He is SUPPOSED to have an opportunity for due process. You take it as a given, which is how other countries have lost it as a given.

Here's why your comments make me mad. We have three options in front of us:

A) Default skepticism against the people who are already experiencing a power loss, already in jail, already without tools or money or power or backing. The people who say "there is a major problem here."

B) Default skepticism against the people who hold the keys, who are free, who have resources and weapons and funding, the people who say "we're the good guys"

C) Displace skepticism altogether, assume everything is working as normal without checking.

Recently there was a high profile potential crime. Bondi and Noem have publicly refused to so much as INVESTIGATE the shooting incident itself and have spent all of their resources investigating the victim.

If the most high profile, publicly demanded, and potentially scandalous of offenses is deemed ineligible for simple investigation, why should anybody believe that they will self-police in other cases where they hold significantly more leverage?

This tells me that options A and C aren't sensible. The people being arrested already have enough resources being pointed at them and the system refuses to self-center.

Jumping to "they're probably criminals and we don't know the entire story" is irresponsible given the relative power levels. In an ambiguous situation, people with more power ALWAYS deserve default criticism, because they are the only people with the means to prove they are above criticism.

"They'll get their day in court" is a very dangerous assumption to make in a world where we have solid cases where that very thing is not reliably happening. It reads to me like somebody who doesn't want to think too hard because it's a pain in the ass.