User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/10/2024 4:43:09 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Advance]
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mooreshawnm: Why are you so committed to this fight? After everything that's happened (as you were told it would) you continue to lose what little credibility you possess (which is none btw). You do understand you and your comrades are not helping the DOJ/Dems right? At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if this were a reverse psyop designed to keep the persecution of Trump in full focus on what is supposedly one of the most conservative sites on the internet. Plant a few people to keep the Liberal talking points front and center 24/7 and grind them into dust every day. I'm sure most lurkers would agree that although these threads grind on painfully, with the underscores never yielding an inch... Our side, by necessity, is kept fully aware of every single minute talking point/argument/detail and has the receipts necessary to expose these criminals for the traitorous pieces of filth that they are. 5GW |
|
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 5/10/2024 4:43:31 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: I know everybody is making the claim, but I want to know the evidence that shows we are looking at the placeholders in that picture and not the actual document covers. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: I know everybody is making the claim, but I want to know the evidence that shows we are looking at the placeholders in that picture and not the actual document covers. Special Counsel's Motion There's no claim that they aren't all in the correct boxes, The question is whether they were at Mar-A-Lago, not what order they were in the boxes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2024 5:06:50 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mcculver5: Not really. Mostly problems with the chain of custody go to weight not to whether it would be admitted. Sometimes evidence can be so compromised that it cannot be admitted. We will see with this but my wild speculation is that the evidence would be admitted and a competent lawyer would spend hours and hours on C/X attempting to challenge the verity of the evidence. It's a different question whether the posed pictures with the ZOMG TOP SECRET covers were done and leaked to prejudice the defendant in the press and taint the jury pool. Hint: they were. What if Jack Smith used these pics as evidence to the Grand Jury to secure the indictment? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2024 6:52:29 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: 1. I care about the truth, I want to know for myself what's true and what's not regardless of my preferred narratives. (In this case, my preferred narrative is that all of this is just a really bad dream.  )2. I think it's a good thing to help people if you can, so when somebody asks if they are understanding things correctly and I think I have information relevant to their question, I try to be helpful and offer what I can. 3. If I have no credibility, then I guess it's a good thing I don't make posts that are based on my credibility.  Credibility in GD is a contradiction in terms. Truths which are inconvenient or which are not supportive of the GD political position at the moment, are generally unwelcome and often met with attacks. The consolation is aspiring to popularity in GD is hardly a lofty aim: enjoy the jousting, don’t take it personally and don’t expect to change anyone’s position. The flip side is that there are many subject matter experts here and it is a wonderful resource for information. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2024 7:06:23 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By LordsOfDiscipline: What if Jack Smith used these pics as evidence to the Grand Jury to secure the indictment? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By LordsOfDiscipline: Originally Posted By mcculver5: Not really. Mostly problems with the chain of custody go to weight not to whether it would be admitted. Sometimes evidence can be so compromised that it cannot be admitted. We will see with this but my wild speculation is that the evidence would be admitted and a competent lawyer would spend hours and hours on C/X attempting to challenge the verity of the evidence. It's a different question whether the posed pictures with the ZOMG TOP SECRET covers were done and leaked to prejudice the defendant in the press and taint the jury pool. Hint: they were. What if Jack Smith used these pics as evidence to the Grand Jury to secure the indictment? Given the very low standard to run something through a grand jury? Probably nothing. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2024 7:17:18 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mcculver5: Given the very low standard to run something through a grand jury? Probably nothing. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2024 8:13:34 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: 1. I care about the truth, I want to know for myself what's true and what's not regardless of my preferred narratives. (In this case, my preferred narrative is that all of this is just a really bad dream. )2. I think it's a good thing to help people if you can, so when somebody asks if they are understanding things correctly and I think I have information relevant to their question, I try to be helpful and offer what I can. 3. If I have no credibility, then I guess it's a good thing I don't make posts that are based on my credibility. Dude, go work another account, this one's blown. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2024 8:36:41 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Cincinnatus]
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: 3. If I have no credibility, then I guess it's a good thing I don't make posts that are based on my credibility. You have it backwards. Your utter lack of credibility here is ONLY based on your posts. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2024 9:29:04 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By prolapsed_cranium: The Special Counsel admits it. Special Counsel's Motion We actually don't know what was in a specific box. This is why the preservation of evidence is critical. This is why you document what happens, otherwise we have no idea what the state of the evidence was at the time it was found by the FBI. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By prolapsed_cranium: Originally Posted By CMiller: I know everybody is making the claim, but I want to know the evidence that shows we are looking at the placeholders in that picture and not the actual document covers. Special Counsel's Motion There's no claim that they aren't all in the correct boxes, The question is whether they were at Mar-A-Lago, not what order they were in the boxes. I've seen that, I've posted the relevant section in various conversations. I'll leave that conversation for the thread dedicated to it: https://www.ar15.com/forums/General/Remember-this-pic-from-the-FBI-Mar-a-Lago-raid-/5-2724051/?page=4 Obviously we don't know the details, but it sounds to me like the government did plenty of documenting of inventory:  Attached File |
|
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 5/10/2024 10:49:01 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mcculver5: Not really. Mostly problems with the chain of custody go to weight not to whether it would be admitted. Sometimes evidence can be so compromised that it cannot be admitted. We will see with this but my wild speculation is that the evidence would be admitted and a competent lawyer would spend hours and hours on C/X attempting to challenge the verity of the evidence. It's a different question whether the posed pictures with the ZOMG TOP SECRET covers were done and leaked to prejudice the defendant in the press and taint the jury pool. Hint: they were. The Special Counsel admitted they can't specifically say what came from what box at this point. |
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 5/10/2024 10:56:36 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: I've seen that, I've posted the relevant section in various conversations. I'll leave that conversation for the thread dedicated to it: https://www.ar15.com/forums/General/Remember-this-pic-from-the-FBI-Mar-a-Lago-raid-/5-2724051/?page=4 Obviously we don't know the details, but it sounds to me like the government did plenty of documenting of inventory: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/585454/1000008424_jpg-3210904.JPG You glossed over the pages prior to that. "We didn't keep track of the order of things, but we for sure know what box it came from" turned into "Ok......well there are some placeholders still in the boxes that don't correlate to documents" turned into "We had a non-FBI entity scan all of this....and even if it wasn't to the necessary standard....it's the best evidence" turned into "So.......yeah......some of these scans aren't reliable because we fucked it all up.....and we lied about that, Judge. lmao" |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2024 10:57:49 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: I've seen that, I've posted the relevant section in various conversations. I'll leave that conversation for the thread dedicated to it: https://www.ar15.com/forums/General/Remember-this-pic-from-the-FBI-Mar-a-Lago-raid-/5-2724051/?page=4 Obviously we don't know the details, but it sounds to me like the government did plenty of documenting of inventory: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/585454/1000008424_jpg-3210904.JPG Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By prolapsed_cranium: Originally Posted By CMiller: I know everybody is making the claim, but I want to know the evidence that shows we are looking at the placeholders in that picture and not the actual document covers. Special Counsel's Motion There's no claim that they aren't all in the correct boxes, The question is whether they were at Mar-A-Lago, not what order they were in the boxes. I've seen that, I've posted the relevant section in various conversations. I'll leave that conversation for the thread dedicated to it: https://www.ar15.com/forums/General/Remember-this-pic-from-the-FBI-Mar-a-Lago-raid-/5-2724051/?page=4 Obviously we don't know the details, but it sounds to me like the government did plenty of documenting of inventory: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/585454/1000008424_jpg-3210904.JPG Yes, they documented how they screwed up the chain of custody and how they managed the scene. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2024 11:00:40 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: Yes, they documented how they screwed up the chain of custody and how they managed the scene. How would you imagine that will impact the actual charges? His refusal to give stuff back, and his obstruction attempts? Do you think it will matter what was in what box at the end of the day. |
|
|
|
NC, USA
|
Posted: 5/10/2024 11:02:56 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9D1Alpha]
[#14]
And now it's all laid bare and in suspended animation for all to stare at. Frozen in time at the moment of the big reveal . All the clowns standing in the headlights like deer .
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2024 11:05:32 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: How would you imagine that will impact the actual charges? His refusal to give stuff back, and his obstruction attempts? Do you think it will matter what was in what box at the end of the day. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Yes, they documented how they screwed up the chain of custody and how they managed the scene. How would you imagine that will impact the actual charges? His refusal to give stuff back, and his obstruction attempts? Do you think it will matter what was in what box at the end of the day. You can’t be serious. Take a moment and consider those questions, yourself. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2024 11:09:11 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: You can’t be serious. Take a moment and consider those questions, yourself. 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? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2024 11:25:10 PM EDT
[Last Edit: AdLucem]
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Well, the only concession I’ve seen is that documents ended up in different boxes or in a different order, after they had to use cover sheets to protect the classified docs. Is that what constitutes the chain of custody issue? Is Trump’s team contesting the actual content of what was taken from MAL? It’s not a chain of custody issue if there was no break in actual custody. It’s an organizational flaw. For example if 10 boxes of evidence are secured in a container which remains in steady custody but the order of the boxes change or the individual files in the boxes are not kept in sequential order, that is hardly a fatal to the weighing of the evidence itself... if however evidence is left unsecured where it could be accessible or tampered with then there is a break in the chain of custody and that evidence can be challenged and deemed inadmissible. Back in the day we were specifically prohibited from leaving evidence in a departmental vehicle. If we were logging in evidence directly from the crime scene we had to keep it in our possession the entire time and defense counsel often questioned how the evidence was treated if there were extended periods between recovery and the securing of evidence in the evidence section. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2024 11:34:52 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AdLucem: It’s not a chain of custody issue if there was no break in actual custody. It’s an organizational flaw. For example if 10 boxes of evidence are secured in a container which remains in steady custody but the order of the boxes change or the individual files in the boxes are not kept in sequential order, that is hardly a fatal to the weighing of the evidence itself... if however evidence is left unsecured where it could be accessible or tampered with then there is a break in the chain of custody and that evidence can be challenged and deemed inadmissible. Back in the day we were specifically prohibited from leaving evidence in a departmental vehicle. If we were logging in evidence directly from the crime scene we had to keep it in our possession the entire time and defense counsel often questioned how the evidence was treated if there were extended periods between recovery and the securing of evidence in the evidence section. I got it. Cincinnatus is being condescending in his dismissal of questions. So I’m asking him to defend his claims of the chain of custody issue and scene mismanagement. And then, to explain how it impacts the case given the actual changes. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2024 11:35:35 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Well, the only concession I've seen is that documents ended up in different boxes or in a different order, after they had to use cover sheets to protect the classified docs. Is that what constitutes the chain of custody issue? Is Trump's team contesting the actual content of what was taken from MAL? Lmao. The Super, TOP SECRET cover sheets they used for their little photo op? It's amazing how you can casually gloss over the FBI's clear attempts to fuck with Trump at the expense of their own foot. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2024 11:38:38 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By StanGram: Lmao. The Super, TOP SECRET cover sheets they used for their little photo op? It's amazing how you can casually gloss over the FBI's clear attempts to fuck with Trump at the expense of their own foot. You realize classified docs are supposed to have cover sheets, yes? So the FBI brought their own cover sheets. Is that the big gotcha? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2024 11:43:20 PM EDT
[#21]
TDS is real, amazing what kind of stupidity they are willing to indulge as long as orange man bad gets taken out, fuck the Constitution, blind Justice or the Country itself, orange man bad..fuckers should be ashamed of themselves, definitely not what conservatives would do...What a stain on the great men who have given their lives for this country....
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2024 11:50:13 PM EDT
[Last Edit: StanGram]
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: You realize classified docs are supposed to have cover sheets, yes? So the FBI brought their own cover sheets. Is that the big gotcha? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By StanGram: Lmao. The Super, TOP SECRET cover sheets they used for their little photo op? It's amazing how you can casually gloss over the FBI's clear attempts to fuck with Trump at the expense of their own foot. You realize classified docs are supposed to have cover sheets, yes? So the FBI brought their own cover sheets. Is that the big gotcha? Ah yes, that's very important when you throw them all over the floor and start taking pictures of them for the press. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2024 11:53:19 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By StanGram: Ah yes, that's very important when you strew them all over the floor and start taking pictures of them for the press. I’m not disputing the photos were used as a publicity stunt. I’m asking how you guys think classified cover sheets brought by the FBI affect the case from a legal standpoint. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 12:02:01 AM EDT
[Last Edit: StanGram]
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: I'm not disputing the photos were used as a publicity stunt. I'm asking how you guys think classified cover sheets brought by the FBI affect the case from a legal standpoint. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By StanGram: Ah yes, that's very important when you strew them all over the floor and start taking pictures of them for the press. I'm not disputing the photos were used as a publicity stunt. I'm asking how you guys think classified cover sheets brought by the FBI affect the case from a legal standpoint. You don't see an issue between your first and second sentence? How can you trust a DOJ you also just described as pulling "stunts" during a raid of a United States President? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 12:10:53 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: I’m not disputing the photos were used as a publicity stunt. I’m asking how you guys think classified cover sheets brought by the FBI affect the case from a legal standpoint. Jesus dude, its no longer evidence, it's been tampered with...I guarantee if it was you under the DA's fucking knife you would feel a shit load different then you do now...Justice is supposed to be blind...it's no longer blind when the assholes fuck with it instead of doing a proper investigation by the book..... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 12:21:29 AM EDT
[#26]
Originally Posted By prolapsed_cranium: The Special Counsel admitted they can't specifically say what came from what box at this point. Where did you see that? I read the opposite--they said the only change might be the order, but the contents of each box are as they were originally and as they were cataloged, except for placeholders substituted for classified documents that needed to be secured separately.  Attached FileThe 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". Originally Posted By prolapsed_cranium: You glossed over the pages prior to that. "We didn't keep track of the order of things, but we for sure know what box it came from" turned into "Ok......well there are some placeholders still in the boxes that don't correlate to documents" turned into "We had a non-FBI entity scan all of this....and even if it wasn't to the necessary standard....it's the best evidence" turned into "So.......yeah......some of these scans aren't reliable because we fucked it all up.....and we lied about that, Judge. lmao" I don't understand how you get all that from this:  Attached File |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 12:22:52 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: You realize classified docs are supposed to have cover sheets, yes? So the FBI brought their own cover sheets. Is that the big gotcha? Remember it has been explained to you over and over. The President can declassify any document simply be removing it from a secure area. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 12:25:36 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By StanGram: You don't see an issue between your first and second sentence? How can you trust a DOJ you also just described as pulling "stunts" during a raid of a United States President? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 12:27:19 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MADMAXXX: Except If these were the documents that President Trump took from a secure area and not documents that the treasonist FFBI brought with them then they would be in fact "declasified" documents and not need a cover sheet. Remember it has been explained to you over and over. The President can declassify any document simply be removing it from a secure area. lol, I’m not the one needing an explanation from GD on classified information and proper handling. Thanks though. Maybe you can clarify this though…. Because I’ve read many conflicting posts. Were the documents declassified because Trump brought them to MAL, or were they fake evidence as the FBI told trump to take them back to MAR from the GAO offices? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 12:33:32 AM EDT
[#30]
 that account's blown too. Got any others?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 5:14:22 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Scoobysmak]
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: How would you imagine that will impact the actual charges? His refusal to give stuff back, and his obstruction attempts? Do you think it will matter what was in what box at the end of the day. Humm, can you prove what was in the documents at this point….the FBI recently admitted no. If the fake photo was staged why would anything else they did there be legitimate. So if you do not know that he even had something that “obstructed justice” how are you going to charge him with it? Are you going to raid his house again and try for a second attempt and hopefully file it right this time….and hope there is this evidence you speak of? |
|
|
|
WA, USA
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 6:11:00 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By M4-AK: More wake up material. Straws on the Camel's back. Critical Mass additions. But yes, evil is still in control. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By M4-AK: Originally Posted By GRENDEL87: And...nothing will happen. More wake up material. Straws on the Camel's back. Critical Mass additions. But yes, evil is still in control. Who would wake up already did years ago. Who did not are just hopeless NPCs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 6:17:25 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AdLucem: It’s not a chain of custody issue if there was no break in actual custody. It’s an organizational flaw. For example if 10 boxes of evidence are secured in a container which remains in steady custody but the order of the boxes change or the individual files in the boxes are not kept in sequential order, that is hardly a fatal to the weighing of the evidence itself... if however evidence is left unsecured where it could be accessible or tampered with then there is a break in the chain of custody and that evidence can be challenged and deemed inadmissible. Who had "custody" when "order of the boxes change or the individual files in the boxes are not kept in sequential order"? For that to change, someone had to access the material. Who was that? Is there a log of who accessed and what they examined? Did that person(s) have an escort? If the assertion that the material is classified, did they have proper clearances? That is piss poor "custody". |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 6:19:56 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: lol, I’m not the one needing an explanation from GD on classified information and proper handling. Thanks though. Maybe you can clarify this though…. Because I’ve read many conflicting posts. Were the documents declassified because Trump brought them to MAL, or were they fake evidence as the FBI told trump to take them back to MAR from the GAO offices? GAO? |
|
|
|
MA, USA
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 6:33:14 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: You realize classified docs are supposed to have cover sheets, yes? So the FBI brought their own cover sheets. Is that the big gotcha? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By StanGram: Lmao. The Super, TOP SECRET cover sheets they used for their little photo op? It's amazing how you can casually gloss over the FBI's clear attempts to fuck with Trump at the expense of their own foot. You realize classified docs are supposed to have cover sheets, yes? So the FBI brought their own cover sheets. Is that the big gotcha? The prop gun was supposed to have blanks too. Should the police fix the evidence and put blanks in the gun? Or should they leave evidence exactly as they found it? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 8:02:00 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: You can’t be serious. Take a moment and consider those questions, yourself. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Yes, they documented how they screwed up the chain of custody and how they managed the scene. How would you imagine that will impact the actual charges? His refusal to give stuff back, and his obstruction attempts? Do you think it will matter what was in what box at the end of the day. You can’t be serious. Take a moment and consider those questions, yourself. If that's true, and they actually don't know what was in what box at all because they didn't document it properly? They're going get destroyed in court if she ever lets the case go to a jury at all. I thought the whole discussion was about them possibly getting some papers out of order in the boxes when they were looking for classified docs in them. That's a whole lot more forgivable than the other. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 8:11:56 AM EDT
[#37]
I'll_give_them_credit_for_their_resolve_but_that's_about_it.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 8:19:35 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By OldGlazier: I'll_give_them_credit_for_their_resolve_but_that's_about_it. The_AI_cant_propagandize_everyone_yet_so_they_still_employ_some_humans. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 8:29:16 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By UtahShotgunner: Who had "custody" when "order of the boxes change or the individual files in the boxes are not kept in sequential order"? For that to change, someone had to access the material. Who was that? Is there a log of who accessed and what they examined? Did that person(s) have an escort? If the assertion that the material is classified, did they have proper clearances? That is piss poor "custody". So have we gone from manufacturing and tampering with evidence to “piss poor custody?“ Evidence is boxed, handled, cataloged, marked, organized, collated for distribution to the parties all the time. We used to use a manual bates machine to number each page... I suspect they have a more sophisticated methodology these days. In any event, it is the job of a good defense counsel to point out and make the most of any deficiency, meaningful or not, piss poor or not. The addition of organizational folders or the production of files in non-sequential order has little legal gravitas. At least in my view. I suspect they are all somewhat careless with the handling of protected documents. But Trump did a lot to bring this upon himself. Had he quickly agreed to return the documents and provided a milquetoast excuse I suspect this would’ve been a minor blip. Instead he doubled down, refusing to return them, possibly lying about possession, showing them off, and possibly keeping documents containing nuclear information. In my view that one typical of trump’s lack of sophistication and foresight. We live in a highly partisan nation, why give this opportunity to the Democrats? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 8:35:23 AM EDT
[Last Edit: MADMAXXX]
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AdLucem: So have we gone from manufacturing and tampering with evidence to "piss poor custody?" Evidence is boxed, handled, cataloged, marked, organized, collated for distribution to the parties all the time. We used to use a manual bates machine to number each page... I suspect they have a more sophisticated methodology these days. In any event, it is the job of a good defense counsel to point out and make the most of any deficiency, meaningful or not, piss poor or not. The addition of organizational folders or the production of files in non-sequential order has little legal gravitas. At least in my view. I suspect they are all somewhat careless with the handling of protected documents. But Trump did a lot to bring this upon himself. Had he quickly agreed to return the documents and provided a milquetoast excuse I suspect this would've been a minor blip. Instead he doubled down, refusing to return them, possibly lying about possession, showing them off, and possibly keeping documents containing nuclear information. In my view that one typical of trump's lack of sophistication and foresight. We live in a highly partisan nation, why give this opportunity to the Democrats? Fuck their request.  ETA "Nuclear information" could mean anything including Clinton selling uranium to Russia. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 8:40:03 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By StanGram: Ah yes, that's very important when you throw them all over the floor and start taking pictures of them for the press. I mean, that's what they did in Dementia Joe's garage, right? |
|
|
|
GA, USA
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 8:41:38 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By UtahShotgunner: GAO? U.S. Government Accountability Office (U.S. GAO) GAO provides Congress, the heads of executive agencies, and the public with timely, fact-based, non-partisan information. Congress created GAO in the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 to assist in the discharge of its core constitutional powers--the power to investigate and oversee the activities of the executive branch, the power to control the use of federal funds, and the power to make laws. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 8:42:01 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Cincinnatus]
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: I’m not disputing the photos were used as a publicity stunt. I’m asking how you guys think classified cover sheets brought by the FBI affect the case from a legal standpoint. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By StanGram: Ah yes, that's very important when you strew them all over the floor and start taking pictures of them for the press. I’m not disputing the photos were used as a publicity stunt. I’m asking how you guys think classified cover sheets brought by the FBI affect the case from a legal standpoint. The pile of cover sheets was photographed as “evidence.” The grand jury was not shown the actual documents. They saw photos of cover sheets. The cover sheets were meant to represent what was beneath them. If the markings on the cover sheet did not match the actual document, do you see the problem? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 8:47:08 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MADMAXXX: He didn't need to return any of his documents. Fuck their request. ETA "Nuclear information" could mean anything including Clinton selling uranium to Russia. So do you believe the same holds true for Biden? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 8:50:56 AM EDT
[Last Edit: MADMAXXX]
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AdLucem: So do you believe the same holds true for Biden? He should be in prison.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 8:53:31 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AdLucem: So do you believe the same holds true for Biden? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AdLucem: Originally Posted By MADMAXXX: He didn't need to return any of his documents. Fuck their request. ETA "Nuclear information" could mean anything including Clinton selling uranium to Russia. So do you believe the same holds true for Biden? Trump claims that he “declassified” his documents, and if they were copies, they count as personal documents for reference. Biden had never possessed the authority to declassify the documents he took, as VP or Senator. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 8:59:24 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: Trump claims that he “declassified” his documents, and if they were copies, they count as personal documents for reference. Biden had never possessed the authority to declassify the documents he took, as VP or Senator. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By AdLucem: Originally Posted By MADMAXXX: He didn't need to return any of his documents. Fuck their request. ETA "Nuclear information" could mean anything including Clinton selling uranium to Russia. So do you believe the same holds true for Biden? Trump claims that he “declassified” his documents, and if they were copies, they count as personal documents for reference. Biden had never possessed the authority to declassify the documents he took, as VP or Senator. I disagree with your first contention, but we’ve been through that before. No need to rehash. We can agree to disagree. As to the second contention, Yes, I believe the vice president has a little or no classification authority, but that was not my question. Do you believe that Biden can declassify at will and can keep any and all documents he pleases? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 9:06:21 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Cincinnatus]
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AdLucem: I disagree with your first contention, but we’ve been through that before. No need to rehash. We can agree to disagree. As to the second contention, Yes, I believe the vice president has a little or no classification authority, but that was not my question. Do you believe that Biden can declassify at will and can keep any and all documents he pleases? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AdLucem: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By AdLucem: Originally Posted By MADMAXXX: He didn't need to return any of his documents. Fuck their request. ETA "Nuclear information" could mean anything including Clinton selling uranium to Russia. So do you believe the same holds true for Biden? Trump claims that he “declassified” his documents, and if they were copies, they count as personal documents for reference. Biden had never possessed the authority to declassify the documents he took, as VP or Senator. I disagree with your first contention, but we’ve been through that before. No need to rehash. We can agree to disagree. As to the second contention, Yes, I believe the vice president has a little or no classification authority, but that was not my question. Do you believe that Biden can declassify at will and can keep any and all documents he pleases? Biden can declassify anything, yes. Whether a President can keep unclassified documents (records) depends on how they are characterized (copies for reference, personal or presidential), and I don't think SCOTUS will ever rule against a President being the final authority of such characterizations. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 9:11:43 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Logcutter: I mean, that's what they did in Dementia Joe's garage, right? Still waiting to see those photos of Bidens STOLEN documents spread out with cover sheets . He's too mentally diminished to be prosecuted yet he can be POTUS ? , wtf . |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 9:17:00 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AdLucem: So do you believe the same holds true for Biden? You realize Biden actually stole classified documents that he didn't have the ability to declassify, and kept them in his fucking garage, right? |
|
|
|
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.
