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 certainly plausible and likely probable that they were hoping to hurt Trump by releasing the photos.
Correct. That is why the action of placing the cover sheets goes beyond "standard procedure" in this particular case.
The FIB placed the cover sheets because they had prior malicious intent to make those photos public.
Think about it. Why photograph a cover sheet, and call it (the cover sheet) "evidence?" That's all the photo actually is- a pic of a cover sheet. So what are those photos actually showing; what is the purpose of even taking such pictures?
After all, we know that those pics are not being used to show the actual location of the discovered evidence, because we know the FIB removed the evidence from boxes and scattered it on the floor.
And, now we also know that the pics prove nothing at all! All I see in the pics are stacks of papers hidden under a FIB fabricated cover sheet.
In other words, the FIB leaked photographs of nothing at all, except to show their own fabricated cover sheet, and then made a public allegation that the pics were "evidence of classified material" in the defendants home.
Considering what those pics actually show- which is only their fabricated cover sheet, there was no logical reason, at all for the FIB to take those pics in the first place! Then, they leaked the pics to the media. Then, public opinion of a political figure became tainted.
The bottom line is that those pics have been portrayed by the FIB to the public as criminal evidence, when in empirical fact those pics are nothing more than pics of FIB fabricated cover sheets over a few stacks of unidentifiable paper. This is a tainted case, and the defendant has suffered damages from the taint. Let the fireworks begin.
After all, we know that those pics are not being used to show the actual location of the discovered evidence, because we know the FIB removed the evidence from boxes and scattered it on the floor.
That's what they do while cataloging documents. It's more than just photographing a box full of documents. There has to be documentation of each of the documents that are in the box.
That way, they can't slip in extra documents later without everyone knowing. This is why investigators are supposed to go through every document where the items were originally found.
They make a summary of what the document is, and put all the standard info on the cover sheet, sign off on it, and photograph it. Each document is then digitally uploaded and given a file number. Even blank pieces of paper and empty folders are given a summary of what they are and file numbers and all of that. They have to catalog everything they find there, even if it's just blank paper. Then the actual, physical documents are filed away until they are needed again, such as when they're produced as evidence at trial. This keeps the document safe until when it is needed. So until then, the investigators and lawyers are using the digital uploads. The cover sheets are important because they contain summaries of the document (even if it's something as unimportant as "blank piece of printer paper) and all the information about who collected the evidence, when and where, the case number, file number, etc... That is the reason for the cover sheet.
While they are doing this, there is often someone else making a digital recording of all of this.
It's part of how they establish chain of evidence.
Where are you getting the idea that all of that was "unidentifiable paper"?
I'm not opposed to the idea that there is fraud here, but there needs to be more evidence than "some person online said this" and "this is what I think happened".
Just curious, did you ever do any research into the procedures they must follow when documenting evidence? If so, what was the source you found? If you never did any research into it, then where are you getting your ideas on what they're supposed to be doing?
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. #
Correct. That is why the action of placing the cover sheets goes beyond "standard procedure" in this particular case.
The FIB placed the cover sheets because they had prior malicious intent to make those photos public.
Think about it. Why photograph a cover sheet, and call it (the cover sheet) "evidence?" That's all the photo actually is- a pic of a cover sheet. So what are those photos actually showing; what is the purpose of even taking such pictures?
After all, we know that those pics are not being used to show the actual location of the discovered evidence, because we know the FIB removed the evidence from boxes and scattered it on the floor.
And, now we also know that the pics prove nothing at all! All I see in the pics are stacks of papers hidden under a FIB fabricated cover sheet.
In other words, the FIB leaked photographs of nothing at all, except to show their own fabricated cover sheet, and then made a public allegation that the pics were "evidence of classified material" in the defendants home.
Considering what those pics actually show- which is only their fabricated cover sheet, there was no logical reason, at all for the FIB to take those pics in the first place! Then, they leaked the pics to the media. Then, public opinion of a political figure became tainted.
The bottom line is that those pics have been portrayed by the FIB to the public as criminal evidence, when in empirical fact those pics are nothing more than pics of FIB fabricated cover sheets over a few stacks of unidentifiable paper. This is a tainted case, and the defendant has suffered damages from the taint. Let the fireworks begin.
That's what they do while cataloging documents. It's more than just photographing a box full of documents. There has to be documentation of each of the documents that are in the box.
That way, they can't slip in extra documents later without everyone knowing. This is why investigators are supposed to go through every document where the items were originally found.
They make a summary of what the document is, and put all the standard info on the cover sheet, sign off on it, and photograph it. Each document is then digitally uploaded and given a file number. Even blank pieces of paper and empty folders are given a summary of what they are and file numbers and all of that. They have to catalog everything they find there, even if it's just blank paper. Then the actual, physical documents are filed away until they are needed again, such as when they're produced as evidence at trial. This keeps the document safe until when it is needed. So until then, the investigators and lawyers are using the digital uploads. The cover sheets are important because they contain summaries of the document (even if it's something as unimportant as "blank piece of printer paper) and all the information about who collected the evidence, when and where, the case number, file number, etc... That is the reason for the cover sheet.
While they are doing this, there is often someone else making a digital recording of all of this.
It's part of how they establish chain of evidence.
Where are you getting the idea that all of that was "unidentifiable paper"?
I'm not opposed to the idea that there is fraud here, but there needs to be more evidence than "some person online said this" and "this is what I think happened".
Just curious, did you ever do any research into the procedures they must follow when documenting evidence? If so, what was the source you found? If you never did any research into it, then where are you getting your ideas on what they're supposed to be doing?