Trump Indictment ( includes NY AG and Fed documents case ) (4 Viewers)

[SteveSBrickNJ]

Former President D. Trump has been indicted by a New York Grand Jury. There will be much to talk about on this topic because this is just the first step in a lengthy process.
Possibly it is worthy of its own thread here rather than posting about Trump's indictment in already existing threads?
*
This 3/31/23 story might get the ball rolling....
*

Manhattan’s DA wanted a Friday Trump arrest. Trump’s team said no.

Secret Service needed more time to prepare, according to the ex-president’s legal team.

www.yahoo.com

 

[LA - L.A.]

Where did they admit that?

The prosecutors have not admitted that Trump did not mishandle classified documents. In fact, the indictment that presented to the court says very clearly that Trump mishandled classified documents. They say that as a statement of the fact that some of the national security/defense documents that Trump had.

I think some people are confused by the fact that the laws that Trump has been indicted for violating are not limited to just classified national security/defense documents.

Trump was indicted for mishandling documents that contain sensitive national security/defense information. It also happens to be true that some of those documents were also classified, but them being classified is not why Trump was indicted. The indictment uses "classified" as an adjective to describe the documents. It does not use "classified" as a descriptor of what laws were violated.

 

[FullMonte]

YOU say that's what it would need to be. This prosecution is a first on many levels. There is no way to know what the defense(s) might be. I'm no lawyer, so take this as spitballing from a layman.

The defenses could stipulate that Trump had the documents, then argue no criminal intent. To lay down the foundation for that, they can bring in an expert to show cases in which people had classified documents in their home in violation of the law, but were not even prosecuted due to no criminal intent.

They could present that as a defense. However, after laying the foundation for what constitutes "no criminal intent," they are still stuck with a written document, sworn to by his attorney, that they had returned all of the documents, even though he had documents in his desk. "Look, we did not intend to keep these documents. We were being completely honest when we swore that we performed a 'diligent search' and did not find any more documents, even though Mr. Trump had documents in his personal desk."

They could argue that Trump wasn't the person running the process of turning over documents to the FBI, he had lawyers telling him what to do. If two of his lawyers from that time take the stand and say that there was confusion about who was in charge of that, and each implies blame on the other, that's something else for the jury to hang reasonable doubt on.

Again, that could be evidence. But, at least one of Trump's lawyers has talked to the FBI (I would assume under oath, but I can't say that for certain) that Trump told him to commit a crime, and the FBI claims to have evidence that Trump and his aide conspired to hide documents from that lawyer. So, trying to present evidence that Trump was following what his lawyers told him while prosecutors are presenting evidence that Trump was actually lying to his lawyers to hide evidence from them and telling them to commit crimes is a tough hill to climb for the defense.

Praise Allah that none of Trump's opponents ever believed that this was over classified documents, because the DOJ/FBI never gave them any reason to think it was.

I'm gonna throw out a crazy thought here. Is it possible that a file can be a government record AND be classified? And that charging someone for withholding that government record in violation of the Espionage Act might not relate to the tangent fact that the document is also classified?

Or you could show no criminal intent by bringing evidence that someone put the bicycle in your bedroom.

What kind of evidence could possible exist (even theoretically) that someone else put the bicycle in your bedroom, and you didn't see it in your bedroom which led you to say that you didn't have it?

Evidence of a negative?

I wasn't asking for "evidence of a negative." You said that prosecutors often drop charges for things they don't have evidence for. This indictment specifically spells out the facts I stated: A subpoena was issued for documents; Trump's lawyer swore to a statement that they returned everything; Documents persuant to the subpoena were found in Trump's desk. All of those facts are spelled out in the indictment. So, when you say that prosecutors often drop charges for things that they don't have evidence for, I'm simply asking if you are suggesting that there is a possibility that those statements are lies, and that the FBI doesn't actually have evidence to support them? Or, do you think it's pretty clear that those specific things that are spelled out in the indictment actually happened?

You tell me your evidence that they do have them, because the prosecutors will have to. Remember, here is what you claim the prosecutors can prove:


I'm particularly interested in seeing your proof that there were documents containing national defense information in his personal desk. Be sure to include an explanation as to why Trump's lawyers were not allowed to observe the search. I'm also interested in your proof that Trump told his lawyer to swear to that. That's gonna be tough with that lawyer/client thingie.

The indictment specifically states that during the FBI search, 27 documents were found in Trump's personal office. It does not specify which specific documents were found in his desk or where they were found. So, for future reference, I will say "In Trump's office" instead of "in Trump's desk" since that is an issue for you.

The proof that he told his lawyer to swear to it is when he asked "Attorney 1" to sign a statement acting as the custodian of records. "Attorney 1" who was not a participant in the search refused to sign it, so "Attorney 3" was asked to sign it, and "Attorney 3" (who also did not participate in the search) added "based on the information provided to me." Clearly Trump asked two different attorney who were not participants in the search to sign a sworn statement to the court that a search was provided and all respondent document were returned. The fact that he asked them to sign a statement that a diligent search, that they were not partipants in, was conducted shows that he asked them to lie on the statement. As for the "lawyer/client thingie" it's not that tough. If Trump told his lawyer to sign the document that was false, that "lawyer/client thingie" no longer exists due to the crime fraud exception.

Your entire premise about the trial is speculation on what you think is going to happen. Are double standards as acceptable on message boards as in federal prosecutions?

No, but speculating on what will happen based on an unsealed federal indictment, and all of the publicly available documentation is something significantly different than discussing speculations on a prosecution that you believe would have happened, but did not. Would you agree to that?

His being a Republican had little to do with it.

It doesn't? You believe the prosecution of Donald Trump, that began with the FBI, led by a man that Donald Trump appointed, is a completely politically motivated prosecution....but Comey being a lifelong republican and deciding to help Hillary and then ruin her chances of getting elected....Him being a republican doesn't matter. It was still politically motivated.

No, my money is still on it being some open source.

So you are now saying, directly, that the DOJ lied on the indictment.

No, but it means that it is no longer restricted. Have you forgotten that the case has nothing to do with classified?

No, it doesn't. It means it is no longer "Restricted Data." Restricted Data is a specific category of classified information related to atomic weapons. Formerly Restricted Data is still classified data, it just no longer meets the criteria to be kept in the "Restricted Data" category. It is still restricted in the sense that it is classified, and only people with security clearance, and a specific need to know this particular information, and being "read into" and "read out of" before and after viewing the information.

No, I didn't forget that. I simply pointed out the markings of the document so that it would be clear that this was not some newspaper article, open source journal, etc. I guess that didn't work, since you seem to think that a document with an open source journal would be marked with US classification markings.

 

[FullMonte]

Actually, I think most of the posited evidence in the indictment comes from actual Grand Jury testimony or evidence presented during the Grand Jury. If that is indeed the case, than it is actual evidence, as it was submitted under oath. I believe that evidence can be presented/read as such in the actual jury trial.

What hasn't happened is that the evidence hasn't been scrutinized or questioned by the defense, which will happen at trial.

They also have quotes from text messages, and photos that were texted from his aide to someone else with a photo of a box dumped onto the floor with documents bearing classification markings laying there for anyone who walks into the room to see.

 

[FullMonte]

In the indictment in which they did not charge him with mishandling classified documents.

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?

 

[UriUT]

I was listening to msnbc in the car and they interviewed Tim Parlatore, Trump’s former attorney. They let him carry on and on as he said there were 45 instances of prosecutorial misconduct regarding attorney client privilege in grand jury testimonies. After a break, the interviewer, I don’t know who, asked, how would he know this as grand juries are sealed and attorneys aren’t allowed. He then admits that the prosecution wanted the master of records and as there wasn’t one, he volunteered. And later, the msnbc host stated that parlatore’s comments are contradictory to the rulings from the appellate court; that there wasn’t any prosecutorial misconduct.

This is relevant to that series of posts discussing leaks. As we can see, something has been made public by team trump.

 

[MT15]

So for whoever needs to hear this: the only unprecedented aspect of this case is that the defendant is a former president. That’s it. Many, many people have been indicted, tried, and imprisoned for exactly what Trump did. In fact, Trump received a great deal of deference due to his former position that no other defendant would have received. He could have easily made the whole issue go away had he cooperated fully, like Pence, Biden and yes, Hillary Clinton.

It’s not a difficult case, I’ve read. The facts aren’t actually in much dispute. The 11th is what I’ve heard is called a “rocket docket” which means they generally do not countenance long delays from either the defense or the prosecution.

I also read that the CIPA that covers this case (classified information production (?) or protection act) allows for an immediate right of expedited appeal which would go to the 11th circuit. So I do not think this case will actually drag out all that long if the judiciary performs as it should. I heard we could reasonably expect a trial before the end of this year.

Because the case is pretty straightforward, I don’t think it will be a long trial. Of course, Trump could always plead guilty if a plea deal is offered. Then it would be resolved even sooner.

 

[MT15]

I was listening to msnbc in the car and they interviewed Tim Parlatore, Trump’s former attorney. They let him carry on and on as he said there were 45 instances of prosecutorial misconduct regarding attorney client privilege in grand jury testimonies. After a break, the interviewer, I don’t know who, asked, how would he know this as grand juries are sealed and attorneys aren’t allowed. He then admits that the prosecution wanted the master of records and as there wasn’t one, he volunteered. And later, the msnbc host stated that parlatore’s comments are contradictory to the rulings from the appellate court; that there wasn’t any prosecutorial misconduct.

This is relevant to that series of posts discussing leaks. As we can see, something has been made public by team trump.

What does master of records mean?

 

[UriUT]

i may have mis heard…probably the person in charge of the documents the fbi wanted back


Edit: Custodian of records were his words.

 

[Snarky Sack]

They could present that as a defense. However, after laying the foundation for what constitutes "no criminal intent," they are still stuck with a written document, sworn to by his attorney, that they had returned all of the documents, even though he had documents in his desk. "Look, we did not intend to keep these documents. We were being completely honest when we swore that we performed a 'diligent search' and did not find any more documents, even though Mr. Trump had documents in his personal desk."

Sounds like Trump's attorney has some 'splainin' to do. I don't know if that quote is a hypothetical version of what Trump's lawyer might say, or if Trump's lawyer did say it. It makes plenty of sense to me that a document search would not include Trump's personal desk. Probably did not look in his sock drawer, which is where Clinton liked to keep stuff he took out of the White House. In his own sock drawer, not Trump's.

That's assuming the FBI really found documents in Trump's personal desk. Hopefully you are familiar with FBI willingness to lie in their zeal to get Trump.

Again, that could be evidence. But, at least one of Trump's lawyers has talked to the FBI (I would assume under oath, but I can't say that for certain) that Trump told him to commit a crime, and the FBI claims to have evidence that Trump and his aide conspired to hide documents from that lawyer. So, trying to present evidence that Trump was following what his lawyers told him while prosecutors are presenting evidence that Trump was actually lying to his lawyers to hide evidence from them and telling them to commit crimes is a tough hill to climb for the defense.

Who was the lawyer? Please tell me it isn't Cohen. I couldn't remember his name at first so I googled "Trump's scumbag lawyer," and his name popped right up.

I'm gonna throw out a crazy thought here. Is it possible that a file can be a government record AND be classified? And that charging someone for withholding that government record in violation of the Espionage Act might not relate to the tangent fact that the document is also classified?

The DOJ can make any claims that they like. Proving it will require them to even make it to court.

What kind of evidence could possible exist (even theoretically) that someone else put the bicycle in your bedroom, and you didn't see it in your bedroom which led you to say that you didn't have it?

Video of a stranger entering your home with a bicycle at a time witness can place you far away from the house would do it.

I wasn't asking for "evidence of a negative." You said that prosecutors often drop charges for things they don't have evidence for. This indictment specifically spells out the facts I stated: A subpoena was issued for documents; Trump's lawyer swore to a statement that they returned everything; Documents persuant to the subpoena were found in Trump's desk. All of those facts are spelled out in the indictment. So, when you say that prosecutors often drop charges for things that they don't have evidence for, I'm simply asking if you are suggesting that there is a possibility that those statements are lies, and that the FBI doesn't actually have evidence to support them?

Are you seriously asking me if the FBI would lie in order to get Trump? Have you ever gotten around to answering why they did not allow Trump's lawyer in the house while they made their search? I wonder if they video's themselves doing the search. I'd like to see this "oh, look in this desk drawer!" moment.

Or, do you think it's pretty clear that those specific things that are spelled out in the indictment actually happened?

No, I don't think that is pretty clear. I think the prosecutor will have to prove each and every count. No doubt there will be three to six anti-Trumpers who will - like yourself - read or hear the indictment and think 'that's it, then. He's guilty.' But not the whole jury, and they will need twelve to convict.

The indictment specifically states that during the FBI search, 27 documents were found in Trump's personal office. It does not specify which specific documents were found in his desk or where they were found. So, for future reference, I will say "In Trump's office" instead of "in Trump's desk" since that is an issue for you.

You don't have proof of defense information being in either his desk or his office. Or anywhere in his house, for that matter. You insist on treating the accusations in the indictment as proof, which makes no sense.

The proof that he told his lawyer to swear to it is when he asked "Attorney 1" to sign a statement acting as the custodian of records. "Attorney 1" who was not a participant in the search refused to sign it, so "Attorney 3" was asked to sign it, and "Attorney 3" (who also did not participate in the search) added "based on the information provided to me." Clearly Trump asked two different attorney who were not participants in the search to sign a sworn statement to the court that a search was provided and all respondent document were returned. The fact that he asked them to sign a statement that a diligent search, that they were not partipants in, was conducted shows that he asked them to lie on the statement.

You have proof that all that happened, or is it just the allegation?

As for the "lawyer/client thingie" it's not that tough.

If Trump told his lawyer to sign the document that was false, that "lawyer/client thingie" no longer exists due to the crime fraud exception.

You'd have to prove that he knew it was false. I'd have to see the actual sworn statement, not your description of it. I suspect that if you could show it to me, it would say "a thorough search was conducted and all respondent documents found were returned," or some such. No lawyer would be dumb enough to say "all respondant documents were returned," at risk of perjury if one document was accidentally missed. At least I hope not.

I don't know if you can show me the sworn statement or if it is not yet available. I would guess the latter.

I'm not trying to play gotcha, so I'll show you an article I found when I was looking for it:

Trump lawyer told to certify Mar-a-Lago document search she did not conduct

Christina Bobb told justice department on Friday that she signed supposedly complete list of documents at direction of another lawyer, Evan Corcoran

www.theguardian.com

No, but speculating on what will happen based on an unsealed federal indictment, and all of the publicly available documentation is something significantly different than discussing speculations on a prosecution that you believe would have happened, but did not. Would you agree to that?

Yes, they are different. I guess I should put this in my sig: Nothing is ever exactly the same as anything else, but intelligent people can still grasp analogies and comparisons.

It doesn't? You believe the prosecution of Donald Trump, that began with the FBI, led by a man that Donald Trump appointed, is a completely politically motivated prosecution....

Yes.

but Comey being a lifelong republican and deciding to help Hillary and then ruin her chances of getting elected....Him being a republican doesn't matter. It was still politically motivated.

Yes, but I believe it was more the politics of Jim Comey personally, not the politics of Jim Comey loving the Republican Party or hating on Hillary Clinton. But it might well have been. Far be it for me to defend that opportunistic bastage on any level.

In fact, I'll concede the point. Along with trying to have it both ways to benefit his personal ambitions, Comey also wanted to make sure he did not contribute to that nasty woman being elected since he is a Republican.

So you are now saying, directly, that the DOJ lied on the indictment.

I'm saying that it is very likely. But I'm willing to wait for the evidence, should it ever come out.

No, it doesn't. It means it is no longer "Restricted Data." Restricted Data is a specific category of classified information related to atomic weapons. Formerly Restricted Data is still classified data, it just no longer meets the criteria to be kept in the "Restricted Data" category. It is still restricted in the sense that it is classified, and only people with security clearance, and a specific need to know this particular information, and being "read into" and "read out of" before and after viewing the information.

Restricted and classified are two different things. I'm surprised you are making that argument, or maybe I'm confused as to what point you're making, but it doesn't really matter.

I don't know that it is no longer restricted or no longer classified or never was restricted or classified. Whatever it turns out to be when presented if it is no longer restricted is is no longer restricted.

Please describe the document or one of the documents you speak of. How many pages, what type information it contains, who wrote it, etc? I think I'm missing something, or else you are just relying on what the indictment says.

No, I didn't forget that. I simply pointed out the markings of the document so that it would be clear that this was not some newspaper article, open source journal, etc.

Have you seen the markings or are you accepting without question what the indictment says as fact?

I guess that didn't work, since you seem to think that a document with an open source journal would be marked with US classification markings.

Again, I don't know that it had any kind of marking.

The horse will have to run pretty fast to catch up with that cart of yours.

 

[DaveXA]

In the indictment in which they did not charge him with mishandling classified documents.

Dude, I read the entire thing. They never once stated that. If they did actually state it, I need a citation.

 

[samiam5211]

Truth Social

Truth Social is America's "Big Tent" social media platform that encourages an open, free, and honest global conversation without discriminating on the basis of political ideology.

truthsocial.com

Look, he's insane, but "Fake Tapper" is pretty good. I surprised it took him 6 years to come up with it.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

Fox News announces Melania Trump's arrival at the courthouse—and it isn't Melania

During Donald Trump’s arraignment in a federal courthouse in Miami,�Fox News, the network somewhat incompetent at just about everything news-related, made quite the fun faux pas in its�quest�for ...

www.dailykos.com

 

[FullMonte]

Sounds like Trump's attorney has some 'splainin' to do. I don't know if that quote is a hypothetical version of what Trump's lawyer might say, or if Trump's lawyer did say it. It makes plenty of sense to me that a document search would not include Trump's personal desk. Probably did not look in his sock drawer, which is where Clinton liked to keep stuff he took out of the White House. In his own sock drawer, not Trump's.

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.

That's assuming the FBI really found documents in Trump's personal desk. Hopefully you are familiar with FBI willingness to lie in their zeal to get Trump.

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.

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"? 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?

Who was the lawyer? Please tell me it isn't Cohen. I couldn't remember his name at first so I googled "Trump's scumbag lawyer," and his name popped right up.

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

Video of a stranger entering your home with a bicycle at a time witness can place you far away from the house would do it.

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?

Are you seriously asking me if the FBI would lie in order to get Trump? Have you ever gotten around to answering why they did not allow Trump's lawyer in the house while they made their search? I wonder if they video's themselves doing the search. I'd like to see this "oh, look in this desk drawer!" moment.

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.

You'd have to prove that he knew it was false.

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.

I'd have to see the actual sworn statement, not your description of it. I suspect that if you could show it to me, it would say "a thorough search was conducted and all respondent documents found were returned," or some such. No lawyer would be dumb enough to say "all respondant documents were returned," at risk of perjury if one document was accidentally missed. At least I hope not.

I don't know if you can show me the sworn statement or if it is not yet available. I would guess the latter.
I'm not trying to play gotcha, so I'll show you an article I found when I was looking for it:

Trump lawyer told to certify Mar-a-Lago document search she did not conduct

Christina Bobb told justice department on Friday that she signed supposedly complete list of documents at direction of another lawyer, Evan Corcoran

www.theguardian.com

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.

Yes, they are different. I guess I should put this in my sig: Nothing is ever exactly the same as anything else, but intelligent people can still grasp analogies and comparisons.

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.

Restricted and classified are two different things. I'm surprised you are making that argument, or maybe I'm confused as to what point you're making, but it doesn't really matter.

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.

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

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

That's assuming the FBI really found documents in Trump's personal desk. Hopefully you are familiar with FBI willingness to lie in their zeal to get Trump.

The DOJ can make any claims that they like.

Yeah, cause someone can be indicted on assumptions alone.

I think the prosecutor will have to prove each and every count. No doubt there will be three to six anti-Trumpers who will - like yourself - read or hear the indictment and think 'that's it, then. He's guilty.' But not the whole jury, and they will need twelve to convict.

You don't have proof of defense information being in either his desk or his office. Or anywhere in his house, for that matter. You insist on treating the accusations in the indictment as proof, which makes no sense.

You have proof that all that happened, or is it just the allegation?

Again, you can't get an indictment without evidence that supports the allegation. You can challenge the evidence at trial, but it is still evidence.

Restricted and classified are two different things.

You are partially right!!! Broken clocks are more correct though...twice day!

Areas are restricted, information is not! I let you slide with you bogus story about how you could get in trouble for leaving your blank docs pre-stamped "CLASSIFIED" on your desk and not in a safe. I just laughed to myself and said "somebody has been watching too much TV", because that's not how any of that works!

Information can be classified and those classifications have 4 levels: For Official Use Only (FOUO), Confidential (CON), Secret (S), and Top Secret (TS) being the highest level! Secret and Top Secret can have additional security measures added, Sensitive Comparted Information (SCI) when the information is attached to a Special Access Program (SAP).

You keep repeating wrong information about a subject, specifically Information Security, further degrades your credibility.

 

[FullMonte]

Areas are restricted, information is not! I let you slide with you bogus story about how you could get in trouble for leaving your blank docs pre-stamped "CLASSIFIED" on your desk and not in a safe. I just laughed to myself and said "somebody has been watching too much TV", because that's not how any of that works!

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.

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.

 

[LA - L.A.]

People who "flood the zone" with misinformation intended to distract, deflect, muddle, condescend and/or provoke have zero concern about being credible.

 

[MT15]

Maybe some cracks in his support starting to show?

 

[samiam5211]

That's assuming the FBI really found documents in Trump's personal desk. Hopefully you are familiar with FBI willingness to lie in their zeal to get Trump.

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.