User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 12:45:41 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: Earlier you posted the ACTUAL, vague description of a document. Now you find it necessary to invent a more specific, imaginary description? I understand. You are making assumptions about what the grand jury did, and did not, hear. And your contention is that without seeing the actual documents, they couldn’t have know what was in them. Just giving you a hypothetical example showing you to be incorrect. Unless you believe Jack Smith flat lied, you can give more than enough information for a grand jury to understand what the document contained, without revealing any classified information. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 1:07:06 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AttachedFile: Why did the FBI put classified cover sheets on the documents in the pictures? Tag in the new account! 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 2:10:35 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By LordsOfDiscipline: The indictment is garbage. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By LordsOfDiscipline: Originally 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: 5/12/2024 2:18:23 AM EDT
[Last Edit: eesmith]
[#4]
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 |
|
|
|
CA, USA
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 2:44:59 AM EDT
[#5]
When "everything is said and done," I hope some lawyers get permanently disbarred.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 3:00:48 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By eesmith: Given that the primary objective of all of the charges are to interfere with the election and that they likely didn't expect Trump to still be ahead at this point, as well as the fact Jack Smith has been unanimously reversed at SCOTUS before for similar politically-motivated prosecutions, I think it's extremely plausible. Especially when you consider the high odds that even if Trump wins, Smith will almost certainly not be punished for it. Well, if it turns out that the facts laid out in the indictment are a misrepresentation, I’ll be first in line calling for Jack Smith’s disbarment and subsequent perjury charges. |
|
|
|
IRQ
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 3:29:12 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MIR: this country is lost people Good thing you weren't around when the British were in charge, we wouldn't have a country if thinking like that was the norm back then. Personally, I plan on fighting, not giving up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 3:41:19 AM EDT
[Last Edit: eesmith]
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Well, if it turns out that the facts laid out in the indictment are a misrepresentation, I'll be first in line calling for Jack Smith's disbarment and subsequent perjury charges. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By eesmith: Given that the primary objective of all of the charges are to interfere with the election and that they likely didn't expect Trump to still be ahead at this point, as well as the fact Jack Smith has been unanimously reversed at SCOTUS before for similar politically-motivated prosecutions, I think it's extremely plausible. Especially when you consider the high odds that even if Trump wins, Smith will almost certainly not be punished for it. Well, if it turns out that the facts laid out in the indictment are a misrepresentation, I'll be first in line calling for Jack Smith's disbarment and subsequent perjury charges. |
|
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 5:33:22 AM EDT
[#9]
Originally Posted By CMiller: The note at the bottom says they told the judge in a hearing that the boxes are in their "original intact form as seized", but the order of documents in the boxes might have changed. Elsewhere on page 7 of the same document they say there might still be some duplicate handwritten placeholders left somewhere. That's quite different from "we don't know what came from what box". I don't understand how you get all that from this: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/585454/1000008426_jpg-3211183.JPG -The best way to ensure the documents came from a specific box is to make sure they are in the order you found them, which the FBI didn't do -If you didn't keep track of the order you found them, you can't be sure what box they came from. -We now have placeholders in boxes that don't correlate to documents anymore on Page 7 of the motion. Now the question of "How do you know this document came from this box" isn't one that can be answered reliably |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 5:37:13 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By warlord: When "everything is said and done," I hope some lawyers get permanently disbarred. Lawyers (this includes judges and legislators) protect their own. Left and right lawyers will line up to defend them. Doesn't matter. They will all get cushy jobs in think tanks. |
|
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 5:40:39 AM EDT
[Last Edit: prolapsed_cranium]
[#11]
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, 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 6:41:54 AM EDT
[#12]
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 GSA has pics of the pallets prepped for shipment and claims no one but Trump people accessed them. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 6:47:59 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: You are making assumptions about what the grand jury did, and did not, hear. And your contention is that without seeing the actual documents, they couldn’t have know what was in them. Just giving you a hypothetical example showing you to be incorrect. Unless you believe Jack Smith flat lied, you can give more than enough information for a grand jury to understand what the document contained, without revealing any classified information. No you can not. Because then you are no longer being presented evidence. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 7:02:43 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Cincinnatus]
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: You are making assumptions about what the grand jury did, and did not, hear. And your contention is that without seeing the actual documents, they couldn’t have know what was in them. Just giving you a hypothetical example showing you to be incorrect. Unless you believe Jack Smith flat lied, you can give more than enough information for a grand jury to understand what the document contained, without revealing any classified information. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Earlier you posted the ACTUAL, vague description of a document. Now you find it necessary to invent a more specific, imaginary description? I understand. You are making assumptions about what the grand jury did, and did not, hear. And your contention is that without seeing the actual documents, they couldn’t have know what was in them. Just giving you a hypothetical example showing you to be incorrect. Unless you believe Jack Smith flat lied, you can give more than enough information for a grand jury to understand what the document contained, without revealing any classified information. A vague description of evidence is never a good substitute for actual evidence. It also makes it impossible for a defense. Which is why the case is falling apart. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 8:15:43 AM EDT
[#15]
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? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally 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? You didn't answer the question. You didn't even address the question. Should I then conclude you can't answer the question, yet you will go on assuming your preferred answer to the question and acting as if it's established fact? I should just start responding to all your posts with "assumes facts not in evidence", but I'd probably get in trouble. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 8:22:24 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: You didn't answer the question. You didn't even address the question. Should I then conclude you can't answer the question, yet you will go on assuming your preferred answer to the question and acting as if it's established fact? I should just start responding to all your posts with "assumes facts not in evidence", but I'd probably get in trouble. They said that proper cover sheets are stapled onto the documents not paper clipped. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 8:52:12 AM EDT
[#17]
Originally Posted By MADMAXXX: Originally Posted By CMiller: You didn't answer the question. You didn't even address the question. Should I then conclude you can't answer the question, yet you will go on assuming your preferred answer to the question and acting as if it's established fact? I should just start responding to all your posts with "assumes facts not in evidence", but I'd probably get in trouble. They said that proper cover sheets are stapled onto the documents not paper clipped. I don't claim to know the significance of the distinction, but considering the time these documents are claimed to have been outside of the control of government employees, I assume you would acknowledge the possibility that staples could have been replaced by paper clips at some point for some reason that doesn't involve the FBI. The point is that this is how the government described that photo:  Attached FileWhat evidence do we have that contradicts that very simple and obvious statement that the cover sheets came from a box at Mar-A-Lago? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 9:05:10 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Cincinnatus]
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: You didn't answer the question. You didn't even address the question. Should I then conclude you can't answer the question, yet you will go on assuming your preferred answer to the question and acting as if it's established fact? I should just start responding to all your posts with "assumes facts not in evidence", but I'd probably get in trouble. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally 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? You didn't answer the question. You didn't even address the question. Should I then conclude you can't answer the question, yet you will go on assuming your preferred answer to the question and acting as if it's established fact? I should just start responding to all your posts with "assumes facts not in evidence", but I'd probably get in trouble. Sure I did. You just don’t get it. Smith’s team revealed in the filing that FBI agents carried printed “classified cover sheets” during the Aug. 8, 2022, search of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate and used them to replace any classified documents they discovered in cardboard Bankers Boxes that littered the former president’s residence. . “The investigative team used classified cover sheets for that purpose, until the FBI ran out because there were so many classified documents, at which point the team began using blank sheets with handwritten notes indicating the classification level of the document(s) seized,” the prosecutors wrote The FBI brought the cover sheets. THEY then spread them on the floor and took pictures of THEIR cover sheets, as “evidence.” What is the probative value of those photos? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 9:33:57 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: Sure I did. You just don’t get it. Smith’s team revealed in the filing that FBI agents carried printed “classified cover sheets” during the Aug. 8, 2022, search of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate and used them to replace any classified documents they discovered in cardboard Bankers Boxes that littered the former president’s residence. . “The investigative team used classified cover sheets for that purpose, until the FBI ran out because there were so many classified documents, at which point the team began using blank sheets with handwritten notes indicating the classification level of the document(s) seized,” the prosecutors wrote The FBI brought the cover sheets. THEY then spread them on the floor and took pictures of THEIR cover sheets, as “evidence.” What is the probative value of those photos? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally 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? You didn't answer the question. You didn't even address the question. Should I then conclude you can't answer the question, yet you will go on assuming your preferred answer to the question and acting as if it's established fact? I should just start responding to all your posts with "assumes facts not in evidence", but I'd probably get in trouble. Sure I did. You just don’t get it. Smith’s team revealed in the filing that FBI agents carried printed “classified cover sheets” during the Aug. 8, 2022, search of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate and used them to replace any classified documents they discovered in cardboard Bankers Boxes that littered the former president’s residence. . “The investigative team used classified cover sheets for that purpose, until the FBI ran out because there were so many classified documents, at which point the team began using blank sheets with handwritten notes indicating the classification level of the document(s) seized,” the prosecutors wrote The FBI brought the cover sheets. THEY then spread them on the floor and took pictures of THEIR cover sheets, as “evidence.” What is the probative value of those photos? How do you know those cover sheets are what we see in the picture? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 9:46:07 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Well, if it turns out that the facts laid out in the indictment are a misrepresentation, I’ll be first in line calling for Jack Smith’s disbarment and subsequent perjury charges. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By eesmith: Given that the primary objective of all of the charges are to interfere with the election and that they likely didn't expect Trump to still be ahead at this point, as well as the fact Jack Smith has been unanimously reversed at SCOTUS before for similar politically-motivated prosecutions, I think it's extremely plausible. Especially when you consider the high odds that even if Trump wins, Smith will almost certainly not be punished for it. Well, if it turns out that the facts laid out in the indictment are a misrepresentation, I’ll be first in line calling for Jack Smith’s disbarment and subsequent perjury charges. somehow I think your TDS will prevent you from doing that |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 9:48:01 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Well, if it turns out that the facts laid out in the indictment are a misrepresentation, I’ll be first in line calling for Jack Smith’s disbarment and subsequent perjury charges.  No one believes a fucking word you're saying. Your credibility is up there with the FBIs.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 9:56:52 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Cincinnatus]
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: How do you know those cover sheets are what we see in the picture? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally 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? You didn't answer the question. You didn't even address the question. Should I then conclude you can't answer the question, yet you will go on assuming your preferred answer to the question and acting as if it's established fact? I should just start responding to all your posts with "assumes facts not in evidence", but I'd probably get in trouble. Sure I did. You just don’t get it. Smith’s team revealed in the filing that FBI agents carried printed “classified cover sheets” during the Aug. 8, 2022, search of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate and used them to replace any classified documents they discovered in cardboard Bankers Boxes that littered the former president’s residence. . “The investigative team used classified cover sheets for that purpose, until the FBI ran out because there were so many classified documents, at which point the team began using blank sheets with handwritten notes indicating the classification level of the document(s) seized,” the prosecutors wrote The FBI brought the cover sheets. THEY then spread them on the floor and took pictures of THEIR cover sheets, as “evidence.” What is the probative value of those photos? How do you know those cover sheets are what we see in the picture? You seem to be suffering a basic comprehension problem. Smith says that his team brought the cover sheets. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 10:30:21 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mooreshawnm: No one believes a fucking word you're saying. Your credibility is up there with the FBIs.Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mooreshawnm: Originally Posted By Low_Country: Well, if it turns out that the facts laid out in the indictment are a misrepresentation, I’ll be first in line calling for Jack Smith’s disbarment and subsequent perjury charges. No one believes a fucking word you're saying. Your credibility is up there with the FBIs. " />
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 10:45:03 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: A vague description of evidence is never a good substitute for actual evidence. It also makes it impossible for a defense. Which is why the case is falling apart. Are you just making this stuff up now? An unclassified summary presented to the grand jury is an established procedure. https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-90000-national-security#9-90.200%239-90.200 9-90.230, if you are curious. |
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 10:48:33 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: You are making assumptions about what the grand jury did, and did not, hear. And your contention is that without seeing the actual documents, they couldn’t have know what was in them. Just giving you a hypothetical example showing you to be incorrect. Unless you believe Jack Smith flat lied, you can give more than enough information for a grand jury to understand what the document contained, without revealing any classified information. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Earlier you posted the ACTUAL, vague description of a document. Now you find it necessary to invent a more specific, imaginary description? I understand. You are making assumptions about what the grand jury did, and did not, hear. And your contention is that without seeing the actual documents, they couldn’t have know what was in them. Just giving you a hypothetical example showing you to be incorrect. Unless you believe Jack Smith flat lied, you can give more than enough information for a grand jury to understand what the document contained, without revealing any classified information. The DOJ's actions over the years have shown that Jack Smith ly8ng is a distinct possibility. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 11:04:56 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: How do you know those cover sheets are what we see in the picture? You really can't be that obtuse...  |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 11:16:52 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mooreshawnm: No one believes a fucking word you're saying. Your credibility is up there with the FBIs.To guys like you, credibility means nothing more than blindly swallowing the established groupthink. Pretty much exactly demonstrated by your fragility in announcing everytime you put somebody on your ignore list with *click.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 11:25:30 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: To guys like you, credibility means nothing more than blindly swallowing the established groupthink. Pretty much exactly demonstrated by your fragility in announcing everytime you put somebody on your ignore list with *click. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By mooreshawnm: No one believes a fucking word you're saying. Your credibility is up there with the FBIs.To guys like you, credibility means nothing more than blindly swallowing the established groupthink. Pretty much exactly demonstrated by your fragility in announcing everytime you put somebody on your ignore list with *click. Projection is real - "Psychological projection is a defense mechanism in which a person unconsciously or consciously attributes their own thoughts, feelings, or traits to another person or group. It can be a way to avoid acknowledging uncomfortable emotions, thoughts, or impulses, or to process them from a safe distance." |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 11:29:11 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: You seem to be suffering a basic comprehension problem. Smith says that his team brought the cover sheets. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally 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? You didn't answer the question. You didn't even address the question. Should I then conclude you can't answer the question, yet you will go on assuming your preferred answer to the question and acting as if it's established fact? I should just start responding to all your posts with "assumes facts not in evidence", but I'd probably get in trouble. Sure I did. You just don’t get it. Smith’s team revealed in the filing that FBI agents carried printed “classified cover sheets” during the Aug. 8, 2022, search of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate and used them to replace any classified documents they discovered in cardboard Bankers Boxes that littered the former president’s residence. . “The investigative team used classified cover sheets for that purpose, until the FBI ran out because there were so many classified documents, at which point the team began using blank sheets with handwritten notes indicating the classification level of the document(s) seized,” the prosecutors wrote The FBI brought the cover sheets. THEY then spread them on the floor and took pictures of THEIR cover sheets, as “evidence.” What is the probative value of those photos? How do you know those cover sheets are what we see in the picture? You seem to be suffering a basic comprehension problem. Smith says that his team brought the cover sheets. How do you know the cover sheets were inserted before the picture was taken, vs after? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 11:32:16 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By LordsOfDiscipline: Projection is real - "Psychological projection is a defense mechanism in which a person unconsciously or consciously attributes their own thoughts, feelings, or traits to another person or group. It can be a way to avoid acknowledging uncomfortable emotions, thoughts, or impulses, or to process them from a safe distance." These threads ended up populated by posters who let YouTube and Truth Social tell them what to think. Don’t know what to tell ya. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 11:34:26 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: How do you know the cover sheets were inserted before the picture was taken, vs after? |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 11:35:28 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mooreshawnm: No one believes a fucking word you're saying. Your credibility is up there with the FBIs.Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mooreshawnm: Originally Posted By Low_Country: ... No one believes a fucking word you're saying. Your credibility is up there with the FBIs.@Low_Country |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 11:36:48 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: To guys like you, credibility means nothing more than blindly swallowing the established groupthink. Pretty much exactly demonstrated by your fragility in announcing everytime you put somebody on your ignore list with *click. |
|
|
|
IN, USA
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 11:37:00 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Well, if it turns out that the facts laid out in the indictment are a misrepresentation, I'll be first in line calling for Jack Smith's disbarment and subsequent perjury charges. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 11:38:38 AM EDT
[#35]
why does anyone bother replying the the usual suspects here?
all they do is waste time, bandwidth and oxygen I don't know if they are BOTs or just people paid to constantly be obtuse in arguments. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 11:39:23 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Logcutter]
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Imzadi: The DOJ's actions over the years have shown that Jack Smith ly8ng is a distinct possibility. Not possible, probable. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 11:39:48 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: These threads ended up populated by posters who let YouTube and Truth Social tell them what to think. Don’t know what to tell ya. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By LordsOfDiscipline: Projection is real - "Psychological projection is a defense mechanism in which a person unconsciously or consciously attributes their own thoughts, feelings, or traits to another person or group. It can be a way to avoid acknowledging uncomfortable emotions, thoughts, or impulses, or to process them from a safe distance." These threads ended up populated by posters who let YouTube and Truth Social tell them what to think. Don’t know what to tell ya. Now you're just coping. It's pathetic and sad. I'll give you this; you chose how to be hoisted on your own petard. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 11:40:46 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Are you just making this stuff up now? An unclassified summary presented to the grand jury is an established procedure. https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-90000-national-security#9-90.200%239-90.200 9-90.230, if you are curious. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: A vague description of evidence is never a good substitute for actual evidence. It also makes it impossible for a defense. Which is why the case is falling apart. Are you just making this stuff up now? An unclassified summary presented to the grand jury is an established procedure. https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-90000-national-security#9-90.200%239-90.200 9-90.230, if you are curious. Summarized by whom? It has to be established that this was “National Defense Information.” That’s quite specific. Defense experts need to see it. And the defense doesn't get that opportunity during grand jury proceedings. And the prosecution has now admitted that the “evidence” they submitted in the form of photos of cover sheets, was not always accurate. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 11:43:00 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: How do you know the cover sheets were inserted before the picture was taken, vs after? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally 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? You didn't answer the question. You didn't even address the question. Should I then conclude you can't answer the question, yet you will go on assuming your preferred answer to the question and acting as if it's established fact? I should just start responding to all your posts with "assumes facts not in evidence", but I'd probably get in trouble. Sure I did. You just don’t get it. Smith’s team revealed in the filing that FBI agents carried printed “classified cover sheets” during the Aug. 8, 2022, search of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate and used them to replace any classified documents they discovered in cardboard Bankers Boxes that littered the former president’s residence. . “The investigative team used classified cover sheets for that purpose, until the FBI ran out because there were so many classified documents, at which point the team began using blank sheets with handwritten notes indicating the classification level of the document(s) seized,” the prosecutors wrote The FBI brought the cover sheets. THEY then spread them on the floor and took pictures of THEIR cover sheets, as “evidence.” What is the probative value of those photos? How do you know those cover sheets are what we see in the picture? You seem to be suffering a basic comprehension problem. Smith says that his team brought the cover sheets. How do you know the cover sheets were inserted before the picture was taken, vs after? Because if they added the cover sheets AFTER the picture was taken, they wouldn’t be IN the picture that was taken? 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 11:48:49 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By OKnativeson: why does anyone bother replying the the usual suspects here? all they do is waste time, bandwidth and oxygen I don't know if they are BOTs or just people paid to constantly be obtuse in arguments. If we ignore and don't respond to their lies then other readers believe that we have no rebuttal, and their lies are actually the truth. Thankfully most members now see them for what they are. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 11:49:46 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Morlawn66]
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By OKnativeson: why does anyone bother replying the the usual suspects here? all they do is waste time, bandwidth and oxygen I don't know if they are BOTs or just people paid to constantly be obtuse in arguments. Someone pointed out that one in particular ALWAYS gets the last word in and some posters not in the know would assume others couldn't refute his points . They win . That was a good reason as I used to wonder why play the back and forth . |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 11:59:08 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: Because if they added the cover sheets AFTER the picture was taken, they wouldn't be IN the picture that was taken? 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 12:06:49 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By slack_out: @Low_Country lol you care so little for my posts you’ll @ me to make sure I understand how little you think of my posts.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 12:16:25 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: Because if they added the cover sheets AFTER the picture was taken, they wouldn’t be IN the picture that was taken? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally 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? You didn't answer the question. You didn't even address the question. Should I then conclude you can't answer the question, yet you will go on assuming your preferred answer to the question and acting as if it's established fact? I should just start responding to all your posts with "assumes facts not in evidence", but I'd probably get in trouble. Sure I did. You just don’t get it. Smith’s team revealed in the filing that FBI agents carried printed “classified cover sheets” during the Aug. 8, 2022, search of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate and used them to replace any classified documents they discovered in cardboard Bankers Boxes that littered the former president’s residence. . “The investigative team used classified cover sheets for that purpose, until the FBI ran out because there were so many classified documents, at which point the team began using blank sheets with handwritten notes indicating the classification level of the document(s) seized,” the prosecutors wrote The FBI brought the cover sheets. THEY then spread them on the floor and took pictures of THEIR cover sheets, as “evidence.” What is the probative value of those photos? How do you know those cover sheets are what we see in the picture? You seem to be suffering a basic comprehension problem. Smith says that his team brought the cover sheets. How do you know the cover sheets were inserted before the picture was taken, vs after? Because if they added the cover sheets AFTER the picture was taken, they wouldn’t be IN the picture that was taken? How do you know what you are seeing in the picture are the cover sheets the FBI brought? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 12:16:54 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Imzadi: The DOJ's actions over the years have shown that Jack Smith ly8ng is a distinct possibility. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Imzadi: Originally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Earlier you posted the ACTUAL, vague description of a document. Now you find it necessary to invent a more specific, imaginary description? I understand. You are making assumptions about what the grand jury did, and did not, hear. And your contention is that without seeing the actual documents, they couldn’t have know what was in them. Just giving you a hypothetical example showing you to be incorrect. Unless you believe Jack Smith flat lied, you can give more than enough information for a grand jury to understand what the document contained, without revealing any classified information. The DOJ's actions over the years have shown that Jack Smith ly8ng is a distinct possibility. Yup, I'd even go so far as to say it's not just possible it's probable. |
|
|
|
IN, USA
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 12:20:52 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: These threads ended up populated by posters who let YouTube and Truth Social tell them what to think. Don't know what to tell ya. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 12:25:56 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: You are making assumptions about what the grand jury did, and did not, hear. And your contention is that without seeing the actual documents, they couldn’t have know what was in them. Just giving you a hypothetical example showing you to be incorrect. Unless you believe Jack Smith flat lied, you can give more than enough information for a grand jury to understand what the document contained, without revealing any classified information. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Earlier you posted the ACTUAL, vague description of a document. Now you find it necessary to invent a more specific, imaginary description? I understand. You are making assumptions about what the grand jury did, and did not, hear. And your contention is that without seeing the actual documents, they couldn’t have know what was in them. Just giving you a hypothetical example showing you to be incorrect. Unless you believe Jack Smith flat lied, you can give more than enough information for a grand jury to understand what the document contained, without revealing any classified information. This is pretty much the same reason you gave for Russian Collusion being true, and you had the same level of incredulity at the thought that the people within the FBI would just make something like that up. |
|
|
|
IN, USA
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 12:30:28 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: How do you know what you are seeing in the picture are the cover sheets the FBI brought? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 12:36:39 PM EDT
[Last Edit: CMiller]
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By StanGram: You really can't be that obtuse... Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By StanGram: Originally Posted By CMiller: How do you know those cover sheets are what we see in the picture? You really can't be that obtuse... It's like you have wet soapy fingers and you're trying to squeeze a marble. Every time you apply a little pressure it pops out and escapes. The truth is that we have no way of knowing that what's in the picture is the FBI's cover sheets (as far as I can see so far, unless somebody has found something I haven't seen yet), but he doesn't want to admit it He'd rather just assume what fits the preferred narrative and run with it. Originally Posted By sixnine: Asked and answered. Definitely not answered. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 12:40:11 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: These threads ended up populated by posters who let YouTube and Truth Social tell them what to think. Don’t know what to tell ya. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By LordsOfDiscipline: Projection is real - "Psychological projection is a defense mechanism in which a person unconsciously or consciously attributes their own thoughts, feelings, or traits to another person or group. It can be a way to avoid acknowledging uncomfortable emotions, thoughts, or impulses, or to process them from a safe distance." These threads ended up populated by posters who let YouTube and Truth Social tell them what to think. Don’t know what to tell ya. I'll tell ya that is a very broad brush. Never clicked on Truth Social and I watch automotive YouTube. I guess we could say MSN and CNN inform you? 
|
|
|
|
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.
