I recently came upon a question I had never personally dug on:
"What is 'State Secrets' and how upheld in the SC?"
Well shit, I wish I had done this sooner as it is enormously relevant to just about everything going on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_secrets_privilege
Imagine you have a court case--a voting fraud case. You assemble your slam dunk evidence and head to court. All of a sudden, the executive branch swoops in and claims "state secrets" on some of your evidence.
What happens? Well the court traditionally defers to the executive on such matters, and if the court finds that your evidence qualifies as a state secret, the evidence is removed from litigation.
Check out this Pennsylvania decision, around line 8.
The first attorneys hired by Giuliani quit, they hired a new set and ended up dropping claims. Does that sound normal? What explains that behavior? State secrets invocation or threat thereof?
It is plausible that white hats are nuking these voter fraud cases. Don't buy that? Well how about this:
"...in 2001, George W. Bush issued Executive Order 13233 extending the accessibility of the state secrets privilege to also allow former presidents, their designated representatives, or representatives designated by their families, to invoke it to bar records from their tenure."
So under this EO, state secrets became a permanent privilege that can be exercised at any point by the elected executive, their representatives, and representatives designated by families.
And thus we reach the TLDR:
What if Obama, Bush, Clinton, or any of their "representatives" is invoking State Secrets privileges on the voting fraud cases?
For my personal followup later:
u/#q49
Q implies that something must be filed when State Secrets are invoked. And it looks like this describes it:
So where the hell is the formal claim of privilege lodged?
Also this looks like it's worth understanding from the criminal side of things:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classified_Information_Procedures_Act
Yes, this seems incredibly significant. It could be the White hats or the black hats holding things up. What is it that must be reported?? I can't figure that part out... yet....
A formal claim of privilege must be reported by the head of the department which has control of the matter.
A formal claim of privilege...
And that's a name recognized around the world???
Thanks, Anon!
hmmm I'm still drawing a blank. Do you have any ideas?
I'll be honest I don't know what one looks like. The most I can find is below an instance where it's stated that it was provided. ;)
See Patrick Shanahan in this document:
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/6428771/Kareem-Rejection.pdf
I feel like Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State would be a good one to look for (as far as recognizable names) or maybe Biden as VP if that qualifies. I just have no clue where to look. The legal community isn't as gated off as the scientific but it's still pretty exclusive.