re: SFPLCs buddy spills the beans on Lawfare

quote:

---

Legitimate prosecutions of actual criminal behavior are not lawfare simply because the prosecutor and the accused belong to different parties and nothing in my answer could be construed that way unless you are purposely trying to do so.

---

There have been several examples of this that keep getting cited, like the Florida federal prosecution of Trump

quote:

---

No. Your stance is that when Merriam-Webster defines the term for you, yet you goad someone here into a differing definition, the variance implies the term "Lawfare" represents something non-existent.

---

No my stance is what I said it was.

I never have said "lawfare doesn't exist" because, theoretically, one day we may get that singular definition that fits all the examples.

However, I do lump "lawfare" in with all the other nonsense malleable echo chamber words like "globalism" , "racism", "Deep State", etc.

he thrives on all the attention he gets from these threads. it's pathetic to think that his life is such a void that he has to spend thousands of hours on this 1 website alone to find enjoyment.

quote:

---

That's because I'm rational in a sea of emotional people reacting emotionally.

---

You are mentally ill.

you are correct but he'll debate you on what is "ill"

just like slick willy said "Define what "is" is"?

quote:

---

We don't know if it was with or without merit, as the case wasn't determined on the merits.

---

Because why?

What was the basis of dismissal of this case which should never have been allowed in the courts in the first place?

What was the basis of dismissal of this case which should never have been allowed, yet was allowed?

What was the basis of dismissal of this case which should never have been allowed, yet required great expense in defense, was brought by shitty people using taxpayer funding, and allowed to proceed for years by shitty people?

quote:

---

That's because I'm rational in a sea of emotional people reacting emotionally. There is no "sea barreling right towards you". You've been manipulated to think that way. People on here melt about me because they like the comfort of being manipulated in a group setting and I disrupt that.

---

Sure Spock, and it’s evident you seemingly pride yourself on being “above” human emotions but while you play in the legal weeds on message boards there’s some real things going on out there in the world and in this country.

Hopefully, you’ll wake up to that reality at some point.

If some bad characters with utter disdain for this Republic ever seize control in this country, I suspect they aren’t going to care how book-smart you are.

Did you come up with that yourself? That’s spot on and pretty impressive

Listen to yourself. Do you need help climbing back on that pedestal?

quote:

---

There have been several examples of this that keep getting cited, like the Florida federal prosecution of Trump

---

I know it's October and Halloween is just around the corner, but enough with the strawmen arguments.

Citing the Florida documents case doesn’t convert every legitimate prosecution into ‘lawfare’ just because the prosecutor’s party differs from the defendant’s. The reason many people label that particular case lawfare is not the mere fact that a Democratic-appointed special counsel brought it, it’s the combination of factors that go beyond party label.

-Allegations of selective enforcement (comparisons to how other high-profile figures, including from the same administration’s party, were treated for similar document issues).
-Claims of novel or aggressive charging theories and process choices.
-Timing relative to the election cycle and the broader pattern of multiple simultaneous cases.
-Questions about whether the driving motive was even-handed national-security enforcement or political incapacitation of a leading opponent.

You can dispute every one of those points on the facts, that’s fine. But the existence of the debate itself shows that ‘lawfare’ is not being used as a synonym for ‘prosecution by the other party.’ It’s being used to describe situations where people believe the legal process is functioning more as political combat than neutral law enforcement. If the Florida case was a straightforward, even-handed application of long-settled law that would have been brought identically against anyone in the same position, then calling it lawfare is wrong. If it involved the strategic use of legal machinery for political ends, then the label fits the definition I gave. The party of the prosecutor is relevant only as one data point among others, not as the definition itself.