- 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 9:37 am to OceanMan
Posted on 4/27/24 at 9:37 am to OceanMan
quote:
Wrong, “criminals” implies they are targeting a crime, not an individual.
Tomato tomato.
You're arguing legitimacy, now. The wheel keeps spinning.
quote:
we both know you are weaseling down this hall of obscurity because you don’t want to discuss specifically that the prosecutions of Trump are targeted.
No. I'm willing to accept that these prosecutions are targeted. But that means we're going to have to bring tens of thousands of prosecutions into the discussion as also being targeted. I don't think Patriots are going to want to do that, in particular. They're refusal to do so, however, largely invalidates this "lawfare" idea.
quote:
No, the legislature does not decide which cases to prosecute.
The frick does a prosecutor have to do with a civil lawsuit?
quote:
Your refusal to discuss Letitia James’ campaign against Trump
Politicians are politicians.
Your argument only works if you're claiming the criminal prosecutions are not legitimate, even if a jury disagrees with you.
2
Posted on 4/27/24 at 9:39 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:They are. "No reasonable prosecutor ..."
How are historical examples not relevant to a temporal argument?
Remember?
Posted on 4/27/24 at 9:39 am to fwtex
quote:
There is another aspect to lawfare and that is private funding of prosecutions and litigations.
Well we are back to the drawing board.
quote:
1. It is now being used as an investment by some non party interest.
Has been for a long time. This is apolitical.
quote:
2. Non party interest target a company or individual and financially drown them for the intent to make them submit or be bankrupt.
I specifically remember this board being angry when Thiel's lawfare bankrupted Gawker.
quote:
3. Non party interest use dark money to fund public prosecutors to litigate a target. They will be paid either for a side job that does not exist or a future job for their reward.
I don't think we have any evidence of this existing.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 9:43 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Then we have a fundamental disagreement about equal application of the law, Mr. Beria.
Wrong, “criminals” implies they are targeting a crime, not an individual.
Tomato tomato.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 9:44 am to Wednesday
quote:
Misuse of the judicial system by coordinating the judges, prosecutors or litigants to make a political point, and to ruin the opposing litigant.
Is Bob Menendez and/or his wife a victim of lawfare?
Rod Blagojevich?
That weirdo bald tranny federal official who liked to steal luggage?
quote:
The only way to stop it is to start with firing everyone in the DOJ in DC.
I mean, that's not legal and is the exact kind of partisanship you're upset with.
quote:
The same needs to happen on the state level.
Even for elected officials? How?
quote:
These Fani Willis types have completely undermined civil rights in this country in ways that the founders could not have anticipated.
The founders? Naw. They gave expansive powers to states and "civil rights" were not even conceptualized as being incorporated into the states for decades.
quote:
The private lawyers involved need to be investigated in some sort of anti-trust action
What? Based on what?
Posted on 4/27/24 at 9:45 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Of course I am
You're relying on a bad ruling from a judge who already tried that and got smacked down, and will be again. That is not the proper or legal application of the concept.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 9:46 am to Damone
quote:
That’s where it pays to have someone with the knowledge and wherewithal to move the levers of power.
Correct, but then you have to get in "Deep State" types.
For whatever reason, Trump preferred John Boltons to do this
He got better. Rick Grennell was really good towards the end.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 9:46 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
quote:Wrong, “criminals” implies they are targeting a crime, not an individual.
Tomato tomato.
How ironic is this quote? We have to go through your mastercalss of the malleability of the term “lawfare”, but the distinction I made above is not meaningful?
What a clown.
quote:
No. I'm willing to accept that these prosecutions are targeted. But that means we're going to have to bring tens of thousands of prosecutions into the discussion as also being targeted
no that’s not what it means. We don’t ever have to have straw man arguments. quote:
I don't think Patriots are going to want to do that, in particular. They're refusal to do so, however, largely invalidates this "lawfare" idea.
Non partisan. We all see your agenda but you. It’s embarrassing.
quote:
The frick does a prosecutor have to do with a civil lawsuit?
Hers what the AG of New York has to say about it.
quote:
Politicians are politicians. Your argument only works if you're claiming the criminal prosecutions are not legitimate, even if a jury disagrees with you.
Take the L.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 9:49 am to OceanMan
quote:
She said it herself dude. It’s not hard to understand.
She said the word "malicious"? LINK?
quote:
Because you are willing to discuss anything but the topic at hand.
I am discussing the topic at hand. We just had a new variable entered into the discussion on this page.
quote:
You have started a thread now with this nonsense of “define lawfare”.
We are trying. We're up to like 12-13 different definitions...from people who believe in it, no less. Only 1 can be correct.
quote:
The conversation started with whether Letitia James has targeted Donald Trump.
Incorrect.
quote:
The NY legislature expanded the SOL specifically so E. Jean Carroll could file suit against Donald Trump.
But, even if we want to focus on your digression, the NY state legislature created the wacky, vague business records law Trump is being prosecuted with. Your issue is with them.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 9:49 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
They are. "No reasonable prosecutor ..."
The prosecutorial decisions in one unrelated case have no precedential value in other cases and decisions.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 9:49 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Was he targeted first for his opposition to the Administration or for his crime?
Misuse of the judicial system by coordinating the judges, prosecutors or litigants to make a political point, and to ruin the opposing litigant.
---
Is Bob Menendez and/or his wife a victim of lawfare?
quote:Was he targeted first for his opposition to the Administration or for his crime?
Misuse of the judicial system by coordinating the judges, prosecutors or litigants to make a political point, and to ruin the opposing litigant.
---
Is the weirdo bald tranny federal official who liked to steal luggage a victim of lawfare?
quote:Perhaps.
Misuse of the judicial system by coordinating the judges, prosecutors or litigants to make a political point, and to ruin the opposing litigant.
---
Is Rod Blagojevich a victim of lawfare?
Was he targeted first for his opposition to the Administration or for his crime?
It appears the former may have been at play.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 9:52 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Then we have a fundamental disagreement about equal application of the law,
I told you. You're relying on a bad ruling to conceptualize your understanding of what our law is. His ruling will be overruled (again).
Now, if you are arguing that we need to fundamentally reform our entire criminal justice system and the precedents therein to severely decrease state authority/power in the criminal realm (across the board, not just for MAGA-adjacent parties), I would listen. Patriots would be very upset with this development, though. They would associate it with BLM and "Defund the police".
Posted on 4/27/24 at 9:53 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Was he targeted first for his opposition to the Administration or for his crime?
No he was targeted for alleged criminal behavior, like Trump.
He can always claim it was political, though.
quote:
Was he targeted first for his opposition to the Administration or for his crime?
No he was targeted for the alleged criminal behavior, like Trump.
He can always claim it was political, though.
quote:
Was he targeted first for his opposition to the Administration or for his crime?
No he was targeted for the alleged criminal behavior, like Trump.
He can always claim it was political, though.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 10:13 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Ah, I get it.
I told you. You're relying on a bad ruling to conceptualize your understanding of what our law is. His ruling will be overruled (again).
Posted on 4/27/24 at 10:17 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Trump was targeted because he is the opposition, not because of any action, criminal or otherwise.
No he was targeted for alleged criminal behavior, like Trump.
If he was Hillary, there would be no charge. If he was Biden there would be no charge.
"Show me the man, and I will show you the crime."
Posted on 4/27/24 at 10:18 am to NC_Tigah
SFP is smart enough to know that. He just chooses a different path to be a shite stirrer.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 10:42 am to SlowFlowPro
Why are you doing this thread?
You’re a lawyer from what I can tell.
You should know this.
It’s not a novel concept to corrupt the legal system to cause harm to your political opponent.
You’re a lawyer from what I can tell.
You should know this.
It’s not a novel concept to corrupt the legal system to cause harm to your political opponent.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 10:46 am to thermal9221
quote:
Why are you doing this thread?
So he can deny the political and partisan motivations of the legal proceedings against Trump. He wants you to believe that Trump truly is some criminal and the people pursuing criminal charges against Trump are all acting in good faith and seeking nothing other than justice.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 10:53 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Trump was targeted because he is the opposition, not because of any action, criminal or otherwise.
Trump's biggest issue was being a fricking idiot and engaging in insane behavior after the election, which opened the door for pretty much all of this.
The one exception is the NY criminal case, which everyone agrees is the weakest one.
quote:
If he was Hillary,
Are we drafting the universal definition with "Other than Hillary Clinton"
?
quote:
If he was Biden there would be no charge.
Lawfare is, "other than Hillary Clinton or Biden"
Posted on 4/27/24 at 10:55 am to thebigmuffaletta
quote:
So he can deny the political and partisan motivations of the legal proceedings against Trump.
Yet another L
quote:
He wants you to believe that Trump truly is some criminal
By the laws of the US and GA, he's likely dipped his toes into that water somewhere.
Page 8 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News