0
- 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 7:22 pm to Warboo
Posted on 10/21/26 at 7:22 pm to Warboo
quote:
Dude you are grasping at “straws”.
No. I'm asking you to give your specific example.
You keep tiptoeing around it.
quote:
You have lost this battle councilor.
You haven't even specifically cited your example to defend
Posted on 10/21/26 at 7:24 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The prosecution of Clinesmith would fall under that definition of "lawfare," which I'll quote below
We have agreement here. Did Clinesmith face a jury? Or was he given a sweetheart deal?
An FBI attorney forged legal documents to obtain FISA warrants and then lied about again to the FBI when questioned.
Lawfare is many things. But it’s basically a weapon to resolve conflict.
Quit being obtuse or I will write a savage rap diss track about you and get T-Bob to post it on Barstools.
Posted on 10/21/26 at 7:26 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Nothing "proves" your point re: Lawfare. You don't have a point. The definition is universally accepted ... except by you.
You're proving my point.
Posted on 10/21/26 at 7:27 pm to SlowFlowPro
[quote]quote:
Lawfare
Still waiting on an operative definition of this [/quote SFP}
A Commie said "show me the person and I'll show you the crime". It's easily recognized in muh lawyerly circles that one "can indict a ham sandwich". Smart people know what that means. Muh Russia was a perfect example. You are smart, but like Johnny C's "if the glove don't fit", choose the con at the expense of Justice.
Carry on. Everybody takes their place under the sun. God's gift.
Lawfare
Still waiting on an operative definition of this [/quote SFP}
A Commie said "show me the person and I'll show you the crime". It's easily recognized in muh lawyerly circles that one "can indict a ham sandwich". Smart people know what that means. Muh Russia was a perfect example. You are smart, but like Johnny C's "if the glove don't fit", choose the con at the expense of Justice.
Carry on. Everybody takes their place under the sun. God's gift.
Posted on 10/21/26 at 7:28 pm to Rebel
The prosecution itself would be lawfare under that definition which is silly because he clearly committed a crime and should be prosecuted.
Posted on 10/21/26 at 7:29 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
The definition is universally accepted
This thread literally disagrees with that. And I'm not talking about my posts
Posted on 10/21/26 at 7:31 pm to SlowFlowPro
Was Clinesmith prosecuted in the same way I would have been if I broke the law and continue to lie to Federal Judges?
Posted on 10/21/26 at 7:33 pm to Rebel
Is this inception? Lawfare within lawfare?
Posted on 10/21/26 at 7:37 pm to SlowFlowPro
It’s really 3 lawfares if you want to go by your silly inferences.
Clinesmith used lawfare to illegally get FISA warrants to spy on The President of the United States.
By your logic, Durham used lawfare because they belong to different political parties.
And then the inside baseball plea he accepted that basically had zero punishment.
But one singular “lawfare” suffices.
Clinesmith used lawfare to illegally get FISA warrants to spy on The President of the United States.
By your logic, Durham used lawfare because they belong to different political parties.
And then the inside baseball plea he accepted that basically had zero punishment.
But one singular “lawfare” suffices.
Posted on 10/21/26 at 7:38 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Trump could commit any "crime" while not POTUS.
Could Trump commit obstruction while not POTUS?
The question is as to the alleged crime and any predicate for it.
Posted on 10/21/26 at 7:42 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
This thread literally disagrees with that
quote:
Posted on 10/21/26 at 7:44 pm to NC_Tigah
Well now you know.
Posted on 10/21/26 at 7:44 pm to Rebel
quote:
It’s really 3 lawfares if you want to go by your silly inferences.
It seems lawfare is becoming "court cases I don't like" as the definition
Not you as in reb, but as the universal definition of the term.
quote:
Clinesmith used lawfare to illegally get FISA warrants to spy on The President of the United States.
This is a stretch. He engaged in illegality, there.
Expanding "lawfare" to all criminal behavior makes the term 100 feet higher, this time.
Posted on 10/21/26 at 7:45 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Trump could commit any "crime" while not POTUS.
The question is as to the alleged crime and any predicate for it.
The obstruction-related charges in the Florida cases were quite strong.
The document stuff? Not as much. But any normal person would have been nailed on those obstruction charges.
Posted on 10/21/26 at 7:55 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
So legitimate prosecutions of actual criminal behavior are "lawfare" if a person from one party controls the prosecuting arm of the accused?
Legitimate prosecutions?
Hey all. We have our own Lavrentiy Beria on board.
"Show me the man and I will find the crime."
SFP - GTFO. Thanks.
Posted on 10/21/26 at 7:58 pm to Speckhunter2012
The legitimacy variable is the part that makes defining lawfare so difficult. I agree and have argued this for years.
That's really the goal of using the term: delegitimizing certain legal cases (or, hell, with the expanded versions of the term, it's even more acts than legal cases)
That's really the goal of using the term: delegitimizing certain legal cases (or, hell, with the expanded versions of the term, it's even more acts than legal cases)
Posted on 10/21/26 at 8:07 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
That's really the goal of using the term: delegitimizing certain legal cases
quote:
To delegitimize means to take away or reduce the legal status, validity, authority, or prestige of a person, group, system, or process. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, it involves diminishing or destroying how much power or trust an entity holds.
Wow the power of the different views of "Lawfare" on the PT. We should be all banned and thrown in jail.
Posted on 10/21/26 at 8:07 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The legitimacy variable is the part that makes defining lawfare so difficult. I agree and have argued this for years.
Sure. When the AG for NY runs solely on an agenda to get PDJT, regardless of actual crimes and when the state legislature of NY temporarily revises S of L laws to allow some BS claim that PDJT accosted some ugly arse woman in a dressing room which was the same storyline of a national TV show as well as what she claimed to be wearing was not even designed at that time, that is only a small part of Lawfare.
You should recognize this but you are too contrarian and obtuse and infected with TDS to accept what happened.
Posted on 10/21/26 at 8:08 pm to goatmilker
quote:
. We should be all banned and thrown in jail.
I'm just trying to get people to act less gay and retarded
Posted on 10/21/26 at 8:08 pm to SlowFlowPro
By using well chosen words?
Page 9 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News