They shooed the lawyers away while they poked around, collecting things. This is beyond dispute. It establishes my contention that they did not conduct an inventory with the lawyers, nor did they execute any custody receipts.
The "report" inventory lacks any specificity. No document identification numbers or unclassified titles. It includes actual trash. Without any corroboration by Trump or his attorneys, it amounts to an allegation, to be proven in court. By what? "Your honor, this was found at Trump's residence." Trump's attorney: "I object. This was never at my client's residence. It was planted by the agents who prevented us from witnessing their search or confirming what they seized."
The "evidence photo" documents nothing. There is no way to tell when or where the photo was taken, and the photo itself consists of a pile of cover sheets, which are like boilerplate....not documents. Where are the documents? Nowhere to be seen.
This is what questioning the narrative is really like. Funny that you should find it questionable.
They shooed the lawyers away while they poked around, collecting things. This is beyond dispute. It establishes my contention that they did not conduct an inventory with the lawyers,
I'm not sure what an "inventory with the lawyers means." They were executing a search warrant. The subject or his lawyers, don't have the right to get involved with a search warrant. This is standard. When I doubled checked this right now, they basically said you'll just be running up your lawyers fees, your lawyer can't do anything at that point....AND they might become a witness. Shoeing the lawyers away and poking around and collecting things, is like the standard definition of executing a search warrant.
The "report" inventory lacks any specificity. No document identification numbers or unclassified titles.
Again, I'm not sure this is any requirement. If they took a box of documents, they main thing they need to do, is document where the box was and label each document so that they can preserve the evidence. They don't have to get into detail about what the document is. They do have to give you a property receipt for what was taken and that's what this is. This is standard.
Without any corroboration by Trump or his attorneys, it amounts to an allegation, to be proven in court.
One thing they do is photograph how they went about the search. This pic has the items seized in the the search laid out, we see this is from the box labelled 2A. They will be a description of where box 2A came from. There's ruler in the picture to show the accurate scale of the evidence. I presume the magazines are not laid out as they are not the subject matter of the search.
Have Trump's lawyers even complained about this?
This is what questioning the narrative is really like. Funny that you should find it questionable.
I'm questioning your narrative. :)
Because I think you're inventing nonstandard things here to make a dismissal look easy.
And I'll give another reason why I think it's super unlikely the FBI planted this evidence. The security cameras. There's security cameras in Mar a Lago and Trump's lawyer said Trump watched the FBI during the search. Trump can release that footage any time he wants.
So what happens with a search warrant when the police plant evidence? The warrant simply becomes a cover story. Remember we are talking about the FBI, with a proven record of constructing falsifications about Trump (FISA warrant). The actual warrant in this case was overly broad; it was a warrant for a fishing expedition, not specifying what was to be sought or where to look for it. The lack of any discussion of custody receipts strikes to the very assertion that "classified" materials were in custody.
A proper inventory of material goods, for example, would include brand identification, model number (or name), and serial number (if available). The corresponding identification of classified material would be the document number (standard) and any unclassified title. Possibly the name of the classification authority. You are entirely trusting the FBI to be honest and complete, which I have to regard as being hopelessly naive and credulous. If there is no inventory of identified items, how is it possible to say that any of them were improperly in custody? Suppose you were looking for stolen goods? How would you know any of them were stolen unless you could compare them to a list of serial numbers of known stolen goods? All you are justifying is going through the motions of a search without particular awareness of what a search means for CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS.
This is not a "proper receipt." This is a laundry list prepared by someone who is basically illiterate, describing what they handled, but not touching on any other information pertinent to document identification. And how is anyone going to be able to verify this supposed list, when Trump's representatives were not allowed the opportunity to observe and record for themselves? (Surveillance cameras are nice, but they are wholly inadequate to the identification of documents.)
The Constitution has specific requirements for searches and seizures, regarding identification of what is to be seized and where is to be searched.
Was box 2A taken from Trump's location, or was it brought by the FBI for collection of materials? How are we to know that any of the materials displayed in the photograph were found at Trump's location? Since they were boilerplate cover sheets, how are we to know they were associated with any actual "classified" documents? The ruler is almost superfluous, since the standard page size in America is 8 1/2 x 11 inches.
Indeed---have Trump's lawyers complained about this? Only they would know. And who would report any complaint they might make to the press? We have such a neutral press, right?
You are not only swallowing the government story hook, line, and sinker, you are dreaming up exculpatory rationale. And it is clear that you are not at all familiar with the standard procedures relating to the handling and custody of actual classified material---which would preclude treating is as junk evidence to be thrown in boxes, mixing together potentially differing classification levels and guides. If this was truly classified material, the FBI failed to treat it as such. And if it was not classified material, the FBI has performed a hoax.
You seem to think the surveillance footage would reveal any subterfuge the FBI conducted. I don't know why you would think that, since some of these subterfuges would be undetectable by camera. And as good as cameras can be, they are not perfect and they are not eagle's eyes. Don't put the cameras in the position of being God's Own. Their failure to prove a subterfuge does not reduce the possibility of there being a subterfuge.
I assume you mean the receipt....the list of stuff they found
Remember we are talking about the FBI, with a proven record of constructing falsifications about Trump (FISA warrant).
The FISA warrants were against Carter Page, not Trump. And Page did knowingly talk to Russia spies.
The actual warrant in this case was overly broad; it was a warrant for a fishing expedition, not specifying what was to be sought or where to look for it.
It seems to me they did specify where to look.
Also a lot of the probable cause info is still redacted, so we can't know specifics yet. One piece the judge made the DOJ reveal is they had surveillance footage of Walt Natua moving boxe. They saw him move ~60 boxes and put back~30
Was box 2A taken from Trump's location, or was it brought by the FBI for collection of materials? How are we to know that any of the materials displayed in the photograph were found at Trump's location? Since they were boilerplate cover sheets, how are we to know they were associated with any actual "classified" documents? The ruler is almost superfluous
The evidence scale is standard. It's just standard procedure. The reporting is that item 2 was a leather bound box found in Trump's 45 office. Item 2A is the contents of that box. The photographs that we have seen are only a small portion of all the photographs. They would have taken documenting the search. We only got to see the 2A cuz they were included in a court filing where the DOJ told the judge they found 100+ classified documents. This is the description of that photo
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”)
Indeed---have Trump's lawyers complained about this? Only they would know.
It would be in court fillings which are public. As far as I know Trump has not said the documents were not there. Trump said the documents were there but they were declassified and thus note crime had been committed.
You are not reading closely. When I refer to the warrant, I am referring to the warrant, which was permission to go on a fishing expedition. I read it. You apparently did not. This is not the role of a warrant, per the Constitution ("particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"---"particularly," not "generally"). The list of "stuff they found" was nowhere specific---it was like saying they found some firearms, but did not provide make, model, or serial numbers.
You are going all-in for the Establishment by claiming the FBI did not use the falsified information to pursue FISA warrants for the purpose of conducting investigation of Trump & Co. I am surprised you are not being called out by the usual shill-intolerant people.
The photos do not verify their description. You can't tell that any classified documents are present from that photo. Unless you ASSUME that what is alleged is ipso facto true. No, allegations need to be established in court.
And if they were declassified, that would be consistent with HOW THEY WERE TREATED BY THE FBI. You simply don't understand how to handle classified documents. Nothing concerning them is "standard procedure." It is always a special procedure. I speak from experience.
They shooed the lawyers away while they poked around, collecting things. This is beyond dispute. It establishes my contention that they did not conduct an inventory with the lawyers, nor did they execute any custody receipts.
The "report" inventory lacks any specificity. No document identification numbers or unclassified titles. It includes actual trash. Without any corroboration by Trump or his attorneys, it amounts to an allegation, to be proven in court. By what? "Your honor, this was found at Trump's residence." Trump's attorney: "I object. This was never at my client's residence. It was planted by the agents who prevented us from witnessing their search or confirming what they seized."
The "evidence photo" documents nothing. There is no way to tell when or where the photo was taken, and the photo itself consists of a pile of cover sheets, which are like boilerplate....not documents. Where are the documents? Nowhere to be seen.
This is what questioning the narrative is really like. Funny that you should find it questionable.
I'm not sure what an "inventory with the lawyers means." They were executing a search warrant. The subject or his lawyers, don't have the right to get involved with a search warrant. This is standard. When I doubled checked this right now, they basically said you'll just be running up your lawyers fees, your lawyer can't do anything at that point....AND they might become a witness. Shoeing the lawyers away and poking around and collecting things, is like the standard definition of executing a search warrant.
Again, I'm not sure this is any requirement. If they took a box of documents, they main thing they need to do, is document where the box was and label each document so that they can preserve the evidence. They don't have to get into detail about what the document is. They do have to give you a property receipt for what was taken and that's what this is. This is standard.
I think you're reaching at straws. The subject of the search warrant doesn't even have to be at the location. I mean the FBI has been executing warrants for a long time. https://ix.cnn.io/dailygraphics/graphics/20220831-trump-warrant-annotations/static/media/ai2html-graphic-desktop.50409809.jpg
One thing they do is photograph how they went about the search. This pic has the items seized in the the search laid out, we see this is from the box labelled 2A. They will be a description of where box 2A came from. There's ruler in the picture to show the accurate scale of the evidence. I presume the magazines are not laid out as they are not the subject matter of the search.
Have Trump's lawyers even complained about this?
I'm questioning your narrative. :)
Because I think you're inventing nonstandard things here to make a dismissal look easy.
And I'll give another reason why I think it's super unlikely the FBI planted this evidence. The security cameras. There's security cameras in Mar a Lago and Trump's lawyer said Trump watched the FBI during the search. Trump can release that footage any time he wants.
So what happens with a search warrant when the police plant evidence? The warrant simply becomes a cover story. Remember we are talking about the FBI, with a proven record of constructing falsifications about Trump (FISA warrant). The actual warrant in this case was overly broad; it was a warrant for a fishing expedition, not specifying what was to be sought or where to look for it. The lack of any discussion of custody receipts strikes to the very assertion that "classified" materials were in custody.
A proper inventory of material goods, for example, would include brand identification, model number (or name), and serial number (if available). The corresponding identification of classified material would be the document number (standard) and any unclassified title. Possibly the name of the classification authority. You are entirely trusting the FBI to be honest and complete, which I have to regard as being hopelessly naive and credulous. If there is no inventory of identified items, how is it possible to say that any of them were improperly in custody? Suppose you were looking for stolen goods? How would you know any of them were stolen unless you could compare them to a list of serial numbers of known stolen goods? All you are justifying is going through the motions of a search without particular awareness of what a search means for CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS.
This is not a "proper receipt." This is a laundry list prepared by someone who is basically illiterate, describing what they handled, but not touching on any other information pertinent to document identification. And how is anyone going to be able to verify this supposed list, when Trump's representatives were not allowed the opportunity to observe and record for themselves? (Surveillance cameras are nice, but they are wholly inadequate to the identification of documents.)
The Constitution has specific requirements for searches and seizures, regarding identification of what is to be seized and where is to be searched.
Was box 2A taken from Trump's location, or was it brought by the FBI for collection of materials? How are we to know that any of the materials displayed in the photograph were found at Trump's location? Since they were boilerplate cover sheets, how are we to know they were associated with any actual "classified" documents? The ruler is almost superfluous, since the standard page size in America is 8 1/2 x 11 inches.
Indeed---have Trump's lawyers complained about this? Only they would know. And who would report any complaint they might make to the press? We have such a neutral press, right?
You are not only swallowing the government story hook, line, and sinker, you are dreaming up exculpatory rationale. And it is clear that you are not at all familiar with the standard procedures relating to the handling and custody of actual classified material---which would preclude treating is as junk evidence to be thrown in boxes, mixing together potentially differing classification levels and guides. If this was truly classified material, the FBI failed to treat it as such. And if it was not classified material, the FBI has performed a hoax.
You seem to think the surveillance footage would reveal any subterfuge the FBI conducted. I don't know why you would think that, since some of these subterfuges would be undetectable by camera. And as good as cameras can be, they are not perfect and they are not eagle's eyes. Don't put the cameras in the position of being God's Own. Their failure to prove a subterfuge does not reduce the possibility of there being a subterfuge.
I assume you mean the receipt....the list of stuff they found
The FISA warrants were against Carter Page, not Trump. And Page did knowingly talk to Russia spies.
It seems to me they did specify where to look. Also a lot of the probable cause info is still redacted, so we can't know specifics yet. One piece the judge made the DOJ reveal is they had surveillance footage of Walt Natua moving boxe. They saw him move ~60 boxes and put back~30
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22267182-trump-search-warrant-affidavit
The evidence scale is standard. It's just standard procedure. The reporting is that item 2 was a leather bound box found in Trump's 45 office. Item 2A is the contents of that box. The photographs that we have seen are only a small portion of all the photographs. They would have taken documenting the search. We only got to see the 2A cuz they were included in a court filing where the DOJ told the judge they found 100+ classified documents. This is the description of that photo
It would be in court fillings which are public. As far as I know Trump has not said the documents were not there. Trump said the documents were there but they were declassified and thus note crime had been committed.
You are not reading closely. When I refer to the warrant, I am referring to the warrant, which was permission to go on a fishing expedition. I read it. You apparently did not. This is not the role of a warrant, per the Constitution ("particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"---"particularly," not "generally"). The list of "stuff they found" was nowhere specific---it was like saying they found some firearms, but did not provide make, model, or serial numbers.
You are going all-in for the Establishment by claiming the FBI did not use the falsified information to pursue FISA warrants for the purpose of conducting investigation of Trump & Co. I am surprised you are not being called out by the usual shill-intolerant people.
The photos do not verify their description. You can't tell that any classified documents are present from that photo. Unless you ASSUME that what is alleged is ipso facto true. No, allegations need to be established in court.
And if they were declassified, that would be consistent with HOW THEY WERE TREATED BY THE FBI. You simply don't understand how to handle classified documents. Nothing concerning them is "standard procedure." It is always a special procedure. I speak from experience.