Excrubulent

No it's not. You need to have a trial to have legal precedent. You can't base a legal precedent on "Those other times were the same I reckon."

Lazy, wrong bullshit like this gets 7 upvotes, how? Brigading.

I feel like it's telling that when you offer up any criticism of Biden, the main reply you get is "sO yOU'd rathEr HAvE tRuMP?!!?"

Well, no. But honestly if the best thing they can say about their guy is that he's better than a blatant fascist then that's pretty damning.

Also if they won't tolerate any criticism because he's a marginal improvement on the worst possible guy, then what they're saying is that they'll allow him to slide all the way down to being about as bad as Trump before they'll do anything about it, and if they'd do that, then they wouldn't do anything about it when he did get there, because the bad guy would be even worse by that point. They are enabling a rightward slide.

Honestly I see elections as voting for your preferred enemy. They are never on our side. How about this, we agree that he's better than Trump and that any reasonable person is forced to vote for him, and then we criticise him because we want better than neoliberal austerity and genocide apologia?

If their answer is no then they don't actually want the world to get better, just not change too much, which is basically the platonic ideal of what they call conservatism.

Listen, Jack, this genocide is the best investment the US makes, period.

South Africa is bringing a case to the ICJ accusing Israel of genocide. This politician is saying he would support that case, and he is being targeted for that position.

He is not saying he would support South Africa in defending against accusations of genocide.

The headline is confusing, especially because of South Africa's history.

It's probably going to be quite hard to prosecute and deliver evidence given that a lot of it will be illegal by its very nature, not to mention unethical to release to the public even as a leak. Also, at least two of them are former US presidents. They are powerful people in general, so it would be very easy for evidence to just disappear into a memory hole, and if you're going after people like this, you need all your ducks in a row.

Like one thing Epstein did was sell himself as a patron of arts & science, so lots of these names will be associated with him for that reason alone. And you could argue it was generally known he was a sleazebag, but you also need a level of tolerance for sleazebags to have a career in hollywood or politics at all.

I know my solution: dismantle the whole rotten fucking system, but the courts are beholden to the same systems of power these people wield. We can't expect much more than a limited hangout from them.