>But I agree with other posters, he is capable enough to clean his leaking, but not his kiddie shit ?
As I wrote in my post, he wasn't capable enough to clean up a lot of his leaking. They found various kinds of evidence. A lot of it was covered up, but a lot wasn't.
>Also he was never recognised for the kiddie stuff before ?
I would bet the majority of people who download child pornography probably never end up getting on anyone's radar. Or at least a large percentage don't.
>Why not? They claim end-to-encryption is protecting pedophiles... And it's their selling point. That trench of absolute human shit is their marketing. - For impact, they need to sell it over the value of e2e for the citizen.
Sure, I don't like that one bit, but it's a huge leap to go from that to planting child pornography evidence on a suspect's computer. Many people do legitimately believe encryption is a net negative and enables criminals like pedophiles and terrorists. I don't agree with them, but this is a belief people have. On the other hand, there is no belief or rationale that could ever justify planting child pornography on someone's computer.
Are you suggesting that this is a double-layered conspiracy - not only a way to get a leaker convicted, but also a way to make those who use encryption seem like pedophiles? If so, you're going to need to provide even more evidence than if you were just posing the first claim. I could think of like four more layers of conspiracy theories I could pile on top of that, but they're also meaningless without evidence. I could spin your comment as you being part of a conspiracy theory to protect pedophiles; also meaningless.
>Planting that shit seems a perfect candidate to get a no questions asked lock up. And lets be honest, if its true, we would all burn his balls attached to him and than let him go to prison.
Sure, that'd be one of the best ways to secure a conviction if you're trying to think of what sort of evidence to plant, but I don't see how it relates to your other points or to the likelihood of it being true. Conspiring to crash planes into financial and government buildings on 9/11 would be one of the best ways to start a war in the Middle East if you're trying to think of some casus belli, but that doesn't mean that's what actually happened.
I would recommend reading the documents. Yes, some are long, but they're much more informative than completely blind speculation from HN commenters going off of nothing but a thread title.