The rationale behind Democrat lawfare

[Doc7505]

The rationale behind Democrat lawfare​

The rationale behind Democrat lawfare

I want to connect some dots regarding the lawfare President Trump is encountering. The first dot is all the radicals nominated and confirmed over Republican objections, especially in 2024. The next dot is a statement from Senator Schumer after ...

www.americanthinker.com

25 Sep 2025 ~~ By Maker S, Mark

I want to connect some dots regarding the lawfare President Trump is encountering.
The first dot is all the radicals nominated and confirmed over Republican objections, especially in 2024.
The next dot is a statement from Senator Schumer after the election, saying the quiet part out loud. They knowingly put rogue and activist judges at all levels of the federal court system as an insurance policy against a potential President Trump comeback. This affirmed what many suspected about Democrat plans. Confirming radical activist judges was part of the plan to continue the chaos, and if DJT won, they would create roadblocks to his agenda.
The next dot is a statement that Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson made regarding using her opinions to tell people how she “feels.” Conservatives rightly recoiled at the thought of a federal judge feeling emboldened to use the power of her legal opinion to tell people how she “feels” about a matter before the Court. Is that really her job? I thought judges interpreted the law. But I guess you can call me old-fashioned.
~Snip~
It is not a surprise that President Trump is 20-0 in the SCOTUS appeals. The lower courts are clearly not exercising judicial prudence. They are doing what they were nominated and activated to do: resist. Schumer and Jackson will soon start attacking SCOTUS with more fervor, because their plan is failing.


Commentary:
Any Judge appointed by the Autopen without accompanying authorization from Biden explicitly affirming such action is an illegitimate nominee and should immediately be removed from the bench. It is the President’s actual signature confirming his involvement in the decision that confers legitimacy to any executive action whether it be an EO, pardon, appointment, veto, or endorsement of an act of Congress.
Can we finally put to rest the self-serving feel-good assertions that Democrat Socialists of America, liberals, or progressives are dumb, stupid, or ignorant? And, neither are their policies, legislation, or procedures. Over the last 100 years, the Democrats have had significant periods of control, including a stretch of 36 consecutive years in the House and 50 of the last 60 years in the Senate. Their seeming "stupidity” has enabled them to write rules of operation, control the legislative process, and install long-term office holders. It is one thing to think their legislation and rules are witless, which they are not, and the office holder is ignorant, which some of them are. We should consider them sharp, smart, guileful, and very deadly, and we should treat them as such.

 

[Crepitus]

"lawfare" is just something you guys made up to feed you victim complex.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

"lawfare" is just something you guys made up to feed you victim complex.

No, it is lawlessness and it will continue to get worse.

 

[Mack The Finger]

Isn't it crazy living thru the most corput times in American politics ?

In 50 years this era will make Watergate look like joke.

 

[shockedcanadian]

The rationale behind Democrat lawfare​

The rationale behind Democrat lawfare

I want to connect some dots regarding the lawfare President Trump is encountering. The first dot is all the radicals nominated and confirmed over Republican objections, especially in 2024. The next dot is a statement from Senator Schumer after ...

www.americanthinker.com

25 Sep 2025 ~~ By Maker S, Mark

I want to connect some dots regarding the lawfare President Trump is encountering.
The first dot is all the radicals nominated and confirmed over Republican objections, especially in 2024.
The next dot is a statement from Senator Schumer after the election, saying the quiet part out loud. They knowingly put rogue and activist judges at all levels of the federal court system as an insurance policy against a potential President Trump comeback. This affirmed what many suspected about Democrat plans. Confirming radical activist judges was part of the plan to continue the chaos, and if DJT won, they would create roadblocks to his agenda.
The next dot is a statement that Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson made regarding using her opinions to tell people how she “feels.” Conservatives rightly recoiled at the thought of a federal judge feeling emboldened to use the power of her legal opinion to tell people how she “feels” about a matter before the Court. Is that really her job? I thought judges interpreted the law. But I guess you can call me old-fashioned.
~Snip~
It is not a surprise that President Trump is 20-0 in the SCOTUS appeals. The lower courts are clearly not exercising judicial prudence. They are doing what they were nominated and activated to do: resist. Schumer and Jackson will soon start attacking SCOTUS with more fervor, because their plan is failing.


Commentary:
Any Judge appointed by the Autopen without accompanying authorization from Biden explicitly affirming such action is an illegitimate nominee and should immediately be removed from the bench. It is the President’s actual signature confirming his involvement in the decision that confers legitimacy to any executive action whether it be an EO, pardon, appointment, veto, or endorsement of an act of Congress.
Can we finally put to rest the self-serving feel-good assertions that Democrat Socialists of America, liberals, or progressives are dumb, stupid, or ignorant? And, neither are their policies, legislation, or procedures. Over the last 100 years, the Democrats have had significant periods of control, including a stretch of 36 consecutive years in the House and 50 of the last 60 years in the Senate. Their seeming "stupidity” has enabled them to write rules of operation, control the legislative process, and install long-term office holders. It is one thing to think their legislation and rules are witless, which they are not, and the office holder is ignorant, which some of them are. We should consider them sharp, smart, guileful, and very deadly, and we should treat them as such.

The same activities have been perfected in Ontario for decades but they go after the weak and vulnerable. A nation eventually fails when the unwritten contract between government and citizens is violated or simply ignored. Justice must be objective and blind, it seems Americans understand this.

 

[Crepitus]

No, it is lawlessness and it will continue to get worse.

Cough cough (Comey) cough cough...

 

[elektra]

"lawfare" is just something you guys made up to feed you victim complex.

Yep, creepiest being a democrat thinks lawfare was made up by MAGA

How do we explain lawfare to imbeciles, I mean democrats

 

[Doc7505]

"lawfare" is just something you guys made up to feed you victim complex.

~~~~~~>
Shooting your mouth off again with no basis of truth in it..
FYI: The term "lawfare" was first documented in a 1957 article regarding divorce.
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 international institutions to achieve strategic ends.
It reappeared in a more prominent context in a 2001 essay by Major General Charles J. Dunlap Jr., who defined it as "the use of law as a weapon of war."
Lawfare went live on September 1, 2010.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The rationale behind Democrat lawfare​

The rationale behind Democrat lawfare

I want to connect some dots regarding the lawfare President Trump is encountering. The first dot is all the radicals nominated and confirmed over Republican objections, especially in 2024. The next dot is a statement from Senator Schumer after ...

www.americanthinker.com

25 Sep 2025 ~~ By Maker S, Mark

I want to connect some dots regarding the lawfare President Trump is encountering.
The first dot is all the radicals nominated and confirmed over Republican objections, especially in 2024.
The next dot is a statement from Senator Schumer after the election, saying the quiet part out loud. They knowingly put rogue and activist judges at all levels of the federal court system as an insurance policy against a potential President Trump comeback. This affirmed what many suspected about Democrat plans. Confirming radical activist judges was part of the plan to continue the chaos, and if DJT won, they would create roadblocks to his agenda.
The next dot is a statement that Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson made regarding using her opinions to tell people how she “feels.” Conservatives rightly recoiled at the thought of a federal judge feeling emboldened to use the power of her legal opinion to tell people how she “feels” about a matter before the Court. Is that really her job? I thought judges interpreted the law. But I guess you can call me old-fashioned.
~Snip~
It is not a surprise that President Trump is 20-0 in the SCOTUS appeals. The lower courts are clearly not exercising judicial prudence. They are doing what they were nominated and activated to do: resist. Schumer and Jackson will soon start attacking SCOTUS with more fervor, because their plan is failing.


Commentary:
Any Judge appointed by the Autopen without accompanying authorization from Biden explicitly affirming such action is an illegitimate nominee and should immediately be removed from the bench. It is the President’s actual signature confirming his involvement in the decision that confers legitimacy to any executive action whether it be an EO, pardon, appointment, veto, or endorsement of an act of Congress.
Can we finally put to rest the self-serving feel-good assertions that Democrat Socialists of America, liberals, or progressives are dumb, stupid, or ignorant? And, neither are their policies, legislation, or procedures. Over the last 100 years, the Democrats have had significant periods of control, including a stretch of 36 consecutive years in the House and 50 of the last 60 years in the Senate. Their seeming "stupidity” has enabled them to write rules of operation, control the legislative process, and install long-term office holders. It is one thing to think their legislation and rules are witless, which they are not, and the office holder is ignorant, which some of them are. We should consider them sharp, smart, guileful, and very deadly, and we should treat them as such.

The whole system of appoint judges is ridiculous.

The US will fall apart if things don't change.

Have PR, have judges appointed by a consensus of political parties (more than two, at the very least) and then the US might get somewhere normal.

 

[elektra]

The whole system of appoint judges is ridiculous.

The US will fall apart if things don't change.

Have PR, have judges appointed by a consensus of political parties (more than two, at the very least) and then the US might get somewhere normal.

Seems like things should be on auto pilot after all these years.

 

[Doc7505]

The whole system of appoint judges is ridiculous.

The US will fall apart if things don't change.

Have PR, have judges appointed by a consensus of political parties (more than two, at the very least) and then the US might get somewhere normal.

~~~~~~>
Indeed, when judges can not define the difference between man and woman, they have a problem in making decisions of law.

 

[frigidweirdo]

~~~~~~>
Indeed, when judges can not define the difference between man and woman, they have a problem in making decisions of law.

And you had to make this reply all about you and your views, rather than about the actual topic, didn't you?

 

[Crepitus]

Yep, creepiest being a democrat thinks lawfare was made up by MAGA

How do we explain lawfare to imbeciles, I mean democrats

It was.

Deal with it.

 

[Crepitus]

~~~~~~>
Shooting your mouth off again with no basis of truth in it..
FYI: The term "lawfare" was first documented in a 1957 article regarding divorce.
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 international institutions to achieve strategic ends.
It reappeared in a more prominent context in a 2001 essay by Major General Charles J. Dunlap Jr., who defined it as "the use of law as a weapon of war."
Lawfare went live on September 1, 2010.

I only speak the truth. I'm not referring to the term, I'm referring to the use of it at this time.

 

[berg80]

The rationale behind Democrat lawfare​

The rationale behind Democrat lawfare

I want to connect some dots regarding the lawfare President Trump is encountering. The first dot is all the radicals nominated and confirmed over Republican objections, especially in 2024. The next dot is a statement from Senator Schumer after ...

www.americanthinker.com

25 Sep 2025 ~~ By Maker S, Mark

I want to connect some dots regarding the lawfare President Trump is encountering.
The first dot is all the radicals nominated and confirmed over Republican objections, especially in 2024.
The next dot is a statement from Senator Schumer after the election, saying the quiet part out loud. They knowingly put rogue and activist judges at all levels of the federal court system as an insurance policy against a potential President Trump comeback. This affirmed what many suspected about Democrat plans. Confirming radical activist judges was part of the plan to continue the chaos, and if DJT won, they would create roadblocks to his agenda.
The next dot is a statement that Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson made regarding using her opinions to tell people how she “feels.” Conservatives rightly recoiled at the thought of a federal judge feeling emboldened to use the power of her legal opinion to tell people how she “feels” about a matter before the Court. Is that really her job? I thought judges interpreted the law. But I guess you can call me old-fashioned.
~Snip~
It is not a surprise that President Trump is 20-0 in the SCOTUS appeals. The lower courts are clearly not exercising judicial prudence. They are doing what they were nominated and activated to do: resist. Schumer and Jackson will soon start attacking SCOTUS with more fervor, because their plan is failing.


Commentary:
Any Judge appointed by the Autopen without accompanying authorization from Biden explicitly affirming such action is an illegitimate nominee and should immediately be removed from the bench. It is the President’s actual signature confirming his involvement in the decision that confers legitimacy to any executive action whether it be an EO, pardon, appointment, veto, or endorsement of an act of Congress.
Can we finally put to rest the self-serving feel-good assertions that Democrat Socialists of America, liberals, or progressives are dumb, stupid, or ignorant? And, neither are their policies, legislation, or procedures. Over the last 100 years, the Democrats have had significant periods of control, including a stretch of 36 consecutive years in the House and 50 of the last 60 years in the Senate. Their seeming "stupidity” has enabled them to write rules of operation, control the legislative process, and install long-term office holders. It is one thing to think their legislation and rules are witless, which they are not, and the office holder is ignorant, which some of them are. We should consider them sharp, smart, guileful, and very deadly, and we should treat them as such.

Perhaps the author, Maker S. Mark, was drunk on Maker's Mark when he wrote the silly article. The only reason trump isn't sitting in a jail cell, fretting about his bald spot showing cuz he can't get access to his stylist anymore, is his use of lawfare.

 

[Doc7505]

Perhaps the author, Maker S. Mark, was drunk on Maker's Mark when he wrote the silly article. The only reason trump isn't sitting in a jail cell, fretting about his bald spot showing cuz he can't get access to his stylist anymore, is his use of lawfare.

~~~~~~>
See my post #8 ...
You can refute it all you want, but without counter evidence/proof you're either lying, or completely imbecilic.

 

[JohnDB]

It isn't working....

 

[ColonelAngus]

When a judge claims Mar a LAGO is worth $17 million and wants to put Trump in prison for loan fraud IN SPITE OF THE BANKS SAYING EVERYTHING WAS PERFECT WITH THE TRANSACTIONS, WHAT SHOULD IT BE CALLED?

Anyone who claims Mar a Lago is worth $17 million is a liar or a dumb ****.

 

[berg80]

~~~~~~>
See my post #8 ...
You can refute it all you want, but without counter evidence/proof you're either lying, or completely imbecilic.

Go **** yourself.

AI Overview

While it is true the U.S. Justice Department declined to prosecute former FBI Director James Comey in 2019, he was criminally indicted on two charges in September 2025
. The indictment came after Donald Trump's return to the presidency.
2019 decision not to prosecute

• The investigation: In August 2019, the Justice Department's Inspector General (IG) released a report on Comey's handling of confidential memos he wrote documenting his conversations with then-President Trump.
• Findings: The IG concluded that Comey violated FBI policy by keeping copies of the memos and sharing them with his lawyers after he was fired in 2017. Comey had also authorized one of his lawyers to leak the contents of one of the memos to a reporter. The IG noted that Comey's conduct "set a dangerous example".
• No criminal charges: Despite these findings, the IG's office stated that prosecutors had reviewed the case and declined to pursue criminal charges against Comey. The IG also "found no evidence that Comey or his attorneys released any of the classified information contained in any of the memos to members of the media," as Trump had alleged.

 

[Doc7505]

Go **** yourself.

AI Overview

While it is true the U.S. Justice Department declined to prosecute former FBI Director James Comey in 2019, he was criminally indicted on two charges in September 2025
. The indictment came after Donald Trump's return to the presidency.
2019 decision not to prosecute

• The investigation: In August 2019, the Justice Department's Inspector General (IG) released a report on Comey's handling of confidential memos he wrote documenting his conversations with then-President Trump.
• Findings: The IG concluded that Comey violated FBI policy by keeping copies of the memos and sharing them with his lawyers after he was fired in 2017. Comey had also authorized one of his lawyers to leak the contents of one of the memos to a reporter. The IG noted that Comey's conduct "set a dangerous example".
• No criminal charges: Despite these findings, the IG's office stated that prosecutors had reviewed the case and declined to pursue criminal charges against Comey. The IG also "found no evidence that Comey or his attorneys released any of the classified information contained in any of the memos to members of the media," as Trump had alleged.

~~~~~~>
Tsk, Tsk, Tsk! using vulgar language does not accomplish any of your goals.
However, it does prove your lack of education, intelligence and ignorance...