politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
The identities of the girls and the birth dates need to be established for this to be the damning evidence people want it to be.
You also need to establish the date the photo was taken. I didn’t read the article so I don’t know if they are analog photos with the date printed or if it’s a digital printed photo that doesn’t have the date. Either way, you need both to establish a crime as opposed to creepy but legal.
The article said very little about the actual photos besides that they existed and that the girls were young. I certainly don’t want to sound like I am in support of Trump, but that is not evidence and it doesn’t say anything.
It is absolutely evidence, but the evidence isn’t conclusive and doesn’t prove anything by itself. If you can get someone to testify that they are in the picture and what date it is, you have a stronger case.
At the very least, if the person in the photo is underage at that time, you can paint a pretty damning picture for the right jury. Furthermore if the person in the photo is underage and testifies to sexual conduct, you have an extremely good case because the fact that there is a picture of them together gives her immense credibility. I’m not a lawyer but I’m pretty sure sexual conduct with a minor has always been sexual assault and illegal so…
There is no evidence. There is testimony about inconclusive evidence. Those photos may or may not exist at all.
Let me give you an example of what this is: I saw a photo of you fucking a child. Is this evidence?
(No, it’s not.)
That last part wasn’t really necessary.
I was under the impression that the DOJ has the ability to confirm the existence of the photos because they have access to the safe or the contents therein.
Maybe I should have read the article. It’s more speculative than I was led to believe from the comments lol
Considering you did not read the article and were Fighting, admittedly, based on Internet comments… I’d say that last part was going easy on you. What we need less of in this world is people pushing information just because it feels good. That’s how we get so much right wing misinformation…. Let’s not be them.