• kmartburrito@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    Actually, here’s the awesome and ironic part - Jack Smith wanted this to all be under seal, Judge Chutkan disagreed and took Donald’s older request to have the previous filings only redacted for sensitive info, like witness names, and had the rest be publicly available.

    Of course now Donald didn’t want this one to be public, lol. Can’t have it both ways, Diaper Don.

    • Nougat@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      No, Smith’s desire was only to redact names of persons in this oversized filing, nothing else.

      • kmartburrito@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        You’re not quite correct, It’s actually much more nuanced than that. I’ll reply as soon as I’m off work and can put the right amount of effort into it.

        • Nougat@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          You’re talking about what happened a year ago. I’m talking about what happened in the last few weeks. Smith wanted only to redact the names of people or organizations that weren’t previously identified for this motion.

          • kmartburrito@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            8 months ago

            What you’re talking about is irrelevant, because the judge will operate in a manner that is consistent with her original ruling, and that insulates her from pushback or criticism. What happened a year ago is directly relevant here because it set the outcome.