- 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 8:47 am to NC_Tigah
Posted on 4/27/24 at 8:47 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
The thesis that a sitting POTUS cannot exercise options under legal loopholes to challenge an election is absolutely "novel,"
How? The fact that he is a President doesn't change anything. There is established case law on these issues and nothing novel is involved in the theories of the cases.
Florida doesn't even involve this issue.
quote:
The idea that an ex-POTUS should be prosecuted by the DOJ for something "no reasonable prosecutor" would pursue is absolutely "novel,"
Now you are making assumptions to fit your argument.
That's why a specific definition is needed; to avoid just this sort of malleability.
0
Posted on 4/27/24 at 8:47 am to themunch
Bub
Posted on 4/27/24 at 8:48 am to TDTOM
quote:
It is beautiful outside.
It's actually gross and cloudy here
Posted on 4/27/24 at 8:48 am to themunch
quote:
I have yet to see the universal definition in this thread
No shite. That's the goal and point of the thread at the same time.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 8:51 am to SlowFlowPro
Oh so there is none right? Lawfare is some undefined movement to get to Trump period.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 8:54 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
That is because no other jurisdictions have that law, and it's not new or anything. It's been litigated quite extensively, too, so Trump isn't alone in the brunt. How is it lawfare?
You are incredibly stupid. We know that it is lawfare, because the prosecutor campaigned to target Donald Trump.
quote:
"We will use every area of the law to investigate President Trump and his business transactions and that of his family as well,"
It started with the individual, not the law. This behavior brings shame to the entire legal profession. You are truly an embarrassment trying to run cover for a targeted legal agenda against an individual.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 8:55 am to themunch
quote:
Oh so there is none right?
There have been probably at least 10 different definitions in this thread.
quote:
Lawfare is some undefined movement to get to Trump period.
It's not necessarily this. It's more of a primed/focused term used for partisan reasons that only makes sense in the hyper-specific areas of partisan conceptualization.
Or, to put it in a simpler way: When you apply this rhetoric to the system as a whole, I don't think people are going to like the results.
NC just walked into this by using BLM-esque arguments to define a solution.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 8:57 am to OceanMan
quote:
We know that it is lawfare, because the prosecutor campaigned to target Donald Trump.
Well then lots of small and local DAs are part of lawfare for campaigning on targeting criminals, too.
Perfect example of the unintended universal application I just posted above.
Now you're going to try to avoid the universality by re-defining things specific to your partisan focus, but the damage is already done. You just won't like it and won't accept it.
quote:
This behavior brings shame to the entire legal profession.
Technically, your issue is with a state legislature.
quote:
You are truly an embarrassment trying to run cover for a targeted legal agenda against an individual.
I am not really doing that, just trying to lead the partisan brain rot into an understanding of the unintended consequences of the universal application of their rhetoric.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 9:02 am to SlowFlowPro
You want a definition?
To paraphrase Potter Stewart, "you'll know it when you see it."
Since you are incessantly harping on the absence of a brightline definition, how about just a solution?
Remove immunity for judges and prosecutors (both civil and criminal). If they are faced with the prospect if actually have to pay with their liberty when they decide to use the power of their office for purely IDEOLOGICAL or PARTISAN reasons (as opposed to "political"), they may think twice about it.
To paraphrase Potter Stewart, "you'll know it when you see it."
Since you are incessantly harping on the absence of a brightline definition, how about just a solution?
Remove immunity for judges and prosecutors (both civil and criminal). If they are faced with the prospect if actually have to pay with their liberty when they decide to use the power of their office for purely IDEOLOGICAL or PARTISAN reasons (as opposed to "political"), they may think twice about it.
This post was edited on 4/27/24 at 9:03 am
Posted on 4/27/24 at 9:07 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:NO!
So a whataboutism defense?
An unequal application of the law defense. Equal justice under law is a phrase engraved on the West Pediment of the Supreme Court Building. It is a 14th Amendment tenet. "Whataboutism" is not. You know that.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 9:08 am to SlowFlowPro
Lawfare is defined as any legal action taken against Trump. It will be the excuse if and when he loses to Brandon, along with voter fraud obviously.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 9:09 am to udtiger
quote:
o paraphrase Potter Stewart, "you'll know it when you see it."
This is like the 5th time this has come up, actually.
quote:
Remove immunity for judges and prosecutors (both civil and criminal). If they are faced with the prospect if actually have to pay with their liberty when they decide to use the power of their office for purely IDEOLOGICAL or PARTISAN reasons
This is where legitimacy comes into play hard.
If the litigation you're speaking of is legitimate, how can you make this call?
Again, we can go back to the Rudy Guilliani defamation case (since it's basically done, has been litigated, and effectively resolved legally).
There was no prosecutor involved in that case, so I'm assuming we can substitute the Plaintiff's counsel? Why would you punish the counsel or judge in that case? Or was that not lawfare?
We can go to GA, too. Multiple pleas and admissions of guilt have been entered in GA. If the Defendant enters a guilty plea, does that remove any allegation of illegitimacy from the process? Again, remember my larger point is that this has to be a UNIVERSAL solution, so this standard would apply to all criminal cases in the US (State, federal, or municipal).
Or I can bring back up all of the failed post-election cases that relied on evidence so lacking it is borderline fraudulent. Those were partisan, ideological, novel etc. We are kind of coming full circle with this one. There are parties seeking a retribution for this "lawfare", but that, in itself, is called "lawfare". We are now at the inception/leveling stage of the analysis. Is it all lawfare?
Posted on 4/27/24 at 9:10 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
An unequal application of the law defense.
BLM
FIXIN
TO
EAT
Posted on 4/27/24 at 9:10 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
It's just a meandering, malleable definition that changes for each situation
You are the one that brings up alternative situations. This all stems from the cases against Trump, and whether those cases are intended to be malicious.
You are obscuring the entire premise of the argument, you just brought up Julius fricking Caesar. Surprised you haven’t started quoting Shakespeare yet.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 9:12 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
just trying to lead the partisan brain rot into an understanding of the unintended consequences of the universal application of their rhetoric.
Your white-knighting for this double standard makes you just as guilty of partisan brain rot as you claim this board is. Hillary Clinton escaped being charged for possessing classified material. So did Joe Biden. Donald Trump did not.
As for the DC case, 51 intelligence agents conspired to defraud the United States in the lead-up to the 2020 election. None of them have faced anything close to a criminal investigation. Donald Trump was indicted for the same offense for actions that occurred after the 2020 election.
I'm not here to pontificate on whether or not Trump is guilty of these offenses, but I can tell you if he had a D by his name, he wouldn't be charged with a crime. You know it and I know it.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 9:14 am to SlowFlowPro
SO glad you are continuing to show others what you are. POT defending what's going on.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 9:15 am to OceanMan
quote:
You are obscuring the entire premise of the argument, you just brought up Julius fricking Caesar.
Because you are arguing with a leftist.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 9:16 am to SCLibertarian
quote:
Your white-knighting for this double standard
I am doing no such thing.
quote:
makes you just as guilty of partisan brain rot as you claim this board is.
I have no real partisan allegiance, so that's kind of funny to state.
quote:
As for the DC case, 51 intelligence agents conspired to defraud the United States in the lead-up to the 2020 election. None of them have faced anything close to a criminal investigation.
What law did they violate? They gave (bullshite) opinions. Nothing more.
quote:
Donald Trump was indicted for the same offense
No he wasn't.
quote:
I'm not here to pontificate on whether or not Trump is guilty of these offenses
That is actually a really big part of this discussion, and in no way is that analysis meant to judge Trump, specifically.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 9:16 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Well then lots of small and local DAs are part of lawfare for campaigning on targeting criminals, too.
Criminals are criminals.
However, if the "target" is relegated only to MAGA criminals, or only Jewish criminals, or only male criminals, or only Black criminals, or only White criminals, that represents a Constitutional breach.
If the DOJ is weaponized against "Traditional Catholics," or political opponents, that is unacceptable.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 9:17 am to SCLibertarian
Obama had classified Docs.
This guy is a leftist.
This guy is a leftist.
Page 6 of 13
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News