- 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 12:01 pm to NC_Tigah
Posted on 4/27/24 at 12:01 pm 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, that is lawfare. Even though the charges themselves are not fraud.
I'd call this selective enforcement of the law. Lawfare to me involved the courts more than the police.
0
Posted on 4/27/24 at 12:02 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Is Bob Menendez and/or his wife a victim of lawfare? Rod Blagojevich? That weirdo bald tranny federal official who liked to steal luggage?
No. These people are criminals.
Prosecuting the lawyers who represented these criminals would be Lawfare.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 12:03 pm to SlowFlowPro
Next you’re going to insist the pee dossier and subsequent witch hunts that stemmed from that narrative were totally legitimate and the pursuit was in the name of justice.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 12:04 pm 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.
So like the Russia collusion witch hunts?
Posted on 4/27/24 at 12:04 pm to Wednesday
quote:
No. These people are criminals
Legitimacy may have entered the chat again
quote:
Prosecuting the lawyers who represented these criminals would be Lawfare.
What if the lawyers engaged in criminal acts?
Posted on 4/27/24 at 12:05 pm to thebigmuffaletta
quote:
Next you’re going to insist the pee dossier and subsequent witch hunts that stemmed from that narrative were totally legitimate
Uh no. I was on record 8-ish years ago stating the opposite and my position never changed. As usual, I was right.
Another L
Posted on 4/27/24 at 12:06 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Uh no. I was on record 8-ish years ago stating the opposite and my position never changed. As usual, I was right.
Okay, so you agree that the people intent on getting Trump will in fact lie and commit fraud in order to get Trump?
Posted on 4/27/24 at 12:11 pm to thebigmuffaletta
quote:
Okay, so you agree that the people intent on getting Trump will in fact lie and commit fraud in order to get Trump?
The Steele dossier and muh Russia was dishonest politicking, and the governmental spying on Trump relied on fraudulent evidence and more criminal prosecutions should have occurred.
If you want to call that lawfare, fine, but it's way too specific for a definition, for reasons I have already stated (and NC confirmed)
Posted on 4/27/24 at 12:13 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The Steele dossier and muh Russia was dishonest politicking, and the governmental spying on Trump relied on fraudulent evidence and more criminal prosecutions should have occurred. If you want to call that lawfare, fine, but it's way too specific for a definition, for reasons I have already stated (and NC confirmed)
I don’t give a shite what you want to call it. The entire point is that the left will lie and fabricate evidence to get Trump for purely partisan reasons.
This post was edited on 4/27/24 at 12:14 pm
Posted on 4/27/24 at 12:14 pm to thebigmuffaletta
quote:
The entire point is that the left will lie and fabricate evidence to get Trump for purely partisan reasons.
One example.
How many fraudulent lawsuits were filed on Trump's behalf after the 2020 election?
Posted on 4/27/24 at 12:16 pm to oklahogjr
quote:
define lawfare as a dog whistle type of phrase used to signal between maga supporters that something is unfair to them or someone they are required to support.
I define oklahogjr as a raging imbecile, it holds up very well.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 12:17 pm to SlowFlowPro
You do realize that having your political rival jailed and indicted is a form of lawfare?
It’s just not called lawfare in other countries.
It’s called a few things but not limited to the following: corruption, authoritarianism, totalitarianism, fall of republics etc.
It’s just not called lawfare in other countries.
It’s called a few things but not limited to the following: corruption, authoritarianism, totalitarianism, fall of republics etc.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 12:18 pm to thermal9221
quote:
You do realize that having your political rival jailed and indicted is a form of lawfare?
Legitimacy has definitely re-entered the chat
What if your rival commits crimes after the election? Is he/she just immune now? For what time period? In perpetuity?
Posted on 4/27/24 at 12:26 pm to SlowFlowPro
The best answer there are 2 factors for the current political situation:
Depends on who is committing the crime
Depends on the crime
This is not my view, this is the current view.
But if I were running, I would not seek to have charges placed due to the extremely shady appearance it brings, may backfire on you.
Depends on who is committing the crime
Depends on the crime
This is not my view, this is the current view.
But if I were running, I would not seek to have charges placed due to the extremely shady appearance it brings, may backfire on you.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 12:28 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
What if your rival commits crimes after the election? Is he/she just immune now? For what time period? In perpetuity?
How about utilizing prudence and only charging someone for an actual crime where actual people were harmed. Not some made up novel bullshite.
You used to be the poster who warned about the judicial system being used against citizens and supposedly that was the thrust of your legal career. Were you a fraud then or a fraud now?
Posted on 4/27/24 at 12:32 pm to Robin Masters
quote:
You used to be the poster who warned about the judicial system being used against citizens and supposedly that was the thrust of your legal career. Were you a fraud then or a fraud now?
Nothing has changed.
I'm just not a hypocrite about it and I have no partisanship to lead that hypocrisy
Posted on 4/27/24 at 12:33 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
One example.
There were multiple proceedings that stemmed from Muh collusion.
And the Ukraine phone call hoax
And the insurrection hoax
Don’t be a dishonest hack and pretend they haven’t been lying for years in an effort to get Trump
Posted on 4/27/24 at 12:34 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Nothing has changed. I'm just not a hypocrite about it and I have no partisanship to lead that hypocrisy
So you’re a fraud now. Thats what I was thinking too.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 12:38 pm to thebigmuffaletta
quote:
And the Ukraine phone call hoax
More of an interpretation issue (and I didn't agree with the interpretation leading to impeachment, just for the record) than fraud.
quote:
And the insurrection hoax
I don't believe there was an "insurrection" but there was a riot on January 6 and a LOT of criminal behaviors.
What fraud, though? There was clearly a riot and criminality. It's on video.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 12:38 pm to Robin Masters
quote:
So you’re a fraud now.
Nope. Nothing I have said stated about my own personal policy preferences agrees with that.
Page 11 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News