User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
NJ, USA
|
Posted: 5/10/2024 4:30:40 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/585454/1000008415_jpg-3210560.JPG  You lack integrity |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2024 4:53:13 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Pretty much. If they are serving a warrant to recover classified documents, and are going to be taking photos, why wouldn’t the FBI bring cover sheets? Placing cover sheets on evidence, then photographing it and releasing it is basically evidence tampering. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2024 11:22:30 PM EDT
[Last Edit: MADMAXXX]
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ryan_Scott: Placing cover sheets on evidence, then photographing it and releasing it is basically evidence tampering. Because the sheeple believed that the documents were found as photographed with the cover sheets attached. Which is why these traitors did this.  |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2024 11:43:31 PM EDT
[Last Edit: AdLucem]
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By UtahShotgunner: You should re-read the thread and not trust to memory. The word he used was not "tampering" and you didn't question "tampering". So now you're off another tangent of your own making. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By UtahShotgunner: Originally Posted By AdLucem: Originally Posted By LordsOfDiscipline: So Jack Smith's behavior in this case okay? How many times did you mislead a judge in your career? Lets make this simple and stick the point.... You said Smith "admitted to tampering with evidence" and the link you provided can't support your claim. No need to compound your mistake with unsupported conjecture as to my characterization of Smith's behavior. Let's move onward... Can you provide a link to show where Smith intentionally misled the judge? Did the judge say that? You should re-read the thread and not trust to memory. The word he used was not "tampering" and you didn't question "tampering". So now you're off another tangent of your own making. You make yourself look foolish... Perhaps you should take your own advice and reread the post before you seek to chastise others for not doing so...  Originally Posted By LordsOfDiscipline: Jack Smith has admitted in Judge Cannon's Court to several other offenses: failure to maintain chain of custody, planting evidence, evidence tampering, and withholding exculpatory evidence. Trump's lawyers are also credibly accusing Jack Smith of witness tampering. In essence, there is a mountain of evidence suggesting Jack Smith's corruption. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 6:07:33 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AdLucem: You make yourself look foolish... Perhaps you should take your own advice and reread the post before you seek to chastise others for not doing so... Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AdLucem: You make yourself look foolish... Perhaps you should take your own advice and reread the post before you seek to chastise others for not doing so... You asked a different question. Originally Posted By AdLucem: Do you have a link to Smith's admissions of planting evidence? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 7:35:25 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ryan_Scott: Placing cover sheets on evidence, then photographing it and releasing it is basically evidence tampering. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ryan_Scott: Originally Posted By Low_Country: Pretty much. If they are serving a warrant to recover classified documents, and are going to be taking photos, why wouldn’t the FBI bring cover sheets? Placing cover sheets on evidence, then photographing it and releasing it is basically evidence tampering. Ah... so this is what you believe constitutes “evidence tampering?” How is it that marking, filing and photographing changed/altered the evidence itself? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 7:55:26 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AdLucem: Ah... so this is what you believe constitutes “evidence tampering?” How is it that marking, filing and photographing changed/altered the evidence itself? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AdLucem: Originally Posted By Ryan_Scott: Originally Posted By Low_Country: Pretty much. If they are serving a warrant to recover classified documents, and are going to be taking photos, why wouldn’t the FBI bring cover sheets? Placing cover sheets on evidence, then photographing it and releasing it is basically evidence tampering. Ah... so this is what you believe constitutes “evidence tampering?” How is it that marking, filing and photographing changed/altered the evidence itself? Did the classification markings on the FBI-provided cover sheets always match the actual classification of the documents they covered? |
|
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 8:58:35 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AdLucem: Ah... so this is what you believe constitutes “evidence tampering?” How is it that marking, filing and photographing changed/altered the evidence itself? The definition : Tampering with evidence is a crime that encompasses any action that destroys, alters, conceals, or falsifies any evidence. The definition of evidence is also very broad. It includes any object, document, or record useful to an investigation or a civil or criminal proceeding, regardless of whether it is pending or ongoing. You should look up "Obtuse" or use a mirror. The real world application : As FBI director in 2002, Special Counsel Robert Mueller directed his agents to oppose the pardons of four wrongfully imprisoned men because exculpatory evidence was merely “fodder for cross-examination,” newly revealed FBI documents show. Four years later, the four men, or their estates, were awarded $102 million by a federal judge in Boston for their wrongful decades-long imprisonment due to FBI misconduct. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 10:27:53 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JKH62: The definition : Tampering with evidence is a crime that encompasses any action that destroys, alters, conceals, or falsifies any evidence. The definition of evidence is also very broad. It includes any object, document, or record useful to an investigation or a civil or criminal proceeding, regardless of whether it is pending or ongoing. You should look up "Obtuse" or use a mirror. The real world application : As FBI director in 2002, Special Counsel Robert Mueller directed his agents to oppose the pardons of four wrongfully imprisoned men because exculpatory evidence was merely “fodder for cross-examination,” newly revealed FBI documents show. Four years later, the four men, or their estates, were awarded $102 million by a federal judge in Boston for their wrongful decades-long imprisonment due to FBI misconduct. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JKH62: Originally Posted By AdLucem: Ah... so this is what you believe constitutes “evidence tampering?” How is it that marking, filing and photographing changed/altered the evidence itself? The definition : Tampering with evidence is a crime that encompasses any action that destroys, alters, conceals, or falsifies any evidence. The definition of evidence is also very broad. It includes any object, document, or record useful to an investigation or a civil or criminal proceeding, regardless of whether it is pending or ongoing. You should look up "Obtuse" or use a mirror. The real world application : As FBI director in 2002, Special Counsel Robert Mueller directed his agents to oppose the pardons of four wrongfully imprisoned men because exculpatory evidence was merely “fodder for cross-examination,” newly revealed FBI documents show. Four years later, the four men, or their estates, were awarded $102 million by a federal judge in Boston for their wrongful decades-long imprisonment due to FBI misconduct. He knows this and that's the problem. |
|
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 11:21:41 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By LordsOfDiscipline: He knows this and that's the problem. Pretty sure they do it's just flinging shit on the wall. I expect it from not bright people, NT crowd, but someone with a law degree, an educated person that is supposed to know the law they should ask for a refund. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 11:45:52 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JKH62: The definition : Tampering with evidence is a crime that encompasses any action that destroys, alters, conceals, or falsifies any evidence. The definition of evidence is also very broad. It includes any object, document, or record useful to an investigation or a civil or criminal proceeding, regardless of whether it is pending or ongoing. You should look up "Obtuse" or use a mirror. The real world application : As FBI director in 2002, Special Counsel Robert Mueller directed his agents to oppose the pardons of four wrongfully imprisoned men because exculpatory evidence was merely “fodder for cross-examination,” newly revealed FBI documents show. Four years later, the four men, or their estates, were awarded $102 million by a federal judge in Boston for their wrongful decades-long imprisonment due to FBI misconduct. At least one of those men died serving his prison term |
|
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 12:25:51 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By xmission: At least one of those men died serving his prison term Yep. Trust but verify. I do not trust the DOJ / FBI based on their past actions and they do not help themselves by lacking uniform application of the law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 12:35:21 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: Did the classification markings on the FBI-provided cover sheets always match the actual classification of the documents they covered? Was Trump charged with mishandling classified information? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 12:45:06 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Cincinnatus]
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Was Trump charged with mishandling classified information? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Did the classification markings on the FBI-provided cover sheets always match the actual classification of the documents they covered? Was Trump charged with mishandling classified information? Great point! How then would pictures of FBI cover sheets be considered “evidence” of anything? What was the purpose of those photos? |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 12:46:02 PM EDT
[#15]
The DOJ started using the term "documents with classified markings" in its filings when Trump claimed he had declassified certain documents. Just because you see "documents with classified markings" written somewhere by the DOJ, doesn't mean that they are actually classified
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 12:52:12 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Cincinnatus]
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mcantu: The DOJ started using the term "documents with classified markings" in its filings when Trump claimed he had declassified certain documents. Just because you see "documents with classified markings" written somewhere by the DOJ, doesn't mean that they are actually classified Nor are all “classified documents” National Defense Information. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 8:58:46 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 0002s]
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Was Trump charged with mishandling classified information? Actually yes, this is part, not all, of the indictment. The alleged crimes hinges on the top secret documents they found. Guilt has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The Top Men and DOJ (Special Council), admitting to the judge, they lied, about aspects of the indictment, by representing evidence they knowingly mishandled and embellished, raises many questions. Most notably reasonable doubt. Once the chain of custody was broken, there is no proof, past Top Men’s and the DOJ’s word, that nothing was added or altered in an attempt to prove guilt by helping their case. How Top Men and the DOJ could allow, the alleged slam dunk guilty verdict evidence, to be embellished and mishandled, leaves one wonder HOW FUCKING STUPID THEY MUST BE, or did they planted evidence in an attempt to get Trump. (note this is the reasonable doubt part) While you and the merry gang want Trump to be gone, TDS in one hand and shit in the other, still has to follow: THE RULES This was planned from the beginning. Top Men and the DOJ were attempting to pull this scam off by getting the NA to ship back boxes of DOCs that had additional DOCs added. They were going to do a quick raid. Stage photos. Move case to a DC for a favorable judge and jury. What fucked them up was the Florida Judge had jurisdiction and started asking questions. The NA had scanned records of what was in the boxes and the order they were in. Too Men staged photos. But most importantly, Joe Biden had actual Top Secret Documents, in his open garage, on his corvette, in not staged photos. That issue needed to be dealt with first. That took time and slowed the Top Men’s and DOJ’s rush to trial job down. Well maybe they can get some hooker piss from some planted bed sheets and get the ‘Russia’ thing going again. Top Men I tell you. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 11:47:17 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: Did the classification markings on the FBI-provided cover sheets always match the actual classification of the documents they covered? I have no idea but probably not. Perhaps I missed something but utilizing external file folders to hold evidentiary documents, or using cover sheets to label evidence is not unusual. Whether the folders or cover sheets utilized by the FBI while taking custody of, packing and cataloging evidence at the location of the search "always matched the actual classification" of the documents, seems insignificant, as the actual classification of documents is based upon the contents of the document and not by classification markings or cover sheets. Are you asserting the FBI was altering evidence by attempting to change evidentiary classifications by improper file markings? Were actual documents presented to the Grand Jury or in court filings, tampered with or falsely classified? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2024 1:02:33 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Dumak]
[#19]
People keep saying there is no proof the DOJ lied about or tampered with the documents. So I linked a politico article - because Julie Kelly's reporting isn't enough.
Special counsel Jack Smith's team acknowledged Friday that some evidence in the prosecution of former President Donald Trump for hoarding classified documents at his Florida home may not be in the same sequence FBI agents found it when they swept into the Mar-a-Lago compound with a search warrant in August 2022. The concession from prosecutors in a court filing Friday afternoon came after attorneys for one of Trump's co-defendants asked for a delay in the case because the defense lawyers were having trouble determining precisely where particular documents had come from in the 33 boxes the FBI seized almost two years ago. In their filing, prosecutors acknowledged the government had previously — and incorrectly — told U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon that the boxes remained “in their original, intact form as seized,” other than a decision to replace classified documents with placeholder sheets https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/03/mar-a-lago-trump-classified-documents-00156124 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2024 6:29:18 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Cincinnatus]
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AdLucem: I have no idea but probably not. Perhaps I missed something but utilizing external file folders to hold evidentiary documents, or using cover sheets to label evidence is not unusual. Whether the folders or cover sheets utilized by the FBI while taking custody of, packing and cataloging evidence at the location of the search "always matched the actual classification" of the documents, seems insignificant, as the actual classification of documents is based upon the contents of the document and not by classification markings or cover sheets. Are you asserting the FBI was altering evidence by attempting to change evidentiary classifications by improper file markings? Were actual documents presented to the Grand Jury or in court filings, tampered with or falsely classified? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AdLucem: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Did the classification markings on the FBI-provided cover sheets always match the actual classification of the documents they covered? I have no idea but probably not. Perhaps I missed something but utilizing external file folders to hold evidentiary documents, or using cover sheets to label evidence is not unusual. Whether the folders or cover sheets utilized by the FBI while taking custody of, packing and cataloging evidence at the location of the search "always matched the actual classification" of the documents, seems insignificant, as the actual classification of documents is based upon the contents of the document and not by classification markings or cover sheets. Are you asserting the FBI was altering evidence by attempting to change evidentiary classifications by improper file markings? Were actual documents presented to the Grand Jury or in court filings, tampered with or falsely classified? If the cover sheets were provided by the FBI, and they did not match the classification of the documents… What was the probative value of the photos of the cover sheets? The Grand Jury would not be provided actual, classified documents. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2024 7:43:59 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dumak: People keep saying there is no proof the DOJ lied about or tampered with the documents. So I linked a politico article - because Julie Kelly's reporting isn't enough. https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/03/mar-a-lago-trump-classified-documents-00156124 Top Men doing Top Men things. Sorta like the Russia Dossier bullshit, the Alfa bank bullshit, Flynn fucking, Senator Stevens fucking etc. etc. etc. Yet some here continue to give them a 100% credibility rating. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2024 7:51:21 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: If the cover sheets were provided by the FBI, and they did not match the classification of the documents… What was the probative value of the photos of the cover sheets? The Grand Jury would not be provided actual, classified documents. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By AdLucem: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Did the classification markings on the FBI-provided cover sheets always match the actual classification of the documents they covered? I have no idea but probably not. Perhaps I missed something but utilizing external file folders to hold evidentiary documents, or using cover sheets to label evidence is not unusual. Whether the folders or cover sheets utilized by the FBI while taking custody of, packing and cataloging evidence at the location of the search "always matched the actual classification" of the documents, seems insignificant, as the actual classification of documents is based upon the contents of the document and not by classification markings or cover sheets. Are you asserting the FBI was altering evidence by attempting to change evidentiary classifications by improper file markings? Were actual documents presented to the Grand Jury or in court filings, tampered with or falsely classified? If the cover sheets were provided by the FBI, and they did not match the classification of the documents… What was the probative value of the photos of the cover sheets? The Grand Jury would not be provided actual, classified documents. I am not sure but I think you have it backwards... Is it your contention that the photographs showing mismarked files were considered by the grand jury? and If so, they would therefore be overly prejudicial and not probative and thus, unfairly swayed the jury to indict? And no, I believe that the jury could have limited access to classified information... there are work arounds to the admission and production of classified material... Protective orders and also I belive federal law permits a judge to order admission into evidence of only a part of a writing, recording, or photograph with the removal of all or part of the classified information. I suspect those guidelines would apply to a pre-trial Grand Jury proceeding. Again this is not my practice area but I enjoy trying not to take sides but only to bring relevant information into the discussion. Unfortunately anything other that the recitation of partisan dogma is often met with hostility.  |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2024 8:08:11 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AdLucem: I am not sure but I think you have it backwards... Is it your contention that the photographs showing mismarked files were considered by the grand jury? and If so, they would therefore be overly prejudicial and not probative and thus, unfairly swayed the jury to indict? And no, I believe that the jury could have limited access to classified information... there are work arounds to the admission and production of classified material... Protective orders and also I belive federal law permits a judge to order admission into evidence of only a part of a writing, recording, or photograph with the removal of all or part of the classified information. I suspect those guidelines would apply to a pre-trial Grand Jury proceeding. Again this is not my practice area but I enjoy trying not to take sides but only to bring relevant information into the discussion. Unfortunately anything other that the recitation of partisan dogma is often met with hostility. Likely the photos were staged specifically for use in front of a GJ. It's a single party proceeding, no challenges will be brought. This entire thing was planned out for public consumption. From the armed raid...on an unoccupied residence, secured by a partner federal law enforcement agency...to the staged photos. It's a show trial not a necessary remedy to a national security issue. All political. And therefor illegitimate. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2024 9:48:37 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Cincinnatus]
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AdLucem: I am not sure but I think you have it backwards... Is it your contention that the photographs showing mismarked files were considered by the grand jury? and If so, they would therefore be overly prejudicial and not probative and thus, unfairly swayed the jury to indict? And no, I believe that the jury could have limited access to classified information... there are work arounds to the admission and production of classified material... Protective orders and also I belive federal law permits a judge to order admission into evidence of only a part of a writing, recording, or photograph with the removal of all or part of the classified information. I suspect those guidelines would apply to a pre-trial Grand Jury proceeding. Again this is not my practice area but I enjoy trying not to take sides but only to bring relevant information into the discussion. Unfortunately anything other that the recitation of partisan dogma is often met with hostility. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AdLucem: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By AdLucem: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Did the classification markings on the FBI-provided cover sheets always match the actual classification of the documents they covered? I have no idea but probably not. Perhaps I missed something but utilizing external file folders to hold evidentiary documents, or using cover sheets to label evidence is not unusual. Whether the folders or cover sheets utilized by the FBI while taking custody of, packing and cataloging evidence at the location of the search "always matched the actual classification" of the documents, seems insignificant, as the actual classification of documents is based upon the contents of the document and not by classification markings or cover sheets. Are you asserting the FBI was altering evidence by attempting to change evidentiary classifications by improper file markings? Were actual documents presented to the Grand Jury or in court filings, tampered with or falsely classified? If the cover sheets were provided by the FBI, and they did not match the classification of the documents… What was the probative value of the photos of the cover sheets? The Grand Jury would not be provided actual, classified documents. I am not sure but I think you have it backwards... Is it your contention that the photographs showing mismarked files were considered by the grand jury? and If so, they would therefore be overly prejudicial and not probative and thus, unfairly swayed the jury to indict? And no, I believe that the jury could have limited access to classified information... there are work arounds to the admission and production of classified material... Protective orders and also I belive federal law permits a judge to order admission into evidence of only a part of a writing, recording, or photograph with the removal of all or part of the classified information. I suspect those guidelines would apply to a pre-trial Grand Jury proceeding. Again this is not my practice area but I enjoy trying not to take sides but only to bring relevant information into the discussion. Unfortunately anything other that the recitation of partisan dogma is often met with hostility. What was the purpose of the photos of cover sheets spread across the floor? We all saw how the MSM reacted to the photos. They pointed to the photos of documents spread across the floor as "proof" of how careless Trump is/was regarding his handling of classified material. It was never acknowledged that it was the FBI who had spread the docs across the floor, nor was it revealed that the photo was of classified cover sheets that the FBI brought with them to the scene. It's easy to see the purpose the photos served in the propaganda arena. How were those photos represented to the Grand Jury? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2024 1:21:18 PM EDT
[Last Edit: AdLucem]
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: What was the purpose of the photos of cover sheets spread across the floor? We all saw how the MSM reacted to the photos. They pointed to the photos of documents spread across the floor as "proof" of how careless Trump is/was regarding his handling of classified material. It was never acknowledged that it was the FBI who had spread the docs across the floor, nor was it revealed that the photo was of classified cover sheets that the FBI brought with them to the scene. It's easy to see the purpose the photos served in the propaganda arena. How were those photos represented to the Grand Jury? Do we know if they were shown to the grand jury? While GJ proceedings are usually secret... I am pretty sure there is no prohibition from witnesses or grand jurors discussing proceedings once those proceedings are concluded. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2024 2:18:34 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AdLucem: Do we know if they were shown to the grand jury? While GJ proceedings are usually secret... I am pretty sure there is no prohibition from witnesses or grand jurors discussing proceedings once those proceedings are concluded. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AdLucem: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: What was the purpose of the photos of cover sheets spread across the floor? We all saw how the MSM reacted to the photos. They pointed to the photos of documents spread across the floor as "proof" of how careless Trump is/was regarding his handling of classified material. It was never acknowledged that it was the FBI who had spread the docs across the floor, nor was it revealed that the photo was of classified cover sheets that the FBI brought with them to the scene. It's easy to see the purpose the photos served in the propaganda arena. How were those photos represented to the Grand Jury? Do we know if they were shown to the grand jury? While GJ proceedings are usually secret... I am pretty sure there is no prohibition from witnesses or grand jurors discussing proceedings once those proceedings are concluded. Good question. Again, if the investigative team and the FBI did NOT provide the photos of FBI cover sheets spread across the floor to the Grand Jury -what was the purpose of the photos? They certainly did not serve to accurately document the "crime scene." And if they DID provide those photos of FBI cover sheets spread across the floor to the Grand Jury -why? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2024 2:32:27 PM EDT
[#27]
OST
To placehold. I've got prohibited and prejudicial pre-trial publicity for 1000 Alex. Very odd and maybe unethical/illegal behavior. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2024 3:02:09 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: Good question. Again, if the investigative team and the FBI did NOT provide the photos of FBI cover sheets spread across the floor to the Grand Jury -what was the purpose of the photos? They certainly did not serve to accurately document the "crime scene." And if they DID provide those photos of FBI cover sheets spread across the floor to the Grand Jury -why?  Or are you proceeding, purely for rhetorical purposes, under the assumption that this ridiculous shit show is an actual pursuit of justice? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2024 3:02:29 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mcculver5: OST To placehold. I've got prohibited and prejudicial pre-trial publicity for 1000 Alex. Very odd and maybe unethical/illegal behavior. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2024 3:09:50 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 1911SFOREVER: Top Men doing Top Men things. Sorta like the Russia Dossier bullshit, the Alfa bank bullshit, Flynn fucking, Senator Stevens fucking etc. etc. etc. Yet some here continue to give them a 100% credibility rating. that's because "They" are "Them" propaganda straight from their mouths. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2024 3:11:43 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By xd341: maybe? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By xd341: Originally Posted By mcculver5: OST To placehold. I've got prohibited and prejudicial pre-trial publicity for 1000 Alex. Very odd and maybe unethical/illegal behavior. We don't know exactly who did it or why. Lots we don't know. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2024 8:20:21 PM EDT
[Last Edit: AdLucem]
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: Good question. Again, if the investigative team and the FBI did NOT provide the photos of FBI cover sheets spread across the floor to the Grand Jury -what was the purpose of the photos? They certainly did not serve to accurately document the "crime scene." And if they DID provide those photos of FBI cover sheets spread across the floor to the Grand Jury -why? I do not see a particular reason these photographs would be presented to a grand jury. Sometimes photographs are taken during searches to chronicle the process and to serve as a reference. But these particular photographs do not appear to serve any evidentiary purpose to a grand jury... It would seem more likely they might be offered during trial as exhibits used for the introduction of the evidence collected during the search. Do we know the exact origin of these photographs? Were they officially released by the Bureau? I believe it has been stated here that they were purposely leaked... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2024 8:24:20 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AdLucem: I do not see a particular reason these photographs would be presented to a grand jury. Sometimes photographs are taken during searches to chronicle the process and to serve as a reference. But these particular photographs do not appear to serve any evidentiary purpose to a grand jury... It would seem more likely they might be offered during trial as exhibits used for the introduction of the evidence collected during the search. Do we know the exact origin of these photographs? Were they officially released by the Bureau? I believe it has been stated here that they were purposely leaked... Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AdLucem: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Good question. Again, if the investigative team and the FBI did NOT provide the photos of FBI cover sheets spread across the floor to the Grand Jury -what was the purpose of the photos? They certainly did not serve to accurately document the "crime scene." And if they DID provide those photos of FBI cover sheets spread across the floor to the Grand Jury -why? I do not see a particular reason these photographs would be presented to a grand jury. Sometimes photographs are taken during searches to chronicle the process and to serve as a reference. But these particular photographs do not appear to serve any evidentiary purpose to a grand jury... It would seem more likely they might be offered during trial as exhibits used for the introduction of the evidence collected during the search. Do we know the exact origin of these photographs? Were they officially released by the Bureau? I believe it has been stated here that they were purposely leaked... How can photos of cover sheets covering evidence be used as evidence? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2024 9:13:50 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AdLucem: I do not see a particular reason these photographs would be presented to a grand jury. Sometimes photographs are taken during searches to chronicle the process and to serve as a reference. But these particular photographs do not appear to serve any evidentiary purpose to a grand jury... It would seem more likely they might be offered during trial as exhibits used for the introduction of the evidence collected during the search. Do we know the exact origin of these photographs? Were they officially released by the Bureau? I believe it has been stated here that they were purposely leaked... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2024 10:20:20 PM EDT
[#35]
Th cover sheets were intended to get people who still watch Foxnews and cnn to think a trump committed a crime. They aren’t working. Even boomer’s who still watch Fox news and CNMSDNC have seen through the fraud perpetrated by he FBI.
|
|
|
|
MS, USA
|
Posted: 5/13/2024 10:23:12 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: How can photos of cover sheets covering evidence be used as evidence? Same way the FBI got FISA warrants on Trump's campaign - by perjuring themselves. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2024 12:20:02 AM EDT
[Last Edit: MADMAXXX]
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Bhart89: Th cover sheets were intended to get people who still watch Foxnews and cnn to think a trump committed a crime. They aren't working. Even boomer's who still watch Fox news and CNMSDNC have seen through the fraud perpetrated by he FBI. Many if not most people believe that the picture was taken of evidence as it was in the state/condition that it was discovered in. In other words with those cover sheets attached and randomly spread out on the floor. And these people vote |
|
|
|
NJ, USA
|
Posted: 5/14/2024 12:31:15 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AdLucem: I do not see a particular reason these photographs would be presented to a grand jury. Sometimes photographs are taken during searches to chronicle the process and to serve as a reference. But these particular photographs do not appear to serve any evidentiary purpose to a grand jury... It would seem more likely they might be offered during trial as exhibits used for the introduction of the evidence collected during the search. Do we know the exact origin of these photographs? Were they officially released by the Bureau? I believe it has been stated here that they were purposely leaked... Maybe not OFFICIALLY released but released nonetheless |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2024 9:09:37 AM EDT
[Last Edit: APPARITION]
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AdLucem: I do not see a particular reason these photographs would be presented to a grand jury. Sometimes photographs are taken during searches to chronicle the process and to serve as a reference. But these particular photographs do not appear to serve any evidentiary purpose to a grand jury... It would seem more likely they might be offered during trial as exhibits used for the introduction of the evidence collected during the search. Do we know the exact origin of these photographs? Were they officially released by the Bureau? I believe it has been stated here that they were purposely leaked... Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AdLucem: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Good question. Again, if the investigative team and the FBI did NOT provide the photos of FBI cover sheets spread across the floor to the Grand Jury -what was the purpose of the photos? They certainly did not serve to accurately document the "crime scene." And if they DID provide those photos of FBI cover sheets spread across the floor to the Grand Jury -why? I do not see a particular reason these photographs would be presented to a grand jury. Sometimes photographs are taken during searches to chronicle the process and to serve as a reference. But these particular photographs do not appear to serve any evidentiary purpose to a grand jury... It would seem more likely they might be offered during trial as exhibits used for the introduction of the evidence collected during the search. Do we know the exact origin of these photographs? Were they officially released by the Bureau? I believe it has been stated here that they were purposely leaked... Propaganda noun 1. information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2024 9:29:07 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: How can photos of cover sheets covering evidence be used as evidence? I was not suggesting these provide any real evidentiary value although I was speculating as to any possible reason those photos may have been included in material provided the Grand Jury (although we do not know if they were). I suppose argumento they are technically forensic evidence of the recovery of the alleged prohibited material and of what Smith is alleging is a "crime scene." |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2024 9:51:04 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Morlawn66]
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MADMAXXX: You give too much credit to the average idiot out there. Many if not most people believe that the picture was taken of evidence as it was in the state/condition that it was discovered in. In other words with those cover sheets attached and randomly spread out on the floor. And these people vote Next we do the stolen Biden docs , no cover sheets in the various locations ., a few photos , Joey gets to mutter " a locked garage ", no mention that they were stolen . Just a forgetful old man writing a book is how it was presented . Joey got to tell the public how "Irresponsible" Trump was after they did the staged photo op. This all matters, Anarcho -Tyranny . per Josh Hammer writing in Newsweek . |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2024 11:29:40 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AdLucem: I was not suggesting these provide any real evidentiary value although I was speculating as to any possible reason those photos may have been included in material provided the Grand Jury (although we do not know if they were). I suppose argumento they are technically forensic evidence of the recovery of the alleged prohibited material and of what Smith is alleging is a "crime scene." Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AdLucem: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: How can photos of cover sheets covering evidence be used as evidence? I was not suggesting these provide any real evidentiary value although I was speculating as to any possible reason those photos may have been included in material provided the Grand Jury (although we do not know if they were). I suppose argumento they are technically forensic evidence of the recovery of the alleged prohibited material and of what Smith is alleging is a "crime scene." "Technically," the photos of cover sheets are the opposite of "forensic evidence" |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2024 9:50:27 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: "Technically," the photos of cover sheets are the opposite of "forensic evidence" "Technically," forensic photographs are a type of physical evidence which can be taken to document crime scenes. These photos could be used during the judicial process to establish how evidence was recovered, marked with external folders and then filed and transported. |
|
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 5/16/2024 10:01:38 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AdLucem: "Technically," forensic photographs are a type of physical evidence which can be taken to document crime scenes. These photos could be used during the judicial process to establish how evidence was recovered, marked with external folders and then filed and transported. Forensic / crime scene pics are taken without moving anything. They add numbered markers for spent casings and a ruler for scale but the items on scene are not moved and photographed / recorded . A perimeter is set for limited access. Are you trying to suggest the Trump raid was anything close to a standard crime scene and evidence collecting? It was not and the staged pics taken by the FBI were leaked by the FBI. |
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 5/16/2024 10:07:36 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AdLucem: "Technically," forensic photographs are a type of physical evidence which can be taken to document crime scenes. These photos could be used during the judicial process to establish how evidence was recovered, marked with external folders and then filed and transported. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AdLucem: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: "Technically," the photos of cover sheets are the opposite of "forensic evidence" "Technically," forensic photographs are a type of physical evidence which can be taken to document crime scenes. These photos could be used during the judicial process to establish how evidence was recovered, marked with external folders and then filed and transported. Except there is no evidence of evidence in those photos. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2024 10:53:29 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AdLucem: "Technically," forensic photographs are a type of physical evidence which can be taken to document crime scenes. These photos could be used during the judicial process to establish how evidence was recovered, marked with external folders and then filed and transported. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AdLucem: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: "Technically," the photos of cover sheets are the opposite of "forensic evidence" "Technically," forensic photographs are a type of physical evidence which can be taken to document crime scenes. These photos could be used during the judicial process to establish how evidence was recovered, marked with external folders and then filed and transported. YOU should know what “forensic evidence” means. Your post indicates otherwise. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2024 11:00:25 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JKH62: Forensic / crime scene pics are taken without moving anything. They add numbered markers for spent casings and a ruler for scale but the items on scene are not moved and photographed / recorded . A perimeter is set for limited access. Are you trying to suggest the Trump raid was anything close to a standard crime scene and evidence collecting? It was not and the staged pics taken by the FBI were leaked by the FBI. I'm not suggesting anything other than photographs are often used in conjunction with the collection of evidence... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2024 11:04:41 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: YOU should know what “forensic evidence” means. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2024 11:16:00 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Imzadi: Except there is no evidence of evidence in those photos. Are you disputing the pictures represented the search area or evidence collected? |
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 5/16/2024 11:26:09 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AdLucem: "Technically," forensic photographs are a type of physical evidence which can be taken to document crime scenes. These photos could be used during the judicial process to establish how evidence was recovered, marked with external folders and then filed and transported. Except the cover sheets are props. They aren't approved for use by any government agency. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
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.
