Trump Had More Than 300 Classified Documents at Mar-a-Lago - The New York Times

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  jbb  •  one month ago  •  137 comments

By:   Maggie Haberman, Jodi Kantor, Adam Goldman and Ben Protess (nytimes)

Trump Had More Than 300 Classified Documents at Mar-a-Lago - The New York Times
The National Archives found more than 150 sensitive documents when it got a first batch of material from the former president in January, helping to explain the Justice Department's urgent response.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



The National Archives found more than 150 sensitive documents when it got a first batch of material from the former president in January, helping to explain the Justice Department's urgent response.

merlin_211262838_a7f299a9-6ff8-40e6-b1f7-6cf9d51bc901-articleLarge.jpg?quality=75&auto=webp&disable=upscale National Archives officials spent much of 2021 trying to recover material from former President Donald J. Trump that he should have turned over when he left office.Credit...Saul Martinez for The New York Times

By Maggie Haberman, Jodi Kantor, Adam Goldman and Ben Protess

Aug. 22, 2022Updated 8:47 p.m. ET

The initial batch of documents retrieved by the National Archives from former President Donald J. Trump in January included more than 150 marked as classified, a number that ignited intense concern at the Justice Department and helped trigger the criminal investigation that led F.B.I. agents to swoop into Mar-a-Lago this month seeking to recover more, multiple people briefed on the matter said.

In total, the government has recovered more than 300 documents with classified markings from Mr. Trump since he left office, the people said: that first batch of documents returned in January, another set provided by Mr. Trump's aides to the Justice Department in June and the material seized by the F.B.I. in the search this month.

The previously unreported volume of the sensitive material found in the former president's possession in January helps explain why the Justice Department moved so urgently to hunt down any further classified materials he might have.

And the extent to which such a large number of highly sensitive documents remained at Mar-a-Lago for months, even as the department sought the return of all material that should have been left in government custody when Mr. Trump left office, suggested to officials that the former president or his aides had been cavalier in handling it, not fully forthcoming with investigators, or both.

The specific nature of the sensitive material that Mr. Trump took from the White House remains unclear. But the 15 boxes Mr. Trump turned over to the archives in January, nearly a year after he left office, included documents from the C.I.A., the National Security Agency and the F.B.I. spanning a variety of topics of national security interest, a person briefed on the matter said.

Mr. Trump went through the boxes himself in late 2021, according to multiple people briefed on his efforts, before turning them over.

The highly sensitive nature of some of the material in the boxes prompted archives officials to refer the matter to the Justice Department, which within months had convened a grand jury investigation.

Aides to Mr. Trump turned over a few dozen additional sensitive documents during a visit to Mar-a-Lago by Justice Department officials in early June. At the conclusion of the search this month, officials left with 26 boxes, including 11 sets of material marked as classified, comprising scores of additional documents. One set had the highest level of classification, top secret/sensitive compartmented information.

The Justice Department investigation is continuing, suggesting that officials are not certain whether they have recovered all the presidential records that Mr. Trump took with him from the White House.

Even after the extraordinary decision by the F.B.I. to execute a search warrant at Mar-a-Lago on Aug. 8, investigators have sought additional surveillance footage from the club, people familiar with the matter said.

More Coverage of the F.B.I. Search of Trump's Home

  • A Chaotic Exit: Former President Donald J. Trump's unwillingness to let go of power helped lead to the failure to turn over government documents in his final days in office.
  • Trump-F.B.I. Conflict: The Mar-a-Lago search was a dramatic moment after years of tumult between Mr. Trump and the nation's intelligence and law enforcement agencies.
  • Shifting Explanations : Mr. Trump and his allies have given often conflicting defenses of his retention of classified documents without addressing why he had kept them.
  • Trump's Reaction: In the wake of the search, Mr. Trump has accused the nation's justice system of being exactly what he tried to turn it into: a political weapon for a president.

It was the second such demand for the club's security tapes, said the people familiar with the matter, and underscored that authorities are still scrutinizing how the classified documents were handled by Mr. Trump and his staff before the search.

A spokesman for Mr. Trump did not immediately respond to a request for comment. A spokeswoman for the F.B.I. declined to comment.

Mr. Trump's allies insist that the president had a "standing order" to declassify material that left the Oval Office for the White House residence, and have claimed that the General Services Administration, not Mr. Trump's staff, packed the boxes with the documents.

No documentation has come to light confirming that Mr. Trump declassified the material, and the potential crimes cited by the Justice Department in seeking the search warrant for Mar-a-Lago would not hinge on the classification status of the documents.

National Archives officials spent much of 2021 trying to get back material from Mr. Trump, after learning that roughly two dozen boxes of presidential records material had been lingering in the White House residence for several months. Under the Presidential Records Act, all official material remains government property and has to be provided to the archives at the end of a president's term.

Among the items they knew were missing were Mr. Trump's original letters from the North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un, and the note that President Barack Obama had left Mr. Trump before he left office.

Two former White House officials, who had been designated as among Mr. Trump's representatives with the archives, received calls and tried to facilitate the documents' return.

Mr. Trump resisted those calls, describing the boxes of documents as "mine," according to three advisers familiar with his comments.

ImageEven after the F.B.I. executed a search warrant on Mr. Trump's club, skeptical investigators have sought additional surveillance footage from Mar-a-Lago. Credit...Emil Lippe for The New York Times

Soon after beginning their investigation early this year, Justice Department officials came to believe there were additional classified documents that they needed to collect. In May, after conducting a series of witness interviews, the department issued a subpoena for the return of remaining classified material, according to people familiar with the episode.

On June 3, Jay Bratt, the chief of the counterespionage section of the national security division of the Justice Department, went to Mar-a-Lago to meet with two of Mr. Trump's lawyers, Evan Corcoran and Christina Bobb, and retrieve any remaining classified material to satisfy the subpoena. Mr. Corcoran went through the boxes himself to identify classified material beforehand, according to two people familiar with his efforts.

Mr. Corcoran showed Mr. Bratt the basement storage room where, he said, the remaining material had been kept.

Mr. Trump briefly came to see the investigators during the visit.

Mr. Bratt and the agents who joined him were given a sheaf of classified material, according to two people familiar with the meeting. Mr. Corcoran then drafted a statement, which Ms. Bobb, who is said to be the custodian of the documents, signed. It asserted that, to the best of her knowledge, all classified material that was there had been returned, according to two people familiar with the statement.

Mr. Corcoran did not respond to repeated requests for comment. Ms. Bobb did not respond to an email seeking comment.

Soon after that visit, investigators, who were interviewing several people in Mr. Trump's circle about the documents, came to believe that there were other presidential records that had not been turned over, according to the people familiar with the matter.

On June 22, the Justice Department subpoenaed the Trump Organization for Mar-a-Lago's security footage, which included a well-trafficked hallway outside the storage area, the people said.

The club had surveillance footage going back 60 days for some areas of the property, stretching back to late April of this year.

While much of the footage showed hours of club employees walking through the busy corridor, some of it raised concerns for investigators, according to people familiar with the matter. It revealed people moving boxes in and out, and in some cases, appearing to change the containers some documents were held in. The footage also showed other parts of the property.

In seeking a second round of security footage, the Justice Department wants to review tapes for the weeks leading up to the Aug. 8 search.

Federal officials have indicated that their initial goal has been to secure any classified documents Mr. Trump was holding at Mar-a-Lago, a pay-for-membership club where there is little control over who comes in as guests. It remains to be seen whether anyone will face criminal charges stemming from the investigation.

The combination of witness interviews and the initial security footage led Justice Department officials to begin drafting a request for a search warrant, the people familiar with the matter said.

ImageIt remains to be seen whether anyone will face criminal charges stemming from the documents investigation.Credit...Kenny Holston for The New York Times

The F.B.I. agents who conducted the search found the additional documents in the storage area in the basement of Mar-a-Lago, as well as in a container in a closet in Mr. Trump's office, the people said.

Mr. Trump's allies have attacked the law enforcement agencies, accusing the investigators of being partisan.

The intense public interest has now spurred a legal fight to see the search warrant's underlying affidavit. On Monday, a federal magistrate issued a formal order directing the Justice Department to send him under seal proposed redactions to the affidavit underlying the warrant used to search Mar-a-Lago by Thursday, accompanied by a memo explaining its justifications.

In the order, the judge, Bruce E. Reinhart, said he was inclined to release portions of the sealed affidavit but wanted to wait until he saw the government's redactions before making a decision.

Glenn Thrush and Alan Feuer contributed reporting.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1  seeder  JBB    one month ago

What? 300? Damn!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1  Tessylo  replied to  JBB @1    one month ago

But, but, but Hillary's emails. . . 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.2  Ozzwald  replied to  JBB @1    one month ago

Over 700 pages.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2  JohnRussell    one month ago

I wonder if any of those documents contain information that would be personally damaging to Trump and his political future. That is almost the only thing that could explain all this. 

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
2.1  bbl-1  replied to  JohnRussell @2    one month ago

"personally damaging to Trump............"  Perhaps.  Or more likely a lever and a hinge for profit with anything or anyone willing to pay.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Junior Expert
2.2  al Jizzerror  replied to  JohnRussell @2    one month ago
the only thing that could explain all this.

I want to hear Trump's explanation (lie) of why he wanted those documents.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.2.1  devangelical  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.2    one month ago

he was going to trade them for 4 acres in downtown moscow and a building permit.

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
2.2.2  pat wilson  replied to  devangelical @2.2.1    one month ago

Pretty sure he had $ signs on his fevered brain when he confiscated all those files.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.2.3  devangelical  replied to  pat wilson @2.2.2    one month ago

there are no boundaries he wouldn't cross in the pursuit of self enrichment, greed, and leverage.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Senior Expert
2.2.4  Gsquared  replied to  devangelical @2.2.3    one month ago

Trump would sell out the country in a heart beat if he thought he could gain some personal advantage or make a buck.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.2.5  devangelical  replied to  Gsquared @2.2.4    one month ago

every cloud has a silver lining. trump has pretty much destroyed the GOP. bummer.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Junior Expert
2.2.6  al Jizzerror  replied to  devangelical @2.2.5    one month ago
every cloud has a silver lining.

Trump doesn't like clouds because they don't cause golden showers.

 
 
 
Revillug
Freshman Guide
2.3  Revillug  replied to  JohnRussell @2    one month ago

I wouldn't expect that he would be able to walk off with all existing copies of anything. Aren't all these documents digitized?

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
2.3.1  bbl-1  replied to  Revillug @2.3    one month ago

"digitized?"  That is not the point.  The point is who had access to them.

 
 
 
Revillug
Freshman Guide
2.3.2  Revillug  replied to  bbl-1 @2.3.1    one month ago

I read this comment:

I wonder if any of those documents contain information that would be personally damaging to Trump and his political future. That is almost the only thing that could explain all this. 

As implying Trump took possession of some documents to suppress their contents.

But I don't want to get into an adversarial back and forth as to why he took them with people I agree with on most things about Trump.

(I don't like Trump or his supporters.)

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
3  bbl-1    one month ago

Will 'the saga of the Trump' ever end.

Trump believes himself to be invincible.  If that proves to be true and he regains the presidency, his retribution and revenge will destroy the Western democracies.

 
 
 
GregTx
Junior Participates
3.1  GregTx  replied to  bbl-1 @3    one month ago

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
3.2  Ozzwald  replied to  bbl-1 @3    one month ago
Trump believes himself to be invincible.

He has already tried to pull the old Executive Privilege on the documents taken by the FBI.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
3.2.1  cjcold  replied to  Ozzwald @3.2    one month ago
Trump believes himself to be invincible.

The bigger they are the harder they fall..... Jimmy Cliff.

 
 
 
Thomas
Sophomore Guide
3.2.2  Thomas  replied to  cjcold @3.2.1    one month ago

I thought that was Henry the Chicken Hawk.....

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.3  Tessylo  replied to  Ozzwald @3.2    one month ago

He's asking for them to return the documents he stole

Speaking of jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
3.2.4  cjcold  replied to  cjcold @3.2.1    4 weeks ago

Smoked with jimmy and Bob way back in the day.

 
 
 
Revillug
Freshman Guide
3.3  Revillug  replied to  bbl-1 @3    one month ago
Trump believes himself to be invincible.

Ever since Silence of the Lambs I have been wondering exactly how psychopaths' brains work.

I've read several popular books on psychopathy: The Mask of Sanity, Without Conscience, The Psychopathy Checklist, The Psychopath Next-door, and some others I would have to go rummage through shelves to remember.

After reading all of that Trump is still a mystery to me. His narcissism is obvious. But does he feel fear? Does he feel under siege? Are there some emotions he is incapable of? Does he substitute some emotions for others?

He's one for the textbooks.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.3.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Revillug @3.3    4 weeks ago

I think he feels a lot of fear and that's what motivates him to do the things that he does.

I'm not a psychologist I just play one on the internetz

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
4  Sean Treacy    one month ago

Another leak from the DOJ.  It’s like they have an agenda or something 

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
4.1  pat wilson  replied to  Sean Treacy @4    one month ago

A statement from the National Archives is a "leak" ?

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
4.1.1  bbl-1  replied to  pat wilson @4.1    one month ago

To the pro Putin MAGA everything is a 'leak' that exposes the true nature of 'the Trump'. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
4.1.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  pat wilson @4.1    one month ago

Can you leak to the statement? 

This is the very definition of  a leak:

."Trump in January included more than 150 marked as classified, a number that ignited intense concern at the Justice Department and helped trigger the criminal investigation that led F.B.I. agents to swoop into Mar-a-Lago this month seeking to recover more, multiple people briefed on the matter said.
 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
4.1.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  bbl-1 @4.1.1    one month ago

did you know Trump told Putin he was sending the Boogaloo boys to kills Russians at the Helsinki meeting? 

Or was it the other way around? Was  it a false flag operation planned at Helsinki?   Please let me know. It's hard to keep up with crazy ass conspiracies emanating from the left wing fever swamp. 

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
4.1.4  pat wilson  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.2    one month ago

Huh ?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
4.1.5  Sean Treacy  replied to  pat wilson @4.1.4    one month ago

You claimed there was a statement from National Archives claiming Trump possessed 300 classified docs. Where is it? 

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
4.1.6  pat wilson  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.5    one month ago

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
4.1.7  Sean Treacy  replied to  pat wilson @4.1.6    one month ago

Oh. So you don't understand the article then. 

Try reading it again and pay attention to who the sources of information are. 

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
4.1.8  pat wilson  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.7    one month ago

How can something be leaked when it is already known ?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1.9  JohnRussell  replied to  pat wilson @4.1.8    one month ago

Some people are more concerned with the process than the result. To hell with trump's misdeeds ! Who leaked it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Crazy. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
4.1.10  Sean Treacy  replied to  pat wilson @4.1.8    one month ago
How can something be leaked when it is already known ?

No It's not. Which is why it was front page story. If you actually read the story, you'll see the new information is sourced anonymously, mostly to DOJ officials.   The literal first sentence of the story is attributed to 
"multiple people briefed"  in other words anonymous DOJ sources. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
4.1.11  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.9    one month ago
Who leaked it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Congrats on at least recognizing the information in the article was leaked as we whipsaw from "there was no leak!" to "who cares about the leaks?" with the same people supporting both arguments.  Good stuff. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1.12  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.11    one month ago

I didnt agree it was leaked, although it came from somewhere. I was simply referring to you, quite consistently, complaining a lot more about leaks than you do about Trumps abysmal and possibly illegal behavior. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
4.1.13  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.12    one month ago
I didnt agree it was leaked, although it came from somewhere.

Of course it was leaked. Anonymous sources are literally cited as the basis for the information in the article.   It's simple reading comprehension.

And yet, because it involves Trump, left wingers go into reality denial mode and literally ignore their own source.   

It's truly amazing to see.   If Trump said there were seven days in a week, people here would deny it if they thought that fact helped Trump in some small way.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1.14  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.13    one month ago

You jumped the shark a long time ago. Trump could shoot someone in the middle of 5th avenue and you would wonder who leaked the news more than you would care that he shot someone. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
4.1.15  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.14    one month ago

Lol. At least I'd be able to read the story correctly and agree that Trump shot someone. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1.16  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.15    one month ago

The national archives has confirmed that Trump had the highest level of top secret classified documents at Maralago. 

I guess somebody leaked that too.  So what? 

The May 10 letter to Trump's lawyers also affirms that the National Archives  found more than 700 pages of classified documents , including "special access program materials" — among the most highly classified secretes in government — in the 15 boxes recovered from Trump's Mar-a-Lago complex. More classified material was  taken from Mar-a-Lago  by the FBI in June and August.
 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1.17  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.16    one month ago

It's only a matter of time, probably days, until Trump says, yes, he had the highest level of top secret documents at his house, but it was a good thing. 

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
4.1.18  pat wilson  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.10    one month ago

No where in the NYT article does it attribute the information to "anonymous" sources.

"multiple people briefed"  in other words anonymous DOJ sources.

Maybe to you.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
4.1.19  Sean Treacy  replied to  pat wilson @4.1.18    one month ago

e does it attribute the information to "anonymous" sources.

Okay. Then tell me identity of " the people briefed " who the NYT credits as sources. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
4.1.20  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.16    one month ago
guess somebody leaked that too.  So what? 

You tell me.  You spent 18 months or so parroting whatever defense Hillary Clinton offered to possessing thousands of classified documents, including  Special access program materials on her unsecured home brew server and you called it a nothingburger. . 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
4.1.21  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.17    one month ago
, probably days, until Trump says, yes, he had the highest level of top secret documents at his house, but it was a good thing. 

 That's how the Clinton email story played out, and as each lie was exposed, you adopted the new talking point and what was claimed the week before was flushed down the memory hole. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1.22  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.21    one month ago

if you think hillary clinton is a liar on a level with donald trump you are delusional

 
 
 
Revillug
Freshman Guide
4.1.23  Revillug  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.22    one month ago

I'm no huge fan of the Clintons. You can definitely pillory Hillary with that line about having "public and private positions on issues" she made during a private campaign speech in 2013. But most politicians can probably be caught with some degree of that sort of bending the truth to tell voters what they want to hear.

Trump, OTOH, is an example of a pathologically lying con artist like Anna Sorokin. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.1.24  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.2    one month ago

Sean, yesterday, John Solomon published the letter May 2022 letter the NARA sent to Trump.

That letter includes all of the information in the paragraph you block quoted. In short, TRUMP released the information.

If you insist on calling it a leak, so be it. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
4.1.25  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @4.1.24    one month ago

hn Solomon published the letter May 2022 letter the NARA sent to Trump

 A letter written in May detailed what the government found in the August raid? 

NARA must have some preternatural powers. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.1.26  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.25    one month ago

Your comment is obtuse. 

Try reading your own post before you make another kneejerk comment.

Why are you blathering about the August raid when your block quote begins with:

'Trump in January included more than 150 marked as classified'.

THAT information, and the rest of the information in your block quote, was confirmed by the letter which was published by John Solomon. 

Oh and BTFW, Trump's minions have been on RW media for MONTHS talking about all of the classified documents in Trump's possession. Kash Patel [who is an utter moron] in particular. 

Handholding over. 

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
4.1.27  afrayedknot  replied to  Dulay @4.1.24    one month ago

“In short, TRUMP released the information.”

Desperate or imbecilic? Both always seem to apply. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
4.1.28  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @4.1.26    one month ago

Lol. How dishonest can your post be?    Unfortunately, I still write to an audience assuming they have basic reading comprehension skills and  a modicum of good faith. Sadly, that excludes some here.

So, once again.   I  now have to engage in an  argument that  is too stupid to have because reading and critical thinking is too hard for some.

The article cites many antonymous leaks from the government.   None  of your doltish deflections address the authors' actual sources. 

was confirmed by the letter which was published by John Solomon. 

By all means, find the information in the article where the New York Times credits Solomon.  Oh. It doesn't does it? So you have no point.

For starters, I notice you didn't link to the Solomon article. Why is that? Because it was published after this NYT, so of course the Times didn't rely on it when they published this article.  Use common sense.  Learn how time works.  

Let me spoon-feed it to you so you understand what's happening.    You just cited another reporter to verify the accuracy of one part of the article.  That, of course, has nothing to do with the sourcing for the Times article. The article speaks for itself.  Solomon is a red herring .  Patel is a red herring. Read the article and address what's actually in it. 

SO if you are going to reply focus on how to make an actual  argument by addressing an actual relevant point.  Don't just throw shit against the wall and hope for the best. Think first. Prove the report isn't based on antonymous leaks despite what the reporters wrote. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.1.29  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.28    one month ago
Lol. How dishonest can your post be?   

Nowhere near as dishonest as yours. 

YOU stated:

Another leak from the DOJ.  It’s like they have an agenda or something 

This is the very definition of a leak:

."Trump in January included more than 150 marked as classified, a number that ignited intense concern at the Justice Department and helped trigger the criminal investigation that led F.B.I. agents to swoop into Mar-a-Lago this month seeking to recover more, multiple people briefed on the matter said.

We are not discussing the whole fucking article, we are discussing the contents of what YOU claim is the 'definition of a leak' by the DOJ. 

I proved that NONE of the information contained in your block quote was leaked by the DOJ. 

By all means, find the information in the article where the New York Times credits Solomon.  Oh. It doesn't does it? So you have no point.

Solomon doesn't warrant any credit since he isn't the author of the NARA letter.

Your claim is ridiculous. 

Because it was published after this NYT, so of course the Times didn't rely on it when they published this article. 

You know that how? They were published on the same day. 

Oh and BTFW Trump's JANUARY return of 15 boxes of documents went to directly to NARA. As the letter that Solomon published states, the DOJ has subpoenaed those documents.

So, if there is a leak as you allege, it's from NARA, which is NOT under the DOJ. 

The article speaks for itself.  Solomon is a red herring .  Patel is a red herring. Read the article and address what's actually in it. 

That comment is a red herring. 

SO if you are going to reply focus on how to make an actual  argument by addressing an actual relevant point. 

The 'relevant point is that the discussion is about your characterization of the block quote as the 'very definition of a leak'. You seem desperate to deflect from that. 

Don't just throw shit against the wall and hope for the best. Think first. Prove the report isn't based on antonymous leaks despite what the reporters wrote. 

Strawman. 

You are the one with the burden of proof.

Prove the report IS based on DOJ leaks. 

Or was that allegation just some shit that you threw against the wall? 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
4.1.30  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @4.1.29    one month ago
e are not discussing the whole fucking article, 

Of course we were. I highlighted the first attributed leak, and surprise surprise, nothing you've written has contradicted my claim.

ved that NONE of the information contained in your block quote was leaked by the DOJ.

That's literally insane. You are just making shit up again.  Stop ignoring what's in front of you and making  unfounded assertions.  You can't hide from the author's actual words, no matter how dishonestly you spin. 

Solomon doesn't warrant any credit since he isn't the author of the NARA letter.

Did you not cringe in shame when you typed that out? you should just remain silent rather than producing such obvious dreck.  He's the reporter who first produced the letter. How you don't understand that is beyond me. 

But again, cite the place in the NYT article cited this letter as evidence to support the block quote  you are hyper focused on. 

t your characterization of the block quote as the 'very definition of a leak

Again, did you not read the article? This is simple reading comprehension. I Can't dumb this down any more for you. THe author cited  a number that ignited intense concern at the Justice Department and helped trigger the criminal investigation that led F.B.I. agents to swoop into Mar-a-Lago this month seeking to recover more, multiple people briefed on the matter said

Read it very slowly and then identify the source of the information that ignited intense concern at the Justice Department?   Here a hint, the answer can be found at the end of the excerpt!

. You seem desperate to deflect from tha

Not at all. I'm going to keep asking you for proof that the Times reporters are lying about their attributions. 

You are the one with the burden of proof.

Yes, which I satisfied by QUOTING THE FUCKING AUTHORS OF THE ARTICLE.

You've done nothing but deflect and lie. 

But c'mon. Show me where the NYT authors cite the Solomon produced letter as the basis for their claims. It'd be some sort of magic since it was made public until after the NYT article was published, but that's for you to prove. 

I'll keep checking in with you in case you forget. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.1.31  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.30    one month ago
Of course we were.

You WANT that to be true because I refuted your claim that your block quote is the 'very definition of a leak' from the DOJ. 

Now, as is your MO, you're devolving to name calling and personal bullshit, fuck off. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
4.1.32  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @4.1.31    one month ago
to be true because I refuted your clai

You are misusing the word refute. Simply making an unsupported declaration is not a refutation.  Its a very Trump like approach to arguing you are taking. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat a made up claim, it is still a fictitious claim. 

So where is your proof of the NYT citing the Solomon produced letter as the basis for the information contained in the block quote? Were they lying when they attributed the claim that  "ignited intense concern at the Justice Department and helped trigger the criminal investigation that led F.B.I. agents to swoop into Mar-a-Lago this month seeking to recover more",   to multiple people briefed on the matter? Where is the citation to the letter?  Are you accusing the NYT reporters of lying about their sources?  Which of the words "multiple people briefed said" do you interpret to mean 'a letter another reporter will produce after this article is published'?  

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
4.1.33  cjcold  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.7    one month ago

stop being an obvious troll.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.34  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.16    one month ago

More examples of the trumpturd criminal enterprise raping, looting, pillaging, sacking, stealing, every goddamned thing he could rape, loot, pillage, sack, steal, etc. to infinity.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.35  Tessylo  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.20    one month ago

You say we have tds, y'all have CDS and HBDS.  It's pathetic and deplorable.  

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.1.36  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.10    one month ago
If you actually read the story, you'll see the new information is sourced anonymously, mostly to DOJ officials.   The literal first sentence of the story is attributed to "multiple people briefed"  in other words anonymous DOJ sources. 

Both of those sentences are unsubstantiated allegations. 

Please prove your allegations. 

I will note that it can be presumed that a plethora of people on multiple levels have been briefed on the content of the documents recovered from Trump in January. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
4.1.37  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @4.1.36    one month ago

Both of those sentences are unsubstantiated allegations. 

Lol. keep making asinine declarations. 

I'm still waiting for you to refute that the article in question, including the one section you want to focus on is based on leaks. 

ple on multiple levels have been briefed on the content of the documents recovered from Trump in January. 

Reading is fundamental.  Quite throwing shit at the wall and focus.   The claim in the block quote is  about the concerns of the the DOJ and what motivated them to act.  Only people inside the DOJ can know that. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.1.38  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.37    one month ago
Lol. keep making asinine declarations. 

Keep making personal comments. It proves a lack of an ability to conduct a civil discussion. 

I'm still waiting for you to refute that the article in question, including the one section you want to focus on is based on leaks. 

Um, YOU are the one that claim that it's based on DOJ leaks, the burden of proof is on YOU. 

Reading is fundamental. 

So is comprehension. Try it. 

Quite throwing shit at the wall and focus.   

Prove your allegation Sean. 

The claim in the block quote is  about the concerns of the the DOJ and what motivated them to act.  Only people inside the DOJ can know that. 

What motivated them to act is the NARA criminal referral which happened in FEBRUARY. Trump tried for months to keep the NARA from releasing the documents to the DOJ. DOJ's head of Counterintelligence and Export personally traveled to FL to try to get all of the documents returned. Trump's lawyers gave him a small file and then signed an affidavit stating that NO MORE classified documents remained at Mar-a-Lago.

They LIED. 

The NARA KNEW they lied. 

By that point, the Congress had been briefed and Trump's minions were on RW media blathering about it. Perhaps you should review what Patel told Breitbart and others in June. 

So, the entire team at the NARA, the DOJ, the FBI, Trump and all of his minions KNEW why the DOJ was 'concerned' and why they were 'motivated' Sean.

How's THAT for focusing? 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.2  Tessylo  replied to  Sean Treacy @4    one month ago

299994052_5998799243465030_8894841592937656393_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_p526x296&_nc_cat=107&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=SMQi0URUAo8AX_rrd7G&_nc_oc=AQkUEJb-tyAnCLmT4wPoL-3j8POH33nYa-iReP5Y9ISILx4q5GWmtzA5WflbDCCozfs&tn=ddyv9WRSVi2y4Anp&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=00_AT-cmYCk3XYaskI7rv2o3-4Am6KcdgDK5hVnH8IYmBu1VQ&oe=630A5DDB

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.2.1  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @4.2    one month ago

The next shoe to drop is - WHO LOOKED AT THOSE DOCUMENTS

This just keeps getting better and better!!!!!!!!!!

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Junior Expert
5  al Jizzerror    one month ago

From this seed:

"Mr. Trump went through the boxes himself in late 2021, according to multiple people briefed on his efforts, before turning them over."

This means Trump can't blame other people for the failure to return the requested documents.  Trump is personally guilty.

Also from this seed:

"Mr. Corcoran then drafted a statement, which Ms. Bobb, who is said to be the custodian of the documents, signed. It asserted that, to the best of her knowledge, all classified material that was there had been returned, according to two people familiar with the statement."

These lawyers should be asked (under oath) if their client (The Donald) asked them to make these obviously false statements.

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
5.1  pat wilson  replied to  al Jizzerror @5    one month ago
These lawyers should be asked (under oath) if their client (The Donald) asked them to make these obviously false statements.

These lawyers are f#cked.

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
5.1.1  bbl-1  replied to  pat wilson @5.1    one month ago

Yes, the lawyers, especially the Bobb lady, are going to need lawyers.  MAGA.  My Attorney Gets an Attorney.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  bbl-1 @5.1.1    one month ago

The bottom of the barrel when it comes to attorneys are the only ones who will represent the turd.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.2    one month ago

And to think he thought while 'president' that the DOJ were at his beck and call and that Barr was his consigliere (well they kinda were and he kinda was) especially considering how he fudged the Mueller summary.  

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
5.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  al Jizzerror @5    one month ago

It must be true then. The NYT has a long history of being accurate when posting anonymously sourced leaks that point to Trump doing something wrong.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Junior Expert
5.2.1  al Jizzerror  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.2    one month ago
It must be true then. The NYT has a long history of being accurate

You are absolutely right!

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
5.2.2  Ronin2  replied to  al Jizzerror @5.2.1    one month ago

Just like they were accurate with Russian collusion and Hunter's laptop./S

The New York Times is finally admitting the New York Post's story about Hunter Biden's laptop was true – a year and a half after the election. The Times' admission reveals how the so-called mainstream media and Big Tech tried to bury a significant story during the 2020 presidential election by mislabeling it as "unsubstantiated" and "Russian disinformation."

And the Burisma energy company connection in the story seems more relevant than ever now that Joe Biden is in the White House and Russia has invaded Ukraine. 

"People familiar with the investigation said prosecutors had examined emails between Mr. Biden, Mr. Archer, and others about Burisma and other foreign business activity," The Times reported on March 16. "Those emails were obtained by The New York Times from a cache of files that appears to have come from a laptop abandoned by Mr. Biden in a Delaware repair shop. The email and others in the cache were authenticated by people familiar with them and with the investigation."

TDS is a disease with no cure. Not that they are looking for one.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
5.2.3  Ender  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.2    one month ago

Is that like Jim Jordan and all of his antonymous sources at the FBI....

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
5.2.4  Ender  replied to  Ronin2 @5.2.2    one month ago

What is comical is you think the idiot Hunter and his stupid laptop are any smoking gun to get Joe...

If the laptop is such a scandal, why are the republicans doing nothing but sitting on their hands and complaining about it.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.2.5  Tessylo  replied to  Ronin2 @5.2.2    one month ago

Y'all are the ones with CDS and HBDS.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
5.2.6  Ender  replied to  Tessylo @5.2.5    one month ago

Has there been a single day without the use of that acronym...

It is almost comical that they way some defend donald is to accuse others of wrong doing.

Such an easy response and such a simple out...

donald did this...you're just bias...donald also did this...you're just bias...doanld lied about this...you're just bias....

Maybe the ones that are 'bias' are the ones with no other way to defend the asshole.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.2.7  Texan1211  replied to  Ronin2 @5.2.2    one month ago
TDS is a disease with no cure. Not that they are looking for one.

Some even say you can't fix a problem you refuse to recognize.

Look at most articles here-especially the ones having nothing to do with Trump, then note how many times some folks drag Trump into it because they are incapable of logically defending their positions and deflect to Trump, as if that is responsive.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Junior Expert
5.2.8  al Jizzerror  replied to  Ronin2 @5.2.2    one month ago

TDS is a disease with no cure.

Yes, Trump Dick Suckers can't help it.

I recommend duct taping their mouths.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.2.9  Texan1211  replied to  al Jizzerror @5.2.8    one month ago

If I had a dollar for every time some TDS-riddled person dragged Trump into a conversation having nothing to do with him, I could have retired a few years ago.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.2.10  Tessylo  replied to  al Jizzerror @5.2.8    one month ago

See 5.2.9

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Junior Expert
5.2.11  al Jizzerror  replied to  Texan1211 @5.2.9    one month ago
If I had a dollar for every time some TDS-riddled person dragged Trump into a conversation having nothing to do with him

This article is about classified documents being found at Mar-a-lardo.

Butt, YOU think it has nothing to do with Trump.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.2.12  JohnRussell  replied to  al Jizzerror @5.2.11    one month ago
YOU think it has nothing to do with Trump.

Good point. 

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.2.13  Texan1211  replied to  al Jizzerror @5.2.11    one month ago
This article is about classified documents being found at Mar-a-lardo

No shit? Really?

Butt, YOU think it has nothing to do with Trump.

Looks like my words have confused you greatly. perhaps reading them again might give you an understanding of what I ACTUALLY wrote instead of what you think you read.

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
5.2.14  bbl-1  replied to  al Jizzerror @5.2.8    one month ago

TDS is a description of an affliction which applies to all that support, believe, honor and worship the orange lifeform taking up residence in Mar-a-Lago.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
5.2.15  cjcold  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.2    one month ago

Trump has never done anything that wasn't wrong.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
5.2.16  cjcold  replied to  cjcold @5.2.15    one month ago

Trump has always been an evil person.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Junior Expert
5.2.17  al Jizzerror  replied to  Texan1211 @5.2.13    one month ago
Looks like my words have confused you greatly. perhaps reading them again might give you an understanding of what I ACTUALLY wrote instead of what you think you read.

Here is the full text of YOUR ridiculous comment:

If I had a dollar for every time some TDS-riddled person dragged Trump into a conversation having nothing to do with him, I could have retired a few years ago.

This article IS about Trump. 

Reading is fundamental.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
5.2.18  devangelical  replied to  al Jizzerror @5.2.17    one month ago

too funny. here's another article/seed where he introduces trump into the conversation.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.2.19  Tessylo  replied to  cjcold @5.2.16    one month ago

I heard that he was sent to military school for raping a young girl.  

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
5.2.20  Trout Giggles  replied to  al Jizzerror @5.2.17    4 weeks ago

that's gonna leave a mark

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.3  Tessylo  replied to  al Jizzerror @5    one month ago

300179274_5483589908367648_4177254409127830748_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_p180x540&_nc_cat=110&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=zmkU6u46uHUAX86xJBP&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=00_AT8CPzQ-TL2kcCnv2uea_h9holdZ7rtM_noBcP9mt4eqUw&oe=630BA2C1

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.3.1  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @5.3    one month ago

Notice how that excuse has fallen by the wayside?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
6  Nerm_L    one month ago

Aren't 300 secret documents at Mar-a-Lago a smoking gun?  So, what's the hold up?  Where's the indictment?

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
6.1  Greg Jones  replied to  Nerm_L @6    one month ago

It sure gets the local leftist loons all excited.    jrSmiley_122_smiley_image.gif .

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  Greg Jones @6.1    one month ago
It sure gets the local leftist loons all excited.  

And so does seeing the name "Trump'!

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
6.1.2  Greg Jones  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.1    one month ago

Here's another view...

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2022/08/23/how-bill-clintons-sock-drawer-could-play-a-role-in-the-fbis-trump-raid-fiasco-n2612109?utm_campaign=rightrailsticky1

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
6.1.3  Nerm_L  replied to  Greg Jones @6.1    one month ago
It sure gets the local leftist loons all excited.    .

It's too late to worry about tittles.  

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
6.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Nerm_L @6    4 weeks ago
Aren't 300 secret documents at Mar-a-Lago a smoking gun? 

With as many failed "smoking gun" claims I think they are trying to move away from it and come up with another catch phrase to get the lemmings moving.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Masters Guide
6.3  Snuffy  replied to  Nerm_L @6    4 weeks ago

Read the opinion article from Andrew McCarthy.  He lays out rather well (and he would have the knowledge) of how difficult it is to indict on classified documents.  He lays out where the DOJ has a stronger case on obstruction which is a much easier case to prosecute. 

Classified information cases are very difficult to do, even without the added complication of a suspect who happens to have been the only official in government with the power to declassify any intelligence. It is hard to prove the case without risking disclosure of the intelligence. And a prosecution centering on unlawful retention of government records has its own complications. Post-Watergate, when Congress enacted the Presidential Records Act, lawmakers did not include criminal enforcement provisions. The Justice Department now believes that gap has been filled by a different statute (sec. 2071), which criminalizes the removal or concealment of government records. Maybe so, but the question would have to be litigated.

By contrast, obstruction is uncomplicated and easy to prove. There would be no need to get into the content of government documents, classified or not. The case would focus on Trump’s allegedly lying about having government records and concealing them. What’s in the documents is beside the point.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
6.3.1  Dulay  replied to  Snuffy @6.3    4 weeks ago
Classified information cases are very difficult to do, even without the added complication of a suspect who happens to have been the only official in government with the power to declassify any intelligence.

Yet in Trump's reply to the DOJ's filing about the Special Master request, there is a GLARING absence of any claim by Trump that he declassified the documents retrieved through the search warrant. I guess overtly lying for Trump in a court filing was a bridge too far for Trump's current lawyers. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
6.3.2  Nerm_L  replied to  Snuffy @6.3    4 weeks ago
Read the opinion article from Andrew McCarthy.  He lays out rather well (and he would have the knowledge) of how difficult it is to indict on classified documents.  He lays out where the DOJ has a stronger case on obstruction which is a much easier case to prosecute. 

Garland doesn't have a choice now.  Garland must indict Trump.

Garland has turned Jan. 6th into page 4 news.  Garland has displaced Democrats' 'threat to democracy' narrative with a narrative of 'threat to national security'.  Democrats won't let Garland back down.  At this point, indicting Trump really doesn't have anything to do with Trump.

Garland has stepped on Democrats' politics.  Garland better deliver or he will pay a heavy price.  Democrats are unforgiving.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
7  Kavika     one month ago

Trump's lawyer released the complete scenario of the National Archives and Trump. Amazingly stupid thing to do but when you deal with bottom drawer attorneys you get what you pay for. 

Perhaps the Trump legal team could hire some NT legal experts to help them out. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.1  Tessylo  replied to  Kavika @7    one month ago

Like Alex Jones' attorney?

300059738_5998789646799323_963463822499014458_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_p526x296&_nc_cat=107&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=c5x4bSfIrXIAX-nGODD&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=00_AT9TF4skRbCK-GLM5F1L9pqwroVnG2-Z3-DaZ7e6ugAHLw&oe=630AECAC

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
8  Jack_TX    one month ago

I just want to know what these people think they are accomplishing.

_v=63f541661279798

 
 
 
Hallux
Junior Principal
8.1  Hallux  replied to  Jack_TX @8    one month ago

Exercising two things at once, and if they are chewing gum, three.

 
 
 
Thomas
Sophomore Guide
8.2  Thomas  replied to  Jack_TX @8    one month ago

Tanning?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
8.3  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Jack_TX @8    one month ago

You might want to look at this poll

It is pretty much divided down party lines with independents split 50/50.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
8.3.1  Jack_TX  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @8.3    one month ago
You might want to look at this poll

We're talking about an FBI raid and an investigation into possible crimes.  Either laws were broken or they weren't.  Either he will be prosecuted or he won't.

How could a poll possibly matter?  That's the whole point.  We are now...finally... in the realm of the factual instead of feelings with regard to the former president.

How....exactly....does marching around a potential crime scene with signs accomplish anything? 

 
 
 
Thomas
Sophomore Guide
8.3.2  Thomas  replied to  Jack_TX @8.3.1    4 weeks ago

Well, they are exercising their constitutional right of assembly and of speech.  At least they don't have firearms... 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
8.3.3  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Jack_TX @8.3.1    4 weeks ago
How could a poll possibly matter?

A poll doesn't matter to the law, but what Perrie was trying to express was the reason for the folk protesting in your photo. Are they accomplishing anything? Well, they have you reposting their photo in a discussion about Trumps likely crimes which the protesters were apparently trying to draw attention to. I guess you could say, mission accomplished.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
8.3.4  Jack_TX  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @8.3.3    4 weeks ago
Are they accomplishing anything? Well, they have you reposting their photo in a discussion about Trumps likely crimes which the protesters were apparently trying to draw attention to. I guess you could say, mission accomplished.

They are making idiots of themselves, alienating sane people who might otherwise agree with them.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
8.3.5  Jack_TX  replied to  Thomas @8.3.2    4 weeks ago
Well, they are exercising their constitutional right of assembly and of speech. 

You could say the same thing about the people down at the corner bar.

 
 
 
Thomas
Sophomore Guide
8.3.6  Thomas  replied to  Jack_TX @8.3.5    4 weeks ago

Yes, you could. Furthermore, you would be correct except for a corner bar is a private business and, as such, can ask them to leave. These people appear to be, however right or wrong the factual basis of what they are trying to say, in public, and the public, us, we are talking about it, as noted in post 8.3.3 by   Dismayed Patriot

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.4  Tessylo  replied to  Jack_TX @8    one month ago

301150867_478835227681390_4774610349812783011_n.jpg?stp=cp1_dst-jpg_p180x540&_nc_cat=109&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=PndW_kLzoncAX-Dcif-&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=00_AT-_sfbbRISQCs6cGzqQqQ8jtnZxwqRrB_P0z0d0XeHTkQ&oe=630C252D

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Principal
9  magicschoolbusdropout    one month ago

Funny how long these Drip, Drip, Drip, leaks have been coming out, when the DOJ says any info from what the Judge received for the warrant and any leak of evidence retrieved would Jeopardies their investigation...... Yet ....... Leak, Leak, Leak, Leak, Drip, Drip, Drip, Leak Leak, Leak, keeps a comin !

Gotta keep the "Reader" intrigued I suppose, or they lose "Interest" !

hahahahahaha !!

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
9.1  devangelical  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @9    one month ago

keep on laughing.

...multiple DOJ criminal investigations and willful retention of classified documents.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
9.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @9.1    one month ago

I'm still waiting on that other shoe to drop of exactly WHO LOOKED AT THOSE CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS AT MAR-A-LARDO

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Principal
9.1.2  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  devangelical @9.1    one month ago
keep on laughing.

Drip, Drip, Drip, Leak, Leak, Leak, of DOJ "Don't/Can't tell info" !

Hahahahahaha !

256

How's that ?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
9.1.3  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  devangelical @9.1    one month ago
...multiple DOJ criminal investigations and willful retention of classified documents.

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif There have been "multiple investigations" since 2016.  This isn't any different than the rest and will probably end the same way - another failure.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
9.1.4  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @9.1.2    4 weeks ago

Obama is laughing and Trump is under multiple investigations.

What's really funny are Trumps junk suckers who complain about leaks whenever Trump is exposed instead of being critical about whatever Trump was caught doing and yet did the exact opposite when Obama was in office.

You couldn't have found a more gleeful excited jubilant rightwing conservative during Obama's two terms than one who thought they just heard some juicy supposedly criminal details from an unnamed source or leak within the Obama Whitehouse. Odd's these same whiners would complain about Obama's DOJ 'drip, drip, drip' leaks? Zero, zip, zilch, nada, finito, never going to happen x 1 to the millionth power. Right wing conservative hypocrisy truly knows no bounds.

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Principal
9.1.5  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @9.1.4    4 weeks ago
What's really funny are Trumps junk suckers who complain about leaks whenever Trump is exposed

Nope !

It was all about Garlands claim that the DOJ must Protect information, and must be protected themselves so things shouldn't be exposed, Yet ...... Drip, Drip, Drip..... out come little bits and pieces to the Media.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
9.1.6  Dulay  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @9.1.5    4 weeks ago
It was all about Garlands claim that the DOJ must Protect information, and must be protected themselves so things shouldn't be exposed, Yet ...... Drip, Drip, Drip..... out come little bits and pieces to the Media.

Garland didn't say anything about protecting information, so your comment is bullshit. 

Derp, derp, derp. 

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Principal
9.1.7  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Dulay @9.1.6    4 weeks ago
Garland didn't say anything about protecting information, so your comment is bullshit. 

DERP !

Your Rebutt is "As YOU Say" Bullshit ! 

DOJ urges judge to keep Trump search warrant affidavit sealed to protect national security investigation

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
9.1.8  Dulay  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @9.1.7    4 weeks ago

You said:

It was all about Garlands claim that the DOJ must Protect information

See there, even YOU differentiated between Garland and the DOJ. Garland didn't say what you claimed, just admit it. 

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Principal
9.1.9  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Dulay @9.1.8    4 weeks ago
See there, even YOU differentiated between Garland and the DOJ. Garland didn't say what you claimed, just admit it. 

Garland ...... IS ......the DOJ .

Period !

Admit it.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
9.1.10  Dulay  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @9.1.9    4 weeks ago
Garland ...... IS ......the DOJ .

Not even you believe that bullshit.

If you DID you would have posted:

It was all about Garlands claim that HE must Protect information, and must be protected HIMSELF so things shouldn't be exposed

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
9.2  Dulay  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @9    4 weeks ago

What's really funny is that the Judge that will decide on the special master request ordered the DOJ to review the documents and provide a sealed 'detailed Receipt of the Property'. Which kinda defeats the purpose of a special manager...

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Principal
9.2.1  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Dulay @9.2    4 weeks ago
What's really funny is that the Judge that will decide on the special master request ordered the DOJ to review the documents and provide a sealed 'detailed Receipt of the Property'. Which kinda defeats the purpose of a special manager..

How So ?

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
9.2.2  Dulay  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @9.2.1    4 weeks ago

One of the requests in Trump's motion for a special master is to 'enjoin further review of seized materials by
the Govenment until a Special Master is appointed'. 

TOO LATE!

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Principal
9.2.3  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Dulay @9.2.2    4 weeks ago
TOO LATE!

Not so !

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
9.2.4  Dulay  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @9.2.3    4 weeks ago

Yes so. The FBI has already gone through everything. 

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Principal
9.2.5  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Dulay @9.2.4    4 weeks ago
The FBI has already gone through everything. 

So ! 

It's all about Trust in what the FBI says, especially after revelations about the FBI and it's sycophants starting in 2016  ........ isn't it ?

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
9.2.6  Dulay  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @9.2.5    4 weeks ago

Actually, no. It's trust in our legal and judicial system. 

Just as with all of the allegations of voter and election fraud, Trump and his minions will just make shit up and all too many of his sycophants will swill the pablum.

The fact that such an event would require hundreds of people in multiple states conspiring together to pull off doesn't seem to penetrate their fantasy. 

Here we are again, with people trying to imply that the documents found at MAL were planted or fake or belong to Trump or whateverthefuck. 

'They' insist that everyone in the FBI and the DOJ, the Judge, Biden, Wray, Garland and Bratt are all conspiring and some even perjuring themselves just to get Trump. 

All the while, Trump ADMITS to taking Presidential Records and classified documents and his only defense is that he insists that he is the one and only special snowflake Ex-President on the planet. 

It's more of the Trump MO, deflect, obfuscate, lie, deny, rinse and repeat. 

It's the SSDD with the Trump conspiracy theorists, here and elsewhere, who enable him. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
10  JohnRussell    4 weeks ago

I hope they find the ones he buried under the palm trees. 

 
 
 
Thomas
Sophomore Guide
10.1  Thomas  replied to  JohnRussell @10    4 weeks ago

DJT  wouldn't likely pick up a shovel. 

 
 

Who is online


Ender
Ed-NavDoc


31 visitors