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.

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 being, and their public release being a malicious action committed 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.

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 being a malicious action committed 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.