140
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 07 Feb 2026
140 points (98.6% liked)
Asklemmy
52873 readers
521 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
Agreed, and furthermore, it shouldn't matter at all. If the worst Russian Intelligence can do is use real evidence to prove a crime was committed, that's an easily solvable problem both by not committing crimes and by prosecuting crimes committed with transparent, due process.
It really is a very silly argument.
"Your honor, in my defense, the guy who saw me shoot the victim, called the police, and submitted some of the damning evidence to them was a known mafia member, untrustworthy, and had committed crimes against me in the past."
"Okay, and what do you have to say about all of this other corroborated evidence from trustworthy sources?"
"Well they wouldn't have found it if he hadn't pointed it out!"
I don't think he was a Russian spy, but I am also sure that it's irrelevant.
And we could prosecute them as foreign agents in addition to pedos. Complying with komprobant isn't an excuse