Trump Indictment ( includes NY AG and Fed documents case ) (3 Viewers)

samiam5211 said:

This tells us there is no point in discussing it with you.

Any evidence shown to you will just be claimed to have been planted.

Click to expand...

Or when shown a statement from the Director of the FBI that contradicts what he’s been claiming for days, he will just say the Director is lying. There’s no point trying to converse with that.

FullMonte said:

In all fairness, and believe me (as someone who is more trained in classified information than 90%+ of the United States), he has said plenty of things about classified information that aren't even close to true. But, this particular claim is not necessarily wrong. Documents must be stored in a container that meets the standards for the highest level of classification that is marked on the document. So, even a blank page marked "Confidential," for example should (by the letter of the reg) be stored in a container designed for storing confidential information. Now, as to how hard a particular security manager or security officer would press on something like that, that would be up to the individual.

Click to expand...

Yes, your example is correct. A document labeled "CONFIDENTIAL" is a valid classification!

Snarky Sack said:

In government, people don't write classified documents and forget to mark them classified so they appear non-classified until they are recovered from someone's private server. It doesn't happen. Government is much more classification happy than wanting to leave off markings.

We used to fill out a daily SITREP that was classified only when the form was filled out (early '80s). But it was pre-marked CLASSIFIED, lest it contain classified information without being marked even for a moment.

Click to expand...

A document labeled "CLASSIFIED" is not a valid classification.

FullMonte said:

To give you an example of how silly that can get at times, we had capabilities to download classified data from a SIPR terminal, and burn it onto CD-ROMS to be installed on computers. One of our base security officers came in, and saw a spindle of CDs sitting on a desk in the secure area. In short, we got a pretty good dressing down because those CDs were not marked with the level of classification of the material contained on them. They were blank, and by reg, they should have been marked as UNCLASSIFIED until classified information was stored on them. We had to find somewhere outside of our secure area to store our blank CDs, so that we didn't have to mark them all as UNCLASSIFIED.

Click to expand...

Yeah.........There were ZERO recording devices in our SCIF, we would have been shut-down if we were caught with blank CD's. Which brings me to another thought, there's another thing that's been bugging me when discussing classified docs and that is the idea that those docs are able to be transmitted from their source to an unsecure source. SIPRNET systems cannot communicate outside SIPERNET, that's why all leaks from the system are from a smuggled out hard copy or disk (thumb drive).

Very well respected former federal judge:

Another good POV about Trump’s need to find a lawyer for this case:

DJ1BigTymer said:

Yes, your example is correct. A document labeled "CONFIDENTIAL" is a valid classification!

A document labeled "CLASSIFIED" is not a valid classification.

Yeah.........There were ZERO recording devices in our SCIF, we would have been shut-down if we were caught with blank CD's. Which brings me to another thought, there's another thing that's been bugging me when discussing classified docs and that is the idea that those docs are able to be transmitted from their source to an unsecure source. SIPRNET systems cannot communicate outside SIPERNET, that's why all leaks from the system are from a smuggled out hard copy or disk (thumb drive).

Click to expand...

Yeah, the only "recording" devices we had were a SIPR terminal that could write (and only certain individuals had the ability to write) CDS, and a few maintenance terminals that we had to bring out to aircraft that had cd writer/readers in them. And, of course, those were specifically approved for that purpose, and the hard drives became classified at the appropriate level the first time a CD containing classified information was inserted into them.

FullMonte said:

We will just have to agree to disagree about that. I see no scenario where Trump, acting in good faith with the subpoena, would not ensure his personal spaces were searched thoroughly for subpoeaned documents, especially knowing that his personal aide had moved around 100 boxes of documents to his personal space AFTER receiving the subpoena so that Trump could (according to that aide) go through those boxes.

Click to expand...

You think Trump went through a hundred boxes personally? I doubt it.

Or do you mean that Trump took the document from the box to his desk to avoid the subpoena? That falls into the category of "might have happened" which is what most of these charges seem like. How could the prosecutor prove that Trump did that. Just hypothetically? Say the prosecutor "just knows" that is what happened. How does he prove it?

FullMonte said:

I guess we are done now. If you are honestly going to suggest that the FBI would file an indictment with the court listing documents that were found in Trump's home, and would lie about what those documents are, there is no way to continue this conversation in good faith.

Click to expand...

So, you really are not familiar with FBI corruption? I'll steer you in the direction, but if you want to learn more you'll have to research on your own.




It's nothing new. Google "FBI Scandals," and you'll see that it has been going on since at least the sixties, including an attempt to assassinate Martin Luther King by inciting him to commit suicide.

FullMonte said:

By the way, how does that work? The FBI, in the zeal to "get" Trump decides to file a document with the court listing specific documents that were found, and charging Donald Trump with a crime for each of those documents....then, when the go to court, say, "Oh, we don't actually have those documents"?

Click to expand...

Oh, I'm quite sure they will show documents to the court. Since Trump's lawyers were not allowed to be present at the search, it will be a "take our word for it" that the documents were found in the search.

They lied to the FISA court, as you will read about in the second link above. Do you think that they will not lie to the Federal court in Tampa because it is open? Or why do you think that they would not lie? You could be right, I just want to know if that's what you're thinking?

FullMonte said:

Is the plan to "get" Trump that you are suggesting that they are going to go into a case that (as you have pointed out) getting a conviction will be difficult since only one Trump supporter can hang the jury, and not present the evidence that they specifically listed they had in the indictment document? Seems like that would only make an acquittal more likely. Not exactly the smartest plan to get him, is it?

Click to expand...

Not if the real plan is to get a conviction. That's why it is more likely a political hit job than an honest prosecution.

FullMonte said:

Yeah...because Cohen still works for Trump, right? I'm sure he was the guy that Trump called into his office to sign a document saying that no more documents were found.

Click to expand...

My asking if it was Cohen was in response to this:


Which didn't specify the time.

FullMonte said:

But, to answer your question, the lawyer is identified only as "Attorney 1" in the indictment,

Click to expand...

"Attorney 1" That inspires trust.

Pardon me just a moment, FullMonte.

samiam5211 said:

This tells us there is no point in discussing it with you.

Any evidence shown to you will just be claimed to have been planted.

Click to expand...

And there will be members of a Florida jury who will believe that.

FullMonte said:

but most assumptions are that is was Evan Corchran, since other things related to "Attorney 1" in the indictment align with reports of things Corchran is repoted to have done/said.

Click to expand...

I think instead of making assumption, we should wait and see the evidence. If the trial ever starts.

FullMonte said:

And, how is it that you didn't see the bicycle in your bedroom in the several days between when it was planted there and when the search was executed?

Click to expand...

I was visiting my aunt aunt and my cousin in Philly. They can witness and I have receipts from when I took them for steak sandwiches.

FullMonte said:

Is it standard for lawyers to be in the area when a search warrant is being executed? I always thought that EVERYONE was removed from the premesis while a search was going on.

Click to expand...

Not at all. That would look really bad.

The subject of the search is allowed to be there, unless they've already been arrested. By coincidence, the raid happened when Trump was not there. Praise Allah for coincidence, huh? But, by a real coincidence his lawyer was there, and should have been allowed to observe. What could he have done? Overpowered the agents when they got to the key piece of evidence that would send her boss up the river?

FullMonte said:

Asking an attorney to sign a document stating that a diligent search was conducted and no documents were found, when Trump knew that attorney did not participate in the search would be a pretty clear indication that Trump knew that the document was false.

Click to expand...

If that happened.

FullMonte said:

Ok, that would probably be the document. As the headline says, she signed a statement certifying a search that she didn't do...and she signed it after Attorney 1 refused to sign that same statement.

Click to expand...

What I wanted you to notice was this:

Bobb signed the certification as the “custodian of records” at the direction of another Trump lawyer, Evan Corcoran, only after adding caveats to make the declaration less ironclad since she had not conducted the search herself, according to three sources familiar with the matter.

The certification was drafted by Corcoran, who also searched Mar-a-Lago for documents demanded by the subpoena, and sent it to Bobb before the justice department’s counterintelligence chief, Jay Bratt, arrived on 3 June to collect a folder of responsive records, the sources said.

But unsure as to whether the subpoena had been fully complied with, Bobb told Corcoran to amend the certification to say that “based upon the information that has been provided to me” all documents responsive to the subpoena were being returned after a “diligent” search, the sources said.

That's not a lawyer signing a false document. That's a lawyer insisting on changes so that she would not be signing a false document.

I'll wait to see what was actually signed and by whom, before I say that it is proof of Trump committing a crime.

FullMonte said:

Yes, we can. But, I don't see why you consider it a double standard for me to discuss speculation on what will happen on an actual case that exists, and speculation as to whether or not some other case that never happened might have happened.

Click to expand...

It's OK. If it weren't for double standards many people (not meaning you) would have no standards at all.

FullMonte said:

False. I tried my best to explain it in detail, but for some reason, you completely ignored my explanation, so I'll try again, and include a link. First off, we are not talking about "Restricted." We are talking about "Restricted Data." Restricted Data is a special category of classified information that deals with certain aspects of atomic weapons. At times, information that is in the Restricted Data category of classified information is determined to no longer meet the criteria of Restricted Data. Such information is then classified as Formerly Restricted Data. Both Restricted Data and Formerly Restricted Data are still classified.

Click to expand...

So what, if he isn't charged with mishandling classified information? If he's charged with mishandling restricted information and it is "formerly restricted," he's got a defense. If he hasn't been charged with mishandling Restricted information, what does it matter?

FullMonte said:

To make a simple analogy, classified information is information that is supposed to kept secret, right? Well, there is a category/level of classified information that is "Secret." If information is moved from "Secret" to "Confidential," that does not mean that it no longer has to be kept secret.

Here are the definitions of https://www.directives.doe.gov/terms_definitions/restricted-data

Click to expand...

Right. But if it is restricted and is moved from the category of restricted to formerly restricted, it no longer has to be restricted.

Another example of Trump PWNING himself:

E. Jean Carroll, the former columnist who won a $5 million sexual abuse and defamation case against former President Donald Trump, will be allowed to amend her initial 2019 lawsuit in pursuit of millions more in damages, a federal judge ruled Tuesday.

Click to expand...

DJ1BigTymer said:

Yes, your example is correct. A document labeled "CONFIDENTIAL" is a valid classification!

A document labeled "CLASSIFIED" is not a valid classification.

Yeah.........There were ZERO recording devices in our SCIF, we would have been shut-down if we were caught with blank CD's. Which brings me to another thought, there's another thing that's been bugging me when discussing classified docs and that is the idea that those docs are able to be transmitted from their source to an unsecure source. SIPRNET systems cannot communicate outside SIPERNET, that's why all leaks from the system are from a smuggled out hard copy or disk (thumb drive).

Click to expand...

You caught me in a mistake. Well done.

I typed "CLASSIFIED" when I meant to type "CONFIDENTIAL."

I'm debating too many posters at once on the same topic and typing too fast. I'll have to be more selective.

Snarky Sack said:

You caught me in a mistake. Well done.

I typed "CLASSIFIED" when I meant to type "CONFIDENTIAL."

I'm debating too many posters at once on the same topic and typing too fast. I'll have to be more selective.

Click to expand...

No you didn't. It's ok, you can say you don't know. Also, you're still going on about restricted and non-restricted spiel.

Snarky Sack said:

Right. But if it is restricted and is moved from the category of restricted to formerly restricted, it no longer has to be restricted.

Click to expand...

See? That's an example of why you are a joke here. I literally explained to you twice that "Restricted Data" and "Formerly Restricted Data" are two designations of special types of classified information dealing with atomic weapons. I even went so far as to point out that we weren't talking about information that is simply "restricted," but instead were talking about a designation "Restricted Data" and "Formerly Restricted Data."

I provided a link to the definition of restricted data, but I'll add the one here for "Formerly Restricted Data."

"Classified information that the Department of Energy and the Department of Defense jointly determined to be related primarily to the military use of atomic weapons and removed by the Department of Energy from the category of Restricted Data under section 142(d) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (as amended)."

Note the first two words: "Classified information." Formerly Restricted Data is still classified information, and access to it is still restricted to individuals with a valid security clearance, a need to know the specific information (being read in to Formerly Restricted Data does not mean that you can access all FRD, you can only access the specific information that you need), and you must be read into and read out of the information.

FullMonte said:

See? That's an example of why you are a joke here. I literally explained to you twice that "Restricted Data" and "Formerly Restricted Data" are two designations of special types of classified information dealing with atomic weapons. I even went so far as to point out that we weren't talking about information that is simply "restricted," but instead were talking about a designation "Restricted Data" and "Formerly Restricted Data."

I provided a link to the definition of restricted data, but I'll add the one here for "Formerly Restricted Data."

Formerly Restricted Data — DOE Directives, Guidance, and Delegations

www.directives.doe.gov

"Classified information that the Department of Energy and the Department of Defense jointly determined to be related primarily to the military use of atomic weapons and removed by the Department of Energy from the category of Restricted Data under section 142(d) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (as amended)."

Note the first two words: "Classified information." Formerly Restricted Data is still classified information, and access to it is still restricted to individuals with a valid security clearance, a need to know the specific information (being read in to Formerly Restricted Data does not mean that you can access all FRD, you can only access the specific information that you need), and you must be read into and read out of the information.

Click to expand...

Agree to disagree.

Trump is giving a speech post-arraignment. It looks like an election rally.

He's explaining the legal precedents, such as the Socks Case.

I'll post the video when it's over.

FullMonte said:

See? That's an example of why you are a joke here. I literally explained to you twice that "Restricted Data" and "Formerly Restricted Data" are two designations of special types of classified information dealing with atomic weapons. I even went so far as to point out that we weren't talking about information that is simply "restricted," but instead were talking about a designation "Restricted Data" and "Formerly Restricted Data."

I provided a link to the definition of restricted data, but I'll add the one here for "Formerly Restricted Data."

Formerly Restricted Data — DOE Directives, Guidance, and Delegations

www.directives.doe.gov

"Classified information that the Department of Energy and the Department of Defense jointly determined to be related primarily to the military use of atomic weapons and removed by the Department of Energy from the category of Restricted Data under section 142(d) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (as amended)."

Note the first two words: "Classified information." Formerly Restricted Data is still classified information, and access to it is still restricted to individuals with a valid security clearance, a need to know the specific information (being read in to Formerly Restricted Data does not mean that you can access all FRD, you can only access the specific information that you need), and you must be read into and read out of the information.

Click to expand...

Yup, I've done all of the required annual continuing education related to the subject and this is 100% on point.

Snarky Sack said:

Agree to disagree.

Click to expand...

You want to agree to disagree on whether or not Formerly Restricted Dsta is still classified after I gave you a link to to the Dept of Energy website defining it as such? Ok, I guess.

Snarky Sack said:

Agree to disagree.

Click to expand...

What exactly are you disagreeing with? What he's explaining about restricted data is absolutely correct.

Snarky Sack said:

Agree to disagree.

Click to expand...

Go steal some restricted data. See how far 'agree to disagree' gets you.

Snarky Sack said:

Trump is giving a speech post-arraignment. It looks like an election rally.

He's explaining the legal precedents, such as the Socks Case.

I'll post the video when it's over.

Click to expand...

Eagerly awaiting to see how he further incriminates himself this time

FullMonte said:

Ok..so after all of your talk of Hillary, you are now saying that the FBI admitted Hillary did not mishandle classified information.

Or, does "they didn't charge him with it which means they admit he didn't do it" only apply to Trump?

Click to expand...

Quote from Comey:

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.


Hm. So they do need clear evidence of intent.