The Frankish Reich Posted June 25 Share Posted June 25 7 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: why not run with 'no leaked photos of staged documents and imported cover sheets' to avoid the appearance of impropriety? True. That is a fair argument. I will say that this kind of photo "leak" is not unusual, but there is something to be said for keeping these things under wraps until they need to be released in a courtroom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted June 25 Share Posted June 25 28 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: True. That is a fair argument. I will say that this kind of photo "leak" is not unusual, but there is something to be said for keeping these things under wraps until they need to be released in a courtroom. Was it a leak? As far as I can tell, the media picked up on the photo from a court filing by the government in response to a motion by Trump's team. As to the inclusion of the photo, it was provided with the context of "Certain of the documents had colored cover sheets indicating their classification status. See, e.g., Attachment F (redacted FBI photograph of certain documents and classified cover sheets recovered from a container in the “45 office”)." (p13) which highlights that, as part of the search, investigators removed the documents from a container in order to document them and the cover sheets. Looks to me like the DoJ included the photo to bolster its argument that there were government documents with classification markings present at Mar a Lago after Trump's team had certified that all such documents had been returned. I'm not sure what the government can do about bad faith outlets taking that out of context to promote a narrative. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted June 25 Share Posted June 25 12 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: Was it a leak? As far as I can tell, the media picked up on the photo from a court filing by the government in response to a motion by Trump's team. As to the inclusion of the photo, it was provided with the context of "Certain of the documents had colored cover sheets indicating their classification status. See, e.g., Attachment F (redacted FBI photograph of certain documents and classified cover sheets recovered from a container in the “45 office”)." (p13) which highlights that, as part of the search, investigators removed the documents from a container in order to document them and the cover sheets. Looks to me like the DoJ included the photo to bolster its argument that there were government documents with classification markings present at Mar a Lago after Trump's team had certified that all such documents had been returned. I'm not sure what the government can do about bad faith outlets taking that out of context to promote a narrative. Thanks for the clarification. There really is nothing to see here, other than some Trump people trying to drum up a big evil conspiracy. As usual. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted June 25 Share Posted June 25 7 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: True. That is a fair argument. I will say that this kind of photo "leak" is not unusual, but there is something to be said for keeping these things under wraps until they need to be released in a courtroom. I know we talked about this recently, but I cannot square the actions here to the theory of justice, blind and true. Chi has opined at times about leeway given to 'electeds' when it comes to Biden's clear and obvious disregard for laws and regulation. That extends, of course, to anyone who handled the classified documents that ultimately ended up in his possession. In fact, it apparently extended to the ghost writer who destroyed material relevant to the case, and the flagrant disregard for security. On the other hand, we have the government, an armed raid, the rejection of a special master, items taken that were outside the scope of the information to be gathered, the news that they staged leaked photos, and whatever comes next...and surely something will come next. I then go back to the theory offered by Andrew Cuomo, which is that the Bragg action was purely political and designed specifically for one individual. Chi states that had Trump simply turned the material over, nothing further happens. I reject that based on the history of Trump as candidate, and president. So, for me...trust is an issue, even beyond the concern I have about selective leaks to shape a narrative. 1 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted June 25 Share Posted June 25 2 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: On the other hand, we have the government, an armed raid, the rejection of a special master, items taken that were outside the scope of the information to be gathered, the news that they staged leaked photos, and whatever comes next...and surely something will come next. Is there any evidence of this? Every article I've seen from when the photo originally came out stated that they found the photo in a court filling, not that it was leaked to the outlet. I'm not aware of any outlet that published or referenced the photo before the filing. In the filing, the government clearly states that the documents in the picture (which are on the floor) were found within a container in Trump's office. So from day one, the government is saying "this picture is of documents we found in a box" not "hey, these documents were all over the floor." Unless I'm missing something, it really seems like this idea of it being a leaked photo staged to damage Trump is just a bad faith concoction. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted June 25 Share Posted June 25 13 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: Is there any evidence of this? Every article I've seen from when the photo originally came out stated that they found the photo in a court filling, not that it was leaked to the outlet. I'm not aware of any outlet that published or referenced the photo before the filing. In the filing, the government clearly states that the documents in the picture (which are on the floor) were found within a container in Trump's office. So from day one, the government is saying "this picture is of documents we found in a box" not "hey, these documents were all over the floor." Unless I'm missing something, it really seems like this idea of it being a leaked photo staged to damage Trump is just a bad faith concoction. Our friend Julie was also behind the fake outrage over "authorized use of deadly force" warrant thing. It isn't reporting. It's agitprop. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted June 25 Share Posted June 25 11 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: Our friend Julie was also behind the fake outrage over "authorized use of deadly force" warrant thing. It isn't reporting. It's agitprop. I don't understand why anyone still believes her analysis. She's constantly being proven wrong by people with actual expertise. Do people even care if they're being lied to or misinformed? It's like getting football analysis from someone who maybe watched a game one time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted June 25 Share Posted June 25 11 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: I don't understand why anyone still believes her analysis. She tells them what they want to hear. They believe that the Trump indictments are all a political ploy to keep Trump from regaining the presidency. So she is Ms. Confirmation Bias. She leaps to unfounded conclusions that feed the outrage machine. I used to think this was because she was in over her head; now I realize she is knowingly creating fake outrage stories. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted June 25 Share Posted June 25 (edited) 4 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: On the other hand, we have the government, an armed raid, the rejection of a special master, items taken that were outside the scope of the information to be gathered, the news that they staged leaked photos, and whatever comes next...and surely something will come next. This is much ado about nothing. There wasn't an "armed raid". There was a search warrant properly executed. The FBI coordinated so that it didn't happen when the now convicted felon was there. They wore casual attire, not tactical gear with body armor, purposely. They were armed, as FBI agents always are, just like when they searched Biden's home. It is highly unusual for the subject of a search to claim equitable jurisdiction over the items seized. The magistrate judge who signed the search warrant understood that as did the 11th circuit court of appeals. The only people who don't understand that are Aileen Cannon and the right wing propaganda amplifying echo chamber. It isn't unusual for more things to be taken during a search warrant than are necessarily tied to the case. The photos weren't leaked, they were entered into the court filing in response to defense motions. This is all a smoke screen. It is nothing more than the people in the cult nursing their grievances, which seems to be their natural state. Edited June 25 by Scraps 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted June 26 Share Posted June 26 4 hours ago, ChiGoose said: Is there any evidence of this? Every article I've seen from when the photo originally came out stated that they found the photo in a court filling, not that it was leaked to the outlet. I'm not aware of any outlet that published or referenced the photo before the filing. In the filing, the government clearly states that the documents in the picture (which are on the floor) were found within a container in Trump's office. So from day one, the government is saying "this picture is of documents we found in a box" not "hey, these documents were all over the floor." Unless I'm missing something, it really seems like this idea of it being a leaked photo staged to damage Trump is just a bad faith concoction. Chi, we’re living in a world where clear, obvious and intentional disregard of the laws involving top secret/classified morph to protect some while destroying others. It’s possible everything said and done by the SC is above board with no political animus. It simply seems unlikely to me, and if that represents bad faith to you, I can live with it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted June 26 Share Posted June 26 3 hours ago, Scraps said: This is much ado about nothing. There wasn't an "armed raid". There was a search warrant properly executed. The FBI coordinated so that it didn't happen when the now convicted felon was there. They wore casual attire, not tactical gear with body armor, purposely. They were armed, as FBI agents always are, just like when they searched Biden's home. It is highly unusual for the subject of a search to claim equitable jurisdiction over the items seized. The magistrate judge who signed the search warrant understood that as did the 11th circuit court of appeals. The only people who don't understand that are Aileen Cannon and the right wing propaganda amplifying echo chamber. It isn't unusual for more things to be taken during a search warrant than are necessarily tied to the case. The photos weren't leaked, they were entered into the court filing in response to defense motions. This is all a smoke screen. It is nothing more than the people in the cult nursing their grievances, which seems to be their natural state. Look at you—you’ve spun quite a tale of smoke screens, right wing propagandists, rogue judges, echo chambers and cults. That’s nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted June 26 Share Posted June 26 17 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Chi, we’re living in a world where clear, obvious and intentional disregard of the laws involving top secret/classified morph to protect some while destroying others. It’s possible everything said and done by the SC is above board with no political animus. It simply seems unlikely to me, and if that represents bad faith to you, I can live with it. Robert Hur, a Trump appointee and Special Council, explained it in his report "With one exception, there is no record of the Department of Justice prosecuting a former president or vice president for mishandling classified documents from his own administration. The exception is former President Trump. It is not our role to assess the criminal charges pending against Mr. Trump, but several material distinctions between Mr. Trump's case and Mr. Biden's are clear. Unlike the evidence involving Mr. Biden, the allegations set forth in the indictment of Mr. Trump, if proven, would present serious aggravating facts. Most notably, after being given multiple chances to return classified documents and avoid prosecution, Mr. Trump allegedly did the opposite. According to the indictment, he not only refused to return the documents for many months, but he also obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and then to lie about it. In contrast, Mr. Biden turned in classified documents to the National Archives and the Department of Justice, consented to the search of multiple locations including his homes, sat for a voluntary interview. and in other ways cooperated with the investigation. In reaching our decision, we did not consider every circumstance m which criminal charges against a former president or vice president for mishandling classified information may be warranted. But on the facts of this case, "the fundamental interests of society" do not "require" criminal charges against Mr. Eiden.~ For this additional reason, applying the Principles of Federal Prosecution set forth in the Justice Manual, we decline prosecution." 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted June 26 Share Posted June 26 43 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Chi, we’re living in a world where clear, obvious and intentional disregard of the laws involving top secret/classified morph to protect some while destroying others. It’s possible everything said and done by the SC is above board with no political animus. It simply seems unlikely to me, and if that represents bad faith to you, I can live with it. I did not mean to say you were acting in bad faith and if you took my comments as such, I apologize. Sticking strictly to the claims that the DoJ leaked a staged photo to harm Trump politically, it feels like a lot of people are making a bad faith claim because the photo was not leaked and the document it was originally included in had the context that the documents were removed from a container. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L Ron Burgundy Posted June 26 Share Posted June 26 58 minutes ago, Scraps said: Robert Hur, a Trump appointee and Special Council, explained it in his report "With one exception, there is no record of the Department of Justice prosecuting a former president or vice president for mishandling classified documents from his own administration. The exception is former President Trump. It is not our role to assess the criminal charges pending against Mr. Trump, but several material distinctions between Mr. Trump's case and Mr. Biden's are clear. Unlike the evidence involving Mr. Biden, the allegations set forth in the indictment of Mr. Trump, if proven, would present serious aggravating facts. Most notably, after being given multiple chances to return classified documents and avoid prosecution, Mr. Trump allegedly did the opposite. According to the indictment, he not only refused to return the documents for many months, but he also obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and then to lie about it. In contrast, Mr. Biden turned in classified documents to the National Archives and the Department of Justice, consented to the search of multiple locations including his homes, sat for a voluntary interview. and in other ways cooperated with the investigation. In reaching our decision, we did not consider every circumstance m which criminal charges against a former president or vice president for mishandling classified information may be warranted. But on the facts of this case, "the fundamental interests of society" do not "require" criminal charges against Mr. Eiden.~ For this additional reason, applying the Principles of Federal Prosecution set forth in the Justice Manual, we decline prosecution." Oh yeah, all this has been pointed out countless times. They're doing the old stick their heads in the sand and cry unfair routine. Classic Trump tactic which he's effectively beat into a staggeringly ignorant base. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted June 26 Share Posted June 26 8 hours ago, ChiGoose said: I did not mean to say you were acting in bad faith and if you took my comments as such, I apologize. Sticking strictly to the claims that the DoJ leaked a staged photo to harm Trump politically, it feels like a lot of people are making a bad faith claim because the photo was not leaked and the document it was originally included in had the context that the documents were removed from a container. I took it that way, but no need to apologize. I respect your feedback even when I disagree with your take, and take nothing said here personally. If you’re correct, then at worst it’s fodder for political discussion. It would not be the first time, nor will it be the last. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted June 26 Share Posted June 26 3 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: I took it that way, but no need to apologize. I respect your feedback even when I disagree with your take, and take nothing said here personally. If you’re correct, then at worst it’s fodder for political discussion. It would not be the first time, nor will it be the last. Reporting on legal issues is difficult because things are often complicated and lay in gray areas where there is plenty of room to disagree. If the law was easy, we wouldn't need lawyers. But what really irks me is when people like Julie Kelly who either don't know what they are talking about or worse: are intentionally lying, mislead the public. I don't expect the average person to take the time to read through actual court filings; that's what you have reporters for. But when influencers are unable to do the due diligence and just put out information that is blatantly wrong (i.e. Biden tried to have Trump assassinated, the DoJ staged the photograph to harm Trump politically), it misleads the public and can cause serious issues. It leads to people, through no fault of their own, believing conspiracies and lies because they don't realize they've been had by a bad faith actor. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted June 26 Share Posted June 26 14 hours ago, Scraps said: Robert Hur, a Trump appointee and Special Council, explained it in his report "With one exception, there is no record of the Department of Justice prosecuting a former president or vice president for mishandling classified documents from his own administration. The exception is former President Trump. It is not our role to assess the criminal charges pending against Mr. Trump, but several material distinctions between Mr. Trump's case and Mr. Biden's are clear. Unlike the evidence involving Mr. Biden, the allegations set forth in the indictment of Mr. Trump, if proven, would present serious aggravating facts. Most notably, after being given multiple chances to return classified documents and avoid prosecution, Mr. Trump allegedly did the opposite. According to the indictment, he not only refused to return the documents for many months, but he also obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and then to lie about it. In contrast, Mr. Biden turned in classified documents to the National Archives and the Department of Justice, consented to the search of multiple locations including his homes, sat for a voluntary interview. and in other ways cooperated with the investigation. In reaching our decision, we did not consider every circumstance m which criminal charges against a former president or vice president for mishandling classified information may be warranted. But on the facts of this case, "the fundamental interests of society" do not "require" criminal charges against Mr. Eiden.~ For this additional reason, applying the Principles of Federal Prosecution set forth in the Justice Manual, we decline prosecution." I would submit that the acknowledgement of selective prosecution, and the indication that "...we did not consider every circumstance m which criminal charges against a former president or vice president for mishandling classified information may be warranted..." doesn't move the needle for me in the least, and certainly seems to be problematic from a trust perspective. In fact, it's quite similar to the crafted speech by James Comey in deep-sixxing the investigation into HRC, where he said: "To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions." What would have moved the needle for me is clear and convincing evidence that the DOJ, Congress, Senate and Executive displayed some sort of fiduciary discipline in the handling, storage and retention of classified material. We clearly don't have that--so the handwringing over who had what and when seems silly. Instead we get some gobbledeegook about a guy with 50 years experience dealing with national security clearly and repeatedly violating the law over decades, and being reassured it's really no big deal. Or, that there was absolutely no wrongdoing involved, and then we could skip past the junior high school girl deep analysis of 'the fundamental interests of society'. Btw, I'm with @Doc on this issue--common sense suggests that prosecuting (persecuting) high ranking politicians over issues like this is bad form, and most definitely bad for the country. i'd suggest politicians for decades have handled this stuff under the theory of mutually assured destruction. Still, we deal with the cards as dealt. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted June 26 Share Posted June 26 1 hour ago, ChiGoose said: Reporting on legal issues is difficult because things are often complicated and lay in gray areas where there is plenty of room to disagree. If the law was easy, we wouldn't need lawyers. But what really irks me is when people like Julie Kelly who either don't know what they are talking about or worse: are intentionally lying, mislead the public. I don't expect the average person to take the time to read through actual court filings; that's what you have reporters for. But when influencers are unable to do the due diligence and just put out information that is blatantly wrong (i.e. Biden tried to have Trump assassinated, the DoJ staged the photograph to harm Trump politically), it misleads the public and can cause serious issues. It leads to people, through no fault of their own, believing conspiracies and lies because they don't realize they've been had by a bad faith actor. All of that is fine, but I hesitate to put blind faith in any institution. It occurs to me that the court filings prepared by the prosecution might well be misleading, untruthful or manipulative. There is ample evidence of that sort of behavior historically, and when politics are involved my spidey senses tingle. I may be a bit turned around in my head, but last night, @The Frankish Reich acknowledged that prosecutorial leaks were not uncommon, and indicated he felt my perspective was fair. Thereafter, you shared court filings and his perspective changed. My only issue there is--would the Smith team acknowledge leaking material? What exactly would they say? Julie Kelly is not the only game on the block. Stepping back from this--do you agree with Andrew Cuomo that the Bragg case against Trump was überpolitical? That, to paraphrase, it was the use of the justice system to destroy an individual? Quick question: Was the commentary from the 50+ intelligence agents meant to mislead the public, or a simple misunderstanding on a grand scale? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted June 26 Share Posted June 26 1 minute ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Thereafter, you shared court filings and his perspective changed Thanks for acknowledging that. When the facts (as I understand them, or misunderstood them) change, I may change my mind. 2 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Stepping back from this--do you agree with Andrew Cuomo that the Bragg case against Trump was überpolitical? That, to paraphrase, it was the use of the justice system to destroy an individual? Not addressed to me, but that's never stopped me from responding ... ... I agree with the first sentence. It was political. If he wasn't Donald Trump, he wouldn't have been prosecuted. In fact, even if he was Donald Trump, former President and retired from politics, it probably wouldn't have been prosecuted. But I don't agree with the second sentence. We've seen that Trump got away with an awful lot of chicanery and illegality over the years. A lot of crimes that probably weren't prosecuted because he was the uber-connected (with both parties) Donald Trump. At some point, the calculation changes; do you continue to ignore all that past illegality and let him run again, claiming (as he did in his impeachments) that he'd never ever done anything wrong, much less illegal? I didn't like the Bragg prosecution. I thought it was ill-advised - arguable on the law, fairly weak on the facts. I'm now convinced that it was strong on the facts, but still very arguable on the law. But he wasn't railroaded. He got the benefit of the doubt for a long time, not just on this, but on all the other shady (some probably criminal) deals he's been involved with. Sometimes who you are gets you a pass. Sometimes who you are gets you an indictment. Trump has played both roles in that drama. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daz28 Posted June 26 Share Posted June 26 (edited) 17 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: All of that is fine, but I hesitate to put blind faith in any institution. It occurs to me that the court filings prepared by the prosecution might well be misleading, untruthful or manipulative. There is ample evidence of that sort of behavior historically, and when politics are involved my spidey senses tingle. I may be a bit turned around in my head, but last night, @The Frankish Reich acknowledged that prosecutorial leaks were not uncommon, and indicated he felt my perspective was fair. Thereafter, you shared court filings and his perspective changed. My only issue there is--would the Smith team acknowledge leaking material? What exactly would they say? Julie Kelly is not the only game on the block. Stepping back from this--do you agree with Andrew Cuomo that the Bragg case against Trump was überpolitical? That, to paraphrase, it was the use of the justice system to destroy an individual? Quick question: Was the commentary from the 50+ intelligence agents meant to mislead the public, or a simple misunderstanding on a grand scale? Jack Smith just released specific discussions trump allegedly had to undermine and/or cover up the classified documents retrieval, and are very damning. Andrew Cuomo might be right, but does that mean that we shouldn't bring up politicians on charges they are guilty of? Best case scenario is they are ALL held accountable. The former intelligence agents said they had seen the hallmarks of Russian disinformation, which they did. Did they do so for nefarious reasons? Possibly, but they weren't lying. The GQP, on the other hand, has been using the laptop for 4 years as nefarious political fodder via Congress. You get way too caught up in GQP talking points, Lenny. At least you're willing to listen to why they are mostly bogus. 8 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: Sometimes who you are gets you a pass. Sometimes who you are gets you an indictment. Imagine us being in a crooked culture for so long, that we had forgotten that THIS was the original problem. Edited June 26 by daz28 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts