If the complaint is "the DOJ routinely hides evidence and engages in corrupt behavior", it isn't exactly a counterargument to say "but you're always near some c

If the complaint is "the DOJ routinely hides evidence and engages in corrupt behavior", it isn't exactly a counterargument to say "but you're always near some corruption at the DOJ, and besides, the DOJ hasn't released any evidence that they're not to be trusted". It is entirely likely, a priori, that there will be abuses in a system where violations of the law are, to a close approximation, unpunished, it is to their great professional benefit to violate the law, and it is to their great professional benefit to ignore violations of the law by their coworkers. Nothing in this indictment makes me revise that opinion downwards. Besides which, these agents in particular have a pattern (according to the indictment) of initiating investigations against targets who had become obstacles to their corruption.