I'm not a Trump supporter or a member of the alt-right. However, I've read the leaked emails, seen the child-abusing instagram pictures, examined the creepy art, followed the trail of child trafficking "charities," and I know about the pedo logo changes. I don't think the moderators of the alt-right subreddits fabricated all that evidence. At this point, I believe that pizzagate exposed something nefarious and I want to the government to release the contents of Anthony weiner's laptop.
I interned for a lawyer and he always said it was easier to convince a jury that an accused was guilty of something based solely on circumstantial evidence (associations, preferences, lifestyle, job, etc) then with one instance of smoking gun proof. why? He said because it's too hard to fake, whereas you could easily set someone up (entrap) one time for something by planting drugs, CP, domestic abuse complaint or whatever.
Exactly, you can't fake dozens and dozens of circumstances that make people look this guilty... one piece of hard evidence can be both planted and faked. And often is... people go to prison on circumstantial evidence often.
This is widely cited and very true. Most people are convicted on circumstantial evidence.
HOWEVER, and this is the most important part... there has to be proof of a crime. You can't convict someone of murdering a person who you can't identify as missing. You need to have a victim/crime relating to that evidence.
view the rest of the comments →
honormyacanthosis ago
I'm not a Trump supporter or a member of the alt-right. However, I've read the leaked emails, seen the child-abusing instagram pictures, examined the creepy art, followed the trail of child trafficking "charities," and I know about the pedo logo changes. I don't think the moderators of the alt-right subreddits fabricated all that evidence. At this point, I believe that pizzagate exposed something nefarious and I want to the government to release the contents of Anthony weiner's laptop.
FriesischShipping ago
I interned for a lawyer and he always said it was easier to convince a jury that an accused was guilty of something based solely on circumstantial evidence (associations, preferences, lifestyle, job, etc) then with one instance of smoking gun proof. why? He said because it's too hard to fake, whereas you could easily set someone up (entrap) one time for something by planting drugs, CP, domestic abuse complaint or whatever.
islandofdelight ago
Exactly, you can't fake dozens and dozens of circumstances that make people look this guilty... one piece of hard evidence can be both planted and faked. And often is... people go to prison on circumstantial evidence often.
justforthissubverse ago
This is widely cited and very true. Most people are convicted on circumstantial evidence.
HOWEVER, and this is the most important part... there has to be proof of a crime. You can't convict someone of murdering a person who you can't identify as missing. You need to have a victim/crime relating to that evidence.