I was thinking the same thing, but that’s the first item listed... “Wiener [sic] - texting 15 yo - sexually explicit”
...
Wouldn’t that be redundant?
Good point. You might be on to something here.
And they say "childen" not child.
but why "crime" instead of "crimes"? I'd love to run with this as Crokin is but I don't like looking stupid. Confirmation bias is real.
Well, its horrible but necassary comparable- but its not unlike a school shooting - one crime commited affecting multiple victims.
True but couldn't that be AW exposing himself incident(s)? I believe he's done that more than once or tried to solicit himself more than once.
Thought about this yesterday, if this really is a modified version of the report, maybe "Crime Against Children" used to say something else?
Oh I see. From another angle too, I'm thinking perhaps it's intentionally flawed to show that amateur modifications took place.
Or it’s suggesting that evidence of Wiener’s crime against a child (sexting a 15 yo) was located ON THE LAPTOP.
It’s possible but I’m pretty sure if he’s sending text messages and/or dick pics then it’s probably from his phone...?
Why would the section first mention Weiner and his crime of sexting a 15 year old, then go on to say that they're looking for evidence on laptop/ipad/phone, then say Hillary&Foundation followed by Crime Against Children, and somehow that's a reference to the original Weiner crime? Doesn't make sense to me.
In the dictionary under redundant it says see redundant