against him could be personal interest. I agree with Dean that it is unwise to fall for the fallacy that relies on weaker claims. I agree that "his entire testimony is invalid because he has lied in the past and therefore he must be lying now." Speaker's inability to blaming before the election shows that he is unreliable. It is not appropriate to believe to what Cohen said. I accept his point that Cohen relies on Ad Hominem fallacy.
I agree with the views of Andrew J Zeppa who denies the testimony of Cohen and considers it invalid. This is because Cohen has not revealed any true side of Trump and used his tactics of blaming him. It can be seen that he relied on Ad Hominem fallacy because he lacks real evidence. I agree that “although personal factors are never relevant to truth or falsity, they are relevant to believability." By speaking against the President, the position of Cohen has become more unreliable because he has supported him in his business and presidential campaigns. He makes bold claims that are lacking logic and evidentiary support. This reveals that Cohen is motivated by his personal belief. There could be some personal motive or interest because if he were concerned about the country, he would have taken this action before election.
Reference
BIBLIOGRAPHY CNN. (2019). Michael Cohen's entire statement to the House committee. Retrieved 03 13, 2019, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEvaN_F4iiE
More Subjects
Join our mailing list
© All Rights Reserved 2024