The Democrat Utopia

funhusker said:
But America made it clear in November they give zero s#!ts about that.  So why not take that “green light” and help your kid?
Click to expand...


49.5% of America gave at least some s#!ts about integrity, and 50.5% gave tons of s#!ts if they could bury self-righteous Democrats in their hypocrisy — while also giving zero s#!ts that their people are demonstrably worse. 

It would have remained a powerful message if Joe Biden had stuck to his guns. Hunter Biden would still be the son of privilege, likely to face less consequence than Martha Stewart, simply denied the Get Out of Jail Free card available to only one person in our entire democracy. 

 
Archy1221 said:
You asked a question to answer a question 🤓.  But to respond, multiple people here which probably includes yourself, tell me me lawfare really isn’t a thing.  Sooooo……

Why would they need a pardon if they haven’t broken the law🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...


Whether or not it's feasible with our current system and/or happening is one debate. Whether Trump and cronies are going to attempt it has been stated pretty clearly by them. 

 
PasstheDamnBallGuy said:
Whether or not it's feasible with our current system and/or happening is one debate. Whether Trump and cronies are going to attempt it has been stated pretty clearly by them. 
Click to expand...
One would think if they haven’t done anything illegal, who cares what “trump and his cronies are going to attempt” amirite.   Those efforts would only fail if they haven’t done anything illegal.   Unless you are telling me lawfare is an actual thing. 

 
Archy1221 said:
One would think if they haven’t done anything illegal, who cares what “trump and his cronies are going to attempt” amirite.   Those efforts would only fail if they haven’t done anything illegal.   Unless you are telling me lawfare is an actual thing. 
Click to expand...


Even if it's not. If someone says they are going to try to go after you would you still not take caution just in case? Not everyone will have an openly supportive judge that purposefully delays sentencing in case you win an election and get out of it.  

 
PasstheDamnBallGuy said:
Even if it's not. If someone says they are going to try to go after you would you still not take caution just in case? Not everyone will have an openly supportive judge that purposefully delays sentencing in case you win an election and get out of it.  
Click to expand...
Please don't say that judges might be corrupt.  This is why the stupid "stolen election" nonesense is still around.  

 
Archy1221 said:
You asked a question to answer a question 🤓.  But to respond, multiple people here which probably includes yourself, tell me me lawfare really isn’t a thing.  Sooooo……

Why would they need a pardon if they haven’t broken the law🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...


This is you using your silly rhetorical device again. Nobody is saying lawfare isn't a thing. Some may have suggested that Donald Trump and his grifting cronies have actually EARNED investigations and prosecutions at a higher rate than other administrations, while also noting the same Justice Department has pursued actions against prominent Democrats.

The cited article is pretty interesting, addressing the question you cite. The advisors have broken into two camps: one saying they need to take loose cannon Kash Patel's vow of revenge at face value, including a willingness to pursue even the flimsiest legal argument against Trump's enemies, while the other camp contends a pardon will simply imply guilt, and those in-line for pardons have not asked for them and may not even want them. 

 
Archy1221 said:
You tend to know how to utilize the search function here better than anyone else.  It would probably be easy for you to find the information you are looking for 
Click to expand...


Burden of proof is typically on the accuser making the accusation. The subsequent rebuttal would require evidence to the contrary. 

But let's skip the searches and just settle it here. The simple fact is that "lawfare" was a term created by Trump supporters to accuse the federal government of partisan witch-hunting, but the phrase was retired the day after the election. 

 
Guy Chamberlin said:
Burden of proof is typically on the accuser making the accusation. The subsequent rebuttal would require evidence to the contrary
Click to expand...
Not when you are trying to overturn a conviction.  Just saying .  Anyways, it’s a cool thing Huskerboard isn’t criminal court!!!   
 

Guy Chamberlin said:
But let's skip the searches and just settle it here. The simple fact is that "lawfare" was a term created by Trump supporters to accuse the federal government of partisan witch-hunting, but the phrase was retired the day after the election
Click to expand...
I don’t know.   Sounds fishy to me.  Looks like it’s been around for awhile

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawfare#:~:text=Early use and definitions,-The term is&text=Perhaps the first use of,more on humanity and intuition.

 
Back
Top