[from]

> if Defendants attempt to attack the thoroughness of the Government’s investigation, the Government may need to present evidence that its investigatory avenues were limited by Defendants’ use of encrypted messaging

Because this line of reasoning would result in outcomes that are contrary to the entire legal tradition of this country? Should the government be able to charge anyone who uses Signal because they can say "well, there would be evidence but it's all encrypted"? No one is calling the judge unreasonable, it's more a commentary about aggressive prosecutors.