Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

So I started by looking at what the fired employee said, which was that in other situations, people working in her space feared for their safety. Initially I thought that shouldn't overcome the need to help, but this person also didn't seem like she was the person overseeing search and rescue. Then I poked a bit more.

That job and the people she oversees are basically government workers who go door-to-door after the disaster danger has passed and say "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." They help sign people up for disaster relief funds, direct people to counseling, general government aid. So this isn't a case of being denied rescue in a flood. It's being denied a solicitor who is trying to sign you up for a government program.

Now it is fair to say no matter your political affiliation, you shouldn't be denied a door knock from a federal employee. But even as people on this board have said, it is wise to be wary of many of our firearm friendly friends in the midst of a disaster zone. A few folks on this board have said after a big storm, they'd light up someone who came onto their property, with the belief it might be a looter or someone trying to take advantage of the situation. I believe Badge himself said he might do such a thing.

So if I'm a government employee driving through flood ravaged western NC (or a lot of Florida), and I see a house with a large Trump flag over a "don't tread on me flag" I might wonder if the occupant may align with the "don't come on my property" side of things, and me yelling "I'm here from the government run by Joe Biden" as bullets fly may not help me.

So at the very least, there might be a bit of a pickle. But at the very least, it's good to know what we're talking about, the upside of the aid being offered and the acknowledgement there's a chance for something going sideways for that payoff. (I’d still side on knocking on all doors, but I can see the other side)

If this were true then why doesn't Pam Bondi say, "We are just following the court's order filed on _______ in Case No. _________."?
The justice department should not leak sensitive information from criminal investigations solely to disparage people who they do not have sufficient evidence against to charge with a crime.
When law enforcement does a prostitution sting and catches "Johns" their identity is only released if the John is charged with a crime, or if an informant testifies before a trial court.

Some of the stuff SHOULD be sealed as it would reveal information about victims nobody needs to know.  I'd guess some videos could be pornographic.

Maxwell was convicted mostly based on testimony by four females (as I vaguely recall) who are known.  My guess if Maxwell had "trading material", she would have used it to get a lighter sentence, or something.  The government would have raided her possessions of course.  The amount of material collected would be voluminous.

The interesting thing, to me, is how Trump pushed this idea that the government is hiding stuff and now it's come around to bite him with his base.  So, his base is confused.

I think most will forget this episode in a few weeks.