As soon as anything is filed alleging any misconduct involving any three letter agency (especially so under the earth-shaking and institution-destroying dimensions that you are going to assert) be fully prepared and expect them to run to the Court, to seek to have all your evidence sealed, redacted, and otherwise pulled from public view.
Sealed and court-redacted, under the usual fiction of "national security interests".
This is their classic cover-up tool, and you have probably seen it first hand in the past.
They will do this to keep from public view the existence and scope of their bad conduct. It will all be concealed and obscured if they get their way.
And then the media will recast it as something else to escalate the propaganda war.
Judges are unsophisticated in this area, and routinely roll over to these agencies on these requests. You must overcome this judicial presumption.
You must have the President directly and publicly intervene to override any agency national security interest claim.
And you must fight like hell to keep the assigned Judge from buying the agency contention. If what you are contending is true, the agency is a criminal actor, seeking to cover up evidence of their crimes. That should be the angle. Appeal the summary evidentiary ruling (as hard as that is), if need be. Do not accept this cover up tactic.
Otherwise, the public will never see the evidence you are claiming. They will bury it under seal and redactions.
[Header Edit and apology: Yes, I know her name is Sidney. I was operating on my first cup of coffee, and was late for an appointment, so moved too fast myself.]
Sidney (not Sydney).
Pet peeve of mine. She has done so much for us and our nation. The least we can do is learn to spell her name right.
You're right and I apologize.
One cup of coffee and heading out the door.
I'm sure she would normally be aware of this. But she is moving 1,000 MPH right now.
Assembling a case like this usually requires 3-6 months. She has 2-3 weeks.
The Internet is a strange beast. Whether you're a constitutional scholar, or 12 year old on their parent's tablet, the users have updooted you high enough to be on the front page.
It doesn't verify that you're anything more than a random person on the internet, but it does show a plurality agree with you.
I’m not trying to get on the front page.
I’m just passing along some well-oiled opinions and observations to a colleague. One under incredible pressure. And that’s all it is, opinion. I’m not larping, and am not presenting any fanciful new facts. Most are things a good federal practitioner would be aware of under normal circumstances. Or perhaps not. And these are not usual circumstances. It’s what I would mention to a partner walking down the hall.
You all can consider it however you like. I laid out what I think they are going to try. It may succeed. It may fail. No harm in speaking it.
Consider me the old retired man that lives in the dilapidated house on the corner. I’m not that important at this particular point.
Kag: on the specific issue of spelling, you should be aware that DJT frequently inserts deliberate spelling errors in his tweets as a tactic to induce gullible liberals to spread the message. They retweet it with some smug remark like "OMG He's so stoooooooooopid!!!" and then the information content of the message is seen by 500 more people.
4d chess.