42 minutes ago, mr_hunt said:

 

Not a Russian agent, but he certainly has some strange pals, don't he?

3 minutes ago, mr_hunt said:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64872441/98/united-states-v-sealed-search-warrari/

Cliff notes please

Just now, vikas83 said:

That's the motion to justify the redactions, not the redacted affidavit itself. 

yeah...i see that now. 

11 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

And...the Pacer site for the Southern District of FL is overloaded and down. Guess everyone trying to log on.

 

1 minute ago, mr_hunt said:

yeah...i see that now. 

The redacted affidavit should be the attachment to that filing, but not 100% sure.

EDIT: it's not. 

1 minute ago, vikas83 said:

The redacted affidavit should be the attachment to that filing, but not 100% sure.

Yeah, seems like 98-1 is the affidavit.

Aug 26, 2022

SYSTEM ENTRY - Docket Entry 98 restricted/sealed until further notice. (jmd)

Just now, we_gotta_believe said:

Yeah, seems like 98-1 is the affidavit.

Aug 26, 2022

SYSTEM ENTRY - Docket Entry 98 restricted/sealed until further notice. (jmd)

Just pulled it up -- it's not. Annoying. 

2 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Just pulled it up -- it's not. Annoying. 

Damn. 96-1 then? 

3 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Damn. 96-1 then? 

Nope. Doc 97, the order to seal, still isn't loading.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64872441/united-states-v-sealed-search-warrant/

EDIT: 102 just hit docket and PACER down again

Details on the reasons for redactions:

 

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.617854/gov.uscourts.flsd.617854.102.1.pdf

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64872441/102/1/united-states-v-sealed-search-warrant/

 

 

6 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Details on the reasons for redactions:

 

 

I wonder how many civilian witnesses with the last name Trump they are trying to protect ??

Quote

Further, there is probable cause to believe that additional documents that contain classified NDI or that are Presidential records subject to record retention requirements currently remain at the PREMISES. There is also probable cause to believe that evidence of obstruction will be found at the PREMISES

Quote

On February 18, 2022, the Archivist of the United States, chief administrator for NARA, stated in a letter to Congress's Committee on Oversight and Reform Chairwoman The Honorable Carolyn B. Maloney, "NARA had ongoing communications with the representatives of former President Trump throughout 2021, which resulted in the transfer of 15 boxes to NARA in January 2022 .... NARA has identified items marked as classified national security information within the boxes." The letter also stated that, "because NARA identified classified information in the boxes, NARA staff has been in communication with the Department of Justice."

 

On February 18, 2022, the same day, the Save America Political Action Committee (PAC) posted the following statement on behalf of FPOTUS: "The National Archives did not 'find' anything, they were given, upon request, Presidential Records in an ordinary and routine process to ensure the preservation of my legacy and in accordance with the Presidential Records Act .... " An image of this statement is below

Quote

Based upon this investigation, I believe that the STORAGE ROOM, FPOTUS's residential suite, Pine Hall, the "45 Office," and other spaces within the PREMISES are not cunently authorized locations for the storage of classified information or NDI. Similarly, based upon this investigation, I do not believe that any spaces within the PRE1,1ISES have been authorized for the storage of classified information at least since the end of FPOTUS 's Presidential Administration on January 20, 2021. 78. As described above, evidence of the SUBJECT OFFENSES has been stored in multiple locations at the PREMISES

Lots of it were heavily redacted in large sections.

Basically they redacted all the good stuff. The letter from Trump's lawyer to the DOJ at the end though...woo boy. 

Also this

18 minutes ago, Toastrel said:

Not a Russian agent, but he certainly has some strange pals, don't he?

It's a miracle the inventing Ana chick didn't have a post in this administration.  maybe 2024 amiright?

Looks like sections 70-76 is where all the juicy stuff is but it's all redacted.

Wasn't familiar with the acronym but seems like NDI = National Defense Information

Seriously arguing the law doesn't apply to the President...wow

 

10 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Seriously arguing the law doesn't apply to the President...wow

So basically they are arguing that anyone that is elected to a federal govt position is not subject to this law, ridiculous.

4 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

So basically they are arguing that anyone that is elected to a federal govt position is not subject to this law, ridiculous.

No, just Trump

😉 

6 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

So basically they are arguing that anyone that is elected to a federal govt position is not subject to this law, ridiculous.

Technically, only people "appointed by the President" or heads of departments are officers of the United States is their argument. It's insane. 

Also, isn't the POTUS technically an employee of the US? He gets a salary, a house. I'm guessing he actually gets a W-2. Even if Trump gave his salary to charity, he'd get a W-2 and then a write-off for the contribution. So yeah...so much for that argument. 

Just now, vikas83 said:

Technically, only people "appointed by the President" are officers of the United States is their argument. It's insane. 

Also, isn't the POTUS technically an employee of the US? He gets a salary, a house. I'm guessing he actually gets a W-2. Even if Trump gave his salary to charity, he'd get a W-2 and then a write-off for the contribution. So yeah...so much for that argument. 

Yeah, it is a really silly argument.  Seems quite typical of Trump's legal team, total trash.  The high end ambulance chasers defending the grifter GOAT.

So Trump indeed stole our most valuable, closely guarded secrets, refused to turn them over, and did who knows what with them for over a year at MAL.

Just... not great.