Well, the default position for everyone who's there should be that they are innocent. Then, Justice needs to investigate, and determine: 1) Was something lega

Well, the default position for everyone who's there should be that they are innocent. Then, Justice needs to investigate, and determine: 1) Was something legally done wrong (could be what we'd consider "morally" wrong, but still legal)? [If yes, go 2)] 2) Does it appear that it was knowingly done wrong? [If yes, go 3)] 3) Is there an evidence trail supporting that it was knowingly done wrong? [If yes, go 4, else, check the separate case for evidence destruction] 4) Does that evidence supply enough burden of proof for specific individuals that a reasonable case could be built against them with a good chance of Justice winning? [If yes, go 5, else, go 6] 5 - yes?) Prosecute as many of those people as possible to signal that bad social behaviour has consequences (similar to the banker argument) 6 - no?) Is there enough to support a general recrimination of the agency and to press for legal changes to its procedures? [If yes, go 7, else, go 8] 7 - yes?) Recommend a set of changes which in the future would help to ensure that insight / oversight isn't just a paper tiger. 8 - no?) Welp, we're boned for now.