re: SFPLCs buddy spills the beans on Lawfare

quote:

---

Detail that claim, please.

---

Your words

quote:

---

Comey set up Flynn, not because Flynn was in a different party.
But because Comey ID'd Flynn as an adversary.

---

Any person who is prosecuted by LEO is an adversary.

quote:

---

Any person who is prosecuted by LEO is an adversary.

---

Yikes.
You are better than this.

(1) Person A has 1/10000th the resources of Organization B. Organization B deems Person A a dangerous adversary. Organization B maneuvers to create some sort of "crime" to charge Person A with. Person A is innocent, yet charged with said crime, and when confronted with the overwhelming imbalance of trial resources, is faced with the decision to lose everything or admit "guilt" and cop a plea. Either way, Organization B takes him out.

(2) Person C commits a crime. Organization D identifies the crime, regardless of who Person C is. Organization D files charges based on the crime, and at trial Person C and Organization D become adversaries.

Those are two VERY DIFFERENT scenarios. #1 is an example of lawfare by definition. #2 is not.

quote:

---

I've gotten about 10 so far in this thread alone

---

Again... more useless deflection. The one I'm talking about is mine.

quote:

---

How many times did we see the "Biden DOJ" accused of "lawfare" against Trump? Were those also ridiculous uses of the term?

---

Annnnnnnnd more deflection. Oh and we can dig into the weeds of the raid on MarALago if you ever manage to stay on topic with what was presented pages ago.

quote:

---

Trump's hand-picked AG appointed the SC

---

And more deflection away from what was asked.

And you again ignore all points on Comey, what he did, the fact he broke protocol and agency policy, and his desire to get a SC by leaking because it's inconvenient. Surprise surprise.

quote:

---

You asked a question about somethign he did. I discussed him. That's addressing the point directly, the opposite of "deflecting"

---

You need to correct your timeline YOU were the first person to mention Clinesmith to deflect from the first question you have YET to acknowledge after it being repeated to you multiple times. And then when your own attempt to get around the question by invoking Clinesmith... you again refuse to answer what his issue was.. what it stemmed from... and what was the purpose he did it.

So do I need to post the question and EIGHTH time or just assume you are going to throw more red herrings? :lol:

quote:

---

Oh and we can dig into the weeds of the raid on MarALago

---

The search warrant that was litigated and ruled proper by a Trump-sympathetic judge? Trust me I'm not worried if we go there.

quote:

---

You need to correct your timeline

---

Your literal first post in this thread:

quote:

---

Was that what happened in the FISA warrant applications and approvals in the "Russian Collusion" fiasco? That's just one simple example.

---

LINK

quote:

---

YOU were the first person to mention Clinesmith t

---

You referenced him in the above statement.

I mean that's giving you the benefit of the doubt of including the proven impropriety with the FISA process, with the statement.

quote:

---

Was that what happened in the FISA warrant applications and approvals in the "Russian Collusion" fiasco? That's just one simple example.

---

You absolute, mouth breathing, moron.

Did Kevin Clinesmith begin the entire process beginning with the pushing of the Steele Dossier all the way through to the actual approval and actions approved by the warrants? THAT is what I was referring to as "the process". Not just that one usual scumbag attorney. And you tried to just focus on Clinesmith alone to try to salvage the point he had a finger shaken at him for what you refuse to say he did.

Hell.... you won't answer. You will not even answer what he did to get his slap on the wrist... what his intentions were... and why. Much less touch the process from start to finish when everyone involved knew the underlying reason was bogus.

And you also still haven't acknowledged the mere existence of Peter Strozk and Lisa Page.

quote:

---

The search warrant that was litigated and ruled proper by a Trump-sympathetic judge? Trust me I'm not worried if we go there.

---

Go there? You can't start at the beginning without dodging and ducking.

Is that the same judge that approved the warrant to raid Biden's home for classified documents that he actually, unquestionably, broke the law by having because he had zero ability to declassify them?

I remember the FBI showing up in tactical blocking off those streets in Delaware...... OH.. wait a minute!!

quote:

---

That case wasn't determined on the merits

---

I cant believe youre still playing the dumb card on this topic. The etymology of the word lawfare is pretty straightforward

quote:

---

Its most prominent usage today very much concerns national security. Its first use in this context, seems to have appeared in "Unrestricted Warfare," a military strategy book written in 1999 by two officers in the People’s Liberation Army who used the term to refer to a nation’s use of legalized institutions to achieve strategic ends.

More significantly, however, the term “lawfare” was popularized in the modern parlance in an influential 2001 paper by then-Air Force Colonel Charles Dunlap, who is the Executive Director of Duke Law School’s Center on Law, Ethics and National Security.

---

I think I'll go with the Exec Dir of Duke over your ever changing narrative, if you dont mind

Lawfare has ZERO to do with the actual practice of law. It is not intended to produce verdicts. It is intended to achieve strategic ends. They dont care if they win or lose in court. Its usage is to bankrupt, terrorize, and then shape a narrative with a willing media

quote:

---

General Dunlap defined “lawfare” as the “use of law as a weapon of war,” which he described as “the newest feature of 21st century combat.” General Dunlap subsequently wrote many more essays about “lawfare” to rebut misinterpretations or misappropriations of his work, he expanded the definition of the term to mean “the strategy of using – or misusing – law as a substitute for traditional means to achieve an operational objective.”

---

The term was coined by simply substituting the prefix law for war in the term warfare. But the objectives remained the same. Win the battle by any means necessary

quote:

---

The fact you don't understand the difference in those 2 posts says it al

---

You're beginning to sound like that ??Abdul?? character (running for senate in Michigan.)

never answers a question - talks real fast and changes the subject.