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.

▲

SketchySeaBeast 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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

	▲	otterley 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		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).

▲

HeatrayEnjoyer an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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

	▲	otterley 16 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Most facts, yes. Non-disclosure is the exception, not the rule, because of 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.
	▲	qingcharles 15 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		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).

▲

nyc_data_geek1 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

And perhaps monkeys might fly out of my butt. Guess we'll never know, since we don't have evidence either way.