it's entirely possible that she was singled out because of race/gender! and it's possible that the admin has violated privacy laws! and the admin is absolutely trampling all over due process! but...

there still is a question about what the facts are, even if it's merely an academic exercise bc the admin won't deal in facts and Cook absolutely should not show her cards at this point

No! Demand evidence, don't engage without it, and it is not Cook's job to "disprove" anything.

eh, I'm a little mixed. I'm against all the people saying either "she's clearly guilty" or "it's ok because X"(the latter often effectively claiming she committed a felony)

but I think pointing out that there *are* valid ways the evidence we've seen can be acceptable is ok, if for no other reason to point out that what they've offered *isn't* conclusive

This is bs 1 “evidence””obtained” by a partisan hack, “released to the public” in most contrived, prejudicial fashion possible, for obviously politically motivated reasons. 2 to deride the process, but to say “there’s something about the evidence which sparkles my tassel” makes you … complicit. Yuk

1- the evidence provided so far is public records. I've personally pulled some of it directly from the relevant recorders, people I trust have pulled other parts to it 2- it's a good thing I haven't said that

It's not even evidence yet, just naked accusations. That is why process is critical. There is a way to test this, and it is not how Trump has gone about it. He is not entitled to any presumption of credibility at this point; in fact, quite the opposite.

the public records definitely do exist, I've pulled some of them directly. I don't know how that can possibly count as a presumption of credibility part of the exercise is knowing what will count as proper/sufficient evidence

If they show one page of a recorded document and I pull the full document it's precisely because I presume they are *not* credible If I review standard forms to remind myself of the language, it's because I don't think they are credible When I review fnma guidelines...

Oh, I fully understand, and the track record in that regard is clearly there for that. However, my objections would really be no different if it were a lily white man appointed by a Dem with 12+ years still remaining on their term.