1
- 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 12:46 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 10/21/26 at 12:46 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
If people broke the law, should they be prosecuted?
DA's are free to charge whoever they wish how ever many times they wish without legal repercussions as long as they break no laws right Slo?
Posted on 10/21/26 at 12:48 pm to goatmilker
quote:
DA's are free to charge whoever they wish how ever many times they wish without legal repercussions as long as they break no laws right Slo?
As long as "who" breaks no laws?
Posted on 10/21/26 at 12:50 pm to SlowFlowPro
Sorry. The DA.
Posted on 10/21/26 at 12:52 pm to Decatur
Yeah, sending your into boyish built females
Gayyyyyyy
Gayyyyyyy
Posted on 10/21/26 at 12:54 pm to goatmilker
It was an important distinction.
I wish the law wasn't that way, personally, but legally, that's possible (assuming no SOL or dismissal with prejudice, however that occurs in that jurisdiction).
I wish the law wasn't that way, personally, but legally, that's possible (assuming no SOL or dismissal with prejudice, however that occurs in that jurisdiction).
Posted on 10/21/26 at 12:54 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
prosecuting people who broke the law?
And if they didn't break the law and are found not guilty? Oopsie?
Posted on 10/21/26 at 12:58 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Still waiting on an operative definition of this
It's all in the "timing," bro.
You know, just like those 51 intelligence agents who each formed the same "opinion" that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation.
All 51 of them came to the same "opinion" according to you, SFPLC.
Arguably, the dumbest comment ever made on this board.
Posted on 10/21/26 at 1:00 pm to deathvalleytiger10
quote:
And if they didn't break the law and are found not guilty? Oopsie?
Which example of lawfare are you referencing, that went all the way to trial to a not guilty verdict?
It would get more complicated if that happened, but I'm not sure if there are many examples unless you really stretch the definition of "lawfare"
Michael Sussmann?
Igor Danchenko?
The 10 cases of acquittals for people accused of assaulting ICE?
I don't think those examples are what you were looking for, though
Posted on 10/21/26 at 1:01 pm to KCT
quote:
You know, just like those 51 intelligence agents who each formed the same "opinion" that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation.
What legal proceeding are you referencing?
Or are you expanding "lawfare" to include opinion pieces in the media?
quote:
Arguably, the dumbest comment ever made on this board.
Your post is proving my point.
Posted on 10/21/26 at 1:05 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I wish the law wasn't that way
Do you think in our past history a DA has used constent charges being brought up against a innocent citizen, being all legal of course on the DA's part, for personal purposes of envy, payback, racism, small town relations etc?
Posted on 10/21/26 at 1:06 pm to goatmilker
quote:
Do you think in our past history a DA has used constent charges being brought up against a innocent citizen, being all legal of course on the DA's part, for personal purposes of envy, payback, racism, small town relations etc?
I'm sure it's possible, but that doesn't really overlap with the general use of "lawfare"
Posted on 10/21/26 at 1:08 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Arguably, the dumbest comment ever made on this board.
Your post is proving my point.
Actually, I proved my point. You really believe that those 51 intelligence agencies objectively reviewd the evidence and ALL 51 of them expressed the same "opinion" that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation?
That's what YOU said, fool. Like I stated, it's arguably the dumbest comment ever made on this board.
Posted on 10/21/26 at 1:09 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Isn't deterrence ("scaring others") part of prosecuting people who broke the law?
That's not what she described. Did you watch the video?
Posted on 10/21/26 at 1:10 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I'm sure it's possible
After 250 years of history and 1865 to 1965 in the South "possible" is all you will say? Wow
quote:
doesn't really overlap with the general use of "lawfare"
Well its my definition so you don't have to ask me.
Posted on 10/21/26 at 1:12 pm to Azkiger
quote:
Did you watch the video?
Yes. You appear to be making a huge assumption to make the above statement
quote:
That's not what she described.
Where did she say illegality wasn't necessary for the "signature cases"?
All the signature cases that are called "lawfare" associated with Trump had allegations of illegality.
Posted on 10/21/26 at 1:12 pm to goatmilker
quote:
Well its my definition
Lawfare is like the other malleable terms, where everyone seems to have their own definition, and it can change depending on the circumstances
Posted on 10/21/26 at 1:15 pm to Azkiger
Put a fork in it, this threads done.
Posted on 10/21/26 at 1:22 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Lawfare is like the other malleable terms
As is many aspects of the Law.
Posted on 10/21/26 at 1:23 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Yes. You appear to be making a huge assumption to make the above statement
Nope. You're just playing dumb.
quote:
Where did she say illegality wasn't necessary for the "signature cases"?
An unequal application of the law is still lawfare.
Posted on 10/21/26 at 1:27 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Still waiting on an operative definition of this
What 95% of lawyers do daily in 2026.
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News