- 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
1
Posted on 4/27/24 at 2:03 pm to Jjdoc
quote:
Isn't it great that the majority of people here have figured out this guys act.
The more he talks, the clearer the picture is.
JJ
You're not capable of adding anything of value to this thread.
Move along to the kindergarten-level ones.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 2:29 pm to SlowFlowPro
According to dictionary.com the word definition has 5 definitions, are we pretending we don’t know what that word means either?
Posted on 4/27/24 at 2:56 pm to SlowFlowPro
Anyone who agrees with anything Marc Elias has ever done is a law fare prostitute who hates America.
Any law firm accepting money from foreign entities like George Soros should be dissolved, the lawyers disbarred, tried for treason and if convicted sent to Gitmo. He is an enemy of the Republic.
Any law firm accepting money from foreign entities like George Soros should be dissolved, the lawyers disbarred, tried for treason and if convicted sent to Gitmo. He is an enemy of the Republic.
This post was edited on 4/27/24 at 2:58 pm
Posted on 4/27/24 at 4:38 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Several of them mesh. There are a few odd ones, which you tellingly encourage, which don't mesh. You rather nonsensically tried to limit categorization of lawfare to criminal cases knowing that limitation undermines the general premise.
10+ definitions just in this thread alone. Which is it?
i.e., "Well, if you're excluding 'those cases' for nonsensical reasons, then you must be willing to exclude the following cases as well..."
The thing most disturbing about this thread is your own refusal to acknowledge not just lawfare's existence as the weaponization of law IAW Marc Elias et al., but the irreparable damage it can do if our idiot courts continue to allow it.
This post was edited on 4/27/24 at 4:39 pm
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
Posted on 4/27/24 at 5:01 pm to NC_Tigah
bumping this to page 15 so SFP can post a picture of the pigeon shitting all over the chest board thinking he won anything or educated a soul.
it is the law that this must reach 15 pages or contrarian trolling fails.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 8:05 pm to TigerFanatic99
quote:
The property valuation case is another example.
Value is in the eye of the beholder. You know what the value is to you and that is what you will take for it. The bank or any other entity, including a judge, will generally have a different value.
No one was harmed and I do not believe there was ever any intent to harm.
Now do Culturefare!!
Posted on 4/27/24 at 8:45 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
SlowFlowPro
quote:
421896
This is what pathetic looks like
Posted on 4/29/24 at 9:36 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
10+ definitions just in this thread alone. Which is it?
What do we think SCOTUS Justices are addressing via these comments/observations in the immunity case?
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?"
Posted on 4/29/24 at 9:39 am to TigersnJeeps
quote:
The intent is not justice but ruin the target - ie "the process is the punishment".
Exactamundo.
Page 13 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News