One of the real cover sheets can be seen in the image the FBI posted. It was folded over. There is a video that goes through it but I don't know where I watched.
The coversheets added by the FBI are the yellow or red bordered ones. The cover sheet not added by the fbi would be the one folded over which says "please store in..."
Why do you think it's tampering with evidence? They put a cover sheet on it to block classified documents from being photographed and who knows where those photos will end up.
It's similar to saying that evidence placed in a plastic evidence bag is tampering with it.
They removed items from their boxes, placed them on the floor and then put cover sheets on top of items that would not need them, all to make it look like there was much more top secret docs there then there actually was.
Could you tell me where you're getting the idea that it wasn't necessary for them to photograph all the documents they found?
And how do you know that some of those documents didn't need a cover sheet?
If they did remove documents and insert others for some nefarious reason, then yes, they should be prosecuted for that. But is this true, or is someone just making stuff up? What evidence is there this really happened?
Please don't tell me you saw it in some Twitter/X comment someone posted here and accepted it as truth without looking into it further.
Pull your head out of your ass and actually look at the reporting that Julie and others have done.
Smith already admitted that they removed material and inserted others.
They already admitted that the chain of custody and materials have been compromised.
Civil Discussion ONLY:
They want you divided.
They want you labeled by race, religion, class, sex, etc.
Divided you are weak [no collective power].
Divided you attack each other and miss the true target [them].
There's no need for the hostility and personal attacks.
You can see through a plastic bag but not a cover sheet. The cover sheet scam is the commies’ way of saying ‘there’s classified documents under our sheet, trust us.’
I'm curious to know what you believe happens to those documents after they've been admitted into evidence. Do you think no one ever looks at them again?
The fact is that those photographs of the files went public. Evidence should not be disclosed to the public during an ongoing investigation. It is the FIB's responsibility to protect classified material, and evidence from being made public.
Putting a sheet with big letters that read "CLASSIFIED" on top of evidence, and then taking pictures of it, and having those pics shown to the public is not acting in good faith to protect classified evidence. It was done as a dirty political stunt to influence public opinion of a political candidate, and the FIB is gonna get their asses busted for doing it.
I don't think the photos going public is good, either. But it was inevitable that they would. There's always some POS that will sell out information for money.
Which is exactly why they put cover sheets on the documents before photographing them.
Frankly, I think this entire thing is just people looking for something to be outraged over.
I'm sure that will hurt some people's feelings, and they'll start smashing that deport button, but that's what I see.
If they hadn't put cover sheets on them, then people would say how corrupt they are in letting the entire world see classified information. It's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't"
I understand your position, but you are not considering the more likely reason for the cover sheets.
There's always some POS that will sell out information for money.
Which is exactly why they put cover sheets on the documents before photographing them.
No. That claim cannot be proven based on factual legal standards. Sure, the FIB can make that claim, and conveniently gain a status of plausible deniability by asserting that the coversheets were placed for purely benign reasons.
BUT, the fact that those photos were indeed used to taint public opinion changes everything. Because of that, the question now becomes- was it (placing cover sheets, and photos going public) really just a benign FIB action, or was the FIB deliberately engaging in helping to create malicious propaganda for political reasons?
Knowing what we know about the integrity of the FIB, we can reasonably make the claim that the cover sheets were placed, photographed; and released to the public for malicious political purposes.
Naturally, the FIB will gasp, and emphatically deny such a claim, and call it something like a "baseless conspiracy theory," But, when the principle of "pattern of behavior" is applied, Occam's Razor cuts towards the cover sheets and, their public release being a malicious action committed with intent to harm the defendant, Trump.
Expect Trump's lawyers to attack this. The FIB did it to harm Trump, believing that "plausible deniability" will save their asses. Let's see what Trump's lawyers, and the courts are going to do with this.
I understand your position, but you are not considering the more likely reason for the cover sheets.
No, I believe the likely reason for the cover sheets is due to it being standard practice when securing evidence. That and preventing the release of classified information to the whole world.
It's certainly plausible and likely probable that they were hoping to hurt Trump by releasing the photos. There's no reason to try to squeeze in more dirty deeds on what they have already done. #
It's very interesting to me to see how the FBI describes this so casually compared to how folks on the Internet portray it. I'm not sure exactly where this really falls.
On the one hand it was a total propaganda move of the FBI to have those "Classified documents" folders in the photos they released, basically prejudicing every possible person that saw it
But on the other hand, you know how when you see crime scene photos with shell casings how they have little numbered placards next to them? If I were a juror would I conclude they tampered with the crime scene by adding those? No, not unless the coroner concluded the victim died as a result of injuries from placards.
But on the other hand, you know how when you see crime scene photos with shell casings how they have little numbered placards next to them? If I were a juror would I conclude they tampered with the crime scene by adding those? No, not unless the coroner concluded the victim died as a result of injuries from placards.
Very good point. I looked into crime scene procedures a little and from what I've read, putting cover sheets on paper documents is standard practice. In general, this is how it goes (different agencies might have variations specific to their needs):
The cover sheet includes a summary of the documents. Even if it's just blank computer paper, they put a cover sheet on it and have a summary like "Blank computer paper". Then there are case numbers, and they give the documents file numbers. They put the date, and location, and the people working on the scene. Then the person doing the cataloging and the person in charge of the scene sign off on it, swearing that it's true. This established chain of custody. Then when they're done cataloging the scene, they move everything to their offices where the documents are scanned into digital files and then the originals are filed away until they're needed again, which is usually at trial.
Sometimes I wonder what the "cover sheets are BS" people think happens with all these documents that are being investigated. Do they think the feds just toss everything into a big box, and just pick out pages at random? That they have someone who just reads through all the documents in order to find the right one every time a specific file is needed?
I think it would be helpful if people would do some basic fact checking and research on this.
The first thing to do would be to look into the crime scene investigation methods used by law enforcement. The FBI has a section on CSI methods on their website. You can ask your librarian for books about it. Or you can look for books and articles online about CSI methods. P]lease don't just watch an episode of CSI: Miami and think you've done research. And please don't just look up sites that agree with you and call that research, either.
Just some of the basics I learned when looking into this:
Everything gathered from a crime scene (or whatever the scene at Mar-a-lago is called) is logged into an inventory list as evidence. All files are separately inventoried. Even empty folders are separately inventoried. It's not up to the investigator to decide what is important enough to be inventoried. EVERYTHING related to the case is inventoried. This is CSI 101.
In regards to the cover sheets; it seems obvious to me that classified documents shouldn't be photographed in a way that, should the documents be leaked, the entire world would be able to learn classified information. I really have a hard time understanding why this seems so implausible to anyone.
Not only do cover sheets protect the classified information in the documents, they provide a way to tag the documents for the inventory list. This is a routine thing done by CSIs. In the case of paper files, the person handling the evidence logs it by placing a cover sheet on the document with the name of the person gathering the evidence, the date, the case number, description of what the document is, signature of the person collecting evidence, signature of the person in charge of the scene, and some other things I'm forgetting.
Here is why I'm arguing with you lot over this:
There is zero evidence of these claims being made. Someone just types it up in a Twitter/X post and hits enter. Then it's linked here by someone who did nothing other than read the post. And then people read it and jump on their keyboards, all full of righteous indignation and anger and say things like it's treason and that the people involved in the investigation should be executed. They saw someone say it on Twitter, and that's evidence enough for them! How exactly does that fit in with this being an elite research board?
Not only that, some of the things being said lacks common sense. Do people really think that only some of the evidence should be cataloged, and the rest be, what? chucked into the garbage? Just left in a box that will be thrown into some corner and forgotten?
And what sense does it make to photograph classified information, knowing that the photographs will be leaked and the entire world will then have access to that classified information? I get the feeling the people saying this are just angry they can't read what the documents say. Either that, or they don't understand the concept of the word "classified".
I'm not trying to hurt anyone's feelings here when I argue with people over things like this. I'm trying to show people that they need to up their game. They need to learn how to make better arguments when trying to redpill others. They need to know at least the basics of what they're talking about when they're trying to convince a normie to believe them.
When you put stuff like this out there amongst normies, and make comments like you've made here to me, you lose all credibility with anyone who understands basic ideas like not photographing classified documents when you know that they will be leaked. 🤷♀️
And before someone responds with something along the lines of "Why should I care what the normies think?", aren't we supposed to be trying to get them over here to our side? Why would anyone want to give you the time of day, much less change their entire view on life once their eyes have been opened, when you make absurd arguments like the ones here. What confidence do you think you can inspire in them when you make zero efforts to check that what you're telling them is true?
And for the love of everything Holy, don't get in front of any camera or microphone pointed at you at any sort of public gathering concerning Trump. No matter how nice the person wanting to "interview" you seems, they are not your friend, and they are not on your side. They just want to make you, and by extension Q and all other Anons, look like uneducated bumbling idiots.
So please. Pretty please with a cherry on top, start doing basic research on something before committing to a stance on an issue (especially something like execution!). Don't just believe some random person's Twitter post because you want it to be true. Learn how to make better arguments. Don't take it personally if someone asks you for evidence of what you're telling them.
Sorry to be "that guy" but this chick is the same one who posted recently; "OMFG!! FBI was ready to SHOOT TRUMPAND was ready for a GUN FIGHT with the Secret Service at Mar a Lago!!!! OMGGGgggggggggg!!!"
In reality; the document in question was a 100% standard / procedural document where they listed basic information about the operation; they laid out use of force authorization / guidelines, and there was a comment about "engaging with Secret Service" (which Julie Kelly also wildly misconstrued).
(This is supported by my link below, which calls it an "Operations Order"
I'm 99.9999% sure what the document INTENDED to convey was that the FBI would indeed "engage" with USSS; as in TALK. Converse. Trade paperwork, work together, etc. Not trade bullets. 🙄
Frankly, I'd be far more concerned if that document was absent, because this shows that they at least (hoepfully) followed their standard process.
I mean; other than the thing being a whole corrupt witch hunt, but that's literally all the FBI does any more....
Mind you; I'm literally 8the last person on the planet8 to stick up for let alone say anything remotely positive about ANY government agency / agent / anything; but there's no need for us to lie / stretch the truth.
We ARE the truth; no need to deviate from that. The fact that truth, facts & reality are on our side is our strength.
An "operations order" of the 9 a.m. raid that was produced in discovery contained a "policy statement" regarding the "use of deadly force," which said in part: "Law enforcement officers of the Department of Justice may use deadly force when necessary."
"The FBI followed standard protocol in this search as we do for all search warrants, which includes a standard policy statement limiting the use of deadly force," an FBI spokesperson told Newsweek via email. "No one ordered additional steps to be taken and there was no departure from the norm in this matter."
Agents at the scene of the raid, who were instructed to wear unmarked polo or collared shirts, had planned to bring "standard issue weapons, ammo, handcuffs and medium and large sized bolt cutters."
A contingencies plan was also created in cohesion with the raid, showing that a paramedic be at the scene in case someone is "injured." The name of the nearest local trauma center, complete with an address and a phone number, was included on the same form.
Contingencies also said that agents "will be prepared to engage with" Trump and U.S. Secret Service should he have arrived at Mar-a-Lago.
TL;DR:
This chick seems prone to histrionics; take with a few grains of salt, as you always should.....
J.S. may have just said the words, but this was admitted by his team back in May 2023 as reported here.
"Smith’s team revealed in the filing that FBI agents carried printed “classified cover sheets” during the Aug. 8, 2022, search of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate and used them to replace any classified documents they discovered in cardboard Bankers Boxes that littered the former president’s residence."
If they didn't put cover sheets on the documents, then they would be taking photos of classified material. And those photographs are sent out to various people working on the case. Few of whom I would think have top level security clearance.
Putting a cover sheet on sensitive material isn't sketchy or even unheard of. It's the same thing they do when evidence they're collecting contains child pornography. No one wants that to be circulated around.
As long as it's clearly marked that it's a cover sheet, which seems to be the case here, there's nothing wrong with doing this.
I'm not sure what the issue is here in the first place. Did someone think they were trying to sneak something into the documents and then say Trump stole them?
This alone should be grounds for dismissal.
It already had cover sheets the FBI put their own. That is the issue
Where are you getting this information?
One of the real cover sheets can be seen in the image the FBI posted. It was folded over. There is a video that goes through it but I don't know where I watched.
Could you clarify what you believe the difference between what "real" vs "fake" cover sheets are?
The coversheets added by the FBI are the yellow or red bordered ones. The cover sheet not added by the fbi would be the one folded over which says "please store in..."
Ok
And here I thought that tampering with evidence was a felony.
Silly me.
Why do you think it's tampering with evidence? They put a cover sheet on it to block classified documents from being photographed and who knows where those photos will end up.
It's similar to saying that evidence placed in a plastic evidence bag is tampering with it.
They removed items from their boxes, placed them on the floor and then put cover sheets on top of items that would not need them, all to make it look like there was much more top secret docs there then there actually was.
Plus, they removed some docs and inserted others.
That is evidence tampering.
Could you tell me where you're getting the idea that it wasn't necessary for them to photograph all the documents they found?
And how do you know that some of those documents didn't need a cover sheet?
If they did remove documents and insert others for some nefarious reason, then yes, they should be prosecuted for that. But is this true, or is someone just making stuff up? What evidence is there this really happened?
Please don't tell me you saw it in some Twitter/X comment someone posted here and accepted it as truth without looking into it further.
Pull your head out of your ass and actually look at the reporting that Julie and others have done.
Smith already admitted that they removed material and inserted others. They already admitted that the chain of custody and materials have been compromised.
Go search for yourself.
I refuse to spoon feed retards.
Why are you so hostile?
Please review the sidebar rules:
There's no need for the hostility and personal attacks.
You can see through a plastic bag but not a cover sheet. The cover sheet scam is the commies’ way of saying ‘there’s classified documents under our sheet, trust us.’
I'm curious to know what you believe happens to those documents after they've been admitted into evidence. Do you think no one ever looks at them again?
The fact is that those photographs of the files went public. Evidence should not be disclosed to the public during an ongoing investigation. It is the FIB's responsibility to protect classified material, and evidence from being made public.
Putting a sheet with big letters that read "CLASSIFIED" on top of evidence, and then taking pictures of it, and having those pics shown to the public is not acting in good faith to protect classified evidence. It was done as a dirty political stunt to influence public opinion of a political candidate, and the FIB is gonna get their asses busted for doing it.
I don't think the photos going public is good, either. But it was inevitable that they would. There's always some POS that will sell out information for money.
Which is exactly why they put cover sheets on the documents before photographing them.
Frankly, I think this entire thing is just people looking for something to be outraged over.
I'm sure that will hurt some people's feelings, and they'll start smashing that deport button, but that's what I see.
If they hadn't put cover sheets on them, then people would say how corrupt they are in letting the entire world see classified information. It's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't"
I understand your position, but you are not considering the more likely reason for the cover sheets.
No. That claim cannot be proven based on factual legal standards. Sure, the FIB can make that claim, and conveniently gain a status of plausible deniability by asserting that the coversheets were placed for purely benign reasons.
BUT, the fact that those photos were indeed used to taint public opinion changes everything. Because of that, the question now becomes- was it (placing cover sheets, and photos going public) really just a benign FIB action, or was the FIB deliberately engaging in helping to create malicious propaganda for political reasons?
Knowing what we know about the integrity of the FIB, we can reasonably make the claim that the cover sheets were placed, photographed; and released to the public for malicious political purposes.
Naturally, the FIB will gasp, and emphatically deny such a claim, and call it something like a "baseless conspiracy theory," But, when the principle of "pattern of behavior" is applied, Occam's Razor cuts towards the cover sheets and, their public release being a malicious action committed with intent to harm the defendant, Trump.
Expect Trump's lawyers to attack this. The FIB did it to harm Trump, believing that "plausible deniability" will save their asses. Let's see what Trump's lawyers, and the courts are going to do with this.
No, I believe the likely reason for the cover sheets is due to it being standard practice when securing evidence. That and preventing the release of classified information to the whole world.
It's certainly plausible and likely probable that they were hoping to hurt Trump by releasing the photos. There's no reason to try to squeeze in more dirty deeds on what they have already done. #
👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼
It's very interesting to me to see how the FBI describes this so casually compared to how folks on the Internet portray it. I'm not sure exactly where this really falls.
On the one hand it was a total propaganda move of the FBI to have those "Classified documents" folders in the photos they released, basically prejudicing every possible person that saw it
But on the other hand, you know how when you see crime scene photos with shell casings how they have little numbered placards next to them? If I were a juror would I conclude they tampered with the crime scene by adding those? No, not unless the coroner concluded the victim died as a result of injuries from placards.
Very good point. I looked into crime scene procedures a little and from what I've read, putting cover sheets on paper documents is standard practice. In general, this is how it goes (different agencies might have variations specific to their needs):
The cover sheet includes a summary of the documents. Even if it's just blank computer paper, they put a cover sheet on it and have a summary like "Blank computer paper". Then there are case numbers, and they give the documents file numbers. They put the date, and location, and the people working on the scene. Then the person doing the cataloging and the person in charge of the scene sign off on it, swearing that it's true. This established chain of custody. Then when they're done cataloging the scene, they move everything to their offices where the documents are scanned into digital files and then the originals are filed away until they're needed again, which is usually at trial.
Sometimes I wonder what the "cover sheets are BS" people think happens with all these documents that are being investigated. Do they think the feds just toss everything into a big box, and just pick out pages at random? That they have someone who just reads through all the documents in order to find the right one every time a specific file is needed?
I think it would be helpful if people would do some basic fact checking and research on this.
The first thing to do would be to look into the crime scene investigation methods used by law enforcement. The FBI has a section on CSI methods on their website. You can ask your librarian for books about it. Or you can look for books and articles online about CSI methods. P]lease don't just watch an episode of CSI: Miami and think you've done research. And please don't just look up sites that agree with you and call that research, either.
Just some of the basics I learned when looking into this:
Everything gathered from a crime scene (or whatever the scene at Mar-a-lago is called) is logged into an inventory list as evidence. All files are separately inventoried. Even empty folders are separately inventoried. It's not up to the investigator to decide what is important enough to be inventoried. EVERYTHING related to the case is inventoried. This is CSI 101.
In regards to the cover sheets; it seems obvious to me that classified documents shouldn't be photographed in a way that, should the documents be leaked, the entire world would be able to learn classified information. I really have a hard time understanding why this seems so implausible to anyone. Not only do cover sheets protect the classified information in the documents, they provide a way to tag the documents for the inventory list. This is a routine thing done by CSIs. In the case of paper files, the person handling the evidence logs it by placing a cover sheet on the document with the name of the person gathering the evidence, the date, the case number, description of what the document is, signature of the person collecting evidence, signature of the person in charge of the scene, and some other things I'm forgetting.
Here is why I'm arguing with you lot over this:
There is zero evidence of these claims being made. Someone just types it up in a Twitter/X post and hits enter. Then it's linked here by someone who did nothing other than read the post. And then people read it and jump on their keyboards, all full of righteous indignation and anger and say things like it's treason and that the people involved in the investigation should be executed. They saw someone say it on Twitter, and that's evidence enough for them! How exactly does that fit in with this being an elite research board?
Not only that, some of the things being said lacks common sense. Do people really think that only some of the evidence should be cataloged, and the rest be, what? chucked into the garbage? Just left in a box that will be thrown into some corner and forgotten?
And what sense does it make to photograph classified information, knowing that the photographs will be leaked and the entire world will then have access to that classified information? I get the feeling the people saying this are just angry they can't read what the documents say. Either that, or they don't understand the concept of the word "classified".
I'm not trying to hurt anyone's feelings here when I argue with people over things like this. I'm trying to show people that they need to up their game. They need to learn how to make better arguments when trying to redpill others. They need to know at least the basics of what they're talking about when they're trying to convince a normie to believe them.
When you put stuff like this out there amongst normies, and make comments like you've made here to me, you lose all credibility with anyone who understands basic ideas like not photographing classified documents when you know that they will be leaked. 🤷♀️
And before someone responds with something along the lines of "Why should I care what the normies think?", aren't we supposed to be trying to get them over here to our side? Why would anyone want to give you the time of day, much less change their entire view on life once their eyes have been opened, when you make absurd arguments like the ones here. What confidence do you think you can inspire in them when you make zero efforts to check that what you're telling them is true?
And for the love of everything Holy, don't get in front of any camera or microphone pointed at you at any sort of public gathering concerning Trump. No matter how nice the person wanting to "interview" you seems, they are not your friend, and they are not on your side. They just want to make you, and by extension Q and all other Anons, look like uneducated bumbling idiots.
So please. Pretty please with a cherry on top, start doing basic research on something before committing to a stance on an issue (especially something like execution!). Don't just believe some random person's Twitter post because you want it to be true. Learn how to make better arguments. Don't take it personally if someone asks you for evidence of what you're telling them.
Have you heard of the phrase "I'm just the messenger'... What you do with the information I pass on is your own business..
Ok...
Sorry to be "that guy" but this chick is the same one who posted recently; "OMFG!! FBI was ready to SHOOT TRUMP AND was ready for a GUN FIGHT with the Secret Service at Mar a Lago!!!! OMGGGgggggggggg!!!"
In reality; the document in question was a 100% standard / procedural document where they listed basic information about the operation; they laid out use of force authorization / guidelines, and there was a comment about "engaging with Secret Service" (which Julie Kelly also wildly misconstrued). (This is supported by my link below, which calls it an "Operations Order"
I'm 99.9999% sure what the document INTENDED to convey was that the FBI would indeed "engage" with USSS; as in TALK. Converse. Trade paperwork, work together, etc. Not trade bullets. 🙄
Frankly, I'd be far more concerned if that document was absent, because this shows that they at least (hoepfully) followed their standard process.
I mean; other than the thing being a whole corrupt witch hunt, but that's literally all the FBI does any more....
Mind you; I'm literally 8the last person on the planet8 to stick up for let alone say anything remotely positive about ANY government agency / agent / anything; but there's no need for us to lie / stretch the truth.
We ARE the truth; no need to deviate from that. The fact that truth, facts & reality are on our side is our strength.
This article seems to comport with my interpretation of the document: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/fbi-was-prepared-to-use-deadly-force-at-mar-a-lago-raid/ar-BB1mNLPD
Relevant quotes below:
TL;DR: This chick seems prone to histrionics; take with a few grains of salt, as you always should.....
ETA: Yep; and again I HATE to say it, as the below site is probably more communist than marx himself, but this link comports with my understanding of the truth: https://www.factcheck.org/2024/05/trump-allies-misrepresent-fbi-order-on-document-search-at-mar-a-lago/
Let me know if you want me to post an archive link to the fAcTcH3ck.org site...🤦♂️😜😂😂
J.S. may have just said the words, but this was admitted by his team back in May 2023 as reported here.
"Smith’s team revealed in the filing that FBI agents carried printed “classified cover sheets” during the Aug. 8, 2022, search of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate and used them to replace any classified documents they discovered in cardboard Bankers Boxes that littered the former president’s residence."
If they didn't put cover sheets on the documents, then they would be taking photos of classified material. And those photographs are sent out to various people working on the case. Few of whom I would think have top level security clearance.
Putting a cover sheet on sensitive material isn't sketchy or even unheard of. It's the same thing they do when evidence they're collecting contains child pornography. No one wants that to be circulated around.
As long as it's clearly marked that it's a cover sheet, which seems to be the case here, there's nothing wrong with doing this.
I'm not sure what the issue is here in the first place. Did someone think they were trying to sneak something into the documents and then say Trump stole them?