Liberals Bet They Could Beat Trump With the Law. They Lost.

[Timber Rattler]

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/22/opinion/trump-legalism-trials.html

The yearslong effort to vanquish Donald Trump in court was a dismal failure.

For liberals like me, it may be tempting to attribute the collapse of the various cases against him to convenient explanations of process or personnel. The more uncomfortable truth is that our search for political salvation primarily through the law has backfired. To oppose Mr. Trump in his second term, liberals must learn the lesson of this defeat, which is that there is no alternative to persuading our fellow citizens of our beliefs.

For decades, liberals have made the mistake of prioritizing legal victories over popular ones. It was a method of prolonging the civil rights movement even after its opponents assembled a majority to halt it. Fifty years ago, Richard Nixon’s four Supreme Court appointments — Mr. Trump got only three — shoved the court right and consigned liberals to damage control. While liberals saw breakthroughs afterward for women and L.G.B.T.Q. people, delivering progress more quickly than elections could, they failed to stop the conservative drift of American law.

(snip)

Yet many liberals, convinced that their causes were righteous, didn’t register the risks of this legalistic strategy, which included being seen by voters as treating the law as politics by other means. The criminal investigations fueled their target’s dominance of the Republican primary race and breathed new life into his campaign fund-raising. The election became something like national jury nullification — after the fact for the New York case, and pre-emptively for the others.

EXCERPT

Libs admitting that they waged lawfare against Trump and his supporters, and failed.

[PeteS in CA]

Moyn makes the mistake of thinking that Progs have right causes and motives but simply used wrong tactics. Moyn still can't/won't see Progs' real problem.

[DefiantMassRINO]

The only winners in lawfare are the lawyers who actually get paid-in-full by their clients.

[Smokin Joe]

The problem is that they did not use the law, they abused it, twisted it, and tried to bend it to suit their purposes, not its stated intent.
They redefined words and intents to hammer the courts into a tool of their desire, rather than a fair and impartial device for all.
Placed in the same situation, where an opponent could distort the law to their ends and use that against the liberals, the liberals would go down like wheat in a hailstorm.

As far as 'convincing others' of their positions on issues, only through dumbing down and censoring the voices of dissent can they make their positions seem reasonable, creating a bubble of theory that has no relationship to the natural world, because its basic axioms are flawed.

[DefiantMassRINO]

But, the more they do it, the less cache it has.

Impeachment was almost unthinkable during Nixon.  Now, it's expected when the House majority is the other party from the President.

Indictments and convictions will be insignificant because of the probability of being over-turned on appeal.

[Fishrrman]

I fought the law.
And I ... won!

[bilo]

The problem is that they did not use the law, they abused it, twisted it, and tried to bend it to suit their purposes, not its stated intent.
They redefined words and intents to hammer the courts into a tool of their desire, rather than a fair and impartial device for all.
Placed in the same situation, where an opponent could distort the law to their ends and use that against the liberals, the liberals would go down like wheat in a hailstorm.

As far as 'convincing others' of their positions on issues, only through dumbing down and censoring the voices of dissent can they make their positions seem reasonable, creating a bubble of theory that has no relationship to the natural world, because its basic axioms are flawed.

This is why those responsible need to be held to account. The only way to see that this never happens again is to prosecute those who broke the law and lock them up.

A great place to start will be the guy at the national archives.

[verga]

This is why those responsible need to be held to account. The only way to see that this never happens again is to prosecute those who broke the law and lock them up.

A great place to start will be the guy at the national archives.

in the loudest most public way possible. Make sure it is completely fair and legal but make sure the message FAFO is loud and clear.
Republicans and Conservatives can no longer sit on their hands and "play nice", they need to learn to be street brawlers.

[Free Vulcan]

The problem is that they did not use the law, they abused it, twisted it, and tried to bend it to suit their purposes, not its stated intent.
They redefined words and intents to hammer the courts into a tool of their desire, rather than a fair and impartial device for all.
Placed in the same situation, where an opponent could distort the law to their ends and use that against the liberals, the liberals would go down like wheat in a hailstorm.

As far as 'convincing others' of their positions on issues, only through dumbing down and censoring the voices of dissent can they make their positions seem reasonable, creating a bubble of theory that has no relationship to the natural world, because its basic axioms are flawed.

That's exactly it, and I hope there are criminal consequences for it.