Liz Wheeler verdict on Andrew Tate

No wonder people like Andrew Tate exists with people like Liz Wheeler who thinks that any sex video is bad, its pornography and by definition if you produce "pornographic" content that is vile and criminal by definition. Actually its not not even having sex for money is not wrong, if done correctly which means not in a criminal way with pimps, human traficking, forcing people, sclavery and all the baggage. Liz Wheeler and other american comentators don't atack the core of the problem. Liz also just refuses to say the evil stuff Andrew said to the victims to show exactly what happens. This shows a serious lack of awareness and knowledge to the situation. In Romania all the press was not so prude and christian to not actually say the actual words that Tate said. Nothing was censored. If you want to do education then start by telling the whole truth. Many more rapists and sexual predators exist in very repressed countries, where extremes develop. Also you cant convince and say someone is a pimp without actually showing how did he do the pimping. The prosecution showed a couple of small snippets, small elements that produce the bigger case but many people in USA just refuse to consider them. Why? Maby because they believe the pretrial in Romania is not really a trial. Well it is. Not every country has the same system as USA, thus they cant really prove abuse of power if they dont really investigate. We can say abuse of power was commited by the prosecutors in Romania and the problem comes from the definition of itself as infraction, as having a subjective and an objective part independent on the victim.
In the infraction part, the effect on the victim is not included as a constitutive element of the infraction itself. Why? Because the last element is defined by legislators who appreciate the social danger, the impact of the infraction, and define the adequate punishment. The problem is in the principle itself, that there can be an infraction without the element of victimhood and a concrete impact towards a concrete person and a group of persons. The victimhood is not included as an important element, a core element in the trial, although the penal pursuit has to start from a statement of victimhood. Someone to report that there is a crime somewhere commited. Even if the prosecutors themselves are those observing a crime, the penal action has to begin from someone (not somewhere) being an objective observant that sees the crime and starts the penal pursuit. Thus it can be argued that the observant influence the action and is an ACTIVE part of the action itself. This was proven by the quantum science by experiments, but somehow the PENAL law is left behind, so the initial observant starting the penal pursuit and influencing the INITIAL determination of a crime is left out. Thus the perception of "victims" or observant has to be included as a core element of the crime itself and cant be just put on sidetrack. In concrete, the effect of Tates crime on the initial persons that started the penal investigation has to also be considered subjectively, by the own volition of the "victims", otherwise its not the victims that started the penal pursuit but the prosecutors own perception of a crime that started it. Thus the prosecutors should be called on Bar to testify in the trial because only them meet both the objective AND subjective conditions to testify as a complete and credible OBSERVATORY of the crime observed. The prosecutors know this line of argumentation that ive just exposed and circumvent this fact by putting people in the forefront as a shield, in this case the two initial "victims". This happens very often when someontimes in the drug cases, the one reporting the "crime" is actually someone making a purchase from the dealer, this person is put as "Consumer" which is defined in the penal law actually as victim, because a drug consumer is an addicted person and "of course" addicted persons are victims of the drug dealers. In many trials, it is not even proven that the person acting as a Buyer, Consumer, Snitch, Plant... is actually addicted to the drugs purchasing, its just assumed by default that CONSUMERS are victims. Just as in this case the prosecutors assume that Tates "victims" are really victims and that their own perception about the victimhood status doesnt matter. Well, if their own words count for the prosecutors than their own words about their status has to count as well. You cant select one set of words, the statements and deselect the other element which is how the "victims" see themselves, and this is the dishonesty of the prosecutors. This happens very often in Romania and almost always in the drug related cases. In reality almost always the first persons starting the penal pursuit are the prosecutors in themselves because they meet up ALL the conditions for the starting of the penal pursuit. If the prosecution can change up the quality of a person by their own will, then also DEFENSE should have the same equal rights and just call in the prosecutors and the cops as witnesses to testify as a witness. This is what Tate and his defense would want to say but it implies some boldness. If they do this than its WAR with the prosecutors, the glove has been thrown. But it would be a good way to fight. Its harder because in the penal definition of what are the core elements of an INFRACTION the victimhood status of the person or persons towards the criminal action was pushed to, is not included. It is interesting how the trigger of a whole criminal case is just ignored as unimportant.
Join Andrew Tate case: https://t.me/AndrewTatePrison