- 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 4/26/24 at 5:52 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 4/26/24 at 5:52 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:It’s a logical conclusion that they’d open up the law right quick, hammer Trump, and immediately sew the law right back up?
That's not an assumption. That's a logical conclusion.
Instead of maybe something slightly less obviously sketchy?
0
Posted on 4/26/24 at 5:53 pm to thebigmuffaletta
Imagine if a MTG-like prosecutor was elected and began to charge her political opposition with various crimes based on novel interpretations of the statutes at hand. The same folks on this board who don't seem to oppose lawfare when it comes to Trump would be skyscreaming about how dictatorial and authoritarian it was. Hell, there are folks on here who claim Eileen Cannon is a partisan hack, while simultaneously maintaining that the NYC and DC leftists who adjudicate other cases against Trump and his allies are perfectly objective.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 5:54 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Are you this meticulous when questioning the left that you used to be a part of?
Once we figure out exactly what the term means then we can apply it to his matters directly.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 5:54 pm to SlowFlowPro
Iran/Contra was the first example I remember. Scooter Libby could probably tell you a couple of stories, too.
Basically, trying to force people to plead guilty to bullshite, or bankrupt themselves trying to pay for a legal defense
Basically, trying to force people to plead guilty to bullshite, or bankrupt themselves trying to pay for a legal defense
This post was edited on 4/26/24 at 9:26 pm
Posted on 4/26/24 at 5:54 pm to cajunangelle
quote:
Yep. and after about 15 pages he will say there is no real lawfare, bad politically hyper lawyers never advance; and there are remedies for it because there are always bad intentioned lawyers. that are held accountable
As he knows Weissmann will never, ever, ever, lose his law license;and Roddy Rosenstein will always be at the poshest law firm in DC --without a hair on his head blown in the wind or harmed.
Yep. He is a leftist attempting to straddle the fence to sway people's opinion to the left.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 5:56 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Of course something can be legitimate and still lawfare.
If it's legitimate, which it seems to be, can it be lawfare?
Posted on 4/26/24 at 5:56 pm to ReauxlTide222
quote:
Are you this meticulous when questioning the left that you used to be a part of?
"Use to be"
Posted on 4/26/24 at 6:03 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Relying on bad intelligence possibly planted by the IC as in Operation Trust.
This goes back to the beginning of the thread. So what about all the lawsuits filed with novel crazy legal theories after the election?
Those were (1) political, (2) partisan, (3) relying on novel theories, etc. Lawfare?
I am only replying to this to push this thread along. So you can pretend you are the pigeon not shitting all over the chess board schooling everyone----like your comrade boosie.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 6:08 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Once we figure out exactly what the term means then we can apply it to his matters directly. It's not a yes or no question because there's a bunch of things that we can look at and some maybe and some may not be
Shocking
Posted on 4/26/24 at 6:24 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
So what about all the lawsuits filed with novel crazy legal theories after the election?
There is a massive difference in filing a lawsuit to challenge election results and a wide ranging prosecutorial operation in multiple states that targets one individual with theoretically specious criminal prosecution.. the asset valuation in NYC for a property in Palm Beach is just one example. Keep it up though. The ball was set in motion with Trump which opened the door to others.. I don’t know why you guys insist on seeing how far you can push an armed populace with your corrupt and perverse system of justice.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 7:49 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
now that we have a definition and the crucial building blocks for a discussion set out
Lulz
No we dont actually. Lets start again, shall we?
quote:
Lawfare: how is this defined
Lawfare is very easily defined as Malicious Prosecution (also known as malicious use of process). And since you are either ignorant to the concept or slept at a Holiday Inn last night, heres some helpful nuggets for you
* is done to intimidate, harass, defame, or otherwise injure the other party
* abuse of process claims can be brought even in response to claims that have an underlying legitimate reason
* inappropriate lien on a defendant's property to force them to relent
* prosecutor filing false charges against a political rival
* abuse of process usually happens after a legitimate lawsuit has already been filed
* brought by someone against whom a criminal or civil action has proceeded with malicious intent
Plus this:
quote:
Criminal prosecuting attorneys and judges are protected from tort liability for malicious prosecution by doctrines of prosecutorial immunity and judicial immunity.
They get to claim immunity, even if proven. They have nothing to risk by repeatedly targeting Trump
Thats Lawfare. Youre welcome
This post was edited on 4/26/24 at 7:51 pm
Posted on 4/26/24 at 9:12 pm to SlowFlowPro
In the UCMJ, lawfare is known as a GOMOR (General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand) after an Article 15 acquittal.
This post was edited on 4/26/24 at 9:13 pm
Posted on 4/26/24 at 9:26 pm to SlowFlowPro
ok Matlock, start w a corrupt DA and a corrupt judge.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 9:28 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Ok who was charged by a DA and brought up on criminal charges?
So like the various litigations following the 2020 election testing novel theories to decertify elections?
Your arguments are biased.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 2:10 am to SlowFlowPro
It's systematic litigation abuse aimed at destroying a certain institution or group of people rather than validly using the legal system to address actual legal problems individually as they arise. It is currently the Democrat party's main strategy to win federal elections, as opposed to campaigning on accomplishments and voter satisfaction.
This post was edited on 4/27/24 at 2:27 am
Posted on 4/27/24 at 3:42 am to SlowFlowPro
You really thought of all this bullshite,for somebody that's supposedly smart you sure are fricking stupid.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 4:13 am to SCLibertarian
quote:
Unique or untested theories concerning the implementation of the laws forming the subject matter of the prosecution are one of the hallmarks of lawfare. The other is the biased application and implementation of said laws to benefit your political allies and hinder your political opponents.
The GOAT has spoken
Posted on 4/27/24 at 5:56 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Lawfare is the targeted application of asymmetric legal contrivances against political opponents to attack, disadvantage, or destroy them. Internationally, it is neither new, nor unique. Beria defined its application succinctly when he said “Show me the man and I'll show you the crime.”
Lawfare: how is this defined
Lawfare doesn't exclusively entail going after innocent opponents. Selective prosecution is certainly a variation.
Soros and Obama put the premise to task in Ukraine with the NABU. Ukraine is historically corrupt. Virtually nothing is done there without greasing palms, bibery, skimming, extortion, etc. Everyone does it. So when the NABU selectively applies the law to political opponents, the issue isn't necessarily that the opposition is innocent. It is that NABU allies, committing the same offenses, are never charged.
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 post was edited on 4/27/24 at 6:01 am
Posted on 4/27/24 at 6:01 am to NC_Tigah
BAKE ME A CAKE!!!
Posted on 4/27/24 at 6:04 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:bullshite.
the determination of legitimacy seems to be a very personal and very subjective matter.
quote:No such problems exist
That's where the problems come with creating a definition
Page 4 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News