Talk:Lawfare

source 16 and 17 are the same
Footnotes #16 goes to the full report, #17 goes to the summary. Mcdruid (talk) 03:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Donald Trump vs New York
The WSJ had an article recently where it made the case that New York AG lawsuits against trump like the one attempting to seize DJT properties constitutes "lawfare". Can we include this? I know DJT is like super controversial and bad but at the same time New York kind of really is doing lawfare against him. By posting a bond so high that even a billionaire can't afford it effectively denies him due process since he can't appeal without posting bond. Thoughts?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-high-price-of-anti-trump-lawfare-eroding-public-trust-politicized-prosecutions-7bba71d8

https://www.wsj.com/articles/letitia-james-donald-trump-464-million-bond-new-york-arthur-engoron-fbf1c6dd 47.232.91.253 (talk) 21:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)


 * The first is an opinion column by Daniel Henninger, who appears to be sheerly a commentator and I don't see relevant expertise. The second is an editorial. Neither is using this as an example in a larger discussion of lawfare.
 * (The amount of the bond is not something set to punish DJT; it's the standard method that one cannot appeal without posting a bond to cover the amount owed as a result of the ruling.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * True. Both are opinion. But I found the argument compelling. There is actually a better source I found earlier that I cannot find now which was a breakdown by some lawyer. Still searching for this one and will post once I find it. But Lawfare is most pertinent when against somebody universally reviled. One of tenets of justice in our system is protection for minority rights against majoritarian mobs. DJT is universally the modern day "hitler" in how he is reviled. Given that a victimless crime is being used to seize all his properties based on various legal instruments/proceedings in addition to a bond so high (or perhaps politically risky) that he cannot get an underwriter within 30 days of judgment, this effectively denies him justice because he effectively cannot appeal the decision. He asked for more time or a smaller bond and both requests were denied by the AG. I think it would provide an excellent example of domestic lawfare. Of course, I only really have a USA perspective on the matter. I don't know how rule of law works outside of USA (e.g. russia, etc).
 * We will have to wait and see if an appeals court will grant one of the two requests though. If they do, then this entire argument is moot because justice was allowed to progress. But unlikely given tomorrow is the deadline. 47.232.91.253 (talk) 18:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, so they extended his deadline and reduced his bond. So never mind. Justice, surprisingly, was allowed to proceed. Argument is moot. 47.232.91.253 (talk) 17:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The broad legal woes of Donald Trump are increasingly described as "lawfare" by many observers, albeit, predictably, many of those so commenting appear to be disposed to view the former president in the most favorable light. It seems like it would be appropriate to have a section in this article noting the increasingly common use of this term to refer to Donald Trump's legal proceedings.  Here's an article from the National Review by Don McLaughlin laying out the case for seeing the situation as lawfare GrinningBar69 (talk) 19:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, here's an article from the WSJ by Kimberly Strassel. This is an opinion piece, but just one of many examples of commentators describing Trump's situation as lawfare. GrinningBar69 (talk) 19:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's an opinion piece. And if there was some outside analysis commenting on its use, then that might be a good addition, but just adding examples is not. These are perhaps better sources for an article on Trump's legal problems. - Nat Gertler (talk) Nat Gertler (talk) 21:06, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect Definition
This appears to be an incorrect usage or definition of the term. As described in the Lawfare podcast, which has been using the term since 2010, it is the use and application of law in armed conflict. Sometimes used as a pejorative about concerns about law of war and related human rights issues. 73.71.67.5 (talk) 20:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This appears to be premised on the notion that there is a correct definition and a correct usage. Even the source you cite, the Lawfare team don't take that position. Sean.hoyland (talk) 06:20, 16 July 2024 (UTC)