4 ms·

Perhaps the Secret Service possesses additional information they're not disclosing that supports their narrative. It might come out at trial, if it gets to that

Perhaps the Secret Service possesses additional information they're not disclosing that supports their narrative. It might come out at trial, if it gets to that stage. Or, it might not, because certain methods and sources of law enforcement operations might not be publicly disclosed if national security is involved.

nyc_data_geek1 1y ago
[flagged]
SketchySeaBeast 1y ago
But we can agree that we aren't obliged to believe them, right?
- otterley 1y ago
  Of course. Trust in our Government is at a historic low these days, and reasonably so. However, that doesn't mean that everyone is inept or has ill intent. Most people I've met in government as well as the private sector want to do good (or at least not evil).
  - SketchySeaBeast 1y ago
    I agree with the idea that people want to do their best, and I think it's the machine itself that's really the problem day to day. That said, this is being filtered through a media mouthpiece, and that's where I raise an eyebrow.
  - Alive-in-2025 1y ago
    The leaders of the US govt at high levels have specifically shown they aren't trustworthy which must impact the formerly trustworthy orgs, such as the FBI and the head of the FCC.
    - otterley 1y ago
      It does, and it's a shame for those careerists who are competent.
HeatrayEnjoyer 1y ago
Don't you need to reveal the facts in criminal court? Right to see the evidence against you and all that.
- otterley 1y ago
  Most facts, yes. Non-disclosure is the exception, not the rule, thanks to the Sixth Amendment's right to a fair trial. However, when national security is involved, the Classified Information Protection Act (CIPA) may apply, and some evidence may be reserved for in camera hearings. Also, if the information would not exculpate the defendant, and the prosecution won't introduce it at trial as evidence of guilt, then the information can be withheld.
  - Alive-in-2025 1y ago
    I'm on the verge of not trusting the US govt when they prosecute things. Epstein details being proclaimed and then hiding them is just the start. If the large and formerly mostly independent and trustworthy federal law enforcement groups can't disclose info there, what should make you feel like they are honest?
    - otterley 1y ago
      Are we talking about the criminal trial process here? Or the pre-trial investigation and prosecution process? They're not the same.
      - Alive-in-2025 1y ago
        Good point, criminal trial process is not obviously corrupted like the pre-trial. Every day recently there's a story about trump trying to get his political enemies prosecuted, and then he fired people who investigated him from his last term. But I should mention the bad guys are trying to get grand jury assembled that would prosecute James Comey. Does that count as 'criminal trial process'? https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/24/us/politics/james-comey-indictment.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/24/us/politics/james-comey-i... I'm not a lawyer, but this corruption will be getting worse. That distinct is relevant still but for how long?

nyc_data_geek1 1y ago

[flagged]

SketchySeaBeast 1y ago

But we can agree that we aren't obliged to believe them, right?

otterley 1y ago
Of course. Trust in our Government is at a historic low these days, and reasonably so. However, that doesn't mean that everyone is inept or has ill intent. Most people I've met in government as well as the private sector want to do good (or at least not evil).
- SketchySeaBeast 1y ago
  I agree with the idea that people want to do their best, and I think it's the machine itself that's really the problem day to day. That said, this is being filtered through a media mouthpiece, and that's where I raise an eyebrow.
- Alive-in-2025 1y ago
  The leaders of the US govt at high levels have specifically shown they aren't trustworthy which must impact the formerly trustworthy orgs, such as the FBI and the head of the FCC.
  - otterley 1y ago
    It does, and it's a shame for those careerists who are competent.

HeatrayEnjoyer 1y ago

Don't you need to reveal the facts in criminal court? Right to see the evidence against you and all that.

otterley 1y ago
Most facts, yes. Non-disclosure is the exception, not the rule, thanks to the Sixth Amendment's right to a fair trial. However, when national security is involved, the Classified Information Protection Act (CIPA) may apply, and some evidence may be reserved for in camera hearings. Also, if the information would not exculpate the defendant, and the prosecution won't introduce it at trial as evidence of guilt, then the information can be withheld.
- Alive-in-2025 1y ago
  I'm on the verge of not trusting the US govt when they prosecute things. Epstein details being proclaimed and then hiding them is just the start. If the large and formerly mostly independent and trustworthy federal law enforcement groups can't disclose info there, what should make you feel like they are honest?
  - otterley 1y ago
    Are we talking about the criminal trial process here? Or the pre-trial investigation and prosecution process? They're not the same.
    - Alive-in-2025 1y ago
      Good point, criminal trial process is not obviously corrupted like the pre-trial. Every day recently there's a story about trump trying to get his political enemies prosecuted, and then he fired people who investigated him from his last term. But I should mention the bad guys are trying to get grand jury assembled that would prosecute James Comey. Does that count as 'criminal trial process'? https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/24/us/politics/james-comey-indictment.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/24/us/politics/james-comey-i... I'm not a lawyer, but this corruption will be getting worse. That distinct is relevant still but for how long?