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 10/22/26 at 9:01 am to texag7
Posted on 10/22/26 at 9:01 am to texag7
quote:
Imagine him doing this in court. He would get destroyed
I have to argue statutory interpretation in court. Unlike most lawyers, I've had a trial court reversed at the appellate level, effectively with the appeals court reversing its precedent, in a statutory interpretation matter
The argument "he's not right because he doesn't understand" is not effective in court.
Posted on 10/22/26 at 9:04 am to NC_Tigah
You need to go back to the point prior in the discussion
And you replied:
Now you say:
You sure?
Because I can just go back to:
Then if you respond with "prejudiciously" or "targeting" language. I can just now reply:
quote:
Any person who is prosecuted by LEO is, by default, an adversary
And you replied:
quote:
The point is prejudiciously targeting an adversary as rationale for the charge, not bringing a fairly wrought charge into an adversarial court proceeding.
Now you say:
quote:
They don't have to.
You sure?
Because I can just go back to:
quote:
Any person who is prosecuted by LEO is, by default, an adversary
Then if you respond with "prejudiciously" or "targeting" language. I can just now reply:
quote:
They don't have to.
Posted on 10/22/26 at 9:05 am to SlowFlowPro
mission accomplished!
Hijack complete
Hijack complete
Posted on 10/22/26 at 9:14 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
And several others have given different, competing definitions
STILL not a refute to what I gave you. Funny. You keep asking for a definition... when you get one you cannot deem as improper... you run to another "yea.. but!" distraction. Most words in the English language is polysemous, but you are grasping at this one.
quote:
Comey was an agent of Trump, part of his DOJ.
And AGAIN.. Comey broke agency policies and protocol. Now why did he do that?? And you keep harping on the ridiculous point that Comey was part of Trumps DOJ. Well if he was such an asset... why did he break violate FBI policy and procedure to go around Trump to get a ludicrous Special Counsel appointed due to Comey leaking a memo to the press. There... you actually helped prove my point.
Good job!! quote:
How can me bringing up the person you reference be a deflecting?
YOU brought up Clinesmith as a struggle to keep footing on the entire sham Russian Collusion investigation by showing he was slapped on the wrist. Yet... you ignored the question as to WHY he got his slap on the wrist. What made him do what he did? What was the purpose for it?
quote:
Now we're back to my point about legitimacy, where this always ends up, effectively.
By ignoring every point and mixing in what you hope to legitimize it. You have avoided mentioning what was brought to light as a result of Flynn's civil litigation, you haven't touched Peter Strozk and his involvement and anti Trump messages and sentiments, you haven't touched what the intent was by pursuing the investigation of the Steele Dossier when it was known it was bogus, and for the SEVENTH time, you will not touch the question of 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?
quote:
Your definition is so broad, the answer is "probably"
yes... because every legal definition in law is so precise. Posted on 10/22/26 at 10:26 am to The Pirate King
Thread title is poking fun at an idiot, the intent of this thread is the same as every other thread here: to discuss politics. He's going to derail political threads whether his name is in the title or not.
Posted on 10/22/26 at 10:30 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I have to argue statutory interpretation in court. Unlike most lawyers, I've had a trial court reversed at the appellate level, effectively with the appeals court reversing its precedent, in a statutory interpretation matter
What do you call a lawyer with an IQ of 60?
Your Honor
Posted on 10/22/26 at 10:30 am to Azkiger
White male conservatives: the most persecuted and victimized group in human history. It’s heartbreaking…
Posted on 10/22/26 at 11:14 am to VOR
Posted on 10/22/26 at 11:17 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Still waiting on an operative definition of this
I’m going to keep it simple because you’re stupid.
It’s a contraction of the words LAW and warFARE.
LAWFARE is waging offensive political war against your political opponents with the abuse of lawsuits in favorably biased jurisdictions and in front of allied judges. Think Trump in Atlanta, NY City, and the Classified Documents DOJ investigations.
Posted on 10/22/26 at 11:18 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Unlike my characterization, yours does not fit the definition.
Because I can just go back to:
---
Any person who is prosecuted ...
It's not complicated.
Posted on 10/22/26 at 11:23 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
It's not complicated.
He can't help himself. It's what a good little ambulance-chaser does-make it complicated.
Posted on 10/22/26 at 11:29 am to VOR
quote:Negative.
It’s heartbreaking…
What is "heartbreaking" is that ANY group would be persecuted.
Your presumption accepts persecution and assesses its justification on a relative basis.
e.g., The equivalent premise: "Brian Thompson was murdered. Cry me a river. He wasn't Allie Rice. He was a rich healthcare insurance executive."
Posted on 10/22/26 at 11:29 am to CT Hooktip
It's amazing how everyone has his number. We've seen so much of his bullshite that everyone knows his game better than he does.
Posted on 10/22/26 at 11:33 am to RoyalWe
quote:
It's amazing how everyone has his number.
But they continue to lose when they try to argue with me
This thread is a great example
Posted on 10/22/26 at 11:34 am to RoyalWe
Posted on 10/22/26 at 11:37 am to CleverUserName
quote:
You keep asking for a definition..
I've gotten about 10 so far in this thread alone
quote:
Now why did he do that?? And you keep harping on the ridiculous point that Comey was part of Trumps DOJ.
How many times did we see the "Biden DOJ" accused of "lawfare" against Trump?
Were those also ridiculous uses of the term?
quote:
to go around Trump to get a ludicrous Special Counsel appointed
Trump's hand-picked AG appointed the SC
It wasn't James Comey
quote:
YOU brought up Clinesmith as a struggle to keep footing on the entire sham Russian Collusion investigation
You asked a question about somethign he did. I discussed him. That's addressing the point directly, the opposite of "deflecting"
Posted on 10/22/26 at 11:38 am to NC_Tigah
We're back to this:
quote:
Any person who is prosecuted by LEO is, by default, an adversary
Posted on 10/22/26 at 11:44 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The argument "he's not right because he doesn't understand" is not effective in court.
You demonstrated understanding by making a claim of what the term is used for.
You literally played yourself
Posted on 10/22/26 at 11:46 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:The definition is in the eye of the beholder. Like that long deceased SC Justice said, I know it when I see it.
Still waiting on an operative definition of this
Posted on 10/22/26 at 11:46 am to aTmTexas Dillo
quote:
The definition is in the eye of the beholder. Like that long deceased SC Justice said, I know it when I see it.
You and reb are the ones who get it.
Page 13 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News