It appeals to an inappropriate authority. It relies on a hasty generalization. It confuses causation with correlation. It attacks the source of an argument.
Politician: The bill under current consideration is deeply flawed. If passed, the bill would undermine our great state' s commitment to women' s rights. Passing such a flawed piece of legislation would be like building a house with warped wood. My esteemed colleague who proposed this legislation plays fast and loose with the truth, obscuring his true purpose -- re-election. As we' ve heard from our police chief, this bill will guarantee that fewer women will report incidents of assault.
What is a flaw in the argument's reasoning?