Can we please strop with the 50/60/70,000 indictments!!!!!1eleventy!1!?

We have no idea. Q never said so. To my knowledge Q only laid out a (then current) no. with a question mark. Cute. Meant nothing.

We know PACER shows a buttload of sealed documents.

Super.

Would someone like to tell me what they are?

Anyone?

Bueller?

How about a percentage?

Well, if we're dealing with such a historically bizarre number then why would we presume to extrapolate percentage likelihoods based on past UNsealings when the event is such an outlier in the first place?

There are NOT 60k+ sealed indictments. Bank on it.

>>4417636

She is? Oreally? She has special access to sealed court documents?

Bullshit.

She's doing the same thing everyone here is doing.

>>4417636

>>4417650

I don't expect you to have a source handy so I'm not trying to be argumentative (not much, anyway) but if you happen to have her source for that I can't imagine it would be anything that lists actual numbers of indictments. Not sealed documents - indictments.

>>4417710

She very well may. That doesn't mean she knows how many indictments there are or has access to sealed court docs.

>>4417737

That tells us how many documents are under seal in federal courts as tracked by PACER so, no.

What we have now is a truly bizarre number of sealed documents and everyone is assuming they're all indictments and that's just silly.

I mean no disrespect, really. It's been taken as gosple for so long and it's just beginning to bug me.

That is NOT a list of sealed indictments. It just isn't.

>>4417675

>Q mentioned a specific number,

Thanks, I only remembered his mention posed with a question mark. That made it easy to disregard in the conversation.

That's a whole other thing, then. IF Q is using the PACER # of sealed documents as if they were indictments then . . . well, that's a whole other conversation.

It isn't.

They aren't.

We don't know.

If Q used the PACER number then Q doesn't know either.

That IS NOT a list of indictments.

>>4417753

Indeed. AS I said earlier the only one I remembered (since I've been reading the drops in October '17) was posed as a question. I appreciate anon posting that. Problem is, that would have been the PACER number around that time. That just isn't indictments. It isn't.

I'd love a lawfag to chime in and say what the percentages usually are re: sealed docs/indictments ratio but given that the number is so bizarre at this point I don't think a "normal" ratio is useful.

We know there are a shit-ton of sealed documents in the federal courts.

That's it.