U.S. Politics

[anefarious1]

Trump complaining about lawfare is the pot calling the kettle black. Nobody has excelled at lawfare more than Donald Trump throughout his life. Who can top more than four thousand lawsuits over the past 30 years?

In January 2023, a federal judge fined Trump and his attorney nearly $1 million, characterizing him as "a prolific and sophisticated litigant who is repeatedly using the courts to seek revenge on political adversaries".

There are so many lawsuits, along with hundreds of liens, judgments, and other government filings pertaining to people who have accused Trump and his businesses of failing to pay them for their work. Nothing political about them.

Trump's claim of lawfare against him is his masterpiece of projection. From stiffing contractors (regular folk) for decades to 6 bankruptcies, he really knows how to play the system and peoples' minds. Quite the showman for the uneducated masses!

You could say Trump is the anti-Declan (not full of goodness)

[Declan MacPherson]

Trump complaining about lawfare is the pot calling the kettle black. Nobody has excelled at lawfare more than Donald Trump throughout his life. Who can top more than four thousand lawsuits over the past 30 years?

You don't understand what lawfare is either.

[Declan MacPherson]

Lawfare

Local, State, Federal Government use of the legal system to:
- damage or delegitimize an opponent
- deny an individual their legal rights
- causing the individual to waste time and money defending themselves against nonsense

It may also be frivolous civil suits financed by the same establishment players.

Securing elections by Republicans is not lawfare. Removing election security by Democrats is not lawfare. It's what political lawyers do for their political parties.

[tamada]

Trump complaining about lawfare is the pot calling the kettle black. Nobody has excelled at lawfare more than Donald Trump throughout his life. Who can top more than four thousand lawsuits over the past 30 years?

You don't understand what lawfare is either.

You have to be a bit more forgiving of our ignorance since the word and concept, despite having a long history being used to label regressive and repressive foreign regimes, it didn't get much airtime in the "free world" until Trump failed to secure his second term.

[jackspratt]

A few other definitions of lawfare, which don't mention "Local, State, Federal Government".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawfare

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... sh/lawfare

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dicti ... sh/lawfare

In fact, google struggles to find Declan's very narrow, and self-serving definition.

[anefarious1]

I understand. It's not lawfare if Trump does it. Same old playbook. How many Trump bibles do you own? Sneakers? How much have you sent the conman?

[Declan MacPherson]

A few other definitions of lawfare, which don't mention "Local, State, Federal Government".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawfare

In fact, google struggles to find Declan's very narrow, and self-serving definition.

Your wikipedia explanation:

Lawfare is the use of legal systems and institutions

From where do you think legal systems and institutions are derived?

Answer: Local, State, Federal Government.

[Declan MacPherson]

Same old playbook.

You're still wrong.

[Kenr6583]

Poor Trump, always the victim, never the culprit.

[jackspratt]

Unions represent industries that represent cities and communities and provide jobs to OTHER businesses in those cities and communities. The Union influence is exponential because it translates to economic prosperity for thousands outside of their immediate sphere of influence. Every Union member also has a family and extended family. And then there's the tax revenue generated from all of it.

That may, or may not, be so.

But "unions" don't have a vote. It's the individual union members - in this case ~9000 - who get to cast a ballot.

And given previous results in the districts where Local 638 members will be voting, the decision to back Trump is more than likely to be insignificant.

I would suggest this endorsement - by the national parent of 638, and with ~380,000 members - is of rather more significance.

United Association of Union Plumbers and Pipefitters (UA) Endorses Vice President Kamala Harris for President
https://uagetinvolved.org/content/unite ... ala-harris

[tamada]

So, moving right along, the "union vote" doesn't count for anything much more than a straw clutch.

[Declan MacPherson]

Unions represent industries that represent cities and communities and provide jobs to OTHER businesses in those cities and communities. The Union influence is exponential because it translates to economic prosperity for thousands outside of their immediate sphere of influence. Every Union member also has a family and extended family. And then there's the tax revenue generated from all of it.

That may, or may not, be so.

"Unions" in what I described was a reference to the membership that cast the union ballots that supported Trump over Harris in both of the instances regarding the two unions I quoted.

Their election reach of individual members is exponential; and that was my intended reference. If it wasn't an important get -- that Democrats historically receive -- the Union membership vote would not be a coveted voting block in elections.

In the link you provided of United Association of Union Plumbers and Pipefitters (UA), it was NOT the members who endorsed Kamala. It was the Union; and you have already stated that Unions don't vote.

But "unions" don't have a vote. It's the individual union members

I find it odd that unlike the two Unions that I quoted, your link did not provide any vote taken by the membership -- only a union endorsement. In fact, the link you posted even told us that it was NOT the membership. It was the Union leadership and the board.

following a special meeting of their Executive Officers and General Executive Board

Everyone in the US -- and even Union members -- knows that the Union leadership does not always reflect the wishes of the membership. A prime example of this is the Teamsters non-endorsement. Trump was selected 2-1 over Harris by the membership vote; and the Teamsters leadership, rather than endorse Trump, endorsed no one.

[jackspratt]

I am sure Ms Harris is more than happy with the respective endorsements as they stand.

[Declan MacPherson]

I am sure Ms Harris is more than happy with the respective endorsements as they stand.

I'm sure that Trump is happy too.

If your point was really about candidates being happy, you should have just said that at the beginning.

[jackspratt]

My point was:

And given previous results in the districts where Local 638 members will be voting, the decision to back Trump is more than likely to be insignificant.

[Declan MacPherson]

the decision to back Trump is more than likely to be insignificant.

Because Trump.

Nothing would ever be insignificant re: Harris.

I get it.

[Declan MacPherson]

Well, a group of attorneys ran a search to see if Kamala had ever argued any appeals -- ever. Even just one. The short answer is "no, never." They could not find any evidence she had ever argued an appeal.

They challenged her to cite to the records in such a case and explain why it is not captured in Westlaw, which is the most comprehensive electronic research service in existence.

Here's the search they ran in Westlaw, which other lawyers with access to Westlaw can readily replicate:
Databases for search: ALLFEDS + ALLSTATES
(this searches all reported and many unreported cases in all federal courts AND state courts -- They did not limit their search to California state courts).

Boolean search terms: adv: ((kamala /3 harris) /2 argued)

This first part of that Boolean search finds the universe of all cases where Kamala Harris (including Kamala D. Harris and Kamala Devi Harris -- or any other potential variants of her name) appears. Then the second part of the search narrows that universe down to cases where the word "argues" appears within 2 words of her name.

The search returns only 5 cases.

They then manually checked each of the 5 cases returned by the search. In each of those, one of her subordinates argued, not her.

Practices can vary, but in general, prosecutors -- especially in state systems -- often argue their own appeals. Not Kamala. She never even attempted the feat, which requires the lawyer presenting or defending the appeal to both know the law, think on their feet in responding to questions from a panel of three or more judges, and know the factual record.

Westlaw also includes a report about cases worked on. But it goes back only to 2014, and by then she was already AG and doing nothing more than supervising, so nothing about her own chops as a lawyer in her own right can be gleaned from that report.

Based on their research thus far, she is not a technically accomplished lawyer.

[Doodoo]

"Based on their research thus far, she is not a technically accomplished lawyer."

Didnt realize you had to be a Lawyer to be President
In fact, 28 out of 46 presidents studied and practiced law before becoming U.S. presidents.

[Whistler]

Like all things Declan posts, there is an entirely unbalanced content. No attempt to look at things objectively. A but of a more balanced commentary

https://calmatters.org/politics/electio ... francisco/

[Kenr6583]

Well, a group of attorneys ran a search to see if Kamala had ever argued any appeals -- ever. Even just one. The short answer is "no, never." They could not find any evidence she had ever argued an appeal.

They challenged her to cite to the records in such a case and explain why it is not captured in Westlaw, which is the most comprehensive electronic research service in existence.

Here's the search they ran in Westlaw, which other lawyers with access to Westlaw can readily replicate:
Databases for search: ALLFEDS + ALLSTATES
(this searches all reported and many unreported cases in all federal courts AND state courts -- They did not limit their search to California state courts).

Boolean search terms: adv: ((kamala /3 harris) /2 argued)

This first part of that Boolean search finds the universe of all cases where Kamala Harris (including Kamala D. Harris and Kamala Devi Harris -- or any other potential variants of her name) appears. Then the second part of the search narrows that universe down to cases where the word "argues" appears within 2 words of her name.

The search returns only 5 cases.

They then manually checked each of the 5 cases returned by the search. In each of those, one of her subordinates argued, not her.

Practices can vary, but in general, prosecutors -- especially in state systems -- often argue their own appeals. Not Kamala. She never even attempted the feat, which requires the lawyer presenting or defending the appeal to both know the law, think on their feet in responding to questions from a panel of three or more judges, and know the factual record.

Westlaw also includes a report about cases worked on. But it goes back only to 2014, and by then she was already AG and doing nothing more than supervising, so nothing about her own chops as a lawyer in her own right can be gleaned from that report.

Based on their research thus far, she is not a technically accomplished lawyer.

I’m sure you have a point you are trying to make, I’m just not sure what it is.