5 ms·

The problem with the lawfare argument, is that people can claim 'lawfare' even when the investigation is fully warranted. The classified documents in the Trumps

The problem with the lawfare argument, is that people can claim 'lawfare' even when the investigation is fully warranted. The classified documents in the Trumps bathroom, for example. This wasn't lawfare, this was a guy breaking the law and being investigated for it. In Elon's case, he is not a truthful person. He was recently caught lying and cheating about being good at video games of all things. Just for cred. Imagine what he's capable when the stakes were higher. 'Lawfare' is just a way for the out-of-power party to cry victim even when they fully and absolutely did the crime. It means that when they get back in power they not only get a free pass but also an excuse to crush anyone who had the gal to even try and hold them accountable.

scarab92 2y ago
It goes both ways. Innocent people can be genuine victims of lawfare, just as easily as guilty people can claim to be victims of lawfare. The previous administration is widely regarded to have engaged in lawfare, so I would prefer to assume that their political rivals are innocent until proven otherwise, rather than guilty by default.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 2y ago
  Trump is widely regarded as having committed crimes. It is the persons actions that make them guilty. And in Trumps case, his actions are public record so no assumptions are necessary. And for a hypothetical, if he was in fact guilty and the investigations were warranted. And then he used his presidential power to punish and fire everyone remotely associated with those cases. Would this be a good or bad thing in your opinion?
- justin66 2y ago
  > The previous administration is widely regarded to have engaged in lawfare Widely regarded? You're already dealing with a goofy subset of humanity when you're using words like "lawfare."
- acdha 2y ago
  > The previous administration is widely regarded to have engaged in lawfare No, it wasn’t. That was claimed by a specific subset of people who wanted to evade consequences for the crimes they committed, but that wasn’t backed up by even a cursory review of the facts. You can see a similar example with claims that Eric Adams suffered from “lawfare”, which might be an effective political tactic but are clearly contradicted by the evidence against him. Lots of criminals claim they’re innocent but that doesn’t mean they’re right.

scarab92 2y ago

It goes both ways. Innocent people can be genuine victims of lawfare, just as easily as guilty people can claim to be victims of lawfare. The previous administration is widely regarded to have engaged in lawfare, so I would prefer to assume that their political rivals are innocent until proven otherwise, rather than guilty by default.

Eddy_Viscosity2 2y ago
Trump is widely regarded as having committed crimes. It is the persons actions that make them guilty. And in Trumps case, his actions are public record so no assumptions are necessary. And for a hypothetical, if he was in fact guilty and the investigations were warranted. And then he used his presidential power to punish and fire everyone remotely associated with those cases. Would this be a good or bad thing in your opinion?
justin66 2y ago
> The previous administration is widely regarded to have engaged in lawfare Widely regarded? You're already dealing with a goofy subset of humanity when you're using words like "lawfare."
acdha 2y ago
> The previous administration is widely regarded to have engaged in lawfare No, it wasn’t. That was claimed by a specific subset of people who wanted to evade consequences for the crimes they committed, but that wasn’t backed up by even a cursory review of the facts. You can see a similar example with claims that Eric Adams suffered from “lawfare”, which might be an effective political tactic but are clearly contradicted by the evidence against him. Lots of criminals claim they’re innocent but that doesn’t mean they’re right.