top of page
jgl358

RUDY GIUILIANI: LAWFARE V POLITICS

The other night I had dinner with a good friend and in conversation he says: Poor Rudy, he is really in trouble. If I remember correctly. He went on to say that he voted for him twice for mayor of New York City because he really cleaned up the city. I agreed, and my good friend is usually a Democrat voter, much to my frustration. The conversation went on a bit more and went into the fact that Rudy is generally being prosecuted by several state governments related to the protestation of the results of the 2020 presidential election which I see as being primarily based in extreme lawfare I.E. political warfare.


And my policy as of late is to not go down the political argument rat hole and so the conversation was ended. I have learned over time that my argumentation on the subject of politics which I have a pretty well-defined interpretation of really does not much good. People must understand politics from their perspective and make their choices and understand that they live with those choices. Whether they fully understand that or not.


Before the conversation ended my friend called what Rudy and his team of lawyers who were IMO righteously protesting the election results in the political process in many places around the country as being "Lawfare". And that is not really an accurate understanding of what lawfare is.


Lawfare: Def: 1. The strategic use of legal proceedings to intimidate or hinder an opponent

2. The use of the law by a country against its enemies, esp by challenging the legality of military or foreign policy.


Lawfare V Politics? Lawfare IS Politics!


So, by my interpretation Lawfare is all about intimidation and is employed to hinder an opponent's strategic thinking regarding their activities either in the Pedestrian Realm or more effectively in the Political Realm. You make things too costly to pursue in other words and you use the law as a weapon. And in the case of a government either Federal or state when they employ Lawfare primarily in the pursuit of retaining their political power the risk of extreme consequences exist which include huge monetary fines and even the cost of one's freedom. A truly potentially terrifying consequence if the existing power paradigm in government targets you in the interests of their retaining their political power and control prevails. The government has eternal and unlimited monetary and manpower resources in the pursuit of their political power paradigm remaining in place and in power. And that abuse of power is exactly what the Constitution attempts to counterbalance.


Lawfare when implemented by government is by definition the abuse of power in the interests of government and not the people. Governmental lawfare is the road to tyranny!


Politics as is law and justice are adversarial and are fought in the public arena and or in courts of law. Evidence and truth according to either adversary is presented to the public or before a jury and refereed by what is supposed to an objective judge and a result is arrived at according to established Objectively determined rules and duly passed laws as established by the Constitution. Are all judges all objective all the time? Do judges act always in the interests of justice or politics?


Politics: Def: The art or science of government b: the art or science concerned with guiding or influencing governmental policy. c: the art or science concerned with winning and holding control over a government. d. competition between competing interest groups or individuals for power and leadership (as in a government).


Politics simply is an adversarial competition for political power. And it is primarily fought in political campaigns and in courts before judges when there are issues of law that need to be settled who are supposed to be impartial and objective referees between the combatants.


Politics is warfare in another form, just like the game of chess is a representation of warfare on a board. How were political disagreements settled in Roman times? The involved parties might have vigorous conversations about their disputes, but when it came to the bigger existential issues the knives came out, and there was BLOOD! And that is how issues were settled and how the political power being argued over was transferred or held.


Rudy and company were with cause and evidence established by them concerned in many states election results and saw many anomalies in the voting and the counting of the 2020 presidential election ballots. And I tended to agree with their concerns. And being lawyers, being political warriors, being advocates for their client they did what good lawyers and political warriors do. They developed a theory of attack and challenged the results in the various states and presented their alternative legal theories designed to satisfy their justifiable concerns about the 2020 presidential election results.


I ask again, are all judges always objective or political in the rulings they make regarding the transfer of political power?


Now let's review what Lawfare actually is:  c: the art or science concerned with winning and holding control over a government. d. competition between competing interest groups or individuals for power and leadership (as in a government).


Lawfare is in the manner it is being executed against Rudy Giuliani and associates (R) by self-interested government associated or politically interested and connected players (D) which has unlimited resources and the ability to relive you of your freedom if you dare present an argument in law that fundamentally threatens their continued control of power and control.


You really want to upset the current government-controlled political self-interested apple cart? If you are successful, your new paradigm will prevail. But if you are not successful you may surrender more than you bargained for.


“You come at the king, you best not miss.”


Now THAT is lawfare as we are witnessing it being utilized today in the very contentious political winner takes all battlefield arena that America going through today. The powers that be in government, in the deep state, within the very comfortable permanent bureaucracy IMO will never allow their political power to be usurped by their political opposition. Not without a fight to the death that is.


Bureaucracy: A system of government in which most of the important decisions are made by state officials rather than by elected representatives.


Political power is never surrendered, it must always be taken. JGL



Are you paying attention yet America? JGL 7/13/24


32 views2 comments

Recent Posts

See All

2 Comments

Rated 0 out of 5 stars.
No ratings yet

Add a rating
Guest
Jul 13
Rated 5 out of 5 stars.

Stalin sent his enemies to Siberia--"lawfully". Hitler persecuted the Jews through his Nuremberg laws--"lawfully". South Africa jailed Nelson Mandela, and the good old boys throughout most of the South used their political, police and legal powers to jail and even execute African Americans--"lawfully". Laws are made and adjudicated by men, and it's not unusual to have them used to gain and maintain power. But it's pretty obvious when you see a "show trial."


Apparently, your friend believes that virtually any use of the legal system to try to address a perceived wrong is "lawfare"? Or maybe it just depends on who it's being used against.

Like
jgl358
Jul 13
Replying to

I would suppose it would be the later rather than the former. All depends on who's ox gets gored. Ah, the slippery slope is indeed slippery.

Like
bottom of page