Special master appointed to review documents from Mar-a-Lago search; DOJ request to revive criminal probe rejected

thaibeachlovers · September 16, 2022

4 hours ago, heybruce said:

There is a big difference between the President initiating an investigation of a former President, and the President approving a request from the Justice Department to examine classified that the former President possessed and refused to return to the government.

So, how could they "examine classified" information if they didn't raid the place where they were, or did he just not ask how they were going to obtain such?

heybruce · September 17, 2022

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

So, how could they "examine classified" information if they didn't raid the place where they were, or did he just not ask how they were going to obtain such?

Since, unlike Trump, Biden doesn't attempt to politicize the Justice Department, I assume he authorized the FBI to collect the documents and let them decide how to go about it.

From the timelines, Biden approval in early May, raid in early August, it appears that there were three months of negotiations in an attempt to get Trump to return what he should never have taken before they decided a search warrant was necessary.

thaibeachlovers · September 17, 2022

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

Since, unlike Trump, Biden doesn't attempt to politicize the Justice Department, I assume he authorized the FBI to collect the documents and let them decide how to go about it.

From the timelines, Biden approval in early May, raid in early August, it appears that there were three months of negotiations in an attempt to get Trump to return what he should never have taken before they decided a search warrant was necessary.

Apparently you think that Biden just let the FBI raid a former president without giving that an OK.

Yeah right!

stevenl · September 17, 2022

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Sure thing, and we all think the DOJ are impartial, NOT.

Please speak for yourself.

placeholder · September 17, 2022

5 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Apparently you think that Biden just let the FBI raid a former president without giving that an OK.

Yeah right!

I think you've been so conditioned by the reign of Biden's predecessor, that you think it normal for Presidents to intervene in the workings of law enforcement. There is absolutely no evidence that Biden specifically gave an OK for the FBI's search of Mar a Lago. There is a ton of evidence that the govt went out of its way to avoid making this a criminal case. For a year, NARA negotiated with Trump for the return of documents. It was only after their request was met with a blatant lie, that the FBI conducted the search.

Scott · September 17, 2022

A post with a misquote has been removed.

KanchanaburiGuy · September 17, 2022

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Sure thing, and we all think the DOJ are impartial, NOT.

The DOJ isn't paid to be "impartial." Judges and juries are expected to be; prosecutors are not.

Having the right to mount a defense is how we balance out the inherent partiality of the prosecutor's role, going so far as to provide and pay for a defense attorney, should a person not be able to, on their own.

seajae · September 17, 2022

14 hours ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

Remember, it is not the Special Master's job to assess the merits of what the DOJ is doing.

His only job is to make sure the things the DOJ is NOT entitled to see and use.......... (privileged communications, private and personal things)............ get separated out from the many things they ARE entitled to see and use.

This process could be fairly quick, since the DOJ claims they've been doing these things themselves, already.

The Special Master should accept at face-value anything the DOJ has already done, rather than wasting time combing through it again.

If the DOJ is already saying they have no interest in those things they've already separated out........... there's no reason for the Special Master not to accept that!

After all, why comb through a bunch of things you know the DOJ isn't going to contest, anyway, since they separated it out, themselves?

If the DOJ has been as thorough about this as they would like us to believe............ (Remember, their argument before the judge was that a Special Master wasn't needed......... because they were already doing it themselves, anyway!).......... then there really shouldn't be all that much left for the Special Master to do, anyway!

lol

trouble is the doj and fbi cannot be trusted to tell the truth as has already been shown, if the doj is being honest they would have no objections as the documents they want will be returned if they are as the doj has said. The only reason the doj doesnt want this to happen is they are either being dishonest or they want this to be used in the elections so the republicans will look bad otherwise there is no feasable rejection of the decision. The doj is already making sure they are feeding things to the left news sites which makes them even more unreliable, the leaks from the doj & fbi show just how dishonest/political they really are

herfiehandbag · September 17, 2022

To me, perhaps an innocent abroad but I don't know; using a judge to ensure that material which the prosecuting authority obtained legally cannot even be examined to seeing it is evidence of the alleged crime, does sound a teeny little bit like an admission of at least concern that it may reveal guilt?

placeholder · September 17, 2022

26 minutes ago, seajae said:

trouble is the doj and fbi cannot be trusted to tell the truth as has already been shown, if the doj is being honest they would have no objections as the documents they want will be returned if they are as the doj has said. The only reason the doj doesnt want this to happen is they are either being dishonest or they want this to be used in the elections so the republicans will look bad otherwise there is no feasable rejection of the decision. The doj is already making sure they are feeding things to the left news sites which makes them even more unreliable, the leaks from the doj & fbi show just how dishonest/political they really are

What don't you understand about the fact that Trump's lawyers gave false information when they claimed after a thorough search all classified documents had been returned? The FBI search of the premises clearly showed this to be false. That alone would qualify for an obstruction of justice charge. And now they're saying they were advised of this, not that they did the search themselves. Hmmm....

heybruce · September 17, 2022

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Apparently you think that Biden just let the FBI raid a former president without giving that an OK.

Yeah right!

Placeholder already provided an excellent response to your nonsense. I'll just note that Biden takes his job as President seriously, and it keeps him busy enough. He doesn't have time to get involved in all the many criminal investigations of Trump.

ThailandRyan · September 17, 2022

9 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Placeholder already provided an excellent response to your nonsense. I'll just note that Biden takes his job as President seriously, and it keeps him busy enough. He doesn't have time to get involved in all the many criminal investigations of Trump.

Exactly spot on. Presidents do not get involved in the day to day affairs of all of the federal agencies, nor do they become embroiled in investigations. The folks who believe this feces are definitely trump supporters and believe what he spouts.

placeholder · September 17, 2022

2 minutes ago, ThailandRyan said:

Exactly spot on. Presidents do not get involved in the day to day affairs of all of the federal agencies, nor do they become embroiled in investigations. The folks who believe this feces are definitely trump supporters and believe what he spouts.

Well, it's understandable that they believe that Biden instigated this since Trump is their role model of what a president should be.

placeholder · September 17, 2022

Things keep on lookiing worse for America's most recent ex-President:

Lawyer Told Archives Last Year That Trump Had No Classified Material

The National Archives has told the Justice Department that a lawyer representing former President Donald J. Trump indicated to the archives last year that boxes Mr. Trump had taken to his Mar-a-Lago home from the White House included only nonclassified material like newspaper clippings, according to a person briefed on the matter.

The message was relayed to the National Archives last September by Patrick Philbin, a former top White House lawyer who was representing Mr. Trump’s post-presidency office, to the top lawyer at the archives, Gary Stern, according to two people briefed on the matter.

Mr. Philbin indicated to Mr. Stern that the information was based on what Mr. Trump’s final White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows, believed to be the contents in the boxes, the people said.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/16/us/politics/archives-trump-classified-clippings.html

ThailandRyan · September 17, 2022

17 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Things keep on lookiing worse for America's most recent ex-President:

Lawyer Told Archives Last Year That Trump Had No Classified Material

The National Archives has told the Justice Department that a lawyer representing former President Donald J. Trump indicated to the archives last year that boxes Mr. Trump had taken to his Mar-a-Lago home from the White House included only nonclassified material like newspaper clippings, according to a person briefed on the matter.

The message was relayed to the National Archives last September by Patrick Philbin, a former top White House lawyer who was representing Mr. Trump’s post-presidency office, to the top lawyer at the archives, Gary Stern, according to two people briefed on the matter.

Mr. Philbin indicated to Mr. Stern that the information was based on what Mr. Trump’s final White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows, believed to be the contents in the boxes, the people said.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/16/us/politics/archives-trump-classified-clippings.html

He was given many months to turn over all documents for processing and he failed to do so, basically the attorney lied and now that attorney will be looking at ethics charges. Everything the Orange one touches leaves others taking the fall.....

KanchanaburiGuy · September 17, 2022

1 hour ago, seajae said:

trouble is the doj and fbi cannot be trusted to tell the truth as has already been shown, if the doj is being honest they would have no objections as the documents they want will be returned if they are as the doj has said. The only reason the doj doesnt want this to happen is they are either being dishonest or they want this to be used in the elections so the republicans will look bad otherwise there is no feasable rejection of the decision. The doj is already making sure they are feeding things to the left news sites which makes them even more unreliable, the leaks from the doj & fbi show just how dishonest/political they really are

I admit to bias..........

Going all the way back to the "Russia Investigation" started by the Obama Administration during the campaign, I thought about the Role of the President.

The President is at the top of the Executive Branch of Government----the Branch with responsibility for Law Enforcement.

As the head of the Executive Branch........... and as a supposed Leader............ I think a President should be a big enough person to put his personal feelings aside.......... and do whatever is ultimately best for the good of the country.

And that means that when an investigation is begun............ even if it involves the President himself!............ he must do everything he can to help and encourage that investigation............ so the facts can be revealed and decisions made............ NOT to constantly criticize, ridicule, obfuscate, delay, and complain about the investigation! ---------- To help, not to hinder!

The President should have said, "I hate what they're doing, but what they are doing is important. So I'm going to help them in any way I can. Because that's what a LEADER does: He puts his personal feelings aside and encourages his people to do their best work, efficiently and effectively."

But Trump didn't do that. Not even a little bit!

Instead, Trump whined and complained and criticized and obstructed.

Here you had people........... supposedly HIS people!.......... trying to do an important job for their country........... and THEIR BOSS is ridiculing and insulting them, every step along the way!

The very person who should be inspiring and encouraging them to do their best work.......... even at his own expense!........... was talking trash about them, at every opportunity!

That's the Donald Trump I saw in 2016/2017...........

That's the Donald Trump we've seen throughout this whole "Documents" fiasco.

Personally, had I been President in 2017/18/19, I would have said "I hate this; it's a distraction. But they've got a job to do, and I'm going to do everything I can to help them do it. That's their job, and, as head of the Executive Branch, this is mine!"

----------------

Meanwhile, putting all the NOISE aside........

When he left the White House, Trump took documents he should not have. Whether that was done innocently, negligently, or with some kind of sinister purpose........ is beside the point. The point is........

* Trump took dociments he should not have.

* When asked to return them, he didn't.

* When asked to return them again, he didnt.

* When asked to return them a third time, he didn't.

This is NOT how the head of the Law Enforcement Branch of the Government should behave! Not as the President, and not as a former President!

Despite all the NOISE.........all the GARBAGE surrounding this story, the facts themselves are fairly simple...........

Whether accidentally or intentionally, when leaving the White House, Trump took documents he should not have.

When he was asked to return them, that's what he should have done. He didn't.

Whether or not taking the documents in the first place was accidental or intentional is now beside the point. It's beside the point because........... refusing to return them WAS intentional!

To all appearances, it appears the man who sat at the very top of the Law Enforcement Branch of the United States Government ........... believes he is well and securely ABOVE the law!

And he's been showing us that he's held that belief......... that attitude.......... in full-force............ since at least 2016!

Rather than HELPING Law Enforcement do their jobs........... supposedly "HIS" PEOPLE........... he instead throws up roadblock after roadblock, insulting, criticising, and ridiculing along the way!

THAT'S the guy tens of millions of people apparently want back as President?

*sigh*

riclag · September 17, 2022

1 hour ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

I admit to bias..........

Going all the way back to the "Russia Investigation" started by the Obama Administration during the campaign, I thought about the Role of the President.

The President is at the top of the Executive Branch of Government----the Branch with responsibility for Law Enforcement.

As the head of the Executive Branch........... and as a supposed Leader............ I think a President should be a big enough person to put his personal feelings aside.......... and do whatever is ultimately best for the good of the country.

And that means that when an investigation is begun............ even if it involves the President himself!............ he must do everything he can to help and encourage that investigation............ so the facts can be revealed and decisions made............ NOT to constantly criticize, ridicule, obfuscate, delay, and complain about the investigation! ---------- To help, not to hinder!

The President should have said, "I hate what they're doing, but what they are doing is important. So I'm going to help them in any way I can. Because that's what a LEADER does: He puts his personal feelings aside and encourages his people to do their best work, efficiently and effectively."

But Trump didn't do that. Not even a little bit!

Instead, Trump whined and complained and criticized and obstructed.

Here you had people........... supposedly HIS people!.......... trying to do an important job for their country........... and THEIR BOSS is ridiculing and insulting them, every step along the way!

The very person who should be inspiring and encouraging them to do their best work.......... even at his own expense!........... was talking trash about them, at every opportunity!

That's the Donald Trump I saw in 2016/2017...........

That's the Donald Trump we've seen throughout this whole "Documents" fiasco.

Personally, had I been President in 2017/18/19, I would have said "I hate this; it's a distraction. But they've got a job to do, and I'm going to do everything I can to help them do it. That's their job, and, as head of the Executive Branch, this is mine!"

----------------

Meanwhile, putting all the NOISE aside........

When he left the White House, Trump took documents he should not have. Whether that was done innocently, negligently, or with some kind of sinister purpose........ is beside the point. The point is........

* Trump took dociments he should not have.

* When asked to return them, he didn't.

* When asked to return them again, he didnt.

* When asked to return them a third time, he didn't.

This is NOT how the head of the Law Enforcement Branch of the Government should behave! Not as the President, and not as a former President!

Despite all the NOISE.........all the GARBAGE surrounding this story, the facts themselves are fairly simple...........

Whether accidentally or intentionally, when leaving the White House, Trump took documents he should not have.

When he was asked to return them, that's what he should have done. He didn't.

Whether or not taking the documents in the first place was accidental or intentional is now beside the point. It's beside the point because........... refusing to return them WAS intentional!

To all appearances, it appears the man who sat at the very top of the Law Enforcement Branch of the United States Government ........... believes he is well and securely ABOVE the law!

And he's been showing us that he's held that belief......... that attitude.......... in full-force............ since at least 2016!

Rather than HELPING Law Enforcement do their jobs........... supposedly "HIS" PEOPLE........... he instead throws up roadblock after roadblock, insulting, criticising, and ridiculing along the way!

THAT'S the guy tens of millions of people apparently want back as President?

*sigh*

Its in the courts hands now! Its quite possible that when Mr Trump as Potus took these unclassified docs marked classified ,he and his legal team were inclined to think this was the way it was going to go and knew it would have to be litigated ! Imop
Its ugly because its the left vs the right with liberals and conservative media flavoring!

Im content knowing that a judge finally stands up to the Fbi/doj knowing their past when it comes to Trump and especially how they showed contempt by leaking to the press ! Americans will never know what the content of these docs are . One could only guess ! But if it shows how devious and cunning the establishment has been in their attempt to get a POTUS that wants to expose them and the establishment, by all means

good for the American people.

placeholder · September 17, 2022

1 minute ago, riclag said:

Its in the courts hands now! Its quite possible that when Mr Trump as Potus took these unclassified docs marked classified ,he and his legal team were inclined to think this was the way it was going to go and knew it would have to be litigated ! Imop
Its ugly because its the left vs the right with liberals and conservative media flavoring!

Im content knowing that a judge finally stands up to the Fbi/doj knowing their past when it comes to Trump and especially how they showed contempt by leaking to the press ! Americans will never know what the content of these docs are . One could only guess ! But if it shows how devious and cunning the establishment has been in their attempt to get a POTUS that wants to expose them and the establishment, by all means

good for the American people.

First off, it would be a crime to take these documents whether they are classified or not. Mr. Trump apparently considered such an act so heinous that he enthusiastically supported and signed a bill that increased the penalty to a maximum of 5 years. Have you forgotten that?

Have you forgotten that his lawyers acting on the advice of an unnamed party, falsely asserted to the Justice Dept that all documents marked classified had been returned? That would be another crime called obstructing justice.

And how do you know that it was the government that did the leaking? As you probably don't know, Breitbart published a version of the warrant that included the names of the FBI agents who submitted the request. Which led to death threats against them. You think they got that from the government?

And if Trump's purpose was to expose the establishment's corruption, what was there to stop him from releasing documents that contained proof of that? Maybe because they don't exist? Or maybe because self-sacrifice is a concept that Mr. Trump is incapable of assimilating?

riclag · September 17, 2022

The courts denial of motion !

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/denial-of-justice-department-s-request-for-a-partial-stay/5a04a0af482fe04f/full.pdf

candide · September 17, 2022

38 minutes ago, riclag said:

Americans will never know what the content of these docs are . One could only guess ! But if it shows how devious and cunning the establishment has been in their attempt to get a POTUS that wants to expose them and the establishment, by all means

This is completely incoherent.

The Trump administration has appointed Durham to investigate this matter, in the hope of incriminating the so-called left (and in particular Hillary). Now you are claiming that Trump would have kept incriminating evidence instead of offering them to Durham on a silver plate, really?

On top of it, what would have prevented Trump to make these documents public? In particular as he was claiming they were not classified documents! ????

placeholder · September 17, 2022

17 minutes ago, riclag said:

The courts denial of motion !

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/denial-of-justice-department-s-request-for-a-partial-stay/5a04a0af482fe04f/full.pdf

Why the exclamation points? This is old news.

Bkk Brian · September 17, 2022

33 minutes ago, riclag said:

The courts denial of motion !

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/denial-of-justice-department-s-request-for-a-partial-stay/5a04a0af482fe04f/full.pdf

Things have moved on since then:

US asks appeals court to lift judge’s Mar-a-Lago probe hold

https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-mar-a-lago-government-and-politics-819a312522858f638a70cd9a0770d4a4

KanchanaburiGuy · September 17, 2022

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

Have you forgotten that his lawyers acting on the advice of an unnamed party, falsely asserted to the Justice Dept that all documents marked classified had been returned? That would be another crime called obstructing justice.

This has been a qiestion that has intrigued me for a while now.

I've seen this same claim in a variety of forms at least a couple of dozen times, now, across multiple threads: "The lawyers lied".......... or "The lawyers were instructed to lie"........... or "The lawyers were told a lie that they blindly passed on."

I've seen the multidude of claims/accusations.......... but I've never seen a copy of the document............ the affidavit, apparently.......... that actually shows the attorneys saying this! (Now, I'm guilty of never having looked myself.......... not THAT interested! lol........... but, to date, I've never seen anyone else providing it, despite having seen literally dozens of assertions about it!)

So, my first question is.........

When you say, "falsely asserted to the Justice Dept that all documents marked classified had been returned," [placeholder] have you actually SEEN the document where Trump's attorneys said this?

See, my concern is this...........

Without seeing what was actually said and in what context it was said, it could be very, VERY easy to misconstue what was said......... or to intentionally misrepresent it.

Imagine, for example, the two following scenarios.............

The attorneys get asked, "Have you returned all the classified documents?" The attorneys respond "All classified documents that were asked for have been returned."

* Now, one person reporting on this might INCLUDE the clause "that were asked for," and may accept that not ALL classified documents were returned, but everything THAT WAS ASKED FOR was!

(Thus, what the attorneys said was true........... even though............ some classified documents still remained at Mar-A-Lago!)

* Another person reporting on it might LEAVE OUT the "that were asked for" part of the affidavit, then report that the attorneys LIED!

They would say the attorneys said "All classified documents were returned" [no "that were asked for"]........... and the fact that classified document still remained at Mar-A-Lago PROVES the attorneys had lied!

You see the problem here?

How the Justice Department asked the question............ matters.

How the attorneys answered the questions asked.......... matters.

Whether the question asked was general and all-encompassing........... or specific to a single, individual circimstance............ matters.

And then, of course, how interested the person doing the reporting is in conveying accurately the questions, the answers, AND THE CONTEXT............. matters greatly!

If we haven't seen the actual claim made by Trump's attorneys............ how can we possibly know what's correct or not correct???

Because as I've shown, without the supporting documentation............ it would be INCREDIBLY EASY to misconstrue or misrepresent what the attorneys actually said or did! Drop a word here; add a word there.......... and suddenly, something said truthfully one way............ becomes something that appears entirely false!

So.............

Have you seen the offending affidavit and what it actually says?

I haven't ........ even after seeing the accusation made literally dozens of times!

Hmmm?

Bkk Brian · September 17, 2022

13 minutes ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

This has been a qiestion that has intrigued me for a while now.

I've seen this same claim in a variety of forms at least a couple of dozen times, now, across multiple threads: "The lawyers lied".......... or "The lawyers were instructed to lie"........... or "The lawyers were told a lie that they blindly passed on."

I've seen the multidude of claims/accusations.......... but I've never seen a copy of the document............ the affidavit, apparently.......... that actually shows the attorneys saying this! (Now, I'm guilty of never having looked myself.......... not THAT interested! lol........... but, to date, I've never seen anyone else providing it, despite having seen literally dozens of assertions about it!)

So, my first question is.........

When you say, "falsely asserted to the Justice Dept that all documents marked classified had been returned," [placeholder] have you actually SEEN the document where Trump's attorneys said this?

See, my concern is this...........

Without seeing what was actually said and in what context it was said, it could be very, VERY easy to misconstue what was said......... or to intentionally misrepresent it.

Imagine, for example, the two following scenarios.............

The attorneys get asked, "Have you returned all the classified documents?" The attorneys respond "All classified documents that were asked for have been returned."

Now, one person reporting on this might INCLUDE the clause "that were asked for," amd mau accept that not ALL classified documents were returned, but everything that was

Page 20/21

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.617854/gov.uscourts.flsd.617854.125.0_1.pdf

KanchanaburiGuy · September 17, 2022

23 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Page 20/21

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.617854/gov.uscourts.flsd.617854.125.0_1.pdf

First, thank you. Now........

Quoting from the link, page 20...........

"Any and all documents that are responsive to the subpoena...."

Which could very easily mean the same thing that I have suggested............ "that were asked for."

So the attorneys could have very truthfully said they returned all the things they were asked for........... (that were "responsive to the subpoena").............. while NOT returning classified documents that were outside the parameters defined by the subpoena. (Subpoenas, as I understand it, have to be fairly specific. They can't just say, "Give us what you've got!" Lol)

Bkk Brian · September 17, 2022

4 minutes ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

First, thank you. Now........

Quoting from the link, page 20...........

"Any and all documents that are responsive to the subpoena...."

Which could very easily mean the same thing that I have suggested............ "that were asked for."

So the attorneys could have very truthfully said they returned all the things they were asked for........... (that were "responsive to the subpoena").............. while NOT returning classified documents that were outside the parameters defined by the subpoena. (Subpoenas, as I understand it, have to be fairly specific. They can't just say, "Give us what you've got!" Lol)

"further stated he was not advised there were any records in any private office space or other location in Mar-a-Lago."

The lawyer (Individual Two) was advised (by Individual One who is not named) there were no documents in office but there were"

stevenl · September 17, 2022

2 hours ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

First, thank you. Now........

Quoting from the link, page 20...........

"Any and all documents that are responsive to the subpoena...."

Which could very easily mean the same thing that I have suggested............ "that were asked for."

So the attorneys could have very truthfully said they returned all the things they were asked for........... (that were "responsive to the subpoena").............. while NOT returning classified documents that were outside the parameters defined by the subpoena. (Subpoenas, as I understand it, have to be fairly specific. They can't just say, "Give us what you've got!" Lol)

Apparently it was Mark Meadows who told the lawyer there were no documents present.

candide · September 17, 2022

5 hours ago, stevenl said:

Apparently it was Mark Meadows who told the lawyer there were no documents present.

Two different issues, it seems.

Mark Meadows Told National Archives Mar-A-Lago Document Boxes Were Filled With News Clips: Report

https://www.forbes.com/sites/marisadellatto/2022/09/16/mark-meadows-told-national-archives-mar-a-lago-document-boxes-were-filled-with-news-clips-report/

KanchanaburiGuy · September 17, 2022

8 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

"further stated he was not advised there were any records in any private office space or other location in Mar-a-Lago."

The lawyer (Individual Two) was advised (by Individual One who is not named) there were no documents in office but there were"

Careful with your reading there!..........

"Not advised there were any records".........

..........says something very different from.................

"Advised there were not any records."

(You said........."The lawyer [Individual Two] was advised [by Individual One who is not named] there were no documents in office, but there were.")

Your misreading has converted "No one told me there were".......... into......... "Someone told me there weren't." [paraphrased]

And that's exactly how these things wind up getting miscontrued and/or misrepresented, intentionally or otherwise! (And shows exactly why it's so important to be able to see what was actually said, rather than just someone's interpretation of what was said!)

candide · September 17, 2022

1 hour ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

Careful with your reading there!..........

"Not advised there were any records".........

..........says something very different from.................

"Advised there were not any records."

(You said........."The lawyer [Individual Two] was advised [by Individual One who is not named] there were no documents in office, but there were.")

Your misreading has converted "No one told me there were".......... into......... "Someone told me there weren't." [paraphrased]

And that's exactly how these things wind up getting miscontrued and/or misrepresented, intentionally or otherwise! (And shows exactly why it's so important to be able to see what was actually said, rather than just someone's interpretation of what was said!)

No misunderstanding when sentences are not cherry picked. Here's the full paragraph. What do you conclude from it?

During receipt of the production, FPOTUS COUNSEL 1 stated he was advised all the records that came from the White House were stored in one location within Mar-a-Lago, the STORAGE ROOM, and the boxes of records in the STORAGE ROOM were "the remaining repository" of records from the White House. FPOTUS COUNSEL 1 fwiher stated he was not advised there were any records in any private office space or other location in Mar-a-Lago. The agents and DOJ COUNSEL were pem1itted to see the STORAGE ROOM and observed that approximately fifty to fifty-five boxes remained in the STORAGE ROOM

Sign In

Special master appointed to review documents from Mar-a-Lago search; DOJ request to revive criminal probe rejected

Recommended Posts

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

placeholder

sanqing

sanqing

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Recently Browsing 0 members

Topics

Popular Contributors

Latest posts...

Popular in The Pub

ASEANNOW

MORE INFO

POPULAR AREAS

CONTACT US