>>9460739

AG Barr threatening to release Antifa communications to show which elites and politicians played a role in coordinating these riots.

>>9460759

>Isn't that illegal?

>>9460805

>why would that be illegal?

>because you think it is or because that is a serious question?

>if the AG is threatening to release those comms then I would be willing to bet it is legal.

Why would it be illegal?

1) The comms could be "classified" and we know now that it is illegal to "classify crimes", if they are classified in order to hide the crimes... anyway.... right? In this scenario, Barr would be required to declassify them anyway? Am I right? According to that law Obama signed? Or EO, whatever it was.

Someone got sauce on that, cuz I do not have the exact legal paragraphs in front of me.

So, what other scenarios?

This anon thinks this statement by Barr has something to do with the sealed indictments being so outrageous in number at this point and located all over the country, in about every state.

What would happen if lower members of Antifa were being located, surveiled, with legally obtained wire tap warrants, and the DOJ just happened to pick up conversations between street rioters, and their puppet masters? Would there be certain politicians added to the indictments? (One set of laws for everyone, right?)

And can those conversations gathered with warrants be released to the public to justify the arrest of the politicians and other rich famous or political people.... to the public?

Seems they do this in regular drug running, murder, other cases etc. Someone gets arrested, they tell you why, and release any video, right?

Cant figure where it would be illegal to release the proof of crime to the public, unless someone is worried about inability to get information from a witness or, one of the puppets?