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 6:50 pm to Bard
Posted on 10/21/26 at 6:50 pm to Bard
quote:
I know it's October and Halloween is just around the corner, but enough with the strawmen arguments.
That's not a strawman.
quote:
-Allegations of selective enforcement (comparisons to how other high-profile figures, including from the same administration’s party, were treated for similar document issues).
That doesn't work. That completely separate special prosecutor made the different decision on Biden after the MAL raid. If you want to cite lawfare, you could allege that one, but it doens't work with the Florida case.
quote:
Claims of novel or aggressive charging theories and process choices.
The obstruction-related charges were neither aggressive nor novel.
It was straight up obstruction and lying ot federal agent charges.
quote:
Timing relative to the election cycle
The MAL raid was over 2 years prior to the 2024 Presidential election. With a 4-year cycle, it was basically in the middle of 2020 and 2024.
quote:
and the broader pattern of multiple simultaneous cases.
That's the nature of a special prosecutor and lots of iffy behavior by Trump in different jurisdictions.
quote:
Questions about whether the driving motive was even-handed national-security enforcement or political incapacitation of a leading opponent.
Circular argument.
This is just saying "I define this as lawfare because I say it's illegitimate"
quote:
But the existence of the debate itself shows that ‘lawfare’ is not being used as a synonym for ‘prosecution by the other party.’
This is also a spun point that ignores all of the influence, in/out group dynamics, and echo chamber culture. The debate being fueled by those things doesn't create any actual impact on the nature of the prosecutions. Extrapolate this and see the potential absurdity.
Posted on 10/21/26 at 6:52 pm to Warboo
quote:
There will never be a singular definition of lawfare councilor.
That's your opinion and the strawman built around me.
It's not my opinion.
quote:
Just because you do not like the words does not mean they do not exist and do not have meaning.
I'm not the one giving them infinite, malleable meanings, though.
quote:
We get do sick of you derailing threads over simple bs like this.
The callout thread with my name in the title that makes a bad argument that i have dissected in its entirety was "derailed'...how?
This post was edited on 10/21/26 at 6:52 pm
Posted on 10/21/26 at 6:56 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Flynn was prosecuted by Trump's DO
Are you talking about this guy featured on “Lawfaremedia.org”
Didn’t this same guy serve on Jack Smiths Florida lawfare case?
Posted on 10/21/26 at 7:00 pm to Rebel
quote:
Are you talking about this guy featured on “Lawfaremedia.org”
Didn’t this same guy serve on Jack Smiths Florida lawfare case?
If "lawfare" is determined by the (potential) political leanings of individual actors, the definition just got 10 feet higher.
Posted on 10/21/26 at 7:01 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I'm not the one giving them infinite, malleable meanings, though
Oh please Slo. Many words fall into that same well. Thousands in fact. Liberal. Conservative. Hate crime. Injustice. Patriot. Evil. Justice. Morality on and on and on. And before you say it many here have their own view as I expressed to you what my definition was. You ignored it so you can fight this 'how many angels on the head of a pin' sophistry as you enjoy it very much. For reasons of your own.
Posted on 10/21/26 at 7:05 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Ah, see that's interesting. Word here from associated prosecutors was the allegations never satisfied Georgia's legal requirements. The proper venue was in federal court rather than as a state-level proceeding. You disagree?
Because the DA was fricking the special prosecutor
Further the consensus was that evidence was thin and scattered at best. The FW hope was to use the cost-threat of legal proceedings targeting lesser players to get them to "turn" on others (truth be damned). She badly underperformed in the effort. According to an attorney who is in the know, the case was a disaster. So it was dropped. You disagree?
Posted on 10/21/26 at 7:07 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:[
Just because you do not like the words does not mean they do not exist and do not have meaning
quote]I'm not the one giving them infinite, malleable meanings, though[/quote]
Lawfare can come in many forms councilor. Using examples like changing a law in NY for a year but only prosecuting one person for this change would certainly qualify as lawfare. This example is not a blanket definition though. Another example would be using a law from the 1800s to prosecute someone for spitting on the sidewalk but letting many others that do the same walk free. This is about common sense councilor. No one gives a frick about a singular definition of lawfare but you. Furthermore, can you please ask Grok to come up with another term meaning something similar to “strawman”?
Posted on 10/21/26 at 7:08 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I'm not the one who keeps adding new definitions
If we get 5 people to give different definitions of an automobile... does that mean they don't exist?
So since you keep deflecting and flailing about... let's start again.
You said:
quote:
So legitimate prosecutions of actual criminal behavior are "lawfare" if a person from one party controls the prosecuting arm of the accused?
Then:
quote:
Was that what happened in the FISA warrant applications and approvals in the "Russian Collusion" fiasco?
That's just one simple example.
And here is your definition you so desperately want. Lawfare simply is the strategic use of legal systems, courts, and regulations to delegitimize, financially exhaust, intimidate, bankrupt, or silence adversaries. Easy pleasy.
And I gave you Flynn to chew on too.
Now.. for the FIFTH time... does any of this meet the definition I gave?
Or are you going to flail about and cry about something not being worded like you want it?
Posted on 10/21/26 at 7:08 pm to Warboo
quote:
Lawfare can come in many forms councilor.
You're proving my point.
quote:
Using examples like changing a law in NY for a year but only prosecuting one person for this change would certainly qualify as lawfare.
Which case is this? I don't think you're remembering things correctly.
Would you agree that others of the opposing political party being sued using the same change in law show the Trump prosecution wasn't lawfare?
Posted on 10/21/26 at 7:11 pm to SlowFlowPro
I didn’t say that is THE definition of lawfare.
Is there a single definition?
Did they ever talk about Justice Stewart Potter at the fancy Hadfield honors college you attended?
Can you tell the room what quote he is most famous for?
The same applies to lawfare.
Is there a single definition?
Did they ever talk about Justice Stewart Potter at the fancy Hadfield honors college you attended?
Can you tell the room what quote he is most famous for?
The same applies to lawfare.
Posted on 10/21/26 at 7:12 pm to CleverUserName
quote:
If we get 5 people to give different definitions of an automobile... does that mean they don't exist?
I never said lawfare doesn't exist. That's a strawman
I just don't know what "lawfare" is.
quote:
And I gave you Flynn to chew on too.
Flynn wasn't a prosecution by the other party, so it's not relevant.
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.
quote:
does any of this meet the definition I gave?
The prosecution of Clinesmith would fall under that definition of "lawfare," which I'll quote below
quote:
Lawfare is the strategic use of legal systems, lawsuits, or regulatory processes to purposely intimidate, hinder, damage, delegitimize or defeat a political adversary rather than using traditional political competition. In other words, rather than settling political disputes through elections or legislative debate, actors use the court of law as a surrogate political battlefield.
And I think that outcome is rather silly
Posted on 10/21/26 at 7:12 pm to SlowFlowPro
Check mate
Posted on 10/21/26 at 7:13 pm to Rebel
quote:
Did they ever talk about Justice Stewart Potter at the fancy Hadfield honors college you attended?
Can you tell the room what quote he is most famous for?
The same applies to lawfare.
I don't particularly agree with that punt on obscenity.
Posted on 10/21/26 at 7:16 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Which case is this?
You answered your question in the next sentence below.
quote:
Would you agree that others of the opposing political party being sued using the same change in law show the Trump prosecution wasn't lawfare?
Being sued and being prosecuted for a felony is a bit different councilor. Also, let’s see how those lawsuits end.
Posted on 10/21/26 at 7:17 pm to SlowFlowPro
So now your legal acumen is greater than that of a Supreme Court Justice?
Still in check mate.
The only response you can make and still retain a semblance of dignity is to post a pic of a chess board with the King horizontal.
Still in check mate.
The only response you can make and still retain a semblance of dignity is to post a pic of a chess board with the King horizontal.
Posted on 10/21/26 at 7:18 pm to Warboo
quote:
You answered your question in the next sentence below.
Clearly I didn't.
Which example are you specifically referencing?
The felony prosecution had an extended SOL due to Covid, which was a general extension that applied to all criminal prosecutions and other prosecutions than Trump.
Posted on 10/21/26 at 7:19 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
That doesn't work.
Again ...
quote:
It really is not complicated.
Beria always found a charge to bring.
So did the Biden DOJ.
Trump, as POTUS, could declassify anything he wanted. Biden as Senator, and VP could not.
Biden was caught red-handed with documents identical in classification to those Trump "supposedly" possessed. Yet, the Biden DOJ pursued the Biden and Trump cases as if the reverse were the case. Why?
This post was edited on 10/21/26 at 7:20 pm
Posted on 10/21/26 at 7:19 pm to Rebel
quote:
So now your legal acumen is greater than that of a Supreme Court Justice?
No. I just think he punted because it was too hard and a hard definition would encompass too many activities/art he feels should be legal. The proper solution would be to make those sorts of laws unconstitutional, but he was unwilling to do that.
Posted on 10/21/26 at 7:20 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Trump, as POTUS, could declassify anything he wanted.
Could Trump commit obstruction while not POTUS?
Posted on 10/21/26 at 7:21 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Clearly I didn't.
Dude you are grasping at “straws”. Just go to bed and dream about posting here in the morning. You have lost this battle councilor.
Page 8 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News