@bri_seven
-
It is a real question. There isn't much a person can do if they are facing fabricated evidence from the government. We've seen this most often from individual police or police departments, and some people have been exonerated after evidence planting became too obvious. (caught on camera for example)
But what about planting digital evidence? That would be harder to contest. I think backup snapshots might be the only option.
-
It is a real question. There isn't much a person can do if they are facing fabricated evidence from the government. We've seen this most often from individual police or police departments, and some people have been exonerated after evidence planting became too obvious. (caught on camera for example)
But what about planting digital evidence? That would be harder to contest. I think backup snapshots might be the only option.
If I were a high profile person who might be targeted for political reasons I would think about these questions.
Being just a little paranoid and not at all high profile I'm thinking about them anyways.
-
F myrmepropagandist shared this topic
-
If I were a high profile person who might be targeted for political reasons I would think about these questions.
Being just a little paranoid and not at all high profile I'm thinking about them anyways.
Nonetheless I think looking back at what Patel has done in the past, the ideas he's platformed, what he considers credible, how he arrives at truth could shed some light on what he is likely doing now.
Looking to the past has the advantage of discovery, we can determine how effective his "investigative methods" were, and if they had flaws how they functioned.
Then look for the same patterns in new and unverified information.
-
Nonetheless I think looking back at what Patel has done in the past, the ideas he's platformed, what he considers credible, how he arrives at truth could shed some light on what he is likely doing now.
Looking to the past has the advantage of discovery, we can determine how effective his "investigative methods" were, and if they had flaws how they functioned.
Then look for the same patterns in new and unverified information.
We've stepped out of a set of now irrelevant expectations that, if the FBI were to tell us something in press conference, even if it tuned out to be shaded by omission or exaggerated it would at least have some evidence to back it up. Since at some point lawyers would argue over it and it would look bad to be on the losing side of those arguments.