Rottcodd

That's pretty much what it seems to amount to.

All of the focus has been astroturfed onto the fact that the leaks came from Russian sources, and away from the content of the leaks. The clear (though of course unstated) implication is that the wrong isn't the DNC's corruption, but Russia's self-serving exposure of that corruption.

I've never bought this spin.

Certainly Russia had a hand in getting the leaks to Wikileaks, and certainly because they had an obvious vested interest in the US electing Putin's sycophant Trump.

But I've never seen or heard of any specific evidence that any of it was "disinformation" - just the repeated unsubstantiated claim that it was. It appears to be exactly what it looks like - a detailed record of the DNC's overtly fraudulent maneuvering to torpedo the Sanders campaign in order to ensure the nomination of Clinton, or more precisely, to torpedo the campaign of a sincere progressive who would likely threaten the ongoing flow of big donor soft money in order to ensure the nomination of a transparently corrupt neo-lib who could be counted upon to serve establishment interests and keep the soft money flowing. And notably, early on that was how the DNC treated it themselves, even going so far as to issue a public apology to the Sanders campaign "for the inexcusable remarks made over email" that did not reflect the DNC's "steadfast commitment to neutrality during the nominating process."

So what it actually all boils down to was that the DNC really was acting in a manner contrary to the public good, driven by their own greed and corruption, and the fact that Russia had a hand in exposing that in order to serve their own interests doesn't alter that fact.

No matter how one slices it, the bulk of the blame for the whole thing rests squarely on the DNC. Yes - it served Russian interests to reveal the information, but had the DNC simply been operating in a legitimate, honest and neutral way, instead of self-servingly and dishonestly, there would've been nothing to reveal.

Curiously enough, I didn't delete it. I was just scanning back through my posts when I saw "deleted by creator" on one of them, and since I know I haven't deleted anything, I came to see what that was all about.

There's an option to undelete, so I did that, though unfortunately that means that yours is now the post without context. Sorry. 😅

If only the Supreme Court was an institution of law rather than a tool of corruption and ideological bias, there would be no question of how they would, and in fact must, rule.

The entire process of impeachment and removal from office is predicated on the idea that sitting presidents are immune from prosecution and ex-presidents are not.

It really is just that simple. The presumption right from the start, and in fact most of the actual point of the impeachment process, is that immunity only applies while the person is in office. As soon as they're out of office, they're "liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law." (US Constitution, Article I, Section 3).

But sadly, there's no telling how this wholly corrupted and compromised court will actually rule.

I would agree that Americans need to make "informed decisions" in the upcoming election - for instance, they need to be "informed" of the fact that one of the candidates is a convicted felon.

And on another note, here's that "politically motivated" thing again.

Just as I noted the other day, when Alito trotted it out, how is there even a notion that it matters?

Let's just run with the assumption that the prosecution was "politically motivated." So what? The trial worked exactly the way a trial is meant to work - the jury heard the evidence and rendered a verdict based on the evidence.

What on earth does the supposed motivation of the prosecutor have to do with anything?

I'm pretty sure that if he took his shirt off, we'd just see how much he looks like Baron Harkonnen.

Of course he wants immunity for cops - he dreams of the day when he'll have his own murder squads and be able to simply have anyone who might dare to oppose him killed.

And so do his supporters.

And so do cops.

And just the other day, the Israelis were wringing their hands over the fact that 11 Israeli soldiers died in one day, but here they are, right back to killing Palestinian civilians at many times that rate, pretty much every single day.

It's as if they've made sociopathy official policy.

Trump is owned by Russia.

It really is just that simple - Putin and his oligarch cronies have bought and paid for him.

I know you are but what am I?

Not at all.

For instance, I also don't like petulant techbro libertarians with political views that are warped by their desperate, yearning need to try to compensate for their inferiority complexes.

The whole "politically motivated" complaint is such a brazenly dishonest diversion that it just astonishes me that people use it, much less get away with it.

Alito told a filmmaker posing as a conservative activist that ProPublica “gets a lot of money” to dig up “any little thing they can find,” suggesting the reporting was politically motivated.

How does that even matter?

The simple fact of the matter is that, whatever their motivations might be, people either are or are not going to find evidence of corruption, and the one and only thing that determines that is whether or not such evidence exists.

Alito, were he so inclined, could've very easily have made it so that nobody, no matter how determined or for what reason, could've uncovered evidence of his corruption. All he had to do was not be corrupt.

If there was no corruption there could be no evidence of corruption, and then even the most sinister and underhanded attempt to make him look bad would fail.

On the other hand, if there is evidence there to be found, then the motivations of the people who uncover it are entirely irrelevant - the ONLY thing that matters is what they uncovered.

Seriously, how does the assertion that something like this is "politically motivated" even have the illusion of credence? How is it met with anything other than a blank look and a "So what?"