What is lawfare

[BULLDOG]

LOL so liberals don't want to change or repeal or make new laws?

That's what I'm asking. If you oppose using current laws, which ones do you want to eliminate or change?

 

[BULLDOG]

Lawfare is the use of legal systems and institutions to damage or delegitimize an opponent, or to deter an individual's usage of their legal rights.

Lawfare - Wikipedia​

The criminal legally damages and delegitimizes himself when he breaks the law. That is how our justice system works. Which legal rights do you think are being deterred?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

"Lawfare" is a negative term coined by MAGA who don't want to be held to the standard of law and order.

 

[Rigby5]

I've asked several times what the term lawfare means. No coherant definition yet. After many conversations, it seems to mean using existing laws to punish criminals, as the laws are intended to do. Can somebody please tell which laws shouldn't be used? How do you determine who receives amnesty from which laws? Lawfare seems to indicate using existing laws to charge and try Trump for crimes against our country. Which laws do you think he, and only he should be allowed to ignore?

Lawfare is:
{...
legal action undertaken as part of a hostile campaign against a country or group:
...}

Lawfare then would not be legal inside the US since it is a deliberate attempt to abuse justice.
However, it can be used on enemies of the country.
And that is why all presidents have executive privileges and immunities.
They are supposed to commit some crimes, in our favor.

Technically it is congress then who is supposed to keep presidents honest, not the criminal justice system.
While it is technically possible to prosecute an ex-president, it has NEVER been done because it would inhibit the actions of all future presidents if they thought they could be held criminally liable for that which congress did not impeach them on.
There is no sound legal basis for prosecuting ex-presidents because there is no need.
Once no longer president, they can no longer cause any harm.
And trying to prosecute ex-presidents would be far more harmful than any imagined good that it could remotely do.

 

[Rigby5]

The criminal legally damages and delegitimizes himself when he breaks the law. That is how our justice system works. Which legal rights do you think are being deterred?

The point is lawfare is not legal.
It is an abuse of the law in order to deliberately cause harm instead of promoting justice.
It should only be done to our foreign enemies.

 

[Rigby5]

"Lawfare" is a negative term coined by MAGA who don't want to be held to the standard of law and order.

No, its much older than Trump's political career.

{...
Perhaps the first use of the term "lawfare" was in the 1975 manuscript Whither Goeth the Law, which argues that the Western legal system has become overly contentious and utilitarian as compared to the more humanitarian, norm-based Eastern system.[clarification needed][5]

A more frequently cited use of the term was Charles J. Dunlap, Jr.'s 2001 essay authored for Harvard's Carr Center.[5] In that essay, Dunlap defines lawfare as "the use of law as a weapon of war".[6] He later expanded on the definition, explaining lawfare was "the exploitation of real, perceived, or even orchestrated incidents of law-of-war violations being employed as an unconventional means of confronting" a superior military power.[7]

Colonel Charles Dunlap describes lawfare as "a method of warfare where law is used as a means of realizing a military objective".[8] In this sense lawfare may be a more humane substitute for military conflict. Colonel Dunlap considers lawfare overall a "cynical manipulation of the rule of law and the humanitarian values it represents".[8]

Benjamin Wittes, Robert Chesney, and Jack Goldsmith employed the word in the name of the Lawfare website, which focuses on national security law and which has explored the term and the debate over what lawfare means and whether it should be considered exclusively a pejorative.
...}

 

[BULLDOG]

Lawfare is:
{...
legal action undertaken as part of a hostile campaign against a country or group:
...}

Lawfare then would not be legal inside the US since it is a deliberate attempt to abuse justice.
However, it can be used on enemies of the country.
And that is why all presidents have executive privileges and immunities.
They are supposed to commit some crimes, in our favor.

Technically it is congress then who is supposed to keep presidents honest, not the criminal justice system.
While it is technically possible to prosecute an ex-president, it has NEVER been done because it would inhibit the actions of all future presidents if they thought they could be held criminally liable for that which congress did not impeach them on.
There is no sound legal basis for prosecuting ex-presidents because there is no need.
Once no longer president, they can no longer cause any harm.
And trying to prosecute ex-presidents would be far more harmful than any imagined good that it could remotely do.

It has never been done because all our other presidents had at least minimal integrity. There was no reason to prosecute previous presidents.

 

[Rigby5]

Wikipedia is not a source.

Why not just go to urban dictionary. lol

Wiki can be a "source" as long as you do not take anything for granted, and remain skeptical.
For example, if it lists a logical argument, it can be evaluated.

 

[Rigby5]

It has never been done because all our other presidents had at least minimal integrity. There was no reason to prosecute previous presidents.

I disagree with that entirely.
Almost every president has been a horrendous crook in my opinion.
For example, every single war since 1812 was totally illegal, based on deliberate lies, and the presidents involved guilty of murder.
For example, 3 million murdered in Vietnam.
Half a million murdered in Iraq with Shock and Awe, that even admitted being a war crime,

 

[Blisterfinger]

When it's more about bogging someone down with the process than any actual sense of justice, it's lawfare.

When the laws being supposedly enforced are stretched and twisted so much that a normal person looks at the case and wonders what the hell it is all about, it's lawfare.

The process is the punishment in lawfare

 

[Rawley]

I think they also ruled that will not be possible which was another eyebrow raising part of this.

I'm not an attorney and do not exactly understand all of this so don't take my word for it. She talked about requesting a stay from the SC who would not like that the Appeals court is setting a schedule so forcefully.

Yup, she's right. Rule 40 of the Appellate procedure rules gives him 45 days to file that petition for en banc rehearing.

Rule 40. Panel Rehearing; En Banc Determination

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[Rigby5]

The criminal legally damages and delegitimizes himself when he breaks the law. That is how our justice system works. Which legal rights do you think are being deterred?

Laws are not exact, and try to generically cover all possible cases.
So then is very easy to abusively and illegally prosecute when it protects no one.
And the ONLY legal justification for prosecution of law is when it is necessary in order to protect someone else from being harmed.

Take the case of the Trump inflated property evaluation.
The bank legally is prevented from even considering using that customer evaluation, so it could not possibly have harmed the bank in way. In fact, banks are experts, and the loan applicants the amateurs.
So prosecuting Trump over an inflated loan application is totally inappropriate.
They are using a law that was intend and based on regulating those selling investments like stocks.

 

[Rigby5]

Yup, she's right. Rule 40 of the Appellate procedure rules gives him 45 days to file that petition for en banc rehearing.

Rule 40. Panel Rehearing; En Banc Determination

www.law.cornell.edu

{...
A petition for en banc rehearing refers to a legal request made by a party involved in an appeal or other legal proceeding. Here are the key points about en banc rehearings:

1. Definition: An en banc rehearing involves the entire panel of judges in a court of appeals, rather than just a smaller subset. It is a process where all active judges (except those disqualified) participate in reconsidering a case.
2. When It May Be Ordered:
   • En banc hearings are not favored and are ordinarily not orderedunless specific conditions apply:
     • Uniformity: When en banc consideration is necessary to secure or maintain uniformity of the court’s decisions.
     • Exceptional Importance: When the proceeding involves a question of exceptional importance.
3. Petition for En Banc Rehearing:
   • A party can file a petition requesting an en banc rehearing.
   • The petition should state either:
     • The panel decision conflicts with a decision of the United States Supreme Court or the court to which the petition is addressed.
     • The proceeding involves one or more questions of exceptional importance.
   • The length of the petition is typically limited to around 3,900 words if produced using a computer or 15 pages if handwritten or typewritten.
4. Timing:
   • A petition for an initial en banc hearing must be filed by the date when the appellee’s brief is due.
   • A petition for a rehearing en banc must be filed within the time prescribed by the relevant rules.
5. Response:
   • No response is typically filed unless the court orders one.
   • If a response is required, it must adhere to the same length limits as the petition.

Remember that en banc rehearings are relatively rare and are reserved for cases with significant legal implications or conflicting decisions within the circuit.

...}

 

[Rigby5]

That's what I'm asking. If you oppose using current laws, which ones do you want to eliminate or change?

All laws that do not protect the rights of individual are inherently wrong and should be removed.
If you need an example, there are lots of obvious ones, like Dred Scott, Prohibition, the War on Drugs, federal firearms laws, police immunity, etc.

And again, all the charges against Trump are absurd.
No one was harmed and no one bothered over the actions of Trump until the campaign became an issue,

 

[Hellokitty]

That's what I'm asking. If you oppose using current laws, which ones do you want to eliminate or change?

Um, there are to many laws to list that need to be eliminated. Do you oppose the immigration laws that the Biden administration isn't following? How about the courts letting people who have committed violent crimes off with no bail? You all good with the 6 week abortion laws?

 

[BULLDOG]

I disagree with that entirely.
Almost every president has been a horrendous crook in my opinion.
For example, every single war since 1812 was totally illegal, based on deliberate lies, and the presidents involved guilty of murder.
For example, 3 million murdered in Vietnam.
Half a million murdered in Iraq with Shock and Awe, that even admitted being a war crime,

So how many of them were prosecuted as soon as their presidency ended? Isn't that the reason trump says a president must be immune to laws?

 

[BULLDOG]

Laws are not exact, and try to generically cover all possible cases.
So then is very easy to abusively and illegally prosecute when it protects no one.
And the ONLY legal justification for prosecution of law is when it is necessary in order to protect someone else from being harmed.

Take the case of the Trump inflated property evaluation.
The bank legally is prevented from even considering using that customer evaluation, so it could not possibly have harmed the bank in way. In fact, banks are experts, and the loan applicants the amateurs.
So prosecuting Trump over an inflated loan application is totally inappropriate.
They are using a law that was intend and based on regulating those selling investments like stocks.

If you think laws are being interpreted wrong, that is for the supreme court to determine. You should read our constitution.

 

[BULLDOG]

All laws that do not protect the rights of individual are inherently wrong and should be removed.
If you need an example, there are lots of obvious ones, like Dred Scott, Prohibition, the War on Drugs, federal firearms laws, police immunity, etc.

And again, all the charges against Trump are absurd.
No one was harmed and no one bothered over the actions of Trump until the campaign became an issue,

Al laws are in effect untilthey are eliminated or changed. That is my question. Which laws do you want to repeal?

 

[BULLDOG]

Um, there are to many laws to list that need to be eliminated. Do you oppose the immigration laws that the Biden administration isn't following? How about the courts letting people who have committed violent crimes off with no bail? You all good with the 6 week abortion laws?

Good. I'm finally getting a strait answer. Now for specifics instead of generalities that can mean damn near anything. Which specific laws do you want to change to prevent what you call lawfare? Should multiple sets of fake electoral college electors be allowed?

 

[Blisterfinger]

So how many of them were prosecuted as soon as their presidency ended? Isn't that the reason trump says a president must be immune to laws?

The Democrats planned this illegal lawfare for 6 years.