"Classified material" is not specific. Specific classified material would be specific, but the issue is "particular," which means it must be identified "in particular," as being something and not something else. I.e., identification of specific documents. It classified documents had been turned over to Trump, where are the custody receipts? The document control authority would have a copy of the receipt for the last known custodian (e.g., Trump or the Office of the President). They wouldn't need to ransack Trump's home; they would only need to show up and present the list of particular documents. Collecting anything else is a fishing expedition. Why, therefore, would any unclassified material be scooped up (such as magazines)?
As I pointed out, the only assumption about photos is that what is concealed is really present. You do not disprove this.
If documents were unclassified, there are no controls over custody. Moreover, past precedent has established that Presidents have essentially an unrestricted right to retain documents after office (e.g., Clinton materials). Questions or disputes over this subject are supposed to be handled by negotiation or civil suit.
Cover sheets are necessary to preserve compartmentalization of need to know, so only an unclassified title would be visible (if even that), and the document control number. They are comparable to the package a purchased item comes in: an indicator of contents, but not even remotely to be considered the real thing.
As it turns out, I have read recently that the indictment does not relate to classified document control, but to supposed violations of the Espionage Act. It will be interesting to see how this fares before a real jury. Such as the background that Nauta's attorney was offered a bribe to testify for the government. This is the same FBI and DoJ that you are so scrupulously defending from any hint of misbehavior. You have an uphill battle.
It's absolutely specific enough for a search warrant. If you are searching for cocaine, you don't need to specify where it's from or whose stamp is on it. Nothing more is needed. This is standard.
It classified documents had been turned over to Trump, where are the custody receipts? The document control authority would have a copy of the receipt for the last known custodian (e.g., Trump or the Office of the President). They wouldn't need to ransack Trump's home; they would only need to show up and present the list of particular documents.
The National Archives started trying to get documents back from Trump in 2021. They knew documents were missing. He eventually returned 15 boxes, the boxes had classified documents in them....after a lot of back and forth the Investigative division of NARA made a referral to DOJ. DOJ issued a subpoena. There were still documents found at Mar a Lago where the search warrant was served.
As for what we don't see in the photos. Here's how what has been logged as evidence it's tracked, It's 64 page list of numbers. Every item would get a Bates number, for examplea box gets a bates number, then for every documents inside the box, every single page would get its own Bates number. There's almost 3K numbers, so lots of pages were taken. And they will be give to Trump as evidence. (The Chevy under the tarp so to speak)
I have read recently that the indictment does not relate to classified document control, but to supposed violations of the Espionage Act. It will be interesting to see how this fares before a real jury.
The Espionage Act is older than the classification system, so the language it contains is about "Nation Defense Information." but in court, one way you prove the documents involve NDI is to show they were classified.......so it's kind of the same thing.
Trump is charged with violating this section 18 U.S.C. Section 793 (e)
It's the same section Reality Winner, Bradley Manning and Jack Teixeira were charged with. A lot of people think General Petraeus should have been charged with this, but he plead guilty and got a deal.
"Cocaine" has a specific chemical identity. To search for "cocaine" is tremendously specific, as compared to searching for "white powder."
You keep talking as though we can trust the FBI, with item tag numbers and so forth. Even though there is no way now of establishing that any of these things were either in Trump's possession or inserted by the FBI. 30 years ago, I was on hand to watch how the FBI executed an arrest warrant on David Koresh in Waco, Texas. It ended with the immolation of 86 men, women, and children in a massacre on television. The FBI fully asserted their righteousness after the fact. AG Janet Reno was the epitome of cold defiant contempt toward Congress in her testimony. They bulldozed the rubble to destroy the crime scene.
If you want to take as your ground rule that the FBI and DoJ have spotless integrity and are above putting their thumbs on the scales...well, we don't live in the same world. And you still know nothing about how actual classified material is handled and kept, since I have had to inform you of details all along and you don't seem to grasp their significance.
"Classified material" is not specific. Specific classified material would be specific, but the issue is "particular," which means it must be identified "in particular," as being something and not something else. I.e., identification of specific documents. It classified documents had been turned over to Trump, where are the custody receipts? The document control authority would have a copy of the receipt for the last known custodian (e.g., Trump or the Office of the President). They wouldn't need to ransack Trump's home; they would only need to show up and present the list of particular documents. Collecting anything else is a fishing expedition. Why, therefore, would any unclassified material be scooped up (such as magazines)?
As I pointed out, the only assumption about photos is that what is concealed is really present. You do not disprove this.
If documents were unclassified, there are no controls over custody. Moreover, past precedent has established that Presidents have essentially an unrestricted right to retain documents after office (e.g., Clinton materials). Questions or disputes over this subject are supposed to be handled by negotiation or civil suit.
Cover sheets are necessary to preserve compartmentalization of need to know, so only an unclassified title would be visible (if even that), and the document control number. They are comparable to the package a purchased item comes in: an indicator of contents, but not even remotely to be considered the real thing.
As it turns out, I have read recently that the indictment does not relate to classified document control, but to supposed violations of the Espionage Act. It will be interesting to see how this fares before a real jury. Such as the background that Nauta's attorney was offered a bribe to testify for the government. This is the same FBI and DoJ that you are so scrupulously defending from any hint of misbehavior. You have an uphill battle.
It's absolutely specific enough for a search warrant. If you are searching for cocaine, you don't need to specify where it's from or whose stamp is on it. Nothing more is needed. This is standard.
The National Archives started trying to get documents back from Trump in 2021. They knew documents were missing. He eventually returned 15 boxes, the boxes had classified documents in them....after a lot of back and forth the Investigative division of NARA made a referral to DOJ. DOJ issued a subpoena. There were still documents found at Mar a Lago where the search warrant was served.
As for what we don't see in the photos. Here's how what has been logged as evidence it's tracked, It's 64 page list of numbers. Every item would get a Bates number, for examplea box gets a bates number, then for every documents inside the box, every single page would get its own Bates number. There's almost 3K numbers, so lots of pages were taken. And they will be give to Trump as evidence. (The Chevy under the tarp so to speak)
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23170135-221012-bates-plus-box-numbers https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Bates_numbering
The Espionage Act is older than the classification system, so the language it contains is about "Nation Defense Information." but in court, one way you prove the documents involve NDI is to show they were classified.......so it's kind of the same thing.
Trump is charged with violating this section 18 U.S.C. Section 793 (e)
It's the same section Reality Winner, Bradley Manning and Jack Teixeira were charged with. A lot of people think General Petraeus should have been charged with this, but he plead guilty and got a deal.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/federal-government-contractor-georgia-charged-removing-and-mailing-classified-materials-news
My basic point is and has been: This is a serious case.
"Cocaine" has a specific chemical identity. To search for "cocaine" is tremendously specific, as compared to searching for "white powder."
You keep talking as though we can trust the FBI, with item tag numbers and so forth. Even though there is no way now of establishing that any of these things were either in Trump's possession or inserted by the FBI. 30 years ago, I was on hand to watch how the FBI executed an arrest warrant on David Koresh in Waco, Texas. It ended with the immolation of 86 men, women, and children in a massacre on television. The FBI fully asserted their righteousness after the fact. AG Janet Reno was the epitome of cold defiant contempt toward Congress in her testimony. They bulldozed the rubble to destroy the crime scene.
If you want to take as your ground rule that the FBI and DoJ have spotless integrity and are above putting their thumbs on the scales...well, we don't live in the same world. And you still know nothing about how actual classified material is handled and kept, since I have had to inform you of details all along and you don't seem to grasp their significance.
Wow.
C17H21NO4 This can also show up as salts (e.g., the hydrochloride).