Lawfare. What is it and who does it.
That post is amazing. It's only lawfare when they do it!!!1!!!!1
Its totally not a cult.
The other word they use to describe Biden’s administration is “regime”. It’s kinda strange that they would love to have a leader like Putin or Orban take this country back it’s glory days… I think they’re all fixated on the glory hole.. batshitcrazy people walking amongst us.
terp said:
That post is amazing. It's only lawfare when they do it!!!1!!!!1
Its totally not a cult.
I await your counter examples.
Um. Russiagate. And my point isn't about being wrong or right exactly. It's the whole tribal aspect of perceiving everyone on the other side as guilty of everything and being completely blind to your own sides sins.
To me this is the most troubling thing about today's political climate. DB, no offense but you are the poster boy for this phenomenon.
Jaytee said:
The other word they use to describe Biden’s administration is “regime”. It’s kinda strange that they would love to have a leader like Putin or Orban take this country back it’s glory days… I think they’re all fixated on the glory hole.. batshitcrazy people walking amongst us.
Don't worry. You're not all that far behind him. BTW, How do you sleep with all those monsters under your bed?
terp said:
Um. Russiagate. And my point isn't about being wrong or right exactly. It's the whole tribal aspect of perceiving everyone on the other side as guilty of everything and being completely blind to your own sides sins.
To me this is the most troubling thing about today's political climate. DB, no offense but you are the poster boy for this phenomenon.
First of all define Russiagate, because I can never figure out what you guys actually mean by it, but it mostly strikes me as a strawman.
Secondly - have you read the Mueller Report? The Senate Intelligence Committee's report? Or summaries of them? Or anything? Or are you working off of vibes?
And no offense terp, but most of the beliefs you express here are totally detached from reality. You often tell us things that simply have not happened and for which there is no evidence.
e.g. tell us again how Fauci kills puppies.
And THAT is the most troubling thing about today's political climate. If we don't at least share a reality, we're doomed.
The funny thing about Russiagate is that it started as a legitimate investigation. And it would have run its course without match consequence. However, Trump, as always, chose to start whining about being victimized and it gained a life of its own.
Imagine if Trump had the capacity to appoint capable people to government positions. If Chris Christie had been the AG, Russiagate wouldn't have amounted to anything.
terp said:
BTW, How do you sleep with all those monsters under your bed?
I’m asleep pretty early by some standards, and I’m an early bird. I think I need to vacuum under the bed before winter comes…
I wonder how the trumpsters sleep knowing that their leader is one of the most disgusting people in the world. Have you ever taken a step back and ask yourself why do I support the man? I mean, seriously, what exactly is it that he does that makes you feel he’s worthy of your support? It just can’t be that you hate liberals right?
I don't think I ever ran with the Fauci kills puppies thing. I just didn't like the lying and his clear propensity to be a servant to the best interests of big pharma and the Military Industrial Complex over the interests of people of this nation. But that is a pretty big thread drift.
If you can't see Russiagate as an example of lawfare as you define it, I don't even know what to say. The IC used opposition research and planted a story using the same research to get FISA warrants. Emails were changed. The corporate media blathered on with the help of the IC that "we got him!" This hung over the heads of the administration for 3 years.
I don't think we need to get mired in the details. You don't see it as problematic because you don't want to see it as problematic. It's just like when I watch the Giants. I never think we are holding, so when the flags fly I assume the refs have it in for us.
tjohn said:
The funny thing about Russiagate is that it started as a legitimate investigation. And it would have run its course without match consequence. However, Trump, as always, chose to start whining about being victimized and it gained a life of its own.
Imagine if Trump had the capacity to appoint capable people to government positions. If Chris Christie had been the AG, Russiagate wouldn't have amounted to anything.
This post is factually incorrect
terp said:
tjohn said:
The funny thing about Russiagate is that it started as a legitimate investigation. And it would have run its course without match consequence. However, Trump, as always, chose to start whining about being victimized and it gained a life of its own.
Imagine if Trump had the capacity to appoint capable people to government positions. If Chris Christie had been the AG, Russiagate wouldn't have amounted to anything.
This post is factually incorrect
Not sure which part. If I am the FBI and I receive the Steele Dossier and tips of contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian representatives, then I need to investigate.
And if Trump hadn't appointed Jeff Sessions as AG, there would not have been a special counsel and the Mueller Reports.
terp said:
I don't think I ever ran with the Fauci kills puppies thing. I just didn't like the lying and his clear propensity to be a servant to the best interests of big pharma and the Military Industrial Complex over the interests of people of this nation. But that is a pretty big thread drift.
If you can't see Russiagate as an example of lawfare as you define it, I don't even know what to say. The IC used opposition research and planted a story using the same research to get FISA warrants. Emails were changed. The corporate media blathered on with the help of the IC that "we got him!" This hung over the heads of the administration for 3 years.
I don't think we need to get mired in the details. You don't see it as problematic because you don't want to see it as problematic. It's just like when I watch the Giants. I never think we are holding, so when the flags fly I assume the refs have it in for us.
you see, this is what bothers me. You say:
The IC used opposition research and planted a story using the same research to get FISA warrants.
It was one agent. Not the "IC". And it was the FBI. Again, not the IC. And it was to renew a warrant on a guy who already had a warrant. And it was utterly inconsequential to the investigation as a whole.
Plus the agent was caught and punished and has resulted in reforms to the FISA process.
You believe in things that are simply not true or so grossly exaggerated as to effectively be not true.
Also, do you want me to dig up your Fauci/puppies post?
and in the prior post I didn't even deal with the untruth about the IC using opposition research.
again - did not happen. The IC did not do this. The FBI, separately, kind of did, but again, trivial and non-consequential to the investigation.
see, if I believed the stuff that you believe, I'd be upset in the same way.
but I can't believe in what you believe, because what you believe did not happen.
this is a problem.
the other problem is look at how much I had to write to deal with just one sentence of yours.
to call it "Russiagate" and a "hoax" one has to pretend the Mueller report doesn't exist. There was enough to warrant an investigation, just not enough to convict anyone on a criminal conspiracy (which is possibly because of obstruction of the investigation).
As set forth in detail in this report, the Special Counsel’s investigation established that
Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election principally through two operations. First, a
Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J.
Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Second, a Russian intelligence
service conducted computer-intrusion operations against entities, employees, and volunteers
working on the Clinton Campaign and then released stolen documents. The investigation also
identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign. Although
the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump
presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit
electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not
establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian
government in its election interference activities
and:
The Office determined that certain individuals associated with the Campaign lied to
investigators about Campaign contacts with Russia and have taken other actions to interfere with
the investigation. As explained below, the Office therefore charged some U.S. persons connected
to the Campaign with false statements and obstruction offenses.
I suppose anyone who wants to continue calling the investigation a "hoax" has no choice but to act dumb on the reality of this report.
But the rest of us are aware of its existence, so it's pretty hard to fool us.
tjohn said:
terp said:
tjohn said:
The funny thing about Russiagate is that it started as a legitimate investigation. And it would have run its course without match consequence. However, Trump, as always, chose to start whining about being victimized and it gained a life of its own.
Imagine if Trump had the capacity to appoint capable people to government positions. If Chris Christie had been the AG, Russiagate wouldn't have amounted to anything.
This post is factually incorrect
Not sure which part. If I am the FBI and I receive the Steele Dossier and tips of contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian representatives, then I need to investigate.
And if Trump hadn't appointed Jeff Sessions as AG, there would not have been a special counsel and the Mueller Reports.
the investigation began before the emergence of the Steele Dossier.
Are we forgetting that Mueller is and was a Republican? That the Senate Intelligence Committee that investigated the allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential Election was headed by a Republican?
The Mueller investigation was a bit sad. I wish that Mueller had been in his prime for the investigation. My impression was that he wasn't at his best when presenting the findings of his investigation.
ml1 said:
As set forth in detail in this report, the Special Counsel’s investigation established that
Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election principally through two operations. First, a
Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J.
Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Second, a Russian intelligence
service conducted computer-intrusion operations against entities, employees, and volunteers
working on the Clinton Campaign and then released stolen documents. The investigation also
identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign. Although
the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump
presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit
electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not
establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian
government in its election interference activitiesto call it "Russiagate" and a "hoax" one has to pretend the Mueller report doesn't exist. There was enough to warrant an investigation, just not enough to convict anyone on a criminal conspiracy (which is possibly because of obstruction of the investigation).
and:
The Office determined that certain individuals associated with the Campaign lied to
investigators about Campaign contacts with Russia and have taken other actions to interfere with
the investigation. As explained below, the Office therefore charged some U.S. persons connected
to the Campaign with false statements and obstruction offenses.I suppose anyone who wants to continue calling the investigation a "hoax" has no choice but to act dumb on the reality of this report.
But the rest of us are aware of its existence, so it's pretty hard to fool us.
I am aware of it's existence. I don't find the IC investigating itself as convincing as you seem to.
ml1 said:
tjohn said:
terp said:
tjohn said:
The funny thing about Russiagate is that it started as a legitimate investigation. And it would have run its course without match consequence. However, Trump, as always, chose to start whining about being victimized and it gained a life of its own.
Imagine if Trump had the capacity to appoint capable people to government positions. If Chris Christie had been the AG, Russiagate wouldn't have amounted to anything.
This post is factually incorrect
Not sure which part. If I am the FBI and I receive the Steele Dossier and tips of contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian representatives, then I need to investigate.
And if Trump hadn't appointed Jeff Sessions as AG, there would not have been a special counsel and the Mueller Reports.
the investigation began before the emergence of the Steele Dossier.
This is true, but the FBI received the Steele Dossier about 6 weeks into the investigation when they were still keeping it pretty quiet.
terp said:
ml1 said:
tjohn said:
terp said:
tjohn said:
The funny thing about Russiagate is that it started as a legitimate investigation. And it would have run its course without match consequence. However, Trump, as always, chose to start whining about being victimized and it gained a life of its own.
Imagine if Trump had the capacity to appoint capable people to government positions. If Chris Christie had been the AG, Russiagate wouldn't have amounted to anything.
This post is factually incorrect
Not sure which part. If I am the FBI and I receive the Steele Dossier and tips of contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian representatives, then I need to investigate.
And if Trump hadn't appointed Jeff Sessions as AG, there would not have been a special counsel and the Mueller Reports.
the investigation began before the emergence of the Steele Dossier.
This is true, but the FBI received the Steele Dossier about 6 weeks into the investigation when they were still keeping it pretty quiet.
yeah? they received it. then what?
and your comment about Sessions? You're saying that Trump made the mistake of hiring someone with an ounce of integrity?
terp said:
ml1 said:
As set forth in detail in this report, the Special Counsel’s investigation established that
Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election principally through two operations. First, a
Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J.
Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Second, a Russian intelligence
service conducted computer-intrusion operations against entities, employees, and volunteers
working on the Clinton Campaign and then released stolen documents. The investigation also
identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign. Although
the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump
presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit
electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not
establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian
government in its election interference activitiesto call it "Russiagate" and a "hoax" one has to pretend the Mueller report doesn't exist. There was enough to warrant an investigation, just not enough to convict anyone on a criminal conspiracy (which is possibly because of obstruction of the investigation).
and:
The Office determined that certain individuals associated with the Campaign lied to
investigators about Campaign contacts with Russia and have taken other actions to interfere with
the investigation. As explained below, the Office therefore charged some U.S. persons connected
to the Campaign with false statements and obstruction offenses.I suppose anyone who wants to continue calling the investigation a "hoax" has no choice but to act dumb on the reality of this report.
But the rest of us are aware of its existence, so it's pretty hard to fool us.
I am aware of it's existence. I don't find the IC investigating itself as convincing as you seem to.
the Mueller investigation was not investigating intelligence agencies.
So, the word lawfare has cropped up in a couple of threads, with some contention about what the word actually means.
I think the commonly accepted definition goes along with the phrase "weaponization of the government", and simply means using the power of government to go after political opponents.
Lawfare refines weaponization by specifically referring to baselessly charging and bringing to trial individuals, either through the DOJ, or local and state District Attorneys. I say "individuals", but it's really only about Trump. (regardless of some people claiming that RFK Jr and Tulsi Gabbard have been victims as well. I await examples for those two.)
Both terms have been used almost exclusively by the right.
Now, I think lawfare, as defined above and as charged by the right, simply doesn't exist, because no one can reasonably argue that the charges against Trump are baseless. Particularly since every indictment has followed the regular course of our justice system. Investigations are done, evidence is collected and presented to a grand jury for a decision on bringing charges. And so on if it goes to trial.
Weaponization of the government, otoh, absolutely exists and is performed almost exclusively by Republicans. (I say "almost" so as to be fair, but I can't really think of a Democratic example.)
the Biden impeachment
the Hunter Biden Congressional investigations
the Mayorkas impeachment
the Congressional hearings on the weaponization of government
pretty much every hearing/investigation/report by Congressmen Jordan and Comer
and to go back further, in the Obama admin:
almost all of the Benghazi hearings and investigations
IRS Targeting under Obama
Fast and Furious
These examples are off the top of my head. There are surely more.
What makes all of these examples of weaponization is that they were all undertaken with great sound and fury but ultimately turned up either no or trivial wrongdoing. They served no purpose other than to pollute the discourse in order to politically damage Democrats.
And yes, I'm getting long winded in my old age. But I'm cranky these days.