Now that I think about it, it could also be that the FBI or CIA wants to keep it sealed. But generally, it wouldn't be a temporal issue, unless it's due to an ongoing investigation. You know, the perpetual, neverending, no-arrest "investigation".
But as it stands, the court is being wildly suspect about this whole thing.
They are proving to be outdated and/or corrupt. They say it's illegal to stream the public event. How is that possible, when the invitation is public? It's fine to say that it cannot be recorded, but to put up a livestream is another thing. The courts need to be more transparent. Judges are public figures, not office clerks.
In many of these documents and whether to unseal, "it's not up to the Doe, yet."
In other words, they are still too young to give consent to unseal. 🤢
Is that what it really means?
Now that I think about it, it could also be that the FBI or CIA wants to keep it sealed. But generally, it wouldn't be a temporal issue, unless it's due to an ongoing investigation. You know, the perpetual, neverending, no-arrest "investigation".
But as it stands, the court is being wildly suspect about this whole thing.
They are proving to be outdated and/or corrupt. They say it's illegal to stream the public event. How is that possible, when the invitation is public? It's fine to say that it cannot be recorded, but to put up a livestream is another thing. The courts need to be more transparent. Judges are public figures, not office clerks.
Agreed on the audio stream. Total BS. They could make a public line and then say it was full to keep the public out.
Thanks for the clarificaiton.