I'm highly suspect of any legal team containing a QAnon extremist, and I'm not using that word lightly or attempting to smear, "the other side." QAnon is a conspiracy that launders traditional blood libel myths with a desired end goal of having Trump lock up the political opposition. You can't be a reputable source and adhere to those beliefs.
Their platform, their rules. Vote with your dollar, support their competitors, etc. Facebook isn't the judicial system, though, and it's ridiculous to even imply it is.
> Deleting only the content suggesting he might be innocent will significantly affect public opinion, regardless of the final outcome of the case.
First were talking, "innocent until proven guilty," now were talking public opinion? You're confusing the judicial system for hearts and minds.
The judicial system is, in effect, highly dependent upon good faith. This can be seen with parking tickets being paid by the wealthy or not stalling the lawsuit until the opposition runs out of money.
So, if a person acts in bad faith against such an incredibly fragile system, then I don't think their title ought to be recognized. And, in my eyes, hoping that the president extra-judicially locks up half of hollywood and his opposition, and then ships them to guantanamo bay, qualifies as acting in bad faith, as it seems to overturn the judicial system.
> start to fill in your own narrative because it's simply convenient?
I'm sure I'm the one seeking convenient narratives, not the group of people who believe in satanic ritual abuse is being conducted by their political enemies because of a guy who used to post semi-anonymously on 8chan. There's not much nuance to be had in that belief system
What next? We should also trust the police - video evidence to the contrary?
No. In fact, I specifically listed instances where they didn't.