Clarice offers a well-written defense of Bondi and the DOJ, but her argument isn’t conclusive.
She leans on an absence of evidence she couldn’t access even if it existed, downplays serious red flags, cites sources with personal stakes (like Dershowitz), and relies on trust in institutions that many no longer share.
It’s a plausible rebuttal—not proof that nothing’s being hidden. In fact, it reads more like a skilled defense attorney’s closing argument than a definitive debunking.
That is my opinion as well.