My question Can defendants arraigned in federal court sometimes be "out on bail" secretly with no way for the public to know about or verify the bail? asks if something is possible i.e "Can defendants sometimes X?"
As background information to demonstrate how I got to the point of asking this, and to give some insight into the level of my understanding of the topic, I cited a particular example of a defendant who's recently been arraigned on federal charges in three separate jurisdictions.
An authoritative-sounding and well-received answer (link to the as-posted version - it has since been edited by another user to fix the problem cited in item #2 below)
- does not address my "Can defendants sometimes X?" question.
- cites one of three appearance bonds from my example referring to it as "the Trump appearance bond.
To me this feels disingenuous in two ways:
- It does not attempt to ask the question as asked (in the title and repeated again at the end for redundancy)
- Uses language that falsely suggests there's only one bond agreement, not three, as if this is everything - what I refer to in comments as "My client can not possibly be a bank robber - just last week she was at a bank and she didn't rob it."
Question: Was this answer somewhat disingenuous in one or two ways? Or did it genuinely address the question as asked in good faith?