[kelnos]

>> Is it more believable that this guy circumvented their security, wiped his hard drive, but forgot about the life-sentence inducing child porn on his other hard drives? Or that is was planted by people who didn't like him, needed a scapegoat, needed a conviction, and had an easy way to do it.

> Neither, because they're both contrived strawman scenarios

Except that the first scenario isn't a strawman, or even contrived: it's exactly what the CIA/FBI/prosecution is telling us to believe.

While the second scenario certainly smacks of "conspiracy theory", it's trivially doable by the agencies in question, who have motive to do so, and incredibly difficult for the defense to even allege, let alone gather evidence to support. I absolutely agree with and am sympathetic to the idea that this is just conspiracy theory nonsense, but... would anyone really be surprised if it were true? I certainly wouldn't be.

[meowface]

>Except that the first scenario isn't a strawman, or even contrived: it's exactly what the CIA/FBI/prosecution is telling us to believe.

No, it isn't. It is if you were to quickly skim the NYT article, perhaps, but that's not the actual story. The real story is in the court documents.