Democrat Admits Lawfare Against Trump Was All Party Resistence

[Rightguide]

Dem Strategist Admits On Live Television Lawfare Against Trump Was All Party ‘Resistance’ (Video)​

Bob Unruh, WND News CenterMay 16, 2025
0 880 3 minutes read
https://conservativefiringline.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/donald-trump-courtroom-sketch-lawyers-jpg.jpg

FacebookTwitterFlipboard

Democrats’ lawfare against President Donald Trump was much more than just their voting against his plans and ideas in Congress. More than their public innuendo about him breaking democracy. Much more than the falsified claims perpetrated by the schemers of the Russian collusion conspiracy. Much more than just the Deep Staters ignoring his orders, reversing them when they could within their own sphere of government influence.

It also was all the criminal and civil cases created against him. It was all of the wild and unsubstantiated claims they used in two failed impeach-and-remove campaigns. It was Democrat prosecutors likely misusing their positions of power to attack him.
That’s the conclusion drawn from an admission by a Democrat strategist.

“I can’t believe it. They finally admitted it on live TV: The prosecution of President Trump was an organized effort by the Democratic Party ‘resistance.’ Lawfare is real. The justice system was weaponized against President Trump,” explained Scott Jennings.

https://conservativefiringline.com/...against-trump-was-all-party-resistance-video/

We've known it all along and said so.

 

[Saint_Ann]

Nothing will come of it.

 

[eric_erosfan]

Maybe he should try not breaking the law. That might help.

 

[dmallord]

Dem Strategist Admits On Live Television Lawfare Against Trump Was All Party ‘Resistance’ (Video)​

Bob Unruh, WND News CenterMay 16, 2025
0 880 3 minutes read
https://conservativefiringline.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/donald-trump-courtroom-sketch-lawyers-jpg.jpg

FacebookTwitterFlipboard

Democrats’ lawfare against President Donald Trump was much more than just their voting against his plans and ideas in Congress. More than their public innuendo about him breaking democracy. Much more than the falsified claims perpetrated by the schemers of the Russian collusion conspiracy. Much more than just the Deep Staters ignoring his orders, reversing them when they could within their own sphere of government influence.

It also was all the criminal and civil cases created against him. It was all of the wild and unsubstantiated claims they used in two failed impeach-and-remove campaigns. It was Democrat prosecutors likely misusing their positions of power to attack him.
That’s the conclusion drawn from an admission by a Democrat strategist.

“I can’t believe it. They finally admitted it on live TV: The prosecution of President Trump was an organized effort by the Democratic Party ‘resistance.’ Lawfare is real. The justice system was weaponized against President Trump,” explained Scott Jennings.

https://conservativefiringline.com/...against-trump-was-all-party-resistance-video/

We've known it all along and said so.

Scott Jennings is a Republican mouthpiece. His view is just short of the felon's bizarre logic.

 

[Rotadom]

Every time trump loses, Rightguide goes on a spree of deflection threads.

 

[PaxNurgle]

The problem is, he is not intellectually sophisticated enough to differentiate between "holding someone accountable for breaking the law" and "Lawfare." Basically, he believes that the president should have carte blance and be above the law- just like in a dictatorship. He fails to understand that the United States government was not set up this way.

I've tried many times to explain this to him but... some children aren't mentally capable of understanding such concepts. Their brains aren't developed enough yet.

 

[Bray123]

Is 'lawfare' like 'warfare' but without the war? Using proper legal means instead?

MAGAts prefer the war part. They keep telling us how many guns they have and how many Dems will die in a conflict.

 

[Saint_Ann]

The problem is, he is not intellectually sophisticated enough to differentiate between "holding someone accountable for breaking the law" and "Lawfare." Basically, he believes that the president should have carte blance and be above the law- just like in a dictatorship. He fails to understand that the United States government was not set up this way.

I've tried many times to explain this to him but... some children aren't mentally capable of understanding such concepts. Their brains aren't developed enough yet.

What did you commies call it when the Republicans used it against the Clinton's?

 

[HisArpy]

The problem is, he is not intellectually sophisticated enough to differentiate between "holding someone accountable for breaking the law" and "Lawfare." Basically, he believes that the president should have carte blance and be above the law- just like in a dictatorship. He fails to understand that the United States government was not set up this way.

I've tried many times to explain this to him but... some children aren't mentally capable of understanding such concepts. Their brains aren't developed enough yet.

Except the President has immunity.

Which means the everything you say is false and more of the same political lawfare that was just exposed.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Except the President has immunity.

Which means the everything you say is false and more of the same political lawfare that was just exposed.

Does this "absolute immunity" apply to nullifying Constitutional Amendments via "executive order"?

If it does not, where do you draw the line? Hmmm?

 

[DeluxAuto]

We've known it all along and said so.

Except the President has immunity.

Which means the everything you say is false and more of the same political lawfare that was just exposed.

Did you idiots get to the part where she doesn't admit it at all and actually says, "it was a bonehead move by Bragg?"

 

[Politruk]

The problem is, he is not intellectually sophisticated enough to differentiate between "holding someone accountable for breaking the law" and "Lawfare." Basically, he believes that the president should have carte blance and be above the law- just like in a dictatorship. He fails to understand that the United States government was not set up this way.

Nixon thought that way -- that he was just like Louis XIV, only four years at a time. "When the President does it, that means it is not illegal."

That attitude re-emerged in the W years -- Cheney had been on Nixon's team and absorbed that view of presidential power and was eager to re-assert it.

 

[Rightguide]

Does this "absolute immunity" apply to nullifying Constitutional Amendments via "executive order"?

If it does not, where do you draw the line? Hmmm?

Give us an example of this nullification.

 

[Politruk]

Give us an example of this nullification.

Birthright citizenship.

 

[Rightguide]

Birthright citizenship.

That is not a "constitutional amendment." See Rob's claim. You're talking about a belief that is not founded in history or law.

 

[Politruk]

That is not a "constitutional amendment." See Rob's claim. You're talking about a belief that is not founded in history or law.

Of course birthright citizenship is founded in history and law. Every court has said for well over a century that that is what the 14th Amendment means.

 

[Rebel5soul]

Of course birthright citizenship is founded in history and law. Every court has said for well over a century that that is what the 14th Amendment means.

The reality is is that it's never been tested in the current context.

 

[Politruk]

The reality is is that it's never been tested in the current context.

The current context is no different from any context that has existed since 1866.

 

[Lazaran]

Every time trump loses, Rightguide goes on a spree of deflection threads.

It’s definitely “a tell” AND a neurotic tic.



We. Told. Them. So.

 

[Politruk]

Dem Strategist Admits On Live Television Lawfare Against Trump Was All Party ‘Resistance’ (Video)​

Lie. Scott Jennings is no Dem strategist.

 

[PaxNurgle]

What did you commies call it when the Republicans used it against the Clinton's?

If there was legitimate evidence to use it against the Clintons then it was the workings of justice- not "Lawfare". Yes, much of what the Clintons did was shady and illegal and yes there should have been legal consequences for it.

But let's be clear, what Trump has done is far worse than having a sleazy affair with an intern, and is far more blatantly illegal; in a healthy and fully functional democratic, Constitutional based American government, it would be defined as treasonous in fact. By all accounts he should not even have been allowed to legally seek office after Jan 6, 2021.

And yet, somehow you think everything Trump did was perfectly okay, and yet think Clinton should have been removed from office for slutting around with some intern?? Seriously?

Mind blowing, the hypocrisy and outright STUPIDITY I see masquerading as political discourse on this forum.

 

[Saint_Ann]

If there was legitimate evidence to use it against the Clintons then it was the workings of justice- not "Lawfare". Yes, much of what the Clintons did was shady and illegal and yes there should have been legal consequences for it.

But let's be clear, what Trump has done is far worse than having a sleazy affair with an intern, and is far more blatantly illegal; in a healthy and fully functional democratic, Constitutional based American government, it would be defined as treasonous in fact. By all accounts he should not even have been allowed to legally seek office after Jan 6, 2021.

And yet, somehow you think everything Trump did was perfectly okay, and yet think Clinton should have been removed from office for slutting around with some intern?? Seriously?

Mind blowing, the hypocrisy and outright STUPIDITY I see masquerading as political discourse on this forum.

Clintongate was more than cigar fucking.

 

[PaxNurgle]

Except the President has immunity.

NOT ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION. He most certainly does not. Not in America. Maybe in your fantasy dictatorship- I'm pretty sure in North Korea the president has immunity. The U.S., unlike North Korea, has a legally binding Constitution that places limits on the president's power. You know, so someone like Trump can't come along and get away with the crap he has pulled.

Maybe you should enroll in a remedial US Civics class. You really might learn something.

 

[stxjimmy]

NOT ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION. He most certainly does not. Not in America. Maybe in your fantasy dictatorship- I'm pretty sure in North Korea the president has immunity. The U.S., unlike North Korea, has a legally binding Constitution that places limits on the president's power. You know, so someone like Trump can't come along and get away with the crap he has pulled.

Maybe you should enroll in a remedial US Civics class. You really might learn something.

Maybe if he wants to pontificate about the law he should go to law school.

 

[HisArpy]

NOT ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION. He most certainly does not. Not in America. Maybe in your fantasy dictatorship- I'm pretty sure in North Korea the president has immunity. The U.S., unlike North Korea, has a legally binding Constitution that places limits on the president's power. You know, so someone like Trump can't come along and get away with the crap he has pulled.

Maybe you should enroll in a remedial US Civics class. You really might learn something.

Which is NOT what the SCOTUS just decided.

You really need to learn stuff before you shoot off your mouth.