- 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 11:31 am to NC_Tigah
Posted on 4/27/24 at 11:31 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Name the ones which were enabled by a special one-year waiver of the statute of limitations and we'll address it.
OK so "lawfare" is only for civil suits enabled by a special one-year waiver of the SOL?
1
Posted on 4/27/24 at 11:36 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
We haven't even established if legitimacy of the litigation invalidates a designation of "lawfare". People keep changing and shifting and relying on concepts like whataboutism instead of establishing first principles.
Maybe because you are rejecting the premise that lawfare is driven by motivation. Backing into legitimacy, which is a subjective measure has little to do with motivation.
And stop with the “whataboutisms”, your use of “Patriots won’t like…” several times in this thread shows you aren’t above them yourself.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 11:38 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I've represented a lot of criminal defendants. Pretty universal they felt the state was intentionally trying to harm them with the prosecution.
How many times did the state admit to beforehand?
Posted on 4/27/24 at 11:39 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
And if you think motivation invalidates criminal behavior, I imagine you draw the line at Trump and won't extend that universally, correct?
Found a whataboutism.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 11:40 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Link to that statement somewhere?
OK so "lawfare" is only for civil suits
Link to anything vaguely resembling that statement somewhere?
-----
Try this.
It might help.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 11:41 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Strawman
It’s not a Strawman when you are defending the legal proceedings against Trump.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 11:43 am to thebigmuffaletta
I think OP has demonstrated just about every known logical fallacy there is in this thread.
He even used the word projecting while projecting.
He even used the word projecting while projecting.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 11:44 am to SlowFlowPro
That's a very good point.
Perhaps the definition is closely aligned to what you say here
Perhaps it's any lawsuit or case against a party that relies upon fraudulent information AND has a party involved that would benefit from perpetrating the fraud on the court in order to punish a specific party.
I'm sure they could be cleaned up a bit but something along those lines where there's both motivation and fraudulent information.
Perhaps the definition is closely aligned to what you say here
quote:
clearly political-partisan based lawsuit thatrelied on fraudulent accusations
Perhaps it's any lawsuit or case against a party that relies upon fraudulent information AND has a party involved that would benefit from perpetrating the fraud on the court in order to punish a specific party.
I'm sure they could be cleaned up a bit but something along those lines where there's both motivation and fraudulent information.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 11:47 am to SCLibertarian
quote:
Lawfare targets individuals.
Tell that to retailers, wholesalers, sellers or collectors of firearms, parts, accessories, etc.
This post was edited on 4/27/24 at 11:53 am
Posted on 4/27/24 at 11:49 am to oklahogjr
quote:
Perhaps it's any lawsuit or case against a party that relies upon fraudulent information AND has a party involved that would benefit from perpetrating the fraud on the court in order to punish a specific party.
That's WAY more limited than they want, though. Why the legitimacy issue is so big. That would clearly not be a legitimate litigation. They have issues with litigations that are legitimate, per the written law (the illegitimacy they allege deals in whataboutism and layers and layers of conspiracy).
They would also reject this b/c then it would limit lawfare to the post-election lawsuits by Trump, et al.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 11:50 am to OceanMan
quote:
Maybe because you are rejecting the premise that lawfare is driven by motivation.
All litigation is driven by motivation.
quote:
And stop with the “whataboutisms”
When they stop using this as a primary response, I will stop referencing their usage.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 11:52 am to OceanMan
quote:
How many times did the state admit to beforehand?
Plenty of prosecuting agencies have run on being "tough on' the crimes they were alleged to have committed.
Right now it's stolen firearms and fentanyl.
I'm not going to go to court and argue prosecutions relating to either are "lawfare" due to the political motivation.
In LA, the legislature has even changed the punishment for fentanyl (like changing the SOL in the EJC civil suit).
Posted on 4/27/24 at 11:52 am to NC_Tigah
I'm done arguing in this thread. SFP knows that the term "lawfare" is used in the Trump context because it's the name of Ben Wittes's legal blog, which essentially became the legal roadmap for anti-Trump actions taken by jurists, politicians and media across America. Wittes is the personification of the rot that comprises the Beltway establishment and was the guy who leaked Comey's memos to a friendly NYT reporter (which the OIG later found violated the law and Comey's employment agreement), which became a huge part of the Mueller Special Counsel investigation.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 11:53 am to OceanMan
quote:
Found a whataboutism.
Not a whataboutism. I'm testing the limits of the definitions based on motivation. How far does this extend?
Posted on 4/27/24 at 11:54 am to thebigmuffaletta
quote:
It’s not a Strawman when you are defending the legal proceedings against Trump.
You say it's not a straw man and then rely on a straw man.
There is no "defense" involved.
If you're going to make shite up, at least make it entertaining and not so derivative and blasé
Posted on 4/27/24 at 11:55 am to oklahogjr
quote:Negative.
Perhaps it's any lawsuit or case against a party that relies upon fraudulent information AND has a party involved that would benefit from perpetrating the fraud on the court in order to punish a specific party.
If "traditional Catholics" are arrested every time they trespass during protests because they oppose abortion, but proabortion Handmaids are never arrested for the same exact transgressions, that is lawfare. Even though the charges themselves are not fraud.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 11:55 am to SCLibertarian
quote:
SFP knows that the term "lawfare" is used in the Trump context because it's the name of Ben Wittes's legal blog, which essentially became the legal roadmap for anti-Trump actions taken by jurists, politicians and media across America.
Hence why I'm asking for a universal definition and application.
I have made it clear I believe the usage by MAGA is hyper-focused on Trump. I stated that clearly.
If we define it, it has to encapsulate more than just actions against Trump.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 11:57 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
That's WAY more limited than they want, though. Why the legitimacy issue is so big. That would clearly not be a legitimate litigation. They have issues with litigations that are legitimate, per the written law (the illegitimacy they allege deals in whataboutism and layers and layers of conspiracy).
Yeah, the partisans who have spent eight years trying to get Trump would never lie or commit fraud in an effort to get Trump. Nope, those people are totally legitimate and acting in a manner totally consistent with pursuing justice.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 11:57 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
If "traditional Catholics" are arrested every time they trespass during protests because they oppose abortion, but proabortion Handmaids are never arrested for the same exact transgressions,
So can we use an example from Alabama and one from California to show this disparate impact?
And yes, I used disparate impact intentionally, b/c that's where we are headed with this rhetoric.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 12:00 pm to thebigmuffaletta
quote:
Yeah, the partisans who have spent eight years trying to get Trump would never lie or commit fraud in an effort to get Trump.
The only potential lawfare suits that we know 100% are based in fraud and arguing evidence that does not exist are the post-election lawsuits by Trump-adjacent parties and groups
The only litigation against Trump right now that can fall into this is the EJC civil suit, b/c her claims are so wacky. Although ultimately that's a credibility determination for the jury, I'll give it to you in this context.
The rest don't fit into that paradigm.
Page 10 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News