re: Lawfare: how is this defined, and how can it be (legally) stopped?

quote:

---

10+ definitions just in this thread alone. Which is it?

---

quote:

---

Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Samuel Alito and Trump appointees Justice Neil Gorsuch, Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Justice Amy Coney Barrett – spent the majority of their time on the question of whether, without immunity, presidents would be subjected to prosecution by political rivals after they leave office. They voiced repeated concerns that failing to grant a president immunity would create a vicious cycle of attacks against future presidents and have a chilling effect on their ability to fulfill the duties of the presidency.

Alito suggested that the justice system lacks safeguards to protect presidents against such malicious prosecution if they don’t have some form of immunity, noting that the grand jury process doesn’t provide robust protection because prosecutors “can indict a ham sandwich.”
...

Kavanaugh suggested concerns about a vicious cycle of malicious prosecutions hampering presidents for years to come. He also raised the question of the "risk" of a "creative prosecutor" using "vague" statutes -- including obstruction and conspiracy, which Trump faces -- against a commander in chief.
...

"Presidents have to make a lot of tough decisions," Alito told Dreeben. He asked incredulously, "Did I understand you to say, 'Well, you know if he makes a mistake, he makes a mistake. He's subject to the criminal laws just like anybody else.' You don't think he's in a special, a peculiarly precarious position?"

---