CONFIRMED: As Gateway Pundit Reported — FBI Doctored Mar-a-Lago Photo

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: network dude

They knew what could be taken. Any classified documents, any boxes containing classified documents and anything contained within those boxes, and any Presidential/government records from between January 20th, 2016 and January 20th, 2021.

If Trump's passports were in one of those boxes where classified documents were found then they were fair game under the warrant.

While going through all those boxes, if they find something that may fall under attorney-client privilege then it was immediately set aside, and packed in a separate box that the filter team then reviewed.

this is one of those thought exercises. There is a box of papers, Jimmy from the FBI is the agent tasked with looking through Box 3A. When he comes across a document that should be Attorney Client privilege paper, how does he identify that?

A. Osmosis?
B. Divine intervention?
C. Reading the #ing document?

Have fun trying to tap dance to that song.

a reply to: underpass61

Where did they leak a photo of the Trump raid?

Every major employer in the US and most of their staff are granted accesss to top secret/NOFORN files of foreign intelligence/industrial espionage files collated by FBI/Intel services to protect their profits in the interest of 'National Security'.

Every country does it, they're not meant to under international law, but it's common place in all countries. It's also a high profile target to foreign espionage as the companys/universities have a very lax attitude to handling top secrect info.

I know from personal experience the UK, I was able to access/download all files by complete accident (searching intranet for info about a certain building a paticular country). I never got raided and pointed out the massive security flaws to relevant bodies but Iran and Russia had managed to access the files from other Unis before the massive breach of security was corrected - none of those responsible were raided.

Unless the files in Trump's possesion are major (nuclear secrets, proof of aliens, identifiable info of foriegn agents/sources then it's a bit of a nothing burger and very hard to see the raid wasn't targetted given the lack of raids on hunreds/thousands of staff who allowed China to obtain Terrabytes of top secret info.

Such massive lapses in security protocol, even instances of child porn distributution rings, are usually 'brushed under the rug' to avoid damaging the reputation of the company/intel services/government. A raid as public as this feels like theatre

I remember having these same conversations about the Russian collusion investigation. Everyone on both sides presented to be legal experts; bringing up one obscure point after another that unquestionably prooved that Donald Trump was guilty or winning 3D checkers with the investigators.

Than the exact same thing happened regarding the phone call between Donald Trump and the Ukrainian President.

Than the exact same thing happened with the Jan 6th hearings.

Ect ect ect

All the while the Democrats/FBI/DOJ/state attorneys have not been able to show that their countless investigations can result in any sort of punishment for Donald Trump ... how do I know this because he hasn't been indicated, imprisoned, or removed from office.

If this Document Gate was the first "offense" or even the second I might be inclined take a "wait and see approach' on Donald Trump's innocence or guilt. But how many times can the prosecution cry wolf befor it just gets boring and not worth worrying about?

a reply to: optimisticcontrarian

Are there any other sources that confirm this theory?
Is there any proof that theory explained by the article is accurate ?


If someone uses CNN, Wiki, MSN, FOX , YouTube, FactCheck as a source people here jump on the classic CT trope of , "no thanks , thats part of the Liberal MSM machine".

Yet without hesitation people here are willing to accept a source that is clearly biased and clealry supports one side of the political narrative in the US.

So back to my initial question, any corroborating source?

a reply to: opethPA

Since we are talking FBI, it's easy to believe they would be deceitful.

Very easy!

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: opethPA

Since we are talking FBI, it's easy to believe they would be deceitful.

Very easy!

That is your opinion and while we are constantly on the opposite sides of what you post I fully support your freedom to make that choice. Hell i usually * all your posts because while i do not agree with anything you say I always want to engage with someone that cares or has passion vs being a potato.

All that being said, any other source confirming the TGP theory?

If not can you explain the logic behind a clearly biased site like TGP being a valid single source yet multiple other sources arent valid?

a reply to: network dude

The courts have been pretty clear that as long as investigators employ methods to minimize exposure to attorney-client privileged documents, then there are no issues.

If investigators were not permitted to read any document that could be attorney-client privileged, it would completely destroy the use of search warrants as an investigative tool as every document has the potential to be attorney-client privileged.

The FBI had procedures in place to minimize exposure to attorney-client privileged documents. As long as those documents are returned to Trump, the courts will find no issue with how the warrant was executed.

Just as an aside, the courts have danced around the question but no decision exists that explicitly states that attorney-client privilege is protected by the 4th Amendment.

originally posted by: network dude

this is one of those thought exercises. There is a box of papers, Jimmy from the FBI is the agent tasked with looking through Box 3A. When he comes across a document that should be Attorney Client privilege paper, how does he identify that?

A. Osmosis?
B. Divine intervention?
C. Reading the #ing document?

Have fun trying to tap dance to that song.

A. Jimmy from the FBI doesn't go through the boxes UNLESS he has the proper clearances AND HAS BEEN TRAINED to sort through this kind of thing.
B. His findings are reported. The findings go to a team including lawyers who decide.
C. ...which was all discussed in a number of news items that I read.


Here's a page from a law firm that (eventually) discusses FBI actions and attorney client documents

And here's the American Bar Association on the same topic but dealing with an issue that you may have forgotten, which was the raid on Trump's former lawyer. The issue of attorney-client privilege arose then.

Not too hard to answer, really.

originally posted by: opethPA
a reply to: optimisticcontrarian

Are there any other sources that confirm this theory?
Is there any proof that theory explained by the article is accurate ?

I think that what they did was look at the FBI's "here's what we found" photo and screamed.

Yes, that photo is staged to show "here's what we found" not "here's what was in situ." So in that respect, it was indeed staged. Business Insider (a source often used here as a neutral source) discusses this and points out that it's standard "here's what we found" practice.

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: opethPA
a reply to: optimisticcontrarian

Are there any other sources that confirm this theory?
Is there any proof that theory explained by the article is accurate ?

I think that what they did was look at the FBI's "here's what we found" photo and screamed.

Yes, that photo is staged to show "here's what we found" not "here's what was in situ." So in that respect, it was indeed staged. Business Insider (a source often used here as a neutral source) discusses this and points out that it's standard "here's what we found" practice.

You think it's 'standard practice' to put EMPTY classified pouches on the floor to make it look like something it isn't?

The POUCH itself is NOT classified information.

You're smarter than that.

Sorry to see your TDS hasn't subsided yet.

So the FBI had to do a Terry Stop to make sure Melania’s panties were not armed then?

a reply to: Byrd

"Jimmy from the FBI doesn't go through the boxes UNLESS he has the proper clearances AND HAS BEEN TRAINED to sort through this kind of thing."


Jimmy from the fbi was FIRED by the FBI and quietly escorted out of the building immediately after Trump supporters started reporting on what he did during the raid, and the fbi is still doing everything it can to hide the 'evidence' used to obtain the search warrant in the first place.


Nice try though.

Jimmy from the fbi was FIRED by the FBI and quietly escorted out of the building

Thats just it people dont want to believe this happened but we have all these firings and all this other scandal surrounding this , yet its somehow not believeable WITH ALL the crap going on around this , that they would doctor this?

Im sorry, theyre so damn desperate to get something on Trump thats EXACTLY what they would do and they were caught

a reply to: MidnightWatcher

If you're not concerned by the 43 missing classified documents, what about the over 20 that were recovered?

a reply to: MidnightWatcher

Tim Thibault was not part of the raid. He was part of the Crimes/Cyber division. The division responsible for the Trump investigation is Counterintelligence.

Nice try though.

a reply to: optimisticcontrarian

What firings and scandals are surrounding this investigation?

All the evidence in the Photo(s) are tainted because none of it was sealed and examined by a forensics team in a Lab.

They're setting up their exit strategy and still want points to be sucked-in by Public Opinion 😎😀

Obvious 🤣🤣🤣🤣

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: opethPA
a reply to: optimisticcontrarian

Are there any other sources that confirm this theory?
Is there any proof that theory explained by the article is accurate ?

I think that what they did was look at the FBI's "here's what we found" photo and screamed.

Yes, that photo is staged to show "here's what we found" not "here's what was in situ."

Has anybody seen the "here's what we found" photo from Epstein island?
Anybody?

a reply to: xuenchen

Why would the documents needed to be examined by the forensics lab? Was there also a dead body discovered in Trump's office that the FBI failed to mention?