Because I don’t like ignorant Americans calling Ukraine (or any other country) a “corrupt shithole” while arguing that’s it’s OK that criminal oligarchs (who organized a massive drug cartel with deaths in the 10s of thousands) should avoid all criminal liability and retain enough money to live opulent lifestyles. You are really in so deep that you can’t understand this?
I also don’t like people who call others lemmings who like eating shit just because they happen to be be a more sceptical and are more critical about proganada polemics.
P.S. I said I currently live in Ukraine. Does that mean I haven’t lived/worked/studied in the US for many years? I’ve even been to Flint multiple times! I loved how well the US judicial system worked when all those poor black people got life long poisoning.
Not very “free speech” of you I must add.
Because I don’t like ignorant Americans calling Ukraine (or any other country) a “corrupt shithole” while arguing that’s it’s OK that criminal oligarchs (who organized a massive drug cartel with deaths in the 10s of thousands) should avoid all criminal liability and retain enough money to live opulent lifestyles. You are really in so deep that you can’t understand this?
No one has said any of this. You’re arguing with an imaginary straw man. None of this is okay, but if it were simply due to the American justice system being corrupt, it would be a much easier fix.
You’re basically looking at the roof of a house leaking water, and your proposed solution is to put a bucket under the leak. While I’m trying to explain to you that the whole damn roof is falling apart and just putting a bucket in one place isn’t really going to help in the long run.
I made a relatively calm (considering your shit eating lemmings rant), jovial remark about how a clear case of corruption (on an outcome basis) might undermine people’s view of legal proceedings against a rich, well-connected celebrity/businessman.
You then went on a rant about how I am wrong to view the sackler case as an example of judicial corruption and that it was no big deal that some oligarchs who engaged in mass killings escaped criminal liability.
Where is the strawman?
You said I am not making sense. Can you in one (somewhat short) sentence say what I need to understand or admit to, in order for my agreement to make sense?
clear case of corruption (on an outcome basis)
First of all, this makes zero sense. That’s like saying
clear case of murder (on an outcome basis)
You can’t prove murder based on the fact that someone is dead. You need to demonstrate that the killing was premeditated, the killer planned to kill the victim and executed their plan. Otherwise it’s manslaughter or negligent homicide. Similarly, how the fuck can you claim a case is a clear example of corruption just based on the outcome? Do you need me to provide the dictionary definition of corruption?
The Sackler family are scum, but your understanding of that case seems limited. They utilized financial engineering to move the money offshore, thus placing it beyond the jurisdiction of the courts. As far as the legal system is concerned, that money doesn’t exist, because it can’t be proven that they possess it. This is frustrating, but it’s legally sound. It’s not an issue with the courts, it’s an issue with the legislature and their inability/unwillingness to craft laws to prevent rich people from hiding their money like this.
Furthermore, the achieved settlement of $40 billion over 9 years is absolutely massive, and it would be difficult to argue that anything else would be more beneficial to the victims of the opioid epidemic. Getting the Sacklers sent to prison would feel good, but it wouldn’t directly help anyone suffering from opioid addiction. Additionally, the Supreme Court already overturned the original settlement earlier this year, ruling that the Sacklers were still liable and that the settlement could not proceed as previously agreed. So whatever bothered you about that ruling, it has been overturned. It’s strange how American judges can never seem to agree with each other, despite your claim that they are compromised/corrupt.
Did you have difficulty understanding what I wrote? Let me clarify.
THE SUPREME COURT OVERRULED THE RULING THAT YOU CLAIM DEMONSTRATED CORRUPTION. IF THE COURT IS CORRUPT, WHY ARE THEY OVERRULING THE OTHER COURT THAT YOU CLAIM MADE A CORRUPT DECISION? WHICH COURT IS CORRUPT? BASED ON WHAT EVIDENCE?
