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

I get where you are coming from in terms of creating a settled or even a generally accepted clear definition. But, I would say that most of the posters, and probably even yourself see it as using the legal system to pursue things that otherwise should be inherently political.....or legislative.

As a society we have opted for gridlock at the federal level. For good or bad that is what we have dealt ourselves. As such, politically, consensus escapes us. Because we cannot come to consensus, both sides try to grasp for any advantage, sort of like trench warfare in WW I where we expend money and resources to great amounts to get a minimal advantage. Enter the use of of existing law as a surrogate for political and legislative action.

There's no agreed upon definition because it's mostly a reflexive thing. But generally the statutes used to engage in it have legitimacy and the accusations or indictments are grounded in a modicum of legitimacy as well. Example, Did Trump have Cohen pay hush money to Daniels (Clifford)? Yeah, probably. Have her sign an NDA? We have evidence of it. Is it on its face illegal? No. Was it done for political cover and insurance? Absolutely. Do politicians do this at least semi regularly? One would assume so. Could there be campaign finance violations.? Minimally, yes.

AHA!!! So there is a crime!!! Egregious corruption of the law! We are a nation of laws, not of men! We cannot let this stand.....lest the public finds out that so many in the political arena engage in this walking of a legal tightrope regularly. You saw it with Clinton, you saw it with Trump and Russia .

It's the new almost generally accepted way of expanding politics into the legal arena. If a person you really don't like is a big threat at the ballot box, you pull out all the stops to block him. Use the law to hinder your opponent at every turn.

It used to be that lawfare, if you want to call it that, to an extent was used to hinder policy or the enactment of new laws. Generally used for political gain. Hey I don't like a policy or new law, let's shop and see if we can find a sympathetic circuit like the Fifth or the Ninth and either delay it's implementation or overturn it.

This new way is troubling, and both sides use it. It is a political abuse of the legal system.

quote:

---

This is not a "both sides" issue. But, I suspect it is going to become one.

---

One can only hope.

quote:

---

Is lawfare litigation illegal?

---

It certainly should be.

quote:

---

how can it be (legally) stopped?

---

U.S. District Judge Cormac J. Carney has the right idea.

Defendants "cannot be selected for prosecution because of their repugnant speech and beliefs over those who committed the same" offence.

quote:

---

Are you this meticulous when questioning the left that you used to be a part of?

---

Yes

quote:

---

Lawfare is very easily defined as Malicious Prosecution (also known as malicious use of process)

---

See, Reaxl? His starting point is illegitimacy.

quote:

---

Ok who was charged by a DA and brought up on criminal charges?

---

so lawfare can only be criminal?

I don't think that will be universally accepted, especially since the NY assets case was just referenced as an example of lawfare.

It goes without saying that "lawfare" is a newfound term that is thrown around with varying definitions


You left these out. How can I start to evaluate this without properly defining what it is. Like define woman. If you leave out the biological context and go on belief, you need to understand the belief. You need to understand the definition of lawfare and provide one.

quote:

---

The GA, DC, and Florida cases don't involve any novel theories.

---

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.

It is beautiful outside. Grab your wife and go take a walk.

quote:

---

You left these out.

---

Read the next sentence, bub

quote:

---

So can we give a universally agreed-upon definition of "lawfare"?

---

quote:

---

How can I start to evaluate this without properly defining what it is. L

---

Again, the next sentences.