lpetrich
Contributor
No, I was wondering what those sheets looked the way that they did.Are we shocked that they redacted the coversheets of the confidential stuff when releasing it publicly or in court?
No, I was wondering what those sheets looked the way that they did.Are we shocked that they redacted the coversheets of the confidential stuff when releasing it publicly or in court?
Probably Hillary Clinton's email server or Hunter Biden's laptop.Not really. It's kind of shocking, however, that the redactions did not also use a physical obscuration. Digital redaction means that there is a digital (and thus high-velocity) copy that has no redaction sitting somewhere.Are we shocked that they redacted the coversheets of the confidential stuff when releasing it publicly or in court?
I wouldn't know. I'm assuming they knew what they were doing, but I could be giving them too much credit.Even that may, in fact, run against proper procedure with documents this sensitive.
I think it’s more likely than not. Putler probably offered up some of his very finest hiding places.There are now rumors floating around that there are other secret documents Trump had stashed at other sites than Mar-A-Lardo. I don 't take that too seriously, but with Trump, nothing is impossible.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 22-CV-81294-AMC
DONALD J. TRUMP, Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant
Probably Hillary Clinton's email server or Hunter Biden's laptop
Interesting. It occurs to me they aren't making the argument that it was legal for him to have because he didn't lose the election.UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 22-CV-81294-AMC
DONALD J. TRUMP, Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant
I rolled my eyes at "legally unsupported raid" and then burst out laughing at "on the home of a President."
When I regained my composure and wiped down my keyboard, I had a thought. I'm willing to bet his lawyers originally wrote "on the home of a former President" but he forced them to take that one word out. Then I scrolled down and noticed that they called him former President further down the page, but he probably had stopped reading at that point.
They said "home of a President" again later in the filing, but IIRC (and IANAL) but apart from Secret Service protection, is the home of a former President provided special legal protection against search and seizure?
I've not been following this news too carefully. Did I miss something?We've both gotten that treatment from bilby then.Strangely, I know how you feel.Nice semantic argument! It enables you to completely and utterly duck the point while appearing to address the post.
Alright, we know for sure that Trump had nuke docs and was planning on passing them to someone else.I did answer. Possession of nuke docs is a crime in itself. Continuing to hide nuke docs is conspiring to commit the crime. Passing them along would be another crime.I feel like I didn't actually get an answer.So, after reading all 10 pages...
It is the case that the documents seized were nuclear information that Trump planned to give to Putin?
Lock him up is open shut here.
Speculation from WaPo. Some of the shorthand on the coversheets suggest the classification of TS-SCI is of a nuclear nature.How do we know Trump was planning to pass on nuclear documents?
I've not been following this news too carefully. Did I miss something?Alright, we know for sure that Trump had nuke docs and was planning on passing them to someone else.
How do we know Trump was planning to pass on nuclear documents?
Trump had/has had classified documents in his possession as a private citizen. Nobody knows why. It's very possible that even Trump doesn't know why; maybe he just likes to have classified documents in his possession as a private citizen. It's also possible that he has been trading American secrets for little trinkets like $2billion in Saudi cash for Jared and Princess.I've not been following this news too carefully. Did I miss something?Alright, we know for sure that Trump had nuke docs and was planning on passing them to someone else.
How do we know Trump was planning to pass on nuclear documents?
We don't know. All we know for sure is he had some classified documents. We don't know the contents, let alone whether he share them with anyone or was planning to.
Jason likes to play weird psychodrama games.
I think we can infer from the fact that the FBI took the unprecedented step of serving a warrant and searching his home while he was away that they knew at least some of the contents and were extraordinarily concerned about them falling into the wrong hands. Well...more wrong than Trump's. Again, if they did their homework (and the FBI is good at that sort of thing), they first got with the National Archives and any relevant intelligence agencies and said "okay...what's missing?"I've not been following this news too carefully. Did I miss something?Alright, we know for sure that Trump had nuke docs and was planning on passing them to someone else.
How do we know Trump was planning to pass on nuclear documents?
We don't know. All we know for sure is he had some classified documents. We don't know the contents, let alone whether he shared them with anyone or was planning to.
Narcissism and egotism are often a handicap when defending oneself in court.But yes, in this latest tweet, he effectively admits he had those documents, but is complaining that the FBI made it look like he had them all laying out.
You think we can fool Donald Trump Jr. into Tweeting the emails used to share them?I've not been following this news too carefully. Did I miss something?Alright, we know for sure that Trump had nuke docs and was planning on passing them to someone else.
How do we know Trump was planning to pass on nuclear documents?
We don't know. All we know for sure is he had some classified documents. We don't know the contents, let alone whether he shared them with anyone or was planning to.
Jason likes to play weird games that only amuse a party of one.
I was somewhat surprised that they didn't once mention Wookies.Interesting. It occurs to me they aren't making the argument that it was legal for him to have because he didn't lose the election.UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 22-CV-81294-AMC
DONALD J. TRUMP, Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant
I rolled my eyes at "legally unsupported raid" and then burst out laughing at "on the home of a President."
When I regained my composure and wiped down my keyboard, I had a thought. I'm willing to bet his lawyers originally wrote "on the home of a former President" but he forced them to take that one word out. Then I scrolled down and noticed that they called him former President further down the page, but he probably had stopped reading at that point.
They said "home of a President" again later in the filing, but IIRC (and IANAL) but apart from Secret Service protection, is the home of a former President provided special legal protection against search and seizure?
I didn't know the desk part but it should have been obvious it was because they were mixed in--otherwise they wouldn't have been quickly returned. The warrant specifically included anything found with the classified stuff (better than missing a classified document mixed with a bunch of non-classified stuff), it came as no surprise at all the passports got scooped up. I would expect important papers to be with important papers.NBCNews explains why they took Trump's passports during the raid: The were mixed in with the classified documents in Trump's desk so provides direct evidence that Trump knew that the documents were there. No blaming a flunky on this one.
Yeah, my first reaction to 217,217,217 was photoshop. They were covering something up which is of absolutely no surprise given that it was classified material. I could accept 152,155,150 for the picture frame being natural assuming it's one sample and not the whole frame being exactly the same color.Honestly, the value for the white region is itself suspicious. If we are to accept a difference of +/-10 for a value of white on a document or box, the that's roughly a 20^3 chance of accidentally coloring it that way.Further evidence is how white those white areas are: noticeably whiter than the paper or the boxes, both of which were originally very white but were darkened in the picture from being photographed. The camera would likely have adjusted its exposure to make the brightest parts close to maximum for their hue and saturation, even if not exact maximum. Notice also the reddish tint of the documents That would have to be the result of image editing, which can make exact (255,255,255) #FFFFFF white. The white parts were (217,217,217), but much brighter than the box (133,143,149), the picture frame (152,155,150), or the documents (200,185,179). Image editing done on the 2040*1359 WEBP picture that was saved from the New York Times article.
Even 5^3 for the picture frame is a fairly ridiculous number especially if there is no gradient to it.
Depending on the gradient of that color value on the final document, it's "flatness of color", this makes the resultant value from a sampled color rather than an edited color even less plausible.