2
- 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: SFPLCs buddy spills the beans on Lawfare
Posted on 10/21/26 at 8:08 pm to Speckhunter2012
Posted on 10/21/26 at 8:08 pm to Speckhunter2012
quote:
NY temporarily revises S of L laws to allow some BS claim that PDJT accosted some ugly arse woman in a dressing room which was the same storyline of a national TV show as well as what she claimed to be wearing was not even designed at that time, that is only a small part of Lawfare.
But, DEMs have gotten sued with this law, too. So how does that fit into your definition?
Posted on 10/21/26 at 8:08 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Quite strong?
The obstruction-related charges in the Florida cases were quite strong.
In that regard, so were the rape related charges in the Duke Lacrosse Case. If Nifong had been lucky enough to run into dismissals d/t structural/constitutional illegitimacy, you'd have assessed the rape evidence the same way ... quite strong.
In this instance, at best, you have claims of "interference" with questionably predicated law enforcement invasions of both privacy and domicile.
Quite strong?
If you say so.
Posted on 10/21/26 at 8:09 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
In that regard, so were the rape related charges in the Duke Lacrosse Case.
Naw
That was always based on lies
It's nowhere near the same
quote:
In this instance, at best, you have claims of "interference" with questionably predicated law enforcement invasions of both privacy and domicile.
Via legal search warrant?
Posted on 10/21/26 at 8:17 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
DEMs have gotten sued with this law, too.
Which ones? They sunsetted the extended SOL to expire after Trumps sham trial.
Posted on 10/21/26 at 8:19 pm to Rebel
quote:
Which ones?
Andrew Cuomo and Eric Adams for starters.
Posted on 10/21/26 at 8:20 pm to SlowFlowPro
I must have missed their arrests and trials.
How did they turn out?
How did they turn out?
Posted on 10/21/26 at 8:22 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
But, DEMs have gotten sued with this law, too. So how does that fit into your definition?
Absolutely nothing to do with what they did to affect the 2024 election and try to imprison a former POTUS and candidate with the MSM Mockingbirds chirping 24/7 about PDJT and echoing the Lawfare.
Good night, Lavrentiy Beria. Perhaps you might create some crime that I did not do and make me spend money on my defense for some frivolous charge.
What a patriot and defender of the constitution you are. /s/.
Posted on 10/21/26 at 8:24 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Andrew Cuomo and Eric Adams for starters.
Your ability to stay “in character” is impressive.
That is not a compliment.
Posted on 10/21/26 at 8:27 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Then set the example.
I'm just trying to get people to act less gay and retarded
You had a NY AG base her entire campaign on "getting Trump."
What were the charges?
Well .... she promised to find them.
What resulted were two of the most impossibly idiotic show trials and verdicts this nation has seen in the last 60-70 yrs or so.
"Gay and retarded" would be descriptive of willful dismissal of James's actions in NY as anything but classic Berian injustice.
Posted on 10/21/26 at 8:29 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Andrew Cuomo and Eric Adams for starters.
How has that worked out? Do you think it is “lawfare”? You are an insufferable bitch when it comes to admitting that you are wrong. Look we all know the definition of what lawfare means. Just because you choose the route of the dumbest Supreme Court justice “I do not know what the definition of a woman is” does not change the fact that you know the definition of lawfare. We all know.
Posted on 10/21/26 at 8:36 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Yes.
Via legal search warrant?
Posted on 10/21/26 at 9:02 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I just don't know what "lawfare" is.
Annnnd I gave you a definition of it that you have yet to refute as wrong. Multiple times. It's not on me that you continue to ignore it.
quote:
. Flynn wasn't a prosecution by the other party, so it's not relevant
No.. again it's simply inconvenient for you. Because Comey bypassed protocol and dispatched Strozk to interview Flynn. Now was Comey and Strozk Trump loyalists?
quote:
And I responded directly to the FISA issue and cited a prosecution of Clinesmith, which would fall under "lawfare" by that definition, as Trump's DOJ charged him.
You responded with Clinesmith as a deflection because what was asked was inconvenient for you. And clinesmith actually broke the law in pursuit of exactly what I gave you as a definition. Now... HOW did he break the law? What was he doing to break the law. And why did he do it? Why did he have to do it? Ummm. More inconvenient questions.
Now... for the SIXTH time... does any of what was done in relation to the Steele Dossier and meet the definition I gave? What about Comey and Strozk in the Flynn case?
Look, we are all sorry that your claimed line of work is viewed as filled with narcissistic scumbags who tries to use the system as a tool. And this ethical, principled, storied system you view yourself a member of is an illusion you still try to portray. But playing stupid, whataboutism, and deflection isn't helping you in the least bit.
This post was edited on 10/21/26 at 9:18 pm
Posted on 10/21/26 at 9:05 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Naw That was always based on lies
Like the Steele Dossier that was used to begin actual investigations into the Trump campaign. Again, does that fit the definition that I gave?
Posted on 10/21/26 at 9:13 pm to CleverUserName
quote:Exactly.
Flynn wasn't a prosecution by the other party, so it's not relevant
---
No.. again it's simply inconvenient for you.
There is no requirement for opposition parties, just opposition.
Posted on 10/21/26 at 9:27 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
That's really the goal of using the term: delegitimizing certain legal cases
So you admit by default there is a definition of the term lawfare.
Checkmate
Posted on 10/22/26 at 6:05 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
quote:
if you don't know the definition, how you can say if it exists for not
weird
The fact this went over your head says it all
Answer the question.
Posted on 10/22/26 at 6:44 am to lake chuck fan
quote:
Answer the question.
It's a question built on a dishonest base (Strawman)
I can't answer
Posted on 10/22/26 at 6:45 am to texag7
quote:
So you admit by default there is a definition of the term lawfare.
I spoke of the goal of using the term, not the definition.
Posted on 10/22/26 at 6:46 am to Rebel
quote:
DEMs have gotten sued with this law, too.
quote:
I must have missed their arrests and trials.
wut
Posted on 10/22/26 at 6:49 am to Warboo
quote:
How has that worked out?
Not well for people who claimed the change in law was one-way partisan
quote:
Look we all know the definition of what lawfare means.
Again, in this thread, many others who believe in lawfare, have proven this statement to be untrue.
And also in this thread you see when people have to defend their term with real world examples, they melt down (like the initially quoted language in this post)
This is showing a lack of universality and application to real world examples, which is exactly my point.
quote:
We all know.
Again, this thread shows this is not true
Page 10 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News