>>4644386 (LB)
of course we are 99.9999% sure that they are not,
Q saying that only two of the tweets were there referenced to the screen cap in the post to which Q linked.
The interests of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts do not include railroading someone. Evidence and testimony are sufficient to bring this case. The likely outcome : 'continued without a finding' with probation (of next to nothing) for one year pending dismissal for lack of sufficient evidence. Anything else would go against long established precedence. Not a law fag.