A Deeply Fractured US

[Fishbone Jones]

It absolutely boggles my mind that between this hack of a MAGA sycophant and Brihard's very neutral, thorough, and technical analysis that clearly contradicts the premise of the article, you put more stock in the ham fisted reporting.

Attack the argument, not the person. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

 

[QV]

It absolutely boggles my mind that between this hack of a MAGA sycophant and Brihard's very neutral, thorough, and technical analysis that clearly contradicts the premise of the article, you put more stock in the ham fisted reporting.

You're commenting like the "trusted institutions" have not already demonstrated gross malfeasance in the ongoing Trump saga. Some folks here are choosing to willfully ignore abuses of the state (at least by those representing the state) that should be unacceptable in a lawful society.

 

[brihard]

Attack the argument, not the person. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Ok, but you’ve spent a few years accusing a number of us of “Trump Derangement Syndrome” when trying to discuss this material objectively. If this is a turning over of a new leaf and you’re committed to objectivity on this I’m sure I’m not the only one who would welcome that, but an admonishment from you to not ‘attack the person’ rings a bit hollow without there being some acknowledgement that you’ve very much been a part and parcel of that discord in the past.

 

[QV]

Ok, but you’ve spent a few years accusing a number of us of “Trump Derangement Syndrome” when trying to discuss this material objectively. for ignoring or glossing over important matters of state conduct that is one sided.

To be fair, that was probably me.

 

[brihard]

To be fair, that was probably me.

It's been both of you.

 

[KevinB]

I always thought TDS stood for Trump Document Scandal. Learn something new everyday.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Ok, but you’ve spent a few years accusing a number of us of “Trump Derangement Syndrome” when trying to discuss this material objectively. If this is a turning over of a new leaf and you’re committed to objectivity on this I’m sure I’m not the only one who would welcome that, but an admonishment from you to not ‘attack the person’ rings a bit hollow without there being some acknowledgement that you’ve very much been a part and parcel of that discord in the past.

Opinions. Everyone has 'em. Yours is not the same as mine. I have never denied being an opinionated dick, but it's like a 12 step program, one day at a time. Sometimes you falter, pick yourself up and try again. But I know you'll always be there to point out and bring attention to my stumble in public. I don't have to acknowledge anything, just because you say so. I'm fully aware of what I need to do, to turn around, without your input or lectures. Besides, even when I agree with you and we put things to bed, you still have a need to dredge things up to throw shade. Feel free to judge me in the future.

 

[Good2Golf]

I always thought TDS stood for Trump Document Scandal. Learn something new everyday.

The Comp Sci in me always thought TDS was an ALP in ISP’s TCP/IP like DHCP, DNS or FTP, or ISO’s OSI for DBs like SQL?

@PuckChaser, am I wrong?

 

[brihard]

Opinions. Everyone has 'em. Yours is not the same as mine. I have never denied being an opinionated dick, but it's like a 12 step program, one day at a time. Sometimes you falter, pick yourself up and try again. But I know you'll always be there to point out and bring attention to my stumble in public. I don't have to acknowledge anything, just because you say so. I'm fully aware of what I need to do, to turn around, without your input or lectures. Besides, even when I agree with you and we put things to bed, you still have a need to dredge things up to throw shade. Feel free to judge me in the future.

There are plenty of times you’ve been a dick to someone about something, including myself, and I haven’t bothered. I’m only pointing it out here to make sure that if there’s a new expectation from your end, the behaviour is reciprocated.

I can be accused of a lot of things, but I’m very sure nobody can accuse me of not being open to civil discussion on something where we disagree.

Like I said, if this is something where you’re working to engage more constructively than has sometimes been the case, I know I’m not the only one who welcomes that. Doesn’t mean I’m going to pretend it hasn’t gone a different way before if I think I see a double standard.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I acknowledge your post. You had the last word.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

It absolutely boggles my mind that between this hack of a MAGA sycophant and Brihard's very neutral, thorough, and technical analysis that clearly contradicts the premise of the article, you put more stock in the ham fisted reporting.

Having worked in government and seen really stupid stuff done by asskissers, I have no problem believing this could be a factor. The FBI has a history of picking sides at the high level, likley some of the more political types in senior ranks may be trying to tilt things.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Sorry, been busy at work for the day.

So, regarding this photo- it’s very important to recognize what it was

The much shorter and probable version is that it was propaganda that was quickly made available to the press. The people providing the information could have corrected the rampant speculation by explaining very clearly why the covers were present, but did not. That suggests intent to deceive for political purposes.

Given all the helpful leaks provided by to the press by the professional neutral non-biased objective duty-fixated balls-and-strikes members of the security and intelligence agencies of the US over the past 8 years (in particular), it's unreasonably naive to think this isn't just another attempt to put a thumb on a scale.

 

[TacticalTea]

The much shorter and probable version is that it was propaganda that was quickly made available to the press. The people providing the information could have corrected the rampant speculation by explaining very clearly why the covers were present, but did not. That suggests intent to deceive for political purposes.

Given all the helpful leaks provided by to the press by the professional neutral non-biased objective duty-fixated balls-and-strikes members of the security and intelligence agencies of the US over the past 8 years (in particular), it's unreasonably naive to think this isn't just another attempt to put a thumb on a scale.

What picture are we talking about exactly?

 

[brihard]

The much shorter and probable version is that it was propaganda that was quickly made available to the press. The people providing the information could have corrected the rampant speculation by explaining very clearly why the covers were present, but did not. That suggests intent to deceive for political purposes.

Given all the helpful leaks provided by to the press by the professional neutral non-biased objective duty-fixated balls-and-strikes members of the security and intelligence agencies of the US over the past 8 years (in particular), it's unreasonably naive to think this isn't just another attempt to put a thumb on a scale.

It wasn’t ’provided to’ the media by someone looking to get it out there. It was a matter of public record as a document filed in court that the media and other interested parties were actively seeking as soon as news of the search warrant broke, and which the judge unsealed in large part due to Trump’s own urging. There would not be an appropriate means or venue for investigators to offer that sort of elaboration on what, precisely, the photo is or represents. Bluntly, that public perception isn’t their problem. Their realm is the court proceedings.

The nature of any high profile or sensational investigation is that a bunch of people will be looking for some sort of angle to try to break first and publish. I’ve lived that on something I’ve been a part of. As an investigative team you shrug, ignore it, and carry on.

If they really wanted to put the thumb on the scale, there would be leaks in some detail about the more specific contents of some of the material seized from Mar a Lago. The very tiny bit we’ve gleaned so far suggests some pretty egregious stuff. Instead, investigators and prosecutors appear to be respecting the classification and caveats and letting the CIPA process play out. All of which is proper, and in accordance with the due process the defendant is entitled to.

Don’t forget that it was Trump who publicized the execution of the search warrant, and who immediately started railing to have the affidavit and property receipt unsealed and made public.

 

[Brad Sallows]

It wasn’t ’provided to’ the media by someone looking to get it out there. It was a matter of public record as a document filed in court that the media and other interested parties were actively seeking as soon as news of the search warrant broke

That disposes of the mistaken point that it was released.

It doesn't dispose of how the picture came to be.

 

[suffolkowner]

the electors should just put Nikki Haley down instead of Biden or Trump or RFKjr or ??

 

[Brad Sallows]

the electors should just put Nikki Haley down instead of Biden or Trump or RFKjr or ??

Voters can write in names on ballots. Electors cannot, but they can vote for a candidate other than that to which they are pledged ("faithless electors"). Penalties for doing so, if any, vary between states. Persuading some electors to not cast their votes for Trump was one of the gambits tossed around in 2016.

 

[PuckChaser]

The Comp Sci in me always thought TDS was an ALP in ISP’s TCP/IP like DHCP, DNS or FTP, or ISO’s OSI for DBs like SQL?

@PuckChaser, am I wrong?

Only if you're using CIDR for Option 121 IPSEC VPNs.

 

[dapaterson]

CPIP (RFC 1149) is the way to go.

 

[brihard]

That disposes of the mistaken point that it was released.

It doesn't dispose of how the picture came to be.

I spoke to that above, but I just found that I made a mistake. The single photo in question showing the coloured classification folders wasn’t part of the warrant return, nor was it part of the indictment. It was an appendix to the government’s reply to Judge Cannon on the request by Trump for a special master to review the seized documents. You may recall that was granted by Cannon, then promptly overturned by the 11th circuit court. In any case, the photo was attached on the last page as an illustration of the sort of materials found. See pages 13 (reference ‘attachment F) and the very last page of this filing if you’re curious enough to: DocumentCloud

The single photo wherein some classified documents were removed and replaced with folders as slip sheets hasn’t been put forward in anything I’ve seen as probative evidence. In any case, “they released a photo with substituted classified folders instead of actual classified documents!” isn’t the gotcha some right wing media seem to think it is. It certainly isn’t evidence tampering.

I found and just read through the filing from this past Friday where it’s acknowledged that a few documents ended up out of order after the movement of the boxes and the digitization of contents for the special master at Trump’s request. What’s very clear is that every document’s source box remains accounted for as does their original location within the boxes. Given what the charges actually are, the bare existence of those documents bearing National Defence Information in the premises where they were seized will be enough to make our the relevant elements of any charges.

That filing can be read here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.522.0.pdf Pages 6-8 and footnote 3 are the relevant portions for this discussion. Now that I’ve found this and read it, this is an absolute nothingburger.