its really not that hard to see how little of a crap COTW gave when editing this, oh my lord lol

YA'LL ARE SO ANGRY AT RICHARD YOU ARE IGNORING THAT THE EVIDENCE PROVIDED WAS OBVIOUSLY EDITED. IF YOU WANT THE VOTE TO STILL COUNT AFTER ITS COMPLETELY CLEAR ITS FAKE, IDK WHATS IN THE WORLD YOU ARE THINKING. BUT WHY, WHY IS IT FAKE? WELL LETS SEE; FIRST OF ALL, COTW'S SCREENSHOTS SIMULTANEOUSLY CLAIM TO BE FROM 2 MONTHS OLD, AND 2 MINUTES OLD. HOW ON EARTH WOULD THAT BE POSSIBLE? WHEN CALLED OUT FOR THIS COTW DELETED THE SCREENSHOT IN QUESTION. TWO DAYS; A POINT THAT KAMI BROUGHT UP IS THAT, IN THE CASE OF A HE-SAID-SHE-SAID SCENARIO, WE MUST TRUST THE ONE WITH THE CLEANER BACKROUND. WHILE THAT IS A FAIR STATEMENT AS FAR AS PERSONAL BELIEF, THERE ARE SOME PROBLEMS WITH THAT AS IT APPLIES TO THIS SITUATION 1. THAT DOES NOT APPLY TO THE COURT OF LAW. IMAGINE IF THE US JUSTICE SYSTEM ARRESTED THE GUYS THAT HAD A BAD BACKROUND, EVEN IF EVIDENCE PROVIDED IS FAULTY. 2. WHILE COTW'S BACKROUND HAS LESS CONTROVERSY, THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SAY HIS PROOF WAS FAKE, WHICH MEANS IT IS NO LONGER A HE-SAID-SHE-SAID SITUATION. 3. A POINT HE BROUGHT UP IS THAT RICHARD SCREENSHOT CAN JUST AS EASILY BE EDITED AS COTW'S ARE, WHICH AGAIN, IS A FAIR POINT. IF NOT FOR THE FACT THAT RICHARD SCREENSHOTS DONT FREAKING CONTRADICT EACHOTHER. 🤦‍♂️; TWO MONTHS; TO CLARIFY, I DO NOT DEFEND RICHARDS ACTIONS RECENTLY, BUT CMON GUYS WE CAN DO BETTER WHEN EXAMINING EVIDENCE, ITS SO FREAKING OBVIOUS THIS IS FAKE.