- 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 5:56 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 4/27/24 at 5:56 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Lawfare is the targeted application of asymmetric legal contrivances against political opponents to attack, disadvantage, or destroy them. Internationally, it is neither new, nor unique. Beria defined its application succinctly when he said “Show me the man and I'll show you the crime.”
Lawfare: how is this defined
Lawfare doesn't exclusively entail going after innocent opponents. Selective prosecution is certainly a variation.
Soros and Obama put the premise to task in Ukraine with the NABU. Ukraine is historically corrupt. Virtually nothing is done there without greasing palms, bibery, skimming, extortion, etc. Everyone does it. So when the NABU selectively applies the law to political opponents, the issue isn't necessarily that the opposition is innocent. It is that NABU allies, committing the same offenses, are never charged.
During the past few years, we've seen the same principle applied in the US.
E.g., Knowing E Jean Carroll had a noxious case she could bring against Trump, the NY State Legislature concocted the "Adult Survivors Act," which created a one-year window during which SOL were waived for assault ""victims."" That allowed a lying bitch in a Kangaroo Court to tag Trump with a supposed sexual assault for which there was no evidence other than her own discredited claim. Then that legal result was separately used as indisputable evidence of Trump's guilt to manipulate an absurd punitive award for the lying bitch.
E.g., The DOJ finds that "No reasonable prosecutor" would charge Hillary with inappropriate handling of classified material. It finds that Biden is too senile to be charged with inappropriate handling of classified material. But, even given Trump's absolute ability to declassify records, his team's appropriately ongoing negotiations with NARA, and previous precedent, the DOJ leveled every charge it could manipulate and muster against Trump.
We've seen similarly uneven application of law in treatment of BLM vs J6 rioters, and even unfortunately in the case of murders.
This post was edited on 4/27/24 at 6:01 am
3
Posted on 4/27/24 at 6:01 am to NC_Tigah
BAKE ME A CAKE!!!
Posted on 4/27/24 at 8:34 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Lawfare is the targeted application of asymmetric legal contrivances
What is an "asymmetric legal contrivance"?
quote:
Beria defined its application succinctly when he said “Show me the man and I'll show you the crime.”
Again, this denotes illegitimacy.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 4:55 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
During the past few years, we've seen the same principle applied in the US.
E.g., Knowing E Jean Carroll had a noxious case she could bring against Trump, the NY State Legislature concocted the "Adult Survivors Act," which created a one-year window during which SOL were waived for assault ""victims."" That allowed a lying bitch in a Kangaroo Court to tag Trump with a supposed sexual assault for which there was no evidence other than her own discredited claim. Then that legal result was separately used as indisputable evidence of Trump's guilt to manipulate an absurd punitive award for the lying bitch.
E.g., The DOJ finds that "No reasonable prosecutor" would charge Hillary with inappropriate handling of classified material. It finds that Biden is too senile to be charged with inappropriate handling of classified material. But, even given Trump's absolute ability to declassify records, his team's appropriately ongoing negotiations with NARA, and previous precedent, the DOJ leveled every charge it could manipulate and muster against Trump.
We've seen similarly uneven application of law in treatment of BLM vs J6 rioters, and even unfortunately in the case of murders.
This is the clearest write up I've seen so far in here. Sure, ad SFP says some democrats were also caught up in NY suspending the SOL on SA victims, he is being INCREDIBLY naive and intellectually dishonest by acting like they are collateral and the law was opened 100% to grab Trump.
The property valuation case is another example. All of the "victims" claimed there was no harm, admitted they did their own due diligence, and would do business with Trump again, yet the courts handed down an absolutely ridiculous judgment and then harassed any insurers who were open to back his bond. We're going to just ignore their absurd valuation of his properties like Mar a Lago.
We can also look at how Hillary's campaign finance violation was handled versus how this hack judge is working hand in hand with the hack prosecutor who is working hand in hand with the white house to nail him, and I 100% believe that when they do inevitably convict him that he will be handed down the maximum sentence allowed under the law.
I'll grab a beer while I wait for SFP to quote all of these individually and calmly explain that these are all very normal applications of justice.
This post was edited on 4/27/24 at 5:14 pm
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News