>>4326435

>>4326453

Layfag, not lawfag.

Read all the articles, tweets, etc. about it yesterday and most of anons' thoughts.

Those are just my thoughts, from considering how the federal court system works, put together with what is known from a sealed docket that was posted yesterday. Names and dates of pleadings in the case but no attorney names, and the appeal was of something in a grand jury proceeding, what could that have been?

Wish I had saved all the sauce.

Don't put more weight onto my thoughts than they deserve.

>>4326453

I don't know.

>>4326578 for sure

>>4326630

You are well known to anons.

You post repetitive, off-topic memes.

You continually make demands, that anons must do this or that, or else someone might not think we are real persons.

Your unceasing whining is really tiresome.

Nobody is obliged to respond to your demands.

baker possibly notable?

>>4326660 Prison barge formerly in NYC sighted in port at Morehead City, NC … going somewhere?

>>4326673

All you can infer is that the case is sealed, I mean really really sealed. It is imperative that the identity of persons entering or leaving the court room be concealed until the judge unseals the case. Something high-profile? Something that might give away the Government's or Mueller's strategy if revealed, that could potentially affect many pending cases?

Remember, defendants once they are charged with a crime, will use defenses such as "the jury was prejudiced because information about my case came out in the press and I couldn't get a fair trial". Especially when there are over 65,000 sealed cases (which may predominantly be indictments), the risk of prejudicing the prosecution of those many cases is great.

I assume that is the main reason for being so careful about security.

>>4326727

>>4326673

Or, hah, let's suppose it could be a Clinton Foundation case. What happens to witnesses against the Clintons? The government needs to protect the witnesses.

>>4326630

Did it ever occur to you, TIRESIAS,

that anons do not like you?

We don't like your repetition.

We don't like your harassment.

We don't like your innuendoes.

Why should we talk to someone as irritating as hell?

Why should we answer demands that are based on false premises?

You are expecting conversation from people whom you despise, who probably detest you in return?

Why would we want to converse with an asshole?

End.

>>4326814

Thank you. I nominated part 1 notable then spouseanon read me part 2 but I couldn't find it! Both parts are notable and should be read in conjunction with one another.

>>4326778

The journos who tweeted about it (I think including Tom Fitton? whom I view as highly credible) said it was kind of unprecedented.