- 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 8:41 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 4/27/24 at 8:41 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Of course they do. The thesis that a sitting POTUS cannot exercise options under legal loopholes to challenge an election is absolutely "novel," and stupid. The idea that an ex-POTUS should be prosecuted by the DOJ for something "no reasonable prosecutor" would pursue is absolutely "novel," and dangerous.
The GA, DC, and Florida cases don't involve any novel theories.
1
Posted on 4/27/24 at 8:47 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
The thesis that a sitting POTUS cannot exercise options under legal loopholes to challenge an election is absolutely "novel,"
How? The fact that he is a President doesn't change anything. There is established case law on these issues and nothing novel is involved in the theories of the cases.
Florida doesn't even involve this issue.
quote:
The idea that an ex-POTUS should be prosecuted by the DOJ for something "no reasonable prosecutor" would pursue is absolutely "novel,"
Now you are making assumptions to fit your argument.
That's why a specific definition is needed; to avoid just this sort of malleability.
Page 1 of 1
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News