- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Lawfare: how is this defined, and how can it be (legally) stopped?
Posted on 4/27/24 at 9:17 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 4/27/24 at 9:17 am to SlowFlowPro
I think MAGA’s deep-rooted issue with what they see as “Lawfare” is the fact that when Trump was in power he did NOTHING to hold Democrats accountable - even those who attacked him relentlessly. He tucked tail and obeyed.
2
Posted on 4/27/24 at 9:19 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:WTF are you talking about?
BLM
FIXIN
TO
EAT
BLM already enjoyed a feast.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 9:19 am to OceanMan
quote:
You are the one that brings up alternative situations.
You mean I test the various definitions? In a thread about finding a universal definition? Guilty as charged for the intellectual rigor.
quote:
This all stems from the cases against Trump
More than that. Cases where Trump isn't implicated have been called lawfare.
quote:
and whether those cases are intended to be malicious.
"Malicious" seems to be another "eye of the beholder" term.
The universality of this application would likely trigger the frick out of Patriots, too.
quote:
you just brought up Julius fricking Caesar.
In response to a temporal argument. How are historical examples not relevant to a temporal argument?
quote:
You are obscuring the entire premise of the argument
I am not.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 9:20 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Criminals are criminals.
Again, now we're getting back into a legitimacy argument. The circus wheel keeps spinning.
quote:
However, if the "target" is relegated only to MAGA criminals, or only Jewish criminals, or only male criminals, or only Black criminals, or only White criminals, that represents a Constitutional breach.
BLM agrees.
quote:
If the DOJ is weaponized against "Traditional Catholics," or political opponents, that is unacceptable.
Even if "Traditional Catholics" are engaging in illegal behavior?
This post was edited on 4/27/24 at 9:21 am
Posted on 4/27/24 at 9:21 am to Damone
quote:Facts not in evidence.
I think
You're honestly suggesting that Trump should have weaponized the DOJ?
Posted on 4/27/24 at 9:22 am to Damone
quote:
I think MAGA’s deep-rooted issue with what they see as “Lawfare” is the fact that when Trump was in power he did NOTHING to hold Democrats accountable - even those who attacked him relentlessly. He tucked tail and obeyed.
I think it's a hope he changes course next term, but they'll still spin it if he doesn't.
I imagine if he tries, he'll frick it up like his admin did almost every time they did something bod in his first term. Then, once they bungle it entirely, the response will be "lawfare" or whatever echo chamber term is popular at that time (last term it was "Deep State").
This post was edited on 4/27/24 at 9:23 am
Posted on 4/27/24 at 9:22 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
No he wasn't.
The main indictment in Trump's DC case is "conspiracy to defraud the United States". The FBI had Hunter's laptop for a year before the NY Post story was published. Every single one of those intelligence agents knew they were lying when they told the public it was Russian disinformation. They did this with the intent to influence the 2020 election.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 9:22 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Either you're not reading the posts or you don't understand the premise of equal justice under the law. Which is it?
now we're getting back into a legitimacy argument.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 9:24 am to SCLibertarian
quote:
They did this with the intent to influence the 2020 election.
b o o m ! Posted on 4/27/24 at 9:25 am to SCLibertarian
quote:
The main indictment in Trump's DC case is "conspiracy to defraud the United States".
Yes, giving opinions on a political matter is not this.
quote:
The FBI had Hunter's laptop for a year before the NY Post story was published. Every single one of those intelligence agents knew they were lying when they told the public it was Russian disinformation.
You're connecting random dots here. The FBI agents on the case gave statements on the laptop? Or unrelated people who weren't in government anymore?
Here is the statute you're referencing
quote:
If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
The intelligence people who gave the (bullshite) opinion didn't even interact with the government, so they couldn't have defrauded the government.
It's not applicable.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 9:26 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Either you're not reading the posts or you don't understand the premise of equal justice under the law. Which is it?
You're not applying "equal justice under the law" and neither did the judge you keep citing. That's why he will be reversed, again.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 9:27 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Well then lots of small and local DAs are part of lawfare for campaigning on targeting criminals, too.
Wrong, “criminals” implies they are targeting a crime, not an individual.
quote:
Now you're going to try to avoid the universality by re-defining things specific to your partisan focus, but the damage is already done. You just won't like it and won't accept it.
Nope, we both know you are weaseling down this hall of obscurity because you don’t want to discuss specifically that the prosecutions of Trump are targeted.
quote:
Technically, your issue is with a state legislature.
No, the legislature does not decide which cases to prosecute.
quote:
I am not really doing that, just trying to lead the partisan brain rot into an understanding of the unintended consequences of the universal application of their rhetoric.
You haven’t done that. Your refusal to discuss Letitia James’ campaign against Trump in these threads couldn’t make it any more clear that you don’t intend to have the same conversation as everyone else.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 9:29 am to SlowFlowPro
He showed last time he has zero ability to enact anything on his own accord. He delegates nearly everything to fly-by-night hires that have a near 100% failure rate vis a vis the “MAGA agenda”.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 9:32 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
If the litigation you're speaking of is legitimate, how can you make this call?
Again, we can go back to the Rudy Guilliani defamation case (since it's basically done, has been litigated, and effectively resolved legally).
There was no prosecutor involved in that case, so I'm assuming we can substitute the Plaintiff's counsel? Why would you punish the counsel or judge in that case? Or was that not lawfare?
There is another aspect to lawfare and that is private funding of prosecutions and litigations. 1. It is now being used as an investment by some non party interest. 2. Non party interest target a company or individual and financially drown them for the intent to make them submit or be bankrupt. 3. Non party interest use dark money to fund public prosecutors to litigate a target. They will be paid either for a side job that does not exist or a future job for their reward.
Judges I believe fall into a.couple categories. Those long term and have no desire to advance further will become agenda driven. Those looking to advance will take directions from political powers promising higher positions.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 9:33 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
What are the specific characteristics of a suit or prosecution that distinguish permissible litigation into lawfare?
Misuse of the judicial system by coordinating the judges, prosecutors or litigants to make a political point, and to ruin the opposing litigant.
It is the death of my profession. It is a result of the unholy union btwn big government and big business, and the antithesis of our system of justice.
The only way to stop it is to start with firing everyone in the DOJ in DC. Every paralegal, the janitors, everyone. And to and disbar the lawyers participating in it.
The same needs to happen on the state level. These Fani Willis types have completely undermined civil rights in this country in ways that the founders could not have anticipated.
The private lawyers involved need to be investigated in some sort of anti-trust action by an overhauled DOJ, run out of not DC.
The DC circuit and the DC trial level courts need to be eliminated. The only court in DC needs to be the Supreme Court.
That would be a start.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 9:33 am to Damone
quote:
He showed last time he has zero ability to enact anything on his own accord. He delegates nearly everything to fly-by-night hires that have a near 100% failure rate vis a vis the “MAGA agenda”.
That was a major issue with his admin, almost from day 1 (the "Muslim ban" they bungled) and continued long after (repealing DACA was a big one they totally fricked up simple administrative procedure).
But, of course, this was really a conspiracy against him.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 9:34 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Of course I am. If the DOJ targets the opposition for prosecution, rather than the crime itself, that is not equal justice under the law.
You're not applying "equal justice under the law"
Posted on 4/27/24 at 9:35 am to SlowFlowPro
That’s where it pays to have someone with the knowledge and wherewithal to move the levers of power.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 9:37 am to Damone
quote:Like Sessions or Barr?
That’s where it pays to have someone with the knowledge and wherewithal to move the levers of power.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 9:37 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
"Malicious" seems to be another "eye of the beholder" t
She said it herself dude. It’s not hard to understand.
quote:
In response to a temporal argument. How are historical examples not relevant to a temporal argument?
Because you are willing to discuss anything but the topic at hand. You have started a thread now with this nonsense of “define lawfare”.
quote:
I am not.
The conversation started with whether Letitia James has targeted Donald Trump. I was there. We don’t need historical examples. We don’t need definitions. We just need you to accept what the lady said, and her actions that followed.
Page 7 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News