Manny Sanguine said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

I asked you this earlier...

Do you honestly think they use white out to remove the status classification on all documents.

It has already been said ad nauseam that documents may still have the classification of classified/top secret but have been declassified.

That seems to be the entire premise of your argument and that is like a dog chasing its' tail.

Turn the damn page dude.... You are talking in circles.

You seem to have some time... discuss the previous 12 BS hoaxes and enlighten us with how they were legit.

---

Yeah, I thought I was just dropping in for a quick post before burrowing into work, but turned into more of a conversation than expected.

Your 12/13 theses will take a bigger block of time than I can spare now. Sorry to keep you waiting. Try to relax and take your mind off it.

Now if you want me to take some time off and review your 12/13 theses, you can pay my usual hourly rate. Should only cost you a couple grand.

---

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

Ha Ha!! Even when faced with the proof you are still the smartest man in the room....... Not sure whether to laugh or applaud.

Do you think they "re-issue" documents? Do you think they go in with whiteout and cover up the markings on the documents? They don't.

All you are doing is taking information from headlines that the MSM propaganda machine put out to keep this BS story in front of mindless sheep. Notice how this story has all of a sudden taken a back burner and fallen out of the non-stop coverage? You know why don't you? Because it's about to blow up like the previous 12 hoaxes did.

The quickest way to know that the media has lost it's desire to run with a story is when they quit the non-stop coverage and sensationalizing it. I liken it to when there is a mass shooting and the shooter is black. Crickets. You know why that is don't you? It doesn't fit the narrative when a black person shoots several people. It's as common as the paper being delivered on Sunday. And you know that too.

It's OK.. after being butthurt so many times before I can see why you are willing to go down with the ship.

You keep kicking that football Charlie Brown...

---

Hooray! You proved that the president has broad authority to declassiy documents (something I have never disputed).

However, you haven't addressed the fact that any such declassification is irrelevant to the statutes listed in the warrant or the propriety of the warrant.

I guess, in keeping with the motif, I'll say: You keep holding that football, Lucy, until I return.

---

The statutes listed in the warrant affidavit that hasn't been released? How can you speak to the statutes and propriety of the warrant when the affidavit hasn't been released, and the DOJ is fighting the release?

---

The predicate statutes are listed in the search warrant that was unsealed last week.

---

Ok. I see what you're talking about.

But the declassification is relevant to the statutes listed in the warrant, at least as it relates to section 793.

---

Here's a link to 18 U.S.C. 793 and here's what I posted earlier about that statute:

Quote:

---

Take 18 U.S. Code 793 (a/k/a "The Espionage Act"), for example. That statute does not refer at all to classification levels. Rather, it uses phrases like "relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation." Information designated "TS/SCI" would necessarily meet this definition.

A potential problem for Trump is that, even if he could declassify any and all documents with out any memorialization either before, during, or after, he cannot change the essential nature of the information contained in those documents. If the information met the definitions of 18 U.S. Code 793 before he declassified the document then it still met that definition after he did so.

---

I would be interested in what you see in the statute that would provide a defense based on prior declassification of a document.

---

Because it's not illegal to have documents about national defense. The issue is having classified documents about national defense.

---

The word "classified" (or any word or phrase related specifically to classification) does not appear in the statute. What part of the statute do you see that limits is applicability to classified documents?

---

So going the obtuse route you're going, the DOJ can legally search your home if you have books on the F14 Tomcat and the F15 Eagle and a picture of a tank because it meets the definitions of code 793. Sure thing, pal.

The affidavit sure better show the information was to be used to the injury of the United States.

The declassification is relevant.

---

Is your hypothetical book about the f-14 something that would be "information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation," which is part of what the statute provides as a standard? If not, then couldn't be the basis of a search warrant.

Can a document, even after declassification, still include "information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation?" If yes, then documents bearing classification markings including "TS" or "TS/SCI" could be the basis of a proper search warrant.

At this point we know, without any real dispute, that documents bearing those marking were removed from Mar-a-Lago during the search. A determination of whether anyone is changed with criminal violations based on those documents would have to be based on a review of the contents of those documents. However, it seems unreasonable to say that the search has to be based on the contents of documents that had not yet been recovered or reviewed.

---

Yes. The books meet the criteria mentioned.

Grumman F-14 Tomcat Owners' Workshop Manual: All models 1970-2006 - Insights into operating and maintaining the US Navy's legendary variable geometry carrier-based air superiority fighter https://a.co/d/jl1N3eK

Declassification is relevant unless the propriety of the warrant isn't.

---

So your conception is that a book available on Amazon would be subject to The Espionage Act as "information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation?" Not sure how information that is already public domain (i.e., a book for sale on Amazon) could, in any way, be "used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation" considering that such adversaries would presumably already have that public domain information.

Seems to me that information could be secret (i.e., not already in the public domain) and "information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation" regardless of whether it was declassified by the president using his acknowledged powers to declassify documents. If it was secret and "information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation" a minute before he declassified it, then it would still be those things a minute after he declassified it.

---

Are we not being obtuse anymore? Show me in the code where it differentiates books on Amazon as it relates to national defense? Seemed pretty broad in scope to me. Where in the code does it differentiate between secret and classified?

Seems to me declassification of the documents should be relevant to any objective person.

---

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

Ha Ha!! Even when faced with the proof you are still the smartest man in the room....... Not sure whether to laugh or applaud.

Do you think they "re-issue" documents? Do you think they go in with whiteout and cover up the markings on the documents? They don't.

All you are doing is taking information from headlines that the MSM propaganda machine put out to keep this BS story in front of mindless sheep. Notice how this story has all of a sudden taken a back burner and fallen out of the non-stop coverage? You know why don't you? Because it's about to blow up like the previous 12 hoaxes did.

The quickest way to know that the media has lost it's desire to run with a story is when they quit the non-stop coverage and sensationalizing it. I liken it to when there is a mass shooting and the shooter is black. Crickets. You know why that is don't you? It doesn't fit the narrative when a black person shoots several people. It's as common as the paper being delivered on Sunday. And you know that too.

It's OK.. after being butthurt so many times before I can see why you are willing to go down with the ship.

You keep kicking that football Charlie Brown...

---

Hooray! You proved that the president has broad authority to declassiy documents (something I have never disputed).

However, you haven't addressed the fact that any such declassification is irrelevant to the statutes listed in the warrant or the propriety of the warrant.

I guess, in keeping with the motif, I'll say: You keep holding that football, Lucy, until I return.

---

The statutes listed in the warrant affidavit that hasn't been released? How can you speak to the statutes and propriety of the warrant when the affidavit hasn't been released, and the DOJ is fighting the release?

---

The predicate statutes are listed in the search warrant that was unsealed last week.

---

Ok. I see what you're talking about.

But the declassification is relevant to the statutes listed in the warrant, at least as it relates to section 793.

---

Here's a link to 18 U.S.C. 793 and here's what I posted earlier about that statute:

Quote:

---

Take 18 U.S. Code 793 (a/k/a "The Espionage Act"), for example. That statute does not refer at all to classification levels. Rather, it uses phrases like "relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation." Information designated "TS/SCI" would necessarily meet this definition.

A potential problem for Trump is that, even if he could declassify any and all documents with out any memorialization either before, during, or after, he cannot change the essential nature of the information contained in those documents. If the information met the definitions of 18 U.S. Code 793 before he declassified the document then it still met that definition after he did so.

---

I would be interested in what you see in the statute that would provide a defense based on prior declassification of a document.

---

Because it's not illegal to have documents about national defense. The issue is having classified documents about national defense.

---

The word "classified" (or any word or phrase related specifically to classification) does not appear in the statute. What part of the statute do you see that limits is applicability to classified documents?

---

So going the obtuse route you're going, the DOJ can legally search your home if you have books on the F14 Tomcat and the F15 Eagle and a picture of a tank because it meets the definitions of code 793. Sure thing, pal.

The affidavit sure better show the information was to be used to the injury of the United States.

The declassification is relevant.

---

Is your hypothetical book about the f-14 something that would be "information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation," which is part of what the statute provides as a standard? If not, then couldn't be the basis of a search warrant.

Can a document, even after declassification, still include "information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation?" If yes, then documents bearing classification markings including "TS" or "TS/SCI" could be the basis of a proper search warrant.

At this point we know, without any real dispute, that documents bearing those marking were removed from Mar-a-Lago during the search. A determination of whether anyone is changed with criminal violations based on those documents would have to be based on a review of the contents of those documents. However, it seems unreasonable to say that the search has to be based on the contents of documents that had not yet been recovered or reviewed.

---

Yes. The books meet the criteria mentioned.

Grumman F-14 Tomcat Owners' Workshop Manual: All models 1970-2006 - Insights into operating and maintaining the US Navy's legendary variable geometry carrier-based air superiority fighter https://a.co/d/jl1N3eK

Declassification is relevant unless the propriety of the warrant isn't.

---

So your conception is that a book available on Amazon would be subject to The Espionage Act as "information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation?" Not sure how information that is already public domain (i.e., a book for sale on Amazon) could, in any way, be "used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation" considering that such adversaries would presumably already have that public domain information.

Seems to me that information could be secret (i.e., not already in the public domain) and "information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation" regardless of whether it was declassified by the president using his acknowledged powers to declassify documents. If it was secret and "information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation" a minute before he declassified it, then it would still be those things a minute after he declassified it.

---

Are we not being obtuse anymore? Show me in the code where it differentiates books on Amazon as it relates to national defense? Seemed pretty broad in scope to me. Where in the code does it differentiate between secret and classified?

Seems to me declassification of the documents should be relevant to any objective person.

---

How can something in the public domain, which would presumably already be in the possession of our adversaries, be "used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation?"

---

Seriously? Just think about that question for a few minutes.




All kinds of terrorism done with information in the public domain.

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

Ha Ha!! Even when faced with the proof you are still the smartest man in the room....... Not sure whether to laugh or applaud.

Do you think they "re-issue" documents? Do you think they go in with whiteout and cover up the markings on the documents? They don't.

All you are doing is taking information from headlines that the MSM propaganda machine put out to keep this BS story in front of mindless sheep. Notice how this story has all of a sudden taken a back burner and fallen out of the non-stop coverage? You know why don't you? Because it's about to blow up like the previous 12 hoaxes did.

The quickest way to know that the media has lost it's desire to run with a story is when they quit the non-stop coverage and sensationalizing it. I liken it to when there is a mass shooting and the shooter is black. Crickets. You know why that is don't you? It doesn't fit the narrative when a black person shoots several people. It's as common as the paper being delivered on Sunday. And you know that too.

It's OK.. after being butthurt so many times before I can see why you are willing to go down with the ship.

You keep kicking that football Charlie Brown...

---

Hooray! You proved that the president has broad authority to declassiy documents (something I have never disputed).

However, you haven't addressed the fact that any such declassification is irrelevant to the statutes listed in the warrant or the propriety of the warrant.

I guess, in keeping with the motif, I'll say: You keep holding that football, Lucy, until I return.

---

The statutes listed in the warrant affidavit that hasn't been released? How can you speak to the statutes and propriety of the warrant when the affidavit hasn't been released, and the DOJ is fighting the release?

---

The predicate statutes are listed in the search warrant that was unsealed last week.

---

Ok. I see what you're talking about.

But the declassification is relevant to the statutes listed in the warrant, at least as it relates to section 793.

---

Here's a link to 18 U.S.C. 793 and here's what I posted earlier about that statute:

Quote:

---

Take 18 U.S. Code 793 (a/k/a "The Espionage Act"), for example. That statute does not refer at all to classification levels. Rather, it uses phrases like "relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation." Information designated "TS/SCI" would necessarily meet this definition.

A potential problem for Trump is that, even if he could declassify any and all documents with out any memorialization either before, during, or after, he cannot change the essential nature of the information contained in those documents. If the information met the definitions of 18 U.S. Code 793 before he declassified the document then it still met that definition after he did so.

---

I would be interested in what you see in the statute that would provide a defense based on prior declassification of a document.

---

Because it's not illegal to have documents about national defense. The issue is having classified documents about national defense.

---

The word "classified" (or any word or phrase related specifically to classification) does not appear in the statute. What part of the statute do you see that limits is applicability to classified documents?

---

So going the obtuse route you're going, the DOJ can legally search your home if you have books on the F14 Tomcat and the F15 Eagle and a picture of a tank because it meets the definitions of code 793. Sure thing, pal.

The affidavit sure better show the information was to be used to the injury of the United States.

The declassification is relevant.

---

Is your hypothetical book about the f-14 something that would be "information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation," which is part of what the statute provides as a standard? If not, then couldn't be the basis of a search warrant.

Can a document, even after declassification, still include "information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation?" If yes, then documents bearing classification markings including "TS" or "TS/SCI" could be the basis of a proper search warrant.

At this point we know, without any real dispute, that documents bearing those marking were removed from Mar-a-Lago during the search. A determination of whether anyone is changed with criminal violations based on those documents would have to be based on a review of the contents of those documents. However, it seems unreasonable to say that the search has to be based on the contents of documents that had not yet been recovered or reviewed.

---

Yes. The books meet the criteria mentioned.

Grumman F-14 Tomcat Owners' Workshop Manual: All models 1970-2006 - Insights into operating and maintaining the US Navy's legendary variable geometry carrier-based air superiority fighter https://a.co/d/jl1N3eK

Declassification is relevant unless the propriety of the warrant isn't.

---

So your conception is that a book available on Amazon would be subject to The Espionage Act as "information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation?" Not sure how information that is already public domain (i.e., a book for sale on Amazon) could, in any way, be "used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation" considering that such adversaries would presumably already have that public domain information.

Seems to me that information could be secret (i.e., not already in the public domain) and "information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation" regardless of whether it was declassified by the president using his acknowledged powers to declassify documents. If it was secret and "information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation" a minute before he declassified it, then it would still be those things a minute after he declassified it.

---

Are we not being obtuse anymore? Show me in the code where it differentiates books on Amazon as it relates to national defense? Seemed pretty broad in scope to me. Where in the code does it differentiate between secret and classified?

Seems to me declassification of the documents should be relevant to any objective person.

---

How can something in the public domain, which would presumably already be in the possession of our adversaries, be "used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation?"

---

Seriously? Just think about that question for a few minutes.




All kinds of terrorism done with information in the public domain.

---

If the terrorists already have a copy of the F-14 book, which they ordered from Amazon, and somehow could cause injury to the United States using its contents, what additional injury would come to the United States if they also came into possession of your copy of the book?

---

The espionage act was abused from the beginning to jail dissenters of WWI. It is long past time to repeal this egregious affront to the 1st Amendment.

Repeal the Espionage Act – The Future of Freedom Foundation https://t.co/3KCgujpS9z

— Rand Paul (@RandPaul) August 13, 2022

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

Ha Ha!! Even when faced with the proof you are still the smartest man in the room....... Not sure whether to laugh or applaud.

Do you think they "re-issue" documents? Do you think they go in with whiteout and cover up the markings on the documents? They don't.

All you are doing is taking information from headlines that the MSM propaganda machine put out to keep this BS story in front of mindless sheep. Notice how this story has all of a sudden taken a back burner and fallen out of the non-stop coverage? You know why don't you? Because it's about to blow up like the previous 12 hoaxes did.

The quickest way to know that the media has lost it's desire to run with a story is when they quit the non-stop coverage and sensationalizing it. I liken it to when there is a mass shooting and the shooter is black. Crickets. You know why that is don't you? It doesn't fit the narrative when a black person shoots several people. It's as common as the paper being delivered on Sunday. And you know that too.

It's OK.. after being butthurt so many times before I can see why you are willing to go down with the ship.

You keep kicking that football Charlie Brown...

---

Hooray! You proved that the president has broad authority to declassiy documents (something I have never disputed).

However, you haven't addressed the fact that any such declassification is irrelevant to the statutes listed in the warrant or the propriety of the warrant.

I guess, in keeping with the motif, I'll say: You keep holding that football, Lucy, until I return.

---

The statutes listed in the warrant affidavit that hasn't been released? How can you speak to the statutes and propriety of the warrant when the affidavit hasn't been released, and the DOJ is fighting the release?

---

The predicate statutes are listed in the search warrant that was unsealed last week.

---

Ok. I see what you're talking about.

But the declassification is relevant to the statutes listed in the warrant, at least as it relates to section 793.

---

Here's a link to 18 U.S.C. 793 and here's what I posted earlier about that statute:

Quote:

---

Take 18 U.S. Code 793 (a/k/a "The Espionage Act"), for example. That statute does not refer at all to classification levels. Rather, it uses phrases like "relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation." Information designated "TS/SCI" would necessarily meet this definition.

A potential problem for Trump is that, even if he could declassify any and all documents with out any memorialization either before, during, or after, he cannot change the essential nature of the information contained in those documents. If the information met the definitions of 18 U.S. Code 793 before he declassified the document then it still met that definition after he did so.

---

I would be interested in what you see in the statute that would provide a defense based on prior declassification of a document.

---

Because it's not illegal to have documents about national defense. The issue is having classified documents about national defense.

---

The word "classified" (or any word or phrase related specifically to classification) does not appear in the statute. What part of the statute do you see that limits is applicability to classified documents?

---

So going the obtuse route you're going, the DOJ can legally search your home if you have books on the F14 Tomcat and the F15 Eagle and a picture of a tank because it meets the definitions of code 793. Sure thing, pal.

The affidavit sure better show the information was to be used to the injury of the United States.

The declassification is relevant.

---

Is your hypothetical book about the f-14 something that would be "information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation," which is part of what the statute provides as a standard? If not, then couldn't be the basis of a search warrant.

Can a document, even after declassification, still include "information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation?" If yes, then documents bearing classification markings including "TS" or "TS/SCI" could be the basis of a proper search warrant.

At this point we know, without any real dispute, that documents bearing those marking were removed from Mar-a-Lago during the search. A determination of whether anyone is changed with criminal violations based on those documents would have to be based on a review of the contents of those documents. However, it seems unreasonable to say that the search has to be based on the contents of documents that had not yet been recovered or reviewed.

---

Yes. The books meet the criteria mentioned.

Grumman F-14 Tomcat Owners' Workshop Manual: All models 1970-2006 - Insights into operating and maintaining the US Navy's legendary variable geometry carrier-based air superiority fighter https://a.co/d/jl1N3eK

Declassification is relevant unless the propriety of the warrant isn't.

---

So your conception is that a book available on Amazon would be subject to The Espionage Act as "information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation?" Not sure how information that is already public domain (i.e., a book for sale on Amazon) could, in any way, be "used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation" considering that such adversaries would presumably already have that public domain information.

Seems to me that information could be secret (i.e., not already in the public domain) and "information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation" regardless of whether it was declassified by the president using his acknowledged powers to declassify documents. If it was secret and "information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation" a minute before he declassified it, then it would still be those things a minute after he declassified it.

---

Are we not being obtuse anymore? Show me in the code where it differentiates books on Amazon as it relates to national defense? Seemed pretty broad in scope to me. Where in the code does it differentiate between secret and classified?

Seems to me declassification of the documents should be relevant to any objective person.

---

How can something in the public domain, which would presumably already be in the possession of our adversaries, be "used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation?"

---

Seriously? Just think about that question for a few minutes.




All kinds of terrorism done with information in the public domain.

---

If the terrorists already have a copy of the F-14 book, which they ordered from Amazon, and somehow could cause injury to the United States using its contents, what additional injury would come to the United States if they also came into possession of your copy of the book?

---

This isn't even semantic nonsense. Reads more like a hissy fit.

---

Werewolf said:

---

You just got spanked........in public........again!

Great job BBW and packgrad

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

Werewolf said:

---

You just got spanked........in public........again!

Great job BBW and packgrad

---

I dunno, a lot of these conversations seem to end with me asking questions that are never answered (like, how a second copy of a public domain book a terrorist already owns could cuase further injury to the US, or what is a single piece of evidence that Obama moved 30,000,000 pages of documents to his home), but, sure, claim victory if it makes you happy.

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

Werewolf said:

---

You just got spanked........in public........again!

Great job BBW and packgrad

---

I dunno, a lot of these conversations seem to end with me asking questions that are never answered (like, how a second copy of a public domain book a terrorist already owns could cuase further injury to the US, or what is a single piece of evidence that Obama moved 30,000,000 pages of documents to his home), but, sure, claim victory if it makes you happy.

---

Quote:

---

Do you think they "re-issue" documents? Do you think they go in with whiteout and cover up the markings on the documents?

---

Quote:

---

Please share with us what documents they were looking for, what documents they seized that were still classified/top secret.

---

Quote:

---

You have no idea what documents are in question do you?

You have no idea if the documents in question are/were classified/declassified?

You have no more information that anyone else reading the same damn information you have do you?

You only know what the rest of us do right? (and that is debatable considering your posts)

Has it been proven that the DOJ/FBI have already violated President Trump's Constitutional Rights?

Are you butthurt once again that you missed the football Charlie Brown?

Will you once again swallow hook, line and sinker the next big hoax against President Trump a few weeks before the midterms, repeat the MSM talking points and miss the damn football again?

---

Of all of the people that corrupt FBI Director Christopher Wray could have promoted to run the DC Field Office in the critical months before Jan6 and after, he chose Steven D'Antuono---the guy who ran the Whitmer Entrapment Hoax

Let that sink in...

— Darren J. Beattie 🌐 (@DarrenJBeattie) August 17, 2022

Bruce Reinhart is the judge’s name… pic.twitter.com/06VZdEfEed

— Ben Owen 🇺🇸🦅 (@hrkbenowen) August 9, 2022

Steve Videtich said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

Nothing to see here... guess who the FBI Director in charge of the Mar-A-Lago raid was and still is?

Of all of the people that corrupt FBI Director Christopher Wray could have promoted to run the DC Field Office in the critical months before Jan6 and after, he chose Steven D'Antuono---the guy who ran the Whitmer Entrapment Hoax

Let that sink in...

— Darren J. Beattie 🌐 (@DarrenJBeattie) August 17, 2022

---

I heard this yesterday. Fiction novelists couldn't write this any better.

---

caryking said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

Nothing to see here... guess who the FBI Director in charge of the Mar-A-Lago raid was and still is?

Of all of the people that corrupt FBI Director Christopher Wray could have promoted to run the DC Field Office in the critical months before Jan6 and after, he chose Steven D'Antuono---the guy who ran the Whitmer Entrapment Hoax

Let that sink in...

— Darren J. Beattie 🌐 (@DarrenJBeattie) August 17, 2022

---

I heard this yesterday. Fiction novelists couldn't write this any better.

---

Dang, I posted the article, from Darrin Beatty six months ago…. This is old news…

---

caryking said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

Nothing to see here... guess who the FBI Director in charge of the Mar-A-Lago raid was and still is?

Of all of the people that corrupt FBI Director Christopher Wray could have promoted to run the DC Field Office in the critical months before Jan6 and after, he chose Steven D'Antuono---the guy who ran the Whitmer Entrapment Hoax

Let that sink in...

— Darren J. Beattie 🌐 (@DarrenJBeattie) August 17, 2022

---

I heard this yesterday. Fiction novelists couldn't write this any better.

---

Dang, I posted the article, from Darrin Beatty six months ago…. This is old news…

---

Glasswolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

Nothing to see here... guess who the FBI Director in charge of the Mar-A-Lago raid was and still is?

Of all of the people that corrupt FBI Director Christopher Wray could have promoted to run the DC Field Office in the critical months before Jan6 and after, he chose Steven D'Antuono---the guy who ran the Whitmer Entrapment Hoax

Let that sink in...

— Darren J. Beattie 🌐 (@DarrenJBeattie) August 17, 2022

---

I heard this yesterday. Fiction novelists couldn't write this any better.

---

Dang, I posted the article, from Darrin Beatty six months ago…. This is old news…

---

Who appointed this corrupt FBI Director? Not flaming just asking a question. Was he corrupt when Trump made him Director?

---

Glasswolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

Nothing to see here... guess who the FBI Director in charge of the Mar-A-Lago raid was and still is?

Of all of the people that corrupt FBI Director Christopher Wray could have promoted to run the DC Field Office in the critical months before Jan6 and after, he chose Steven D'Antuono---the guy who ran the Whitmer Entrapment Hoax

Let that sink in...

— Darren J. Beattie 🌐 (@DarrenJBeattie) August 17, 2022

---

I heard this yesterday. Fiction novelists couldn't write this any better.

---

Dang, I posted the article, from Darrin Beatty six months ago…. This is old news…

---

Who appointed this corrupt FBI Director? Not flaming just asking a question. Was he corrupt when Trump made him Director?

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Funny that all these hires that Trump made are all clueless idiots and hacks. You would think someone with a critical eye would pick up on a trend.

---