Hard disagree. The whole point of a process like this is that it's not final until it's final. It's like saying "multiple courts agreed bob committed a crime,

Hard disagree. The whole point of a process like this is that it's not final until it's final. It's like saying "multiple courts agreed bob committed a crime, only the last court did not". The result is still "bob did not commit a crime", and the intermediate results do not matter. In this case one court said that the government violated the law. Another court said "that's mostly wrong". and now another court may say "the rest is wrong too". They may not! You are trying to say that something bad happened based on the intermediate results in a system not designed for that. that is the thing that is not a win for society - sensationalizing every step of a longer multi-step process that is built for checks and balances on itself. Step past the news driven sensationalism and let the process play out. Once it's final, there will be plenty of time for judgement of the result, good or bad.