5 ms·

You should read the indictment. That porn was not planted. https://www.scribd.com/document/379346745/Joshua-Adam-Schulte https://www.scribd.com/document/379346

• djsumdog 8y ago
  eh, you should still be skeptical. This is a CIA contractor/employee we're talking about here. Child pornography is an interesting situation because no one outside of the justice department and a few key people can even legally examine the evidence. It shouldn't be beyond the realm of believeability to this bad actors created these charges in retaliation.
• cortesoft 8y ago
  How would an indictment prove or disprove whether it was planted?
  • deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
• LMYahooTFY 8y ago
  I read the indictment, but I don't see how you can be certain it was not planted. He apparently saved IRC logs of their entire quest to obtain child porn....? Using his name as a handle? Impossible? No, but do you really think this is not questionable at all?
  • Cacti 8y ago
    Did you read the part about the VM he was (allegedly) hiding?
    • zeth___ 8y ago
      "Yes your honour, we totally found this." "No your honour, we lost the evidence since then."
      • Cacti 8y ago
        Do you actually have an argument as to how they would fake the VM in a manner that would withstand the analysis of the defendants experts?
        • valuearb 8y ago
          Can't the CIA hide trojans on unused sectors of storage that can't be detected by any known anti virus program? You don't think they can't fake a VM?
• wpdev_63 8y ago
  If you really think the guy who leaked highly classified CIA documents that reveals their means of mass surveillance happened to also be a pedophile then you are one naive person. Do yourself a favor and never watch 24-hour news programs.
  • chiefalchemist 8y ago
    Believing he was is believable. But it's only a symptom. Believing the intelligence community never bends the rules is the problem. That belief is the root disease.
    • zeth___ 8y ago
      Which do you think is more likely: 1). A person willing to risk their life for what they believe is right is a pedophile. 2). The CIA plants evidence. After having a look at the things we know the CIA did during my life time, Iran-Contra, I'd say 2 is vastly more likely than 1.
      • ben_w 8y ago
        Despite being certain of 2, I am also certain that they don’t need to plant evidence to make someone’s life hell. Their omniscient surveillance, combined with how many overlapping laws eveyone seems to have, means all they need to do is enumerate the crimes of someone they don’t like and run with it. So, for example, this particular enemy of theirs likes illegal porn? Next one will have something else. This isn’t to say the CIA definitely didn’t plant anything, just that I think doing so is not the only option they will consider sufficient for their desired result. Moral outrage based attacks have happened before; I’m told the FBI’s poison-pen-letter to MLK was being truthful when it claimed that he was adulterous, for example. While the idea that adultary could have such an impact is alien to me, the fact that it was attempted means the FBI thought otherwise at the time. As for option 1? There’s a reason why we cant find them before they break the law. Whatever that reason is, it has to be compatible with someone like that being willing to do something like this.
      • chiefalchemist 8y ago