BTW; part of her ruling says she's giving standing because of the "very secrecy of activity" but then she says she's giving standing because the program isn't so secret. She said the plaintiffs suffered damages but can only come up with restricted in their jobs yet doesn't even know who or how they're being restricted. She can't even make heads or tails of her own ruling and that makes me wonder if she was bought out?
One word describes her: Kool-Aid Drinker