You had to dig hard huh? Don't you ever get tired of peddling that nonsense? You had to go to a2014 article in the Morrocco World News? You missed this from the Washington Post?
The couple and their co-workers had been incarcerated since May 1, 2014, on child abuse and trafficking charges
Or this from CBS?
Authorities arrested Hijazi, her husband and six others in May 2014 on charges of abusing children that were widely dismissed as bogus
The first sentence in the NY Times article?
After three years in detention, the Egyptian-American aid worker Aya Hijazi was cleared of child abuse and human trafficking charges in Cairo on Sunday
Missed the Associated Press story, huh?
Earlier this week a court acquitted Hijazi of charges of child abuse that were widely dismissed as bogus by human rights groups and U.S. officials.
Probably didn't get to Reuters
Cairo court acquitted on Sunday an Egyptian-American woman and seven others who worked with street children and had been detained for nearly three years on human trafficking charges, in a case that had raised concerns in Washington.
None of that explains what is at my link. You seem desperate. As usual. I gave the explicit details and the explicit details are what hurts your feelings. God you suck at shilling.
Why would you being a idiot hurt my feelings? Do you really think she was convicted? Is that an actual innocent mistake? You know that's completely false right?
Because I have trouble believing it's an innocent mistake when you claimed to have digged hard into this case. Because by jumping to 2014, you seem to skip over all of the following
That the evidence was weak to nonexistent, (the boy in the initial on was actually found elsewhere in Egypt.)
The claim they "admissions" in the case came about after being beaten by police
Years of civil and human rights groups advocating in her behalf
The claim she was only arrested because Egypt was cracking down on civil society and all NGOs, especially ones with American funding,
Egypt delaying her trial again and again, (perhaps because they knew once they went to court, the evidence wouldn't hold up and the case would fall apart. )
The verdict of this case being decided in February, but Egypt wouldn't read the verdict for weeks and kept her in jail. *The case not even going to a verdict because EGYPT DROPPED ALL CHARGES AND SHE WAS NEVER CONVICTED OF A CRIME AND IS NOW OFFICIALLY NOT ACCUSED OF ANY CRIME?
Also I was quoting the first mention of the charges. From Reuters.
Hijazi and Hassanein were arrested in May 2014. They were accused of "organizing a group for the purposes of human trafficking, using children to disturb the public peace and order in protests, and holding them for sexual exploitation."
All that is the heart of what was known about this case in American media and easily accessible.
Let's quibble over legal terms and ignore the new details. All they have to do is show that Trump secured the release of one of Clinton's child porn producers and he's toast in 2020.
@whatonearth she wasn't even acquitted. It's much stronger than that. They dropped the charges meaning they no longer believe in the original charges.
And The_Crux, there were no "new details." What you are calling new details are fake accusations and confessions that were beaten out of them. This was known to anyone who followed this case.
All they have to do is show that Trump secured the release of one of Clinton's child porn producers and he's toast in 2020.
view the rest of the comments →
Are_we_sure ago
Good for Trump.
You had to dig hard huh? Don't you ever get tired of peddling that nonsense? You had to go to a2014 article in the Morrocco World News? You missed this from the Washington Post?
Or this from CBS?
The first sentence in the NY Times article?
Missed the Associated Press story, huh?
Probably didn't get to Reuters
The_Crux ago
None of that explains what is at my link. You seem desperate. As usual. I gave the explicit details and the explicit details are what hurts your feelings. God you suck at shilling.
Are_we_sure ago
Why would you being a idiot hurt my feelings? Do you really think she was convicted? Is that an actual innocent mistake? You know that's completely false right?
Because I have trouble believing it's an innocent mistake when you claimed to have digged hard into this case. Because by jumping to 2014, you seem to skip over all of the following
That the evidence was weak to nonexistent, (the boy in the initial on was actually found elsewhere in Egypt.)
The claim they "admissions" in the case came about after being beaten by police
Years of civil and human rights groups advocating in her behalf
The claim she was only arrested because Egypt was cracking down on civil society and all NGOs, especially ones with American funding,
Egypt delaying her trial again and again, (perhaps because they knew once they went to court, the evidence wouldn't hold up and the case would fall apart. )
The verdict of this case being decided in February, but Egypt wouldn't read the verdict for weeks and kept her in jail. *The case not even going to a verdict because EGYPT DROPPED ALL CHARGES AND SHE WAS NEVER CONVICTED OF A CRIME AND IS NOW OFFICIALLY NOT ACCUSED OF ANY CRIME?
Also I was quoting the first mention of the charges. From Reuters.
All that is the heart of what was known about this case in American media and easily accessible.
The_Crux ago
Let's quibble over legal terms and ignore the new details. All they have to do is show that Trump secured the release of one of Clinton's child porn producers and he's toast in 2020.
Are_we_sure ago
@whatonearth she wasn't even acquitted. It's much stronger than that. They dropped the charges meaning they no longer believe in the original charges.
And The_Crux, there were no "new details." What you are calling new details are fake accusations and confessions that were beaten out of them. This was known to anyone who followed this case.
One of the dumbest things I have read on voat and that is saying something. Meanwhile back in the real world. http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2017/04/21/ap_17111559985081_custom-d338b857cd6be7f44e297f07af484c0989c9e76a-s800-c85.jpg
whatonearth ago
Saying that someone was acquitted (found not guilty) rather than convicted (found guilty) is not QUIBBLING OVER LEGAL TERMS! Holy moly!