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?
You are still missing the point. FIB standard procedures are irrelevant, because standard procedures do not include publicizing alleged classified evidence during an ongoing investigation. There are no "standard procedures" in this case, because the FIB violated them!
Fact: standard procedures were violated. Any violation of standard procedures introduces a potential for taint (fruit of the poisoned tree). That means that we can no longer assume that the fabricated cover sheets were done according to legal standard procedure, because of possible (likely) political motivations to deliberately taint evidence, as shown by the breaking of standard FIB evidence handling procedure.
One procedure violation (the publicized leak) is known therefore, we cannot assume that any other procedures were not violated, including deliberately falsifying the cover sheets.
The cover sheets alone would not be in question, except for the fact that those specific cover sheets were in fact used to cause damage to the defendant through a breech of FIB evidence handling protocol. FIB leaked photos, therefore they need to be held to the highest degree of scrutiny for the taint that they introduced into the case.
I do not (cannot) assume that anything at all written on a cover sheet, or cataloged by the FIB holds any more merit than a "piss dossier," or 51 lying ass intel agents misleading the public about the laptop from hell. Documented evidence shows that the FIB is a weaponized, and politicized outfit with a "get Trump" agenda. Case dismissed due to tainted evidence.
Because the FBI might have released the photos to harm Trump in some way (which has not been proven. I think it's true, but what I think doesn't matter. Evidence does.) doesn't mean that standards don't exist and people weren't still doing their job.
This line of reasoning makes no sense to me. Basically what your argument comes down to is guilt by association and wanting to completely reject evidence in this case because of the reputation of the PTB at the FBI.
This is the type of thing that prevents us from getting normies to join us. It's over reaction and paranoia.
I'm not saying to just blindly believe everything they say is true, but it's also not reasonable to just automatically dismiss everything because of crap the FBI has done in the past. Everything isn't always an "all or nothing" situation.
Think of it this way; if we ever get the chance to go after the POTATUS for the same thing, we won't be able to prosecute him for it because we just said the FBI can't be trusted.
Or do you think the FBI can't be trusted in investigating/prosecuting Trump's classified documents case but can be trusted in Biden's classified documents case? That's a huge double standard.
Which is something that I think we all need to work on. It makes us look like hypocrites when we won't even look at something because it came from MSM, but then eagerly share something from the MSM when they say something we like. We scoff and mock people who believe polls when they say Trump is losing popularity, but any poll that says Trump is doing well, we spread that far and wide. We ignore any and everything coming from Big Pharma, the medical system, and all their studies. But find one random doctor who says something we agree with, we share that shit and stress that it's a doctor saying that, so it must be true. We say that Big Pharma is actively trying to kill us off with all their medications, and then turn around and claim that Ivermectin (co-created by a scientist from Merck, one of the most evil pharmaceutical companies ever), will cure everything from cold sores to colon cancer and will save everyone from getting sick in the future.
Past actions from libs is evidence enough to challenge their credibility for something happening today, but then if it concerns someone we like, then we say people can change and their past doesn't matter. For God's sake, we will accused someone of being a pedophile and say they need to be executed in some horrible way because they included an emoji of a pizza slice on some Twitter post, but when it's Trump personally delivering pizza to people, then we gush about how generous he is.
I think this is yet another case of double standards. In Trump's case, you (I'm using the general "you" here. Not you specifically.)want to dismiss everything the FBI does because of their reputation and past events, but then you want them to turn around and find Biden guilty of the same crimes.
Seriously, it's stuff like this that makes it impossible to redpill normies. Apparently we're all in a holding pattern until we can get enough normies to wake up and join us in order to change this shitty world into something better, yet we're constantly pushing them away with the extremist, unreasonable, hypocritical arguments we present them.
I keep trying to point this out to people, but apparently they either don't believe me, or they just don't care. 🤷♀️
This line of reasoning makes no sense to me. Basically what your argument comes down to is guilt by association and wanting to completely reject evidence in this case because of the reputation of the PTB at the FBI.
Your assessment of the argument is close, but not quite accurate. Part of that problem is my fault for the choice of wording I used to try to abbreviate the issues as I see it.
When I claim that the FIB's politicized "get Trump" targeting, and abuses of power relating to Trump, and many of his associates, I do not mean that the entirety of the FIB shares that "get Trump" agenda. So, guilt by association does not apply to the entire FBI.
However, we do have concrete proof, in addition to vast amounts of circumstantial evidence that show many agents within the FIB do indeed have a malicious anti-Trump bias. That bias has also been responsible for numerous ethical (and un prosecuted criminal) violations in the recent past. Strozk, Page, Clapper, Comey, Ohr, etc. etc.
Therefore, when we see yet again mishandled evidence, and breeches of protocol coming from the FIB, resulting in political harm to Trump, we can (and we had better) challenge the motives of the specific FBI, and DoJ persons involved in mis-handling the Trump case. This violation of protocol, and ethics against Trump, by the FIB fits an established pattern of behavior.
That is why we can claim the fabricated coversheets represent maliciously tainted evidence, and in no way indicates that those photos are of classified documents. We can show that the coversheets were in fact used to taint the alleged evidence. That is called tampering with evidence.
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?
You are still missing the point. FIB standard procedures are irrelevant, because standard procedures do not include publicizing alleged classified evidence during an ongoing investigation. There are no "standard procedures" in this case, because the FIB violated them!
Fact: standard procedures were violated. Any violation of standard procedures introduces a potential for taint (fruit of the poisoned tree). That means that we can no longer assume that the fabricated cover sheets were done according to legal standard procedure, because of possible (likely) political motivations to deliberately taint evidence, as shown by the breaking of standard FIB evidence handling procedure.
One procedure violation (the publicized leak) is known therefore, we cannot assume that any other procedures were not violated, including deliberately falsifying the cover sheets.
The cover sheets alone would not be in question, except for the fact that those specific cover sheets were in fact used to cause damage to the defendant through a breech of FIB evidence handling protocol. FIB leaked photos, therefore they need to be held to the highest degree of scrutiny for the taint that they introduced into the case.
I do not (cannot) assume that anything at all written on a cover sheet, or cataloged by the FIB holds any more merit than a "piss dossier," or 51 lying ass intel agents misleading the public about the laptop from hell. Documented evidence shows that the FIB is a weaponized, and politicized outfit with a "get Trump" agenda. Case dismissed due to tainted evidence.
Because the FBI might have released the photos to harm Trump in some way (which has not been proven. I think it's true, but what I think doesn't matter. Evidence does.) doesn't mean that standards don't exist and people weren't still doing their job.
This line of reasoning makes no sense to me. Basically what your argument comes down to is guilt by association and wanting to completely reject evidence in this case because of the reputation of the PTB at the FBI.
This is the type of thing that prevents us from getting normies to join us. It's over reaction and paranoia.
I'm not saying to just blindly believe everything they say is true, but it's also not reasonable to just automatically dismiss everything because of crap the FBI has done in the past. Everything isn't always an "all or nothing" situation.
Think of it this way; if we ever get the chance to go after the POTATUS for the same thing, we won't be able to prosecute him for it because we just said the FBI can't be trusted.
Or do you think the FBI can't be trusted in investigating/prosecuting Trump's classified documents case but can be trusted in Biden's classified documents case? That's a huge double standard.
Which is something that I think we all need to work on. It makes us look like hypocrites when we won't even look at something because it came from MSM, but then eagerly share something from the MSM when they say something we like. We scoff and mock people who believe polls when they say Trump is losing popularity, but any poll that says Trump is doing well, we spread that far and wide. We ignore any and everything coming from Big Pharma, the medical system, and all their studies. But find one random doctor who says something we agree with, we share that shit and stress that it's a doctor saying that, so it must be true. We say that Big Pharma is actively trying to kill us off with all their medications, and then turn around and claim that Ivermectin (co-created by a scientist from Merck, one of the most evil pharmaceutical companies ever), will cure everything from cold sores to colon cancer and will save everyone from getting sick in the future. Past actions from libs is evidence enough to challenge their credibility for something happening today, but then if it concerns someone we like, then we say people can change and their past doesn't matter. For God's sake, we will accused someone of being a pedophile and say they need to be executed in some horrible way because they included an emoji of a pizza slice on some Twitter post, but when it's Trump personally delivering pizza to people, then we gush about how generous he is.
I think this is yet another case of double standards. In Trump's case, you (I'm using the general "you" here. Not you specifically.)want to dismiss everything the FBI does because of their reputation and past events, but then you want them to turn around and find Biden guilty of the same crimes.
Seriously, it's stuff like this that makes it impossible to redpill normies. Apparently we're all in a holding pattern until we can get enough normies to wake up and join us in order to change this shitty world into something better, yet we're constantly pushing them away with the extremist, unreasonable, hypocritical arguments we present them.
I keep trying to point this out to people, but apparently they either don't believe me, or they just don't care. 🤷♀️
Your assessment of the argument is close, but not quite accurate. Part of that problem is my fault for the choice of wording I used to try to abbreviate the issues as I see it.
When I claim that the FIB's politicized "get Trump" targeting, and abuses of power relating to Trump, and many of his associates, I do not mean that the entirety of the FIB shares that "get Trump" agenda. So, guilt by association does not apply to the entire FBI.
However, we do have concrete proof, in addition to vast amounts of circumstantial evidence that show many agents within the FIB do indeed have a malicious anti-Trump bias. That bias has also been responsible for numerous ethical (and un prosecuted criminal) violations in the recent past. Strozk, Page, Clapper, Comey, Ohr, etc. etc.
Therefore, when we see yet again mishandled evidence, and breeches of protocol coming from the FIB, resulting in political harm to Trump, we can (and we had better) challenge the motives of the specific FBI, and DoJ persons involved in mis-handling the Trump case. This violation of protocol, and ethics against Trump, by the FIB fits an established pattern of behavior.
That is why we can claim the fabricated coversheets represent maliciously tainted evidence, and in no way indicates that those photos are of classified documents. We can show that the coversheets were in fact used to taint the alleged evidence. That is called tampering with evidence.