I love the way they stated that this was a preindictment response, and that the plaintiff was really asserting a 41(g) motion, even if they didn't characterize it that way, but that he had no possessory interest in the property, anyway, as required by 41(g).

Also, the Gov said that if they wanted to proceed under the PRA, they should have filed in DC (!) Plaintiff never mentions the Espionage Act under which the search warrant was issued. Gov talks about a "preindictment challenge to a search warrant," which they are expecting.

So, I think the tone of the Judge's remarks favor the Plaintiff, except that she specifically asked for Plaintiff to articulate the "irreparable harm" needed, and they couldn't state it.


I'll be stunned if they don't get the SM.

Added: Also, the Gov. made reference to Trump's "unclean hands" down at the bottom of page 22. He comes to Court with unclean hands, a legal term for being a crook. Hah hah.