Your logical fallacy is “Ad Hominem.”
Jonathan Swerdloff
12

Her first line under “Representative Matters” is: Defending witnesses before the SEC in connection with various investigations involving credit default swaps, CDOs and CLOs…

No one is saying that her argument is undermined. It can be very organic and thought out but it’s arguably more likely that it represents a view with a different interest. That in no way is right or wrong, just a potential insight to understand why she could be for or against a certain candidate.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.