Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

Yes, it went to full trial in the senate. Where he was ultimately not found guilty. The legal process played out.

But not before the prosecuting team was found to have been doctoring evidence against him. By adding a blue checkmark to tweets, they were then using to try and convict him. Its what happens when people try to use the ends justifies the means thinking.



sort by: page size:

What happened with the trial?

But wasn't he found guilty?

Wasn't this trial an example of him being held accountable?

And after that they kept investigating right? Prosecuted his clients and backers, right? Right?

Has he been proven guilty?

He did some thing wrong on Twitter, so instead of government prosecuting him for that, he was prosecuted for an unrelated charge?

He's currently on trial, too.

He was proven guilty. Once you're proven guilty, you're guilty until proven innocent.

It was proved in a court of law that no. That’s not all he did.

If you call technicality the finding (confirmed by justice) of thousands of messages between the judge of the case and the prosecution plotting how to convict him despite nonexistent evidence, then yes.

The disgraced judge then immediately turned to use his new fame to enter politics. A complete sham.


I'm sure his lawyer did.

No, he was not convicted of that, only accused.

Was he guilty?

A jury of his peers? Seems like they did and found him innocent.

I've read it as a time reference. He got trialed after the conference.

Also when his lawyer accidentally provided the evidence it showed he was guilty.

I guess the question was whether he was finally found to be guilty by the jury.

I'm so curious as to what evidence there is or isn't. I hope he is re-tried unless there is some bombshell evidence, as I believe he is guilty from what I know as a laymen consumer of the media content..

No, guilty after proven guilty, which he has been (he has also admitted to it)
next

Legal | privacy