Two Big Republican Lies Bite the Dust This Week

Trump "Spying on Me" Case Falls Apart as Sussman Acquitted

Not a "Speck of Proof" in Sarah Palin's Libel Case Against the New York Times

Two Republican Liars Lose their Court Battles

Everything that comes out of former President 45's mouth is a lie.  Everything.  Even his breath.  

The accusation that his campaign was illegally "spied" on, going back to the Obama adminstration, which was nothing but a diversion to attract attention away from the reality that the Russians had helped Trump's campaign in a big way, fell apart this week as Michael Sussman was acquitted in the first case brought to trial by Special Counsel John Durham.  Sussman was the key to the whole accusation, so it is pretty clear that there's nothing to investigate.  Durham has had three years to come up with something, short of actually making stuff up, which is exactly what the former President did when he originally made the accusation.  He has less to go on now than he did when he started. 

Those Republicans who bought into this tripe are "suckers," to use one of the former President's favorite terms of derision.  It's so obvious that this was a diversion, and that there was absolutely no evidence to support the accusation, that even some GOP politicians, most notably Mitch McConnell, have gone to great lengths to avoid comment.  

The fact that the government has to go through the motions to finish all of this out, at a cost of millions to taxpayers, when anyone involved, including the attorneys on their side, know there's nothing there, is an insult to the justice system and to those of us who are watching this happen, wondering how some people in a major political party got to be so absolutely, bottomlessly stupid.  

Then There's Sarah Palin

Sarah Palin, sued the New York Times for libel.  It's hard to imagine that a former governor would be so ignorant of the law, and how the courts work, to file a lawsuit without any evidence to prove the case.  It's even harder to imagine what attorney would take the case, except for the money involved in what has to be some pretty fat legal fees.  

In Palin's case, not being a lawyer, and taking note of her political perspective, suing the Times might be something to do for political grandstanding or even just to try and get even.  But Palin resigned as Governor of Alaska because of the inordinate amount of money the state was having to spend because of her multiple ethics violations, largely related to her own incompetence as governor.  She interpreted Times reporting as a personal attack, as she did everything else, seemingly incapable of recognizing her own incompetence, lack of experience and personal abrasiveness.  

If Palin were a Democrat, the right wing media would label her as a "snowflake" for whining about something in a newspaper.  So the lawsuit was dismissed without any merit, which was followed by accusations that the judge was biased against her and did not conduct the case in accordance with the rules.  But the court record showed that everything had been done correctly and in order, and Palin had no evidence to support the further accusations.  

I've heard her called worse things than a snowflake. 

Republican Expectations:  Expect Favors from Republican Judges

In both of these cases, there's a clear expectation that judges will rule in favor of the politician, not based on the law, but based on the judge's political preference. FP 45 has openly whined about the fact that judges he's appointed to the federal bench don't seem inclined to do him favors when he needs them, especially when he wanted to throw out votes against him to make himself believe he actually won the election in 2020.  That appears to be the main theme of his judicial appointments. 

With Palin, it seems that she thinks they should rule in her favor because they like her and they are on her side politically.  The law is meaningless to people like this, so why is it that we think they're fit for office?  Neither of them had any political experience at all and it showed in their complete disrespect for the rule of law, and their complete ignorance of it, leading to incompetence, corruption and in FP 45's case, losing an election, in Palin's case, forced to resign.

Do people actually bother to look at this stuff?  Can they see this?  I don't understand why it doesn't matter and what they think the outcome will be when these people are in charge.  We'd be a walkover for a Russian or Chinese takeover.