re: MSNBC: Democrats want Pardons for Jack Smith and his team

The question in my mind, based on a judicial call...was Jack Smith properly appointed. in that he wasn't confirmed by the Senate?

Additionally, the government auditor in me has the Anti-Deficiency Act alarm going off.

quote:

---

I think he just enjoys provoking emotional reactions from people who "feel" things they can't substantiate.

---

This is common with the post-2016 shift on this board.

It used to be a place where facts and opinion mattered, but now it's, as you described, largely feelings-based (and facts are oft-rejected as disinformation).

quote:

---

Just define what lawfare is and argue over that. Instead people just like to assume what lawfare is and try arguing over it.

---

When people do try to define it, I typically use an example that tests their definition and then they rage-quit. That's why definitions matter.

The biggest conceptual issue is they want to define it in a way to attack the legitimacy of the underlying claims, which poses a gordian knot. What they REALLY want is a "I know it when I see it" definition so it can be lawfare when they're the victim but legitimate when their perceived opponent is the victim, but that requires legitimacy as a one-way street.

So, like with facts, to create the asymmetry in legitimacy, they have to attack the specific institutions to delegitimize them on an ad hoc basis.

The problem is, that still isn't defining the concept. And then we start the process over again.

quote:

---

SFP is merely caught in an existential crisis.

---

Reliance on the truth/reality and not fantasy/LARPing has taken its toll on me.

quote:

---

This is the equivalent of MAGA calling non-pedos, pedos, for example.

---

Think more, post less

Nice theory, now waste your time trying to prove it.

You got Hunter Biden, he got convicted on tax charges. It was never the intent of the IRS to prove that the money was ill gotten.....IRS does not care about that. He either did not report it by failing to file or simply did not pay. Oh, you wanna get him for a bullshite gun charge?

You won....in the end you get nothing out of him. You never were. It's not about what you think; it is what you can prove depending on the charge. You could charge him with influence peddling......and good luck with that.

Comer tried to prove something in committee a while back. It merely showed that the Biden brothers gave each other short term loans....not against the law on its face.

Please do better

quote:

---

I'm not sniping but the biggest issue is still the legitimacy one.

---

I get the legitimacy point, but the problem is that even legitimate charges can be used for political purposes. It’s not just about whether a crime was committed, it's about how the legal system can be weaponized to attack someone. I.E. bringing charges against Trump right before the 2024 election and timing the cases.

quote:

---

The problem is that you basically end up attempting a sort of equal protection argument, and then you're basically in the same territory as BLM types. This gets REAL amplified when muh whataboutism is applied (and is why its applied, to muddy the waters and reinforce the in/out group dynamic). This is exactly what BLM and race hustlers do to explain away legitimate crimes of their in-group ("oh white people commit the same crimes but aren't prosecuted because of institutional racism")

---

The difference is that this isn't about making excuses for crime, it's about questioning whether the legal system is being used to target someone for political reasons. It's not whataboutism to point out how timing or selective prosecution can influence outcomes.

quote:

---

If you had the power, you would do this for your kid too

---

This will be every leftist’s argument over the next few days. “We knew Joe was lying all along, who wouldn’t pardon their kid’. It’s only wrong and immoral when right leaning people do it, not when your betters from the democrat party do it

quote:

---

it's about questioning whether the legal system is being used to target someone for political reasons.

---

SFP doubts lawfare exists.

quote:

---

SFP doubts lawfare exists.

---

I don’t think he necessarily doubts lawfare exists. I just don't think anyone has given him a solid enough definition that his lawyer brain can’t pick apart.