[–] 18967369? 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago (edited ago)
It's my understanding those are sealed proceedings, not indictments.
And yeah, I still trust Sessions and Huber until I see information that would make me think otherwise.
For me, the jury's still out on Wray; leaning towards not trusting him afte he apparently withheld relevant info.
I honestly can't speak to the validity of the claim, either way, so take it with a grain of salt. It did make sense to me, though.
I remember reading a thread a few months ago (wish I could tell you exactly where, maybe abovesecret.com) in which there was a pretty good discussion about the whole "sealed indictments" topic.
Acording to a couple of the posters, who both were much more knowledgable of that particular database than I am, those numbers represent proceedings.
That said, if I understand correctly, you could actually end up having more than one indictment per proceeding but any given proceeding could also have zero indictments. Also, can't say I was ever able to determine if the total number is an anomaly, as far as sealed proceedings go.
So, if true, not really a "debunking", necessarily. Just a little shift in understanding of the data we're looking at.
If it is, in fact, accurate, I think it needs to be understood and spread so we aren't misstating facts.
[–] 18967373? 2 points -2 points 0 points (+0|-2) ago
I'm keeping an open mind about Sessions, yes.
We don't know what is really going on, so not jumping to conclusions is reasonable.