Which do you think is more likely:

1). A person willing to risk their life for what they believe is right is a pedophile.

2). The CIA plants evidence.

After having a look at the things we know the CIA did during my life time, Iran-Contra, I'd say 2 is vastly more likely than 1.

Despite being certain of 2, I am also certain that they don’t need to plant evidence to make someone’s life hell.

Their omniscient surveillance, combined with how many overlapping laws eveyone seems to have, means all they need to do is enumerate the crimes of someone they don’t like and run with it. So, for example, this particular enemy of theirs likes illegal porn? Next one will have something else.

This isn’t to say the CIA definitely didn’t plant anything, just that I think doing so is not the only option they will consider sufficient for their desired result.

Moral outrage based attacks have happened before; I’m told the FBI’s poison-pen-letter to MLK was being truthful when it claimed that he was adulterous, for example. While the idea that adultary could have such an impact is alien to me, the fact that it was attempted means the FBI thought otherwise at the time.

As for option 1? There’s a reason why we cant find them before they break the law. Whatever that reason is, it has to be compatible with someone like that being willing to do something like this.

What I know is irrelevant. What matters is the general understanding and comprehension of the masses. If you accept Twitter and Facebook as an acceptable representation of the public at large then it's clear there are __a lot__ of naive / misled people.

Long to short, the majority would rather believe in the integrity of the intelligence community than the IC's willingness to take any road necessary (not just the high moral road).