The story is not news. Last year we heard that the fbi had 100,000 man hours on people making redactions of trumps involvement; the files aren’t even half of them, and there has been NO video released, blurred or otherwise
The wall st journal is a Murdoch shit rag, we cannot trust ANY US media - NYT, Wapo, WSJ, cnn, msnbc, Fox, they are ALL complicit in the coverup, and actively aiding the fascist takeover of the US government
This needs to involve some time in prison for the guilty.
And Pam is most certainly guilty given her little performances in Congress.
BUT THE DOW IS
OVERalmost 50,000 DOL… 50,000 POINTS!
It’s remarkable that they curated it and the files still show that a large portion of the modern far right was somewhere between acquaintances with and funded by and taking orders from a convicted child sex trafficker.
So since they wouldn’t release over half of the documents. We can assume those all have trump and his buddies in them. Millions of documents on those people specifically.
Congress:
The DOJ must provide all the documents, not withold information for sake of saving embarrassment or protecting politicians, and let us see all redactions or they’re breaking the law!
Hey DOJ, the DOJ broke the law! Arrest yourself!
We’re so smart!
Me:
Is anyone surprised
No, absolutely no one.
Trump called in every favour that was owed, used every asset he could to get a second term in the white house, ffs he staged the shooting at that rally so he would win so he could keep those files hidden and considering how much effort there is invested in diversions just to keep everyone’s mind of the files.
I will never understand how the women in this administration cover for the men who raped girls.
I think there’s a complicated kind of fig leaf which is very clearly unethical but it allows these people to retain some dignity.
I’m sure there’s a word for it but in criminal justice everyone needs a lawyer to defend them, even someone accused of awful crimes with very strong positive evidence of their crimes. I’ve heard defense lawyers say that even if they dislike their client, they need to do their very best to defend them or else their lack of defense might be the grounds for an appeal later. That does kinda make sense to me.
The extension of this concept is that everyone gets to make their best argument. Even in business / contractual disputes, both sides have an opportunity to make their best argument, their best version of the truth. “Best version” in this context means, emphasising your best actions and minimising your worst.
I guess this can kind of be corrupted in a way to be “well if I don’t spin this for <asshole> then someone else will”, which is where ethics goes out the window really. As in, someone accused of a crime might be entitled to appropriate defense, but someone who’s been abusing women their entire life is not entitled to have a government official cover up their behavior by obfuscating details or documents. In the same way, often in a professional role your only recourse if you object to something is to resign.
In summary, Bondi is an awful human but this is how I imagine she justifies that.
…because gender doesn’t dictate if someone is ethical or empathetic.
I know
Power hunger and greed come to mind as reasons.
And yet the orange turdsack’s name still appeared more times than the rest of the big names combined… quite telling, ain’t it?
We know.Wait, what?!
No way they would do somethings ng that self serving and I just. More lies… /S
