User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 9:21:33 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: I’m not disputing the photos were used as a publicity stunt. I’m asking how you guys think classified cover sheets brought by the FBI affect the case from a legal standpoint. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By StanGram: Ah yes, that's very important when you strew them all over the floor and start taking pictures of them for the press. I’m not disputing the photos were used as a publicity stunt. I’m asking how you guys think classified cover sheets brought by the FBI affect the case from a legal standpoint. I’m not a legal guy and defer to you guys who are much more knowledgeable in this thread, but as a common man I’m disturbed by this. If I was on a jury concerning “papers” and I see that law enforcement sensationally added “papers” to the naughty “papers”, then how could I 100% know they didn’t seed the naughty “papers” too? If they did seed them, which ones? Did they jumble them up to hide the potentially seeded papers? I could not in good conscience convict anyone on this. It’s too weird. Just my opinion. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 12:21:38 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AdLucem: So have we gone from manufacturing and tampering with evidence to “piss poor custody?“ Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AdLucem: Originally Posted By UtahShotgunner: Who had "custody" when "order of the boxes change or the individual files in the boxes are not kept in sequential order"? For that to change, someone had to access the material. Who was that? Is there a log of who accessed and what they examined? Did that person(s) have an escort? If the assertion that the material is classified, did they have proper clearances? That is piss poor "custody". So have we gone from manufacturing and tampering with evidence to “piss poor custody?“ No. More likely it was/is all three. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 12:23:29 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By HistoricArmsLLC: U.S. Government Accountability Office (U.S. GAO) GAO provides Congress, the heads of executive agencies, and the public with timely, fact-based, non-partisan information. Congress created GAO in the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 to assist in the discharge of its core constitutional powers--the power to investigate and oversee the activities of the executive branch, the power to control the use of federal funds, and the power to make laws. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By HistoricArmsLLC: Originally Posted By UtahShotgunner: GAO? U.S. Government Accountability Office (U.S. GAO) GAO provides Congress, the heads of executive agencies, and the public with timely, fact-based, non-partisan information. Congress created GAO in the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 to assist in the discharge of its core constitutional powers--the power to investigate and oversee the activities of the executive branch, the power to control the use of federal funds, and the power to make laws. I know what it is. It was the wrong organization in the post I quoted. I think he meant GSA. I was asking for clarification. |
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 5:04:04 PM EDT
[Last Edit: M4-AK]
[#4]
The Coverups will get ya. 8 minute video. Edit: This is the Stormy Trial. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 5:07:44 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By clickclickBOOM: I’m not a legal guy and defer to you guys who are much more knowledgeable in this thread, but as a common man I’m disturbed by this. If I was on a jury concerning “papers” and I see that law enforcement sensationally added “papers” to the naughty “papers”, then how could I 100% know they didn’t seed the naughty “papers” too? If they did seed them, which ones? Did they jumble them up to hide the potentially seeded papers? I could not in good conscience convict anyone on this. It’s too weird. Just my opinion. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By clickclickBOOM: Originally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By StanGram: Ah yes, that's very important when you strew them all over the floor and start taking pictures of them for the press. I’m not disputing the photos were used as a publicity stunt. I’m asking how you guys think classified cover sheets brought by the FBI affect the case from a legal standpoint. I’m not a legal guy and defer to you guys who are much more knowledgeable in this thread, but as a common man I’m disturbed by this. If I was on a jury concerning “papers” and I see that law enforcement sensationally added “papers” to the naughty “papers”, then how could I 100% know they didn’t seed the naughty “papers” too? If they did seed them, which ones? Did they jumble them up to hide the potentially seeded papers? I could not in good conscience convict anyone on this. It’s too weird. Just my opinion. Exactly. The FBI should have no credibility. It sounds like the classified documents may have been sent in from the national records archive to plant them in Trumps house. The government has no credibility and they prove it over and over again. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 5:09:47 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MADMAXXX: He didn't need to return any of his documents. Fuck their request.  ETA "Nuclear information" could mean anything including Clinton selling uranium to Russia. He didn’t? Have you read the PRA or the espionage act? Former presidents get to keep very little. Literally everything related to official presidential duties is government property. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 5:35:08 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: He didn’t? Have you read the PRA or the espionage act? Former presidents get to keep very little. Literally everything related to official presidential duties is government property. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By MADMAXXX: He didn't need to return any of his documents. Fuck their request. ETA "Nuclear information" could mean anything including Clinton selling uranium to Russia. He didn’t? Have you read the PRA or the espionage act? Former presidents get to keep very little. Literally everything related to official presidential duties is government property. Yes, the PRA allows copies of official records to be kept for reference. Given that these documents all came out of a printer, rather than an old-timey typewriter, they are copies. The PRA seeks to safeguard records, not prevent Presidents from having copies. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 5:37:16 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By clickclickBOOM: I’m not a legal guy and defer to you guys who are much more knowledgeable in this thread, but as a common man I’m disturbed by this. If I was on a jury concerning “papers” and I see that law enforcement sensationally added “papers” to the naughty “papers”, then how could I 100% know they didn’t seed the naughty “papers” too? If they did seed them, which ones? Did they jumble them up to hide the potentially seeded papers? I could not in good conscience convict anyone on this. It’s too weird. Just my opinion. Trump wasn’t charged with having documents, or mishandling classified information. His charges were for not returning them when told to. I’m not sure how classified cover sheets changes any of that. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 5:43:45 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: Biden can declassify anything, yes. Whether a President can keep unclassified documents (records) depends on how they are characterized (copies for reference, personal or presidential), and I don't think SCOTUS will ever rule against a President being the final authority of such characterizations. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By AdLucem: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By AdLucem: Originally Posted By MADMAXXX: He didn't need to return any of his documents. Fuck their request. ETA "Nuclear information" could mean anything including Clinton selling uranium to Russia. So do you believe the same holds true for Biden? Trump claims that he “declassified” his documents, and if they were copies, they count as personal documents for reference. Biden had never possessed the authority to declassify the documents he took, as VP or Senator. I disagree with your first contention, but we’ve been through that before. No need to rehash. We can agree to disagree. As to the second contention, Yes, I believe the vice president has a little or no classification authority, but that was not my question. Do you believe that Biden can declassify at will and can keep any and all documents he pleases? Biden can declassify anything, yes. Whether a President can keep unclassified documents (records) depends on how they are characterized (copies for reference, personal or presidential), and I don't think SCOTUS will ever rule against a President being the final authority of such characterizations. I think we discussed this a while back. I believe there is some legislated restrictions with respect to documents concerning nuclear information.. Let the Supreme Court clarify. I am not personally in favor of more presidential power and prefer a weaker president. |
|
|
|
AL, USA
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 5:46:31 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Trump wasn’t charged with having documents, or mishandling classified information. His charges were for not returning them when told to. I’m not sure how classified cover sheets changes any of that. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By clickclickBOOM: I’m not a legal guy and defer to you guys who are much more knowledgeable in this thread, but as a common man I’m disturbed by this. If I was on a jury concerning “papers” and I see that law enforcement sensationally added “papers” to the naughty “papers”, then how could I 100% know they didn’t seed the naughty “papers” too? If they did seed them, which ones? Did they jumble them up to hide the potentially seeded papers? I could not in good conscience convict anyone on this. It’s too weird. Just my opinion. Trump wasn’t charged with having documents, or mishandling classified information. His charges were for not returning them when told to. I’m not sure how classified cover sheets changes any of that. Why did the FBI put classified cover sheets on the documents in the pictures? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 5:48:54 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By UtahShotgunner: I know what it is. It was the wrong organization in the post I quoted. I think he meant GSA. I was asking for clarification. Yes, I misspoke. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 5:49:41 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AttachedFile: Why did the FBI put classified cover sheets on the documents in the pictures? Because classified documents are supposed to have cover sheets? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 5:51:55 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AttachedFile: Why did the FBI put classified cover sheets on the documents in the pictures? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AttachedFile: Originally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By clickclickBOOM: I’m not a legal guy and defer to you guys who are much more knowledgeable in this thread, but as a common man I’m disturbed by this. If I was on a jury concerning “papers” and I see that law enforcement sensationally added “papers” to the naughty “papers”, then how could I 100% know they didn’t seed the naughty “papers” too? If they did seed them, which ones? Did they jumble them up to hide the potentially seeded papers? I could not in good conscience convict anyone on this. It’s too weird. Just my opinion. Trump wasn’t charged with having documents, or mishandling classified information. His charges were for not returning them when told to. I’m not sure how classified cover sheets changes any of that. Why did the FBI put classified cover sheets on the documents in the pictures? They covered up the “evidence” so they could photograph the “evidence.” Of what probative value were those photographs? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 5:54:29 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Cincinnatus]
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Because classified documents are supposed to have cover sheets? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By AttachedFile: Why did the FBI put classified cover sheets on the documents in the pictures? Because classified documents are supposed to have cover sheets? Not when they are supposedly “evidence.” Evidence should be documented and kept in the exact condition as it was found. What probative value were the photos of FBI-provided cover sheets? |
|
|
|
AL, USA
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 5:55:54 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Because classified documents are supposed to have cover sheets? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By AttachedFile: Why did the FBI put classified cover sheets on the documents in the pictures? Because classified documents are supposed to have cover sheets? So the documents were classified but didn't have classified cover sheets from the start? And the FBI knew this somehow and planned ahead by bringing their own? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 6:10:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Dumak]
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Well, the only concession I’ve seen is that documents ended up in different boxes or in a different order, after they had to use cover sheets to protect the classified docs. Is that what constitutes the chain of custody issue? Is Trump’s team contesting the actual content of what was taken from MAL? You essentially have two questions like this - how does it affect the case? I will try to explain why. The defense claims that Trump didn't go through the boxes. They claim the documents were in chronological order as they received them. Now they are no longer in chronological order because the FBI mixed up the documents contained in each box. While they claim the documents in each box belong to each box, they admit the order is no longer correct. It matters, because of Trump's claim he didn't mess with the contents of the boxes. Since things are out of order, and the original order is not accounted for, the possibility exists that evidence could have been planted in the boxes while they were in custody of the GSA. The DOJ knew the GSA had the boxes. I don't have a link, but i've heard it mentioned that the FBI green lighted the transfer of the docs to MAL knowing the (edit: boxes of) documents contained classified material. How would the FBI know there was classified material in the boxes prior to the raid if they hadn't already inspected the boxes at some point? As for the photo. The FBI pulled out documents and placed the cover sheets they brought with them to stage the photo(s) that they leaked to the press. We don't even know if the documents placed on the floor were classified or not because the FBI admitted to placing the cover sheets on documents without any experts present that were qualified to determine their status. There is also the possibility that those extra cover sheets were placed back into the boxes. Chain of custody is an important thing. Evidence that doesn't have a strict chain of custody and is tampered with is often tossed. If it isn't tossed by the judge, a jury outside of DC, will probably not give the FBI the benefit of doubt. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 6:23:02 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AdLucem: So have we gone from manufacturing and tampering with evidence to “piss poor custody?“ Evidence is boxed, handled, cataloged, marked, organized, collated for distribution to the parties all the time. We used to use a manual bates machine to number each page... I suspect they have a more sophisticated methodology these days. In any event, it is the job of a good defense counsel to point out and make the most of any deficiency, meaningful or not, piss poor or not. The addition of organizational folders or the production of files in non-sequential order has little legal gravitas. At least in my view. I suspect they are all somewhat careless with the handling of protected documents. But Trump did a lot to bring this upon himself. Had he quickly agreed to return the documents and provided a milquetoast excuse I suspect this would’ve been a minor blip. Instead he doubled down, refusing to return them, possibly lying about possession, showing them off, and possibly keeping documents containing nuclear information. In my view that one typical of trump’s lack of sophistication and foresight. We live in a highly partisan nation, why give this opportunity to the Democrats? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AdLucem: Originally Posted By UtahShotgunner: Who had "custody" when "order of the boxes change or the individual files in the boxes are not kept in sequential order"? For that to change, someone had to access the material. Who was that? Is there a log of who accessed and what they examined? Did that person(s) have an escort? If the assertion that the material is classified, did they have proper clearances? That is piss poor "custody". So have we gone from manufacturing and tampering with evidence to “piss poor custody?“ Evidence is boxed, handled, cataloged, marked, organized, collated for distribution to the parties all the time. We used to use a manual bates machine to number each page... I suspect they have a more sophisticated methodology these days. In any event, it is the job of a good defense counsel to point out and make the most of any deficiency, meaningful or not, piss poor or not. The addition of organizational folders or the production of files in non-sequential order has little legal gravitas. At least in my view. I suspect they are all somewhat careless with the handling of protected documents. But Trump did a lot to bring this upon himself. Had he quickly agreed to return the documents and provided a milquetoast excuse I suspect this would’ve been a minor blip. Instead he doubled down, refusing to return them, possibly lying about possession, showing them off, and possibly keeping documents containing nuclear information. In my view that one typical of trump’s lack of sophistication and foresight. We live in a highly partisan nation, why give this opportunity to the Democrats? I think people are forgetting that all of this is the kind of thing defense counsel loves to discover. Trump's team has had much more access to all the evidence than any of us random people on the internet. Until they actually start talking about it in court filings, why does everybody else think they know better about all of this than the people who actually have the access, and get paid to discover it and use it to their client's advantage? 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 6:33:51 PM EDT
[Last Edit: CMiller]
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dumak: You essentially have two questions like this - how does it affect the case? I will try to explain why. The defense claims that Trump didn't go through the boxes. They claim the documents were in chronological order as they received them. Now they are no longer in chronological order because the FBI mixed up the documents contained in each box. While they claim the documents in each box belong to each box, they admit the order is no longer correct. It matters, because of Trump's claim he didn't mess with the contents of the boxes. Since things are out of order, and the original order is not accounted for, the possibility exists that evidence could have been planted in the boxes while they were in custody of the GSA. The DOJ knew the GSA had the boxes. I don't have a link, but i've heard it mentioned that the FBI green lighted the transfer of the docs to MAL knowing the (edit: boxes of) documents contained classified material. How would the FBI know there was classified material in the boxes prior to the raid if they hadn't already inspected the boxes at some point? As for the photo. The FBI pulled out documents and placed the cover sheets they brought with them to stage the photo(s) that they leaked to the press. We don't even know if the documents placed on the floor were classified or not because the FBI admitted to placing the cover sheets on documents without any experts present that were qualified to determine their status. There is also the possibility that those extra cover sheets were placed back into the boxes. Chain of custody is an important thing. Evidence that doesn't have a strict chain of custody and is tampered with is often tossed. If it isn't tossed by the judge, a jury outside of DC, will probably not give the FBI the benefit of doubt. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dumak: Originally Posted By Low_Country: Well, the only concession I’ve seen is that documents ended up in different boxes or in a different order, after they had to use cover sheets to protect the classified docs. Is that what constitutes the chain of custody issue? Is Trump’s team contesting the actual content of what was taken from MAL? You essentially have two questions like this - how does it affect the case? I will try to explain why. The defense claims that Trump didn't go through the boxes. They claim the documents were in chronological order as they received them. Now they are no longer in chronological order because the FBI mixed up the documents contained in each box. While they claim the documents in each box belong to each box, they admit the order is no longer correct. It matters, because of Trump's claim he didn't mess with the contents of the boxes. Since things are out of order, and the original order is not accounted for, the possibility exists that evidence could have been planted in the boxes while they were in custody of the GSA. The DOJ knew the GSA had the boxes. I don't have a link, but i've heard it mentioned that the FBI green lighted the transfer of the docs to MAL knowing the (edit: boxes of) documents contained classified material. How would the FBI know there was classified material in the boxes prior to the raid if they hadn't already inspected the boxes at some point? As for the photo. The FBI pulled out documents and placed the cover sheets they brought with them to stage the photo(s) that they leaked to the press. We don't even know if the documents placed on the floor were classified or not because the FBI admitted to placing the cover sheets on documents without any experts present that were qualified to determine their status. There is also the possibility that those extra cover sheets were placed back into the boxes. Chain of custody is an important thing. Evidence that doesn't have a strict chain of custody and is tampered with is often tossed. If it isn't tossed by the judge, a jury outside of DC, will probably not give the FBI the benefit of doubt. I suggest reading the indictment. They have video evidence of boxes being taken in and out of Trump's office, communication between employees about Trump sorting through boxes before allowing them to be returned to NARA, etc. ETA: you could also read the search warrant application, if you want to know why the FBI expected to find classified documents. Assuming you aren't already committed to the "they framed him" narrative, of course. ETA 2: We don't even know if the documents placed on the floor were classified or not because the FBI admitted to placing the cover sheets on documents without any experts present that were qualified to determine their status. There is also the possibility that those extra cover sheets were placed back into the boxes. I think you are a little too confident in the validity of your information sources. All of that is pure speculation. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 6:35:45 PM EDT
[Last Edit: LordsOfDiscipline]
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: I suggest reading the indictment. They have video evidence of boxes being taken in and out of Trump's office, communication between employees about Trump sorting through boxes before allowing them to be returned to NARA, etc. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Dumak: Originally Posted By Low_Country: Well, the only concession I’ve seen is that documents ended up in different boxes or in a different order, after they had to use cover sheets to protect the classified docs. Is that what constitutes the chain of custody issue? Is Trump’s team contesting the actual content of what was taken from MAL? You essentially have two questions like this - how does it affect the case? I will try to explain why. The defense claims that Trump didn't go through the boxes. They claim the documents were in chronological order as they received them. Now they are no longer in chronological order because the FBI mixed up the documents contained in each box. While they claim the documents in each box belong to each box, they admit the order is no longer correct. It matters, because of Trump's claim he didn't mess with the contents of the boxes. Since things are out of order, and the original order is not accounted for, the possibility exists that evidence could have been planted in the boxes while they were in custody of the GSA. The DOJ knew the GSA had the boxes. I don't have a link, but i've heard it mentioned that the FBI green lighted the transfer of the docs to MAL knowing the (edit: boxes of) documents contained classified material. How would the FBI know there was classified material in the boxes prior to the raid if they hadn't already inspected the boxes at some point? As for the photo. The FBI pulled out documents and placed the cover sheets they brought with them to stage the photo(s) that they leaked to the press. We don't even know if the documents placed on the floor were classified or not because the FBI admitted to placing the cover sheets on documents without any experts present that were qualified to determine their status. There is also the possibility that those extra cover sheets were placed back into the boxes. Chain of custody is an important thing. Evidence that doesn't have a strict chain of custody and is tampered with is often tossed. If it isn't tossed by the judge, a jury outside of DC, will probably not give the FBI the benefit of doubt. I suggest reading the indictment. They have video evidence of boxes being taken in and out of Trump's office, communication between employees about Trump sorting through boxes before allowing them to be returned to NARA, etc. The indictment is garbage. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 7:41:45 PM EDT
[Last Edit: UtahShotgunner]
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: I think people are forgetting that all of this is the kind of thing defense counsel loves to discover. Trump's team has had much more access to all the evidence than any of us random people on the internet. Until they actually start talking about it in court filings, why does everybody else think they know better about all of this than the people who actually have the access, and get paid to discover it and use it to their client's advantage? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By AdLucem: Originally Posted By UtahShotgunner: Who had "custody" when "order of the boxes change or the individual files in the boxes are not kept in sequential order"? For that to change, someone had to access the material. Who was that? Is there a log of who accessed and what they examined? Did that person(s) have an escort? If the assertion that the material is classified, did they have proper clearances? That is piss poor "custody". So have we gone from manufacturing and tampering with evidence to “piss poor custody?“ Evidence is boxed, handled, cataloged, marked, organized, collated for distribution to the parties all the time. We used to use a manual bates machine to number each page... I suspect they have a more sophisticated methodology these days. In any event, it is the job of a good defense counsel to point out and make the most of any deficiency, meaningful or not, piss poor or not. The addition of organizational folders or the production of files in non-sequential order has little legal gravitas. At least in my view. I suspect they are all somewhat careless with the handling of protected documents. But Trump did a lot to bring this upon himself. Had he quickly agreed to return the documents and provided a milquetoast excuse I suspect this would’ve been a minor blip. Instead he doubled down, refusing to return them, possibly lying about possession, showing them off, and possibly keeping documents containing nuclear information. In my view that one typical of trump’s lack of sophistication and foresight. We live in a highly partisan nation, why give this opportunity to the Democrats? I think people are forgetting that all of this is the kind of thing defense counsel loves to discover. Trump's team has had much more access to all the evidence than any of us random people on the internet. Until they actually start talking about it in court filings, why does everybody else think they know better about all of this than the people who actually have the access, and get paid to discover it and use it to their client's advantage? I do hope you include yourself in "everybody" as you have made many statement about these documents and those investigating. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 7:47:39 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Dirtydog]
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AttachedFile: Why did the FBI put classified cover sheets on the documents in the pictures? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AttachedFile: Originally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By clickclickBOOM: I'm not a legal guy and defer to you guys who are much more knowledgeable in this thread, but as a common man I'm disturbed by this. If I was on a jury concerning "papers" and I see that law enforcement sensationally added "papers" to the naughty "papers", then how could I 100% know they didn't seed the naughty "papers" too? If they did seed them, which ones? Did they jumble them up to hide the potentially seeded papers? I could not in good conscience convict anyone on this. It's too weird. Just my opinion. Trump wasn't charged with having documents, or mishandling classified information. His charges were for not returning them when told to. I'm not sure how classified cover sheets changes any of that. Why did the FBI put classified cover sheets on the documents in the pictures? eta, we have the 'After' pictures; where are the 'Before'? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 7:48:01 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: He didn’t? Have you read the PRA or the espionage act? Former presidents get to keep very little. Literally everything related to official presidential duties is government property. Presidents have inherent absolute automatic declassification authority. If the pres takes a classified doc out of a protected area or reads it to someone, it is no longer classified. 3 separate branches. No one can tell the pres he cant. old news. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 7:49:34 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Trump wasn’t charged with having documents, or mishandling classified information. His charges were for not returning them when told to. I’m not sure how classified cover sheets changes any of that. He didnt have to. As pres, he declassified them. He has said that many times. All he has to do is say it. There are witnesses that said, under oath, he did say that. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 7:50:49 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Because classified documents are supposed to have cover sheets? They brought the cover sheets. As far as anyone knows, the docs under the fake coversheets are gibberish. Also, if they were legit docs, whey did they forge the name on the boxes? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 7:55:00 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Because classified documents are supposed to have cover sheets? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 8:02:04 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By gotigers: Presidents have inherent absolute automatic declassification authority. If the pres takes a classified doc out of a protected area or reads it to someone, it is no longer classified. 3 separate branches. No one can tell the pres he cant. old news. Sure. But he wasn’t charged for mishandling classified information. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 8:05:50 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By gotigers: He didnt have to. As pres, he declassified them. He has said that many times. All he has to do is say it. There are witnesses that said, under oath, he did say that. Classification is irrelevant. The espionage act is pretty clear. If you are in possession of national security information, and the government asks for it back, it’s a crime not to do so. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 8:09:48 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: Yes, the PRA allows copies of official records to be kept for reference. Given that these documents all came out of a printer, rather than an old-timey typewriter, they are copies. The PRA seeks to safeguard records, not prevent Presidents from having copies. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By MADMAXXX: He didn't need to return any of his documents. Fuck their request. ETA "Nuclear information" could mean anything including Clinton selling uranium to Russia. He didn’t? Have you read the PRA or the espionage act? Former presidents get to keep very little. Literally everything related to official presidential duties is government property. Yes, the PRA allows copies of official records to be kept for reference. Given that these documents all came out of a printer, rather than an old-timey typewriter, they are copies. The PRA seeks to safeguard records, not prevent Presidents from having copies. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 8:11:29 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Classification is irrelevant. The espionage act is pretty clear. If you are in possession of national security information, and the government asks for it back, it’s a crime not to do so. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By gotigers: He didnt have to. As pres, he declassified them. He has said that many times. All he has to do is say it. There are witnesses that said, under oath, he did say that. Classification is irrelevant. The espionage act is pretty clear. If you are in possession of national security information, and the government asks for it back, it’s a crime not to do so. How did the grand jury determine that the documents were National Defense Information? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 8:12:51 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dumak: How would the FBI know there was classified material in the boxes prior to the raid if they hadn't already inspected the boxes at some point? Julie Kelly has reported that within a few months of Biden being sworn in the National Archives began having meetings with the White House and the DOJ about the pallets of boxes in the GSA warehouse in Virginia. Those were shipped to Trump in Florida in 2021. No one knows if the boxes were searched before the GSA shipped them to Mar-a-Lago. It the National Archives had such a problem with Trump possessing the boxes why did they ship them to Florida a year after Trump left office? David |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 8:56:29 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By dwhitehorne: Julie Kelly has reported that within a few months of Biden being sworn in the National Archives began having meetings with the White House and the DOJ about the pallets of boxes in the GSA warehouse in Virginia. Those were shipped to Trump in Florida in 2021. No one knows if the boxes were searched before the GSA shipped them to Mar-a-Lago. It the National Archives had such a problem with Trump possessing the boxes why did they ship them to Florida a year after Trump left office? David Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By dwhitehorne: Originally Posted By Dumak: How would the FBI know there was classified material in the boxes prior to the raid if they hadn't already inspected the boxes at some point? Julie Kelly has reported that within a few months of Biden being sworn in the National Archives began having meetings with the White House and the DOJ about the pallets of boxes in the GSA warehouse in Virginia. Those were shipped to Trump in Florida in 2021. No one knows if the boxes were searched before the GSA shipped them to Mar-a-Lago. It the National Archives had such a problem with Trump possessing the boxes why did they ship them to Florida a year after Trump left office? David I'm going to do you a favor--ignore everything she says. She pretends to be a reporter, when actually what she is doing is cherry-picking any little thing she can find to spin narratives MAGA World wants to hear. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 9:44:35 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: I'm going to do you a favor--ignore everything she says. She pretends to be a reporter, when actually what she is doing is cherry-picking any little thing she can find to spin narratives MAGA World wants to hear. J Kelly is reporting on the court documents that Judge Cannon unredacted that Jack Smith tried to keep sealed. And she makes sure to include the documents in her reports. She isn't pulling a CNN and telling us to just trust her. This case is effectively dead - even if the judge doesn't dismiss it. This trial isn't taking place in DC or NY. This judge will allow the defense to present this as evidence during the trial. Trump's lawyers are going to show the jury that the photo everyone on the planet saw, was staged bullshit, and explain what they did. Then the jury will hear the FBI knew the GSA had multiple pallets of documents and let them be delivered to MAL, and that Trump was raided AFTER he received them. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 9:50:34 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dumak: J Kelly is reporting on the court documents that Judge Cannon unredacted that Jack Smith tried to keep sealed. And she makes sure to include the documents in her reports. She isn't pulling a CNN and telling us to just trust her. This case is effectively dead - even if the judge doesn't dismiss it. This trial isn't taking place in DC or NY. This judge will allow the defense to present this as evidence during the trial. Trump's lawyers are going to show the jury that the photo everyone on the planet saw, was staged bullshit, and explain what they did. Then the jury will hear the FBI knew the GSA had multiple pallets of documents and let them be delivered to MAL, and that Trump was raided AFTER he received them. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dumak: Originally Posted By CMiller: I'm going to do you a favor--ignore everything she says. She pretends to be a reporter, when actually what she is doing is cherry-picking any little thing she can find to spin narratives MAGA World wants to hear. J Kelly is reporting on the court documents that Judge Cannon unredacted that Jack Smith tried to keep sealed. And she makes sure to include the documents in her reports. She isn't pulling a CNN and telling us to just trust her. This case is effectively dead - even if the judge doesn't dismiss it. This trial isn't taking place in DC or NY. This judge will allow the defense to present this as evidence during the trial. Trump's lawyers are going to show the jury that the photo everyone on the planet saw, was staged bullshit, and explain what they did. Then the jury will hear the FBI knew the GSA had multiple pallets of documents and let them be delivered to MAL, and that Trump was raided AFTER he received them. A journalist tells you what a court document says. Julie Kelly tells you what it says, and then creates an elaborate story about what it means, without making it clear that everything except the first part is speculation. Then we get a bunch of people in these threads acting as if the whole story came from court documents and is established fact, and then everybody reacts accordingly. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 10:04:51 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Logcutter: You realize Biden actually stole classified documents that he didn't have the ability to declassify, and kept them in his fucking garage, right? Why are you raising biden's malfeasance? I was neither comparing nor defending biden. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 10:07:17 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AdLucem: Why are you raising biden's malfeasance? I was neither comparing nor defending biden. Because it's relevant. Look at your avatar and get back to me. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 10:16:46 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Morlawn66]
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Logcutter: Because it's relevant. Look at your avatar and get back to me. Equal enforcement of the law or at least a half assed attempt at . Still waiting for that photo of the cover sheets in Joey's garage . Are some posters not seeing what the point of contention is here ? |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 10:20:17 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Morlawn66: Equal enforcement of the law . Still waiting for that photo of the cover sheets in Joey's garage . Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Morlawn66: Originally Posted By Logcutter: Because it's relevant. Look at your avatar and get back to me. Equal enforcement of the law . Still waiting for that photo of the cover sheets in Joey's garage . And the half a dozen other locations. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 10:50:21 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: Not when they are supposedly "evidence." Evidence should be documented and kept in the exact condition as it was found. What probative value were the photos of FBI-provided cover sheets? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By AttachedFile: Why did the FBI put classified cover sheets on the documents in the pictures? Because classified documents are supposed to have cover sheets? Not when they are supposedly "evidence." Evidence should be documented and kept in the exact condition as it was found. What probative value were the photos of FBI-provided cover sheets? Crickets.... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 11:03:30 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Morlawn66: Equal enforcement of the law or at least a half assed attempt at . Still waiting for that photo of the cover sheets in Joey's garage . Are some posters not seeing what the point of contention is here ? Oh it's not that they can't, it's that they won't..... Gonna be funnier than hell when their little safe space bubble gets popped.... 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 11:22:04 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By StanGram: Crickets.... Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By StanGram: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By AttachedFile: Why did the FBI put classified cover sheets on the documents in the pictures? Because classified documents are supposed to have cover sheets? Not when they are supposedly "evidence." Evidence should be documented and kept in the exact condition as it was found. What probative value were the photos of FBI-provided cover sheets? Crickets.... Exactly. Apparently, the cover sheets and the actual document don’t add up. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 11:38:23 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By StanGram: Crickets.... Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By StanGram: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By AttachedFile: Why did the FBI put classified cover sheets on the documents in the pictures? Because classified documents are supposed to have cover sheets? Not when they are supposedly "evidence." Evidence should be documented and kept in the exact condition as it was found. What probative value were the photos of FBI-provided cover sheets? Crickets.... I'm still waiting for somebody to explain how we actually know that what we're looking at in the picture is FBI-provided cover sheets vs the originals. Either they are real (not the FBI's placeholders, which would have been substituted after the picture was taken), or it appears to me the government misrepresented the photo in their court filing. @Cincinnatus (I'm not asking for anybody's opinion about that question, that's already obvious. I want to know if anybody actually has seen evidence one way or another, because I can't find it and I've spent more time than I should looking.) |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 11:44:40 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Cincinnatus]
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: I'm still waiting for somebody to explain how we actually know that what we're looking at in the picture is FBI-provided cover sheets vs the originals. Either they are real (not the FBI's placeholders, which would have been substituted after the picture was taken), or it appears to me the government misrepresented the photo in their court filing. @Cincinnatus (I'm not asking for anybody's opinion about that question, that's already obvious. I want to know if anybody actually has seen evidence one way or another, because I can't find it and I've spent more time than I should looking.) Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By StanGram: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By AttachedFile: Why did the FBI put classified cover sheets on the documents in the pictures? Because classified documents are supposed to have cover sheets? Not when they are supposedly "evidence." Evidence should be documented and kept in the exact condition as it was found. What probative value were the photos of FBI-provided cover sheets? Crickets.... I'm still waiting for somebody to explain how we actually know that what we're looking at in the picture is FBI-provided cover sheets vs the originals. Either they are real (not the FBI's placeholders, which would have been substituted after the picture was taken), or it appears to me the government misrepresented the photo in their court filing. @Cincinnatus (I'm not asking for anybody's opinion about that question, that's already obvious. I want to know if anybody actually has seen evidence one way or another, because I can't find it and I've spent more time than I should looking.) A cover sheet is a cover sheet. It is not classified information in and of itself, nor is it proof of there being “National Defense Information.” You keep pointing to the indictment as though it is proof. Proof of what? Based on what? Cover sheets? The members of the grand jury were not all granted TS//SCI clearances to allow them to view the “evidence.” So you tell me… What did they see? Cover sheets and an FBI pinky swear? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 11:58:47 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Low_Country]
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: A cover sheet is a cover sheet. It is not classified information in and of itself, nor is it proof of there being “National Defense Information.” You keep pointing to the indictment as though it is proof. Proof of what? Based on what? Cover sheets? The members of the grand jury were not all granted TS//SCI clearances to allow them to view the “evidence.” So you tell me… What did they see? Cover sheets and an FBI pinky swear? If you are willing to wager that a federal prosecutor is going to charge a former president under the espionage act, and the documents aren’t substantively as described in the indictment, knowing it’s all coming out at trial sooner or later, you are a braver man than I am.  |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 12:03:12 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Cincinnatus]
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: If you are willing to wager that a federal prosecutor is going to charge a former president under the espionage act, and the documents aren’t substantively as described in the indictment, knowing it’s all coming out at trial sooner or later, you are a braver man than I am. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/430926/IMG_4344-3212197.png Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: A cover sheet is a cover sheet. It is not classified information in and of itself, nor is it proof of there being “National Defense Information.” You keep pointing to the indictment as though it is proof. Proof of what? Based on what? Cover sheets? The members of the grand jury were not all granted TS//SCI clearances to allow them to view the “evidence.” So you tell me… What did they see? Cover sheets and an FBI pinky swear? If you are willing to wager that a federal prosecutor is going to charge a former president under the espionage act, and the documents aren’t substantively as described in the indictment, knowing it’s all coming out at trial sooner or later, you are a braver man than I am. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/430926/IMG_4344-3212197.png The documents are “described” in the indictment? Vague descriptions? Seriously? The defense is not present. The Grand Jury saw NONE of the actual evidence. This is why the case will collapse. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 12:08:27 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: The documents are “described” in the indictment? Vague descriptions? Seriously? The defense is not present. The Grand Jury saw NONE of the actual evidence. This is why the case will collapse. TOP SECRET “Document concerning WH intelligence briefing related to foreign countries….” That’s perfectly adequate to determine the document contains national security information, unless you are going to contend that the federal prosecutor indicting a former president just made it up. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 12:16:12 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Cincinnatus]
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: TOP SECRET “concerning WH intelligence briefing related to foreign countries….” That’s perfectly adequate to determine the document contains national security information, unless you are going to contend that the federal prosecutor indicting a former president just made it up. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: The documents are “described” in the indictment? Vague descriptions? Seriously? The defense is not present. The Grand Jury saw NONE of the actual evidence. This is why the case will collapse. TOP SECRET “concerning WH intelligence briefing related to foreign countries….” That’s perfectly adequate to determine the document contains national security information, unless you are going to contend that the federal prosecutor indicting a former president just made it up. Was he charged with retention of “national defense information” or “national security information”? Its the former (as you have previously, so adamantly pointed out) A TOP SECRET document “concerning WH intelligence briefing related to foreign countries….” …COULD have absolutely nothing to do with defense, and therefore be irrelevant to the charges of “willful retention of national defense information” But the grand jury were not allowed to know this, were they? That vague description should not have been sufficient. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 12:18:27 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: Was he charged with retention of “national defense information” or “national security information”? Its the former (as you have previously, so adamantly pointed out) A TOP SECRET document “concerning WH intelligence briefing related to foreign countries….” …COULD have absolutely nothing to do with defense, and therefore be irrelevant to the charges of “willful retention of national defense information” But the grand jury were not allowed to know this, were they? That vague description should not have been sufficient. How do you know what the grand jury was, or wasn’t, shown? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 12:22:43 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Cincinnatus]
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: How do you know what the grand jury was, or wasn’t, shown? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Was he charged with retention of “national defense information” or “national security information”? Its the former (as you have previously, so adamantly pointed out) A TOP SECRET document “concerning WH intelligence briefing related to foreign countries….” …COULD have absolutely nothing to do with defense, and therefore be irrelevant to the charges of “willful retention of national defense information” But the grand jury were not allowed to know this, were they? That vague description should not have been sufficient. How do you know what the grand jury was, or wasn’t, shown? I know that they were not granted security clearances. You, who insist that cover sheets MUST be placed on the documents, think that these random jury members get to see TS//SCI? Use your brain. You know that’s not true. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 12:31:05 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: I know that they were not granted security clearances. You, who insist that cover sheets MUST be placed on the documents, think that these random jury members get to see TS//SCI? Use your brain. You know that’s not true. Describing the information contained within a document doesn’t have to reveal classified information. #8 - document concerning military capabilities of a foreign country “Members of the grand jury, document #8 contains specific information on the size of the Russian submarine fleet, the specifics of the sea launch ballistic missiles they carry, and a new silent propulsion system called the caterpillar drive.” For example. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 12:34:24 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Cincinnatus]
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Describing the information contained within a document doesn’t have to reveal classified information. #8 - document concerning military capabilities of a foreign country “Members of the grand jury, document #8 contains specific information on the size of the Russian submarine fleet, the specifics of the sea launch ballistic missiles they carry, and a new silent propulsion system called the caterpillar drive.” For example. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: I know that they were not granted security clearances. You, who insist that cover sheets MUST be placed on the documents, think that these random jury members get to see TS//SCI? Use your brain. You know that’s not true. Describing the information contained within a document doesn’t have to reveal classified information. #8 - document concerning military capabilities of a foreign country “Members of the grand jury, document #8 contains specific information on the size of the Russian submarine fleet, the specifics of the sea launch ballistic missiles they carry, and a new silent propulsion system called the caterpillar drive.” For example. Earlier you posted the ACTUAL, vague description of a document. Now you find it necessary to invent a more specific, imaginary description? I understand. |
|
|
|
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
