One explanation for this reclassification that I have seen offered in a few places is that DOJ set Trump up by reclassifying it, knowing that he had a copy.
This is at least partially based on the timing of Trump's back and forth with NARA and DOJ over docs stored at MAL.
I get why pple would jump to that take, but I don't think it holds up.
Here is the timeline of the Trump-NARA-DOJ.
DOJ was already involved before this doc got reclassified.
And nowhere, that I have seen, has it been argued by DOJ or NARA that Trump had docs that were reclassified. I think they would have mentioned that in the court filings somewhere by now.
Besides, the President can and DID declassify this document. It was published.
So I do not think this would be the "Gotcha, Orange Man!" trick that a few folks seem to think it would be.
So then, why has this document been reclassified?
Clues and indicators as to why are on and in the document itself.
NSICG = National Security Information
Classification Guide
So, knowing and understanding all of this, lets read the redacted and unredacted versions again.
The doc is referencing Steele and Burrows of Orbis meeting with FBI and apologizing for running to the media with the Dossier.
Steele and Burrows say they did so because they were "riding two horses," one was the FBI and one was their client.
That client, was Hillary Clinton and they chose her.
So, to RECLASSIFY this document, something MUST be going on with either Steele, Burrows, Orbis, HRC, the FBI agents at this meeting, or a combo thereof.
Confidential Human Source 1 (CHS 1): A DC business owner who contracted with the District recently pleaded guilty to bank fraud conspiracy and other offenses after being busted for obtaining fraudulent PPP loans! He took a plea deal and began "disclosing other prior criminal conduct in which he had participated. In the course of his cooperation, CHS 1 reported a corrupt relationship with White.
"FBI agents have raided and searched the Virginia home of Dimitri Simes, an author and policy analyst, who advised Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential election campaign and who currently hosts a current affairs program on Russia’s state-run Channel One.
The raid began on 13 August, the FBI told the local Rappahannock News, which first reported the story.
Simes, whose name was included more than 100 times in the 2019 Mueller report into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, told the paper he was out of the country and had not been notified about the search ahead of time. He was not aware he was the focus of any current law enforcement investigation, he said.
“I’m puzzled and concerned,” he said. “I have not seen a warrant. I was not contacted by any law enforcement or anyone else whatsoever.”"
Simes is mentioned 134 times in the Mueller Report, beginning on page 111, but many, possibly more than half, of those mentions are citations of transcripts or emails.
First, let's look at the one concerning Plaintiff’s Corrected Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. #112)
"This motion requests for the Court to allow Huddleston to conduct discovery and order the FBI to conduct additional searches for records from additional sources and additional categories of records."
-Supplemental Brief on "standard for unsealing documents" at issue here
-Supplemental Brief on the present motion
-And an answer as to whether or not Seidel, in Paragraph 9 in Exhibit 1 of Docket Entry No. 148 was referring to Docket Entry Nos. 74 & 75.
"The Court requires supplemental briefing on two issues.
First, the Court requires supplemental briefing regarding whether the Court should employ the Fifth Circuit’s standard (described above) for unsealing documents to the present motion or a different standard given the unique nature of FOIA litigation.
Second, the Court requires supplemental briefing on what result the Court should reach regarding the present motion and why. Regardless of what standard (and corresponding reasoning to support a particular outcome) the Government recommends, the Government should also [sic] discuss how the Court would analyze the present motion under the Fifth Circuit’s standard to unseal documents.
The Court hereby ORDERS the Government to submit supplemental briefing on the issues discussed above by August 21, 2024.
The Government shall further indicate whether Paragraph 9 in Exhibit 1 of Docket Entry No. 148 refers to Docket Entry Nos. 74 & 75."
"On August 3, 2024, the Court issued an order scheduling a status conference for August 16, and directed the parties to confer and file by August 9 a joint status report that proposes a schedule for pretrial proceedings moving forward. The parties have conferred."
And...
Special Counsel Smith has asked Judge Chutkan for an extension of time to allow the Office to "[finalize] its position on the most appropriate schedule for the parties to brief issues related to the [SCOTUS Presidential Immunity] decision."
Defense does not oppose this motion and Judge Chutkan has GRANTED it.
"The Government continues to assess the new precedent set forth last month in the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States, 144 S. Ct. 2312 (2024), including through consultation with other Department of Justice components."
He then cites part of the Special Counsel statute,
See 28 C.F.R. § 600.7(a) (“A Special Counsel shall comply with the rules, regulations, procedures, practices and policies of the Department of Justice,” including “consult[ing] with appropriate offices within the Department for guidance with respect to established practices, policies and procedures of the Department . . . .”).
Judge Scarsi set a status conference and a hearing on all pending motions in limine for 8/21/2024 starting at 10am and apparently running all day (mentions AM and PM sessions), so parties are getting those motions in.
From Special Counsel Weiss
Motion in Limine to preclude defense expert Joshua Lee. Deficient and untimely.