Especially for something socially embarrassing. That's just building a blackmail database. Sure, porn use isn't going to significantly compromise a lot of people, but for some that could end marriages and careers.
And currency, and people, and just things in general.
Do all the things he says not to do.
What, "progressive" isn't synonymous with "the elites" or "the political establishment"?
The only enlightened path for a Real Objective Thinker is to accept that anything might exist! If not you're just engaging in the same mystical thinking as those people who believe sky-daddy is all powerful and all good, but is just working in mysterious ways all those times good people need help and nothing happens. It's exactly the same you hypocrite. /s
Long ago I saw him speak at a local gathering of humanists and even despite believing that atheism was a morally superior path and that religion was a harmful plague on humanity, still came away completely repulsed by him. He just seemed like an egotistical jerk with not very complex thoughts on society. I believe he was almost entirely focused on Islam rather than the more proximally harmful Christianity. It's not at all surprising to me that he ended up where he is.
So we need more political calls to ignore court decisions, to degrade judicial authority from an illegitimate and corrupt institution.
John Roberts is scared of his power being questioned and has been for a long time. The conservative "judicial" movement has put a lot of effort into acquiring the power to rule as politicians in black robes and doesn't want anyone to take that away. That fear occasionally comes out in him giving token but ineffectual resistance to the bad decisions of his conservative teammates, but more often comes out as him criticizing anyone that would dare question why they should be listened to. Never does it involve actual efforts to bolster the court's legitimacy and curb its blatant corruption.
And elect him president so it's legal.
The only thing that surprises me about someone assassinating a CEO of a company that regularly ruins lives is that it's not more common.
The losses on banks’ balance sheets from the deal are also biting into potential bonuses for some bankers, the report said.
They should just be fired. This wasn't a deal that looked like it had good potential but didn't pan out. It was obviously a bad buy right from the start and the guy who was going to run the private enterprise was both spread too thin to run it well, was increasingly erratic in his behavior, and wasn't any good at the business he was taking over. Everyone knew it was a bad deal at the time.
That a literal case of stealing state secrets and refusing to return them could possibly be shielded by this ruling demonstrates just how insane it is.
You're still dodging the question. From over a week ago now.