You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
1

[–] 19016942? [S] 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Do you jump on them right away and scatter the flock or do you encircle them and corral them before the pack takes its prey?

I hate to ruin your metaphors but if the individuals are truly guilty of the crimes stated, such as treason, child trafficking, pedophilia, or even cannibalism; do we really think it will take an exaggerated dance to convince the public? The more we feel lke we have to "set up" the optics, the more it makes me disbelieve in the accusation. If they're truly evil enough, then it will be easy and obvious to any person, no matter the speed in which we reveal information

0
0

[–] 19016976? ago 

Ignore the optics. I’m talking about the legal net that’s closing on them. You could smear every one with public disclosure and it would be a clear abuse of power and you’d have to throw out all of the evidence and we would know who was bad and who was good with no recourse to address it.

How does intelligence become evidence?

Remember how this all works. You have to have parallel discovery. That’s a mountain to climb of its own. You can’t just reach into the nsa database and star rounding people up. That would shred the very foundations of our legal system.

0
1

[–] 19017026? [S] 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

lol, if there's true, provable child slavery, cannibalism, or pedophilia, it would be open and shut. You've just gotten so full of yourself or so turned off by how people react that you don't think it would be proof enough. If theres solid evidence of this stuff, it would be an open and shut case. But it's not. That evidence just does't exist. Please spare me the longwinded "BUH BUH BUH we have Z and Y and Z". We all know, perfectly well, what convincible evidence is, and it just doesnt exist at the moment.