(05-11-2020 10:16 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Great, this clarifies things quite a bit.
So any conversation that discusses the idea that the investigation found no hard evidence, ergo, the investigation shouldn't have happened in the first place, are misplaced and moot.
If one wants to argue that the investigation was unwarranted, the focus should be on whether there was reasonable cause to investigate.

I think the argument is that what the investigation FOUND was not sufficient to have started the investigation in the first place. So there was never sufficient basis for an investigation. They didn't start with enough, they didn't finish with enough, and at no point in the middle did they ever have enough.

And I think it is significant that these started out styled as intelligence investigations. You don't need anything to do an intel investigation. You also don't have the power to do things like subpoenas for intel investigations. We can't subpoena North Korean documents to determine whether or not they have nukes; that is an intel function. But you do need probable cause to convert to a criminal investigation to avail yourself of those techniques.