Hacker News Reader

Comment by otterley | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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

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).

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.

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.

It does, and it's a shame for those careerists who are competent.

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

Generally, yes. You have a right to discovery of anything that they plan to introduce at trial against you, or anything that would cast doubt on your guilt (exculpatory evidence).

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.

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?

Are we talking about the criminal trial process here? Or the pre-trial investigation and prosecution process? They're not the same.

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-i...

I'm not a lawyer, but this corruption will be getting worse. That distinct is relevant still but for how long?

An indictment is pre-trial. To get a criminal indictment, all you need to show to a grand jury is "probable cause," which is a very low standard--the same standard needed to justify an arrest. That's the reason for the old joke about being able to indict a ham sandwich.

Now that Comey's been indicted, the trial process will begin, assuming he doesn't plea out (and I don't think he will). The uphill battle for the prosecution now begins.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com