FBI investigation data in Rollingstone article

[The IbanezerScrooge]

I mentioned this in another thread. 'This' being the new schoolyard version of excuses. 'I only broke the one window! I didn't burn down the school!'

What we are going to see quite frequently from now on is the Nuclear Option. That is, when it becomes undeniable that Trump had classified documents that it was illegal for him to have, then people are going to push the fact that it could have been as bad as having info on nuclear armaments. 'But hey, it was nowhere as dangerous as that so...give the poor guy a break. It's not like he was selling info to the Russians!'

Maybe some guy who's been caught cheating by his wife could try that: 'Hey, it was just two of the girls in the office. It's not like I slept with all the women I work with'.

Sound like a good excuse to you? It sounds pathetic to me.

It's pretty undeniable already, but his sycophants don't care.

https://image.cnbcfm.com/api/v1/ima...umpdox.jpg?v=1661920966&w=740&h=416&ffmt=webp

 

[NxNW]

"nuclear documents" being nothing of the sort and the Mar a Lago raid being a dud.

Link, please.

 

[essentialsaltes]

classic

 

[durangodawood]

I like that folks are dickering over whether or not the info was leaked. When what matters is that the top secret nuclear threat to national security documents, are in reality essentially tabloid material about the president of France.

Because its distressing to think the people right here are fabricating or lying to us.

 

[ozso]

Because its distressing to think the people right here are fabricating or lying to us.

Lying about what?

 

[ozso]

I mentioned this in another thread. 'This' being the new schoolyard version of excuses. 'I only broke the one window! I didn't burn down the school!'

What we are going to see quite frequently from now on is the Nuclear Option. That is, when it becomes undeniable that Trump had classified documents that it was illegal for him to have, then people are going to push the fact that it could have been as bad as having info on nuclear armaments. 'But hey, it was nowhere as dangerous as that so...give the poor guy a break. It's not like he was selling info to the Russians!'

Maybe some guy who's been caught cheating by his wife could try that: 'Hey, it was just two of the girls in the office. It's not like I slept with all the women I work with'.

Sound like a good excuse to you? It sounds pathetic to me.

I think the media, politicians and the internet going on and on about a national security threat and saying Trump was planning on selling the documents to the Russian mafia or trade them in exchange for money he owes them, isn't something that should be forgotten if none of that turns out to be true.

And if they end up trying to prosecute Trump over documents containing stuff like info about Maricon's sex life, I don't think it's going to go over very well. How this turns out and how it's handled will probably have an impact on how Americans vote a couple of months from now. So far it's sounding to me like it's another case of much ado about nothing.

 

[BPPLEE]

I mentioned this in another thread. 'This' being the new schoolyard version of excuses. 'I only broke the one window! I didn't burn down the school!'

What we are going to see quite frequently from now on is the Nuclear Option. That is, when it becomes undeniable that Trump had classified documents that it was illegal for him to have, then people are going to push the fact that it could have been as bad as having info on nuclear armaments. 'But hey, it was nowhere as dangerous as that so...give the poor guy a break. It's not like he was selling info to the Russians!'

Maybe some guy who's been caught cheating by his wife could try that: 'Hey, it was just two of the girls in the office. It's not like I slept with all the women I work with'.

Sound like a good excuse to you? It sounds pathetic to me.

In law enforcement when you go after the big fish you have to make sure you have all your ducks in a row. If the FBI went after Trump over trivial things it's going to be embarrassing.

 

[durangodawood]

Lying about what?

The FBI leaking.

 

[ozso]

In law enforcement when you go after the big fish you have to make sure you have all your ducks in a row. If the FBI went after Trump over trivial things it's going to be embarrassing.

It's going to fit into the witch hunt category. It's going to look like a purely desperate "Hail Mary pass" political move with the midterms being a couple of months away. I know that's how I'm going to see it.

 

[ozso]

The FBI leaking.

So all the distracting outrage is over a single word error the OP made. I suppose there's no way the OP just simply made a mistake to those who disapprove of his political stance. Much ado about nothing.

 

[durangodawood]

So all the distracting outrage is over a single word error the OP made. I suppose there's no way the OP just simply made a mistake to those who disapprove of his political stance. Much ado about nothing.

Its not just "a word". Its a claim of illegal and immoral activity. Its a smear.

 

[BPPLEE]

Its not just "a word". Its a claim of illegal and immoral activity. Its a smear.

It's illegal and immoral to leak? It didn't seem that way a couple of years ago

 

[ozso]

Its not just "a word". Its a claim of illegal and immoral activity. Its a smear.

Much ado over nothing.

 

[durangodawood]

It's illegal and immoral to leak? It didn't seem that way a couple of years ago

The OP thinks so. The clear purpose is to malign the FBI.

 

[sfs]

So all the distracting outrage is over a single word error the OP made.

Right. If I say that John killed his wife when actually he kissed his wife, it's a single word error. I can't see why John would be upset with me.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yes, yes, let's deflect away from the "nuclear documents" being nothing of the sort and the Mar a Lago raid being a dud.

I'll let you dig up the claims about nuclear information from the *original* press reports. (I think it was NYT, but I don't exactly recall.) That reporting has certainly attracted attention and has bounced around the internet. It has also been "reframed" in media accounts that don't have the original source for the claim, but now all of us do.

As part of their response to the ex-President in the Trump v. USA case about the "special master", the DOJ filed a subpoena issued by a grand jury in DC for documents not recovered early this year. It lists a sequence of markings from classified documentation they are looking for.

"Any and all documents or writings in the custody or control of Donald J. Trump and/or the Office of Donald J. Trump bearing classification markings, including but not limited to the following: Top Secret, Secret, Confidential, Top Secret/SI-G/NOFORN/ORCON, Top Secret/SI-G/NOFORN, Top Secret/HCS-O/NOFORN/ORCON, Top Secret/HCS–O/NOFORN, Top Secret/HCS-P/NOFORN/ORCON, Top Secret/HCS-P/NOFORN, Top Secret/TK/NOFORN/ORCON, Top Secret/TK/NOFORN, 1- Secret/NOFORN, Confidential/NOFORN, TS, TS/SAP, TS/SI-G/NF/OC, TS/SI-G/NF, TS/HCS0/NF/OC, TS/HCS-0/NF, TS/HCS-P/NF/OC, TS/HCS-P/NF, TS/HCS-P/SI-G, TS/HCS-P/SI/TK, TS/TK/NF/OC, TS/TK/NF, S/NF, S/FRD, S/NATO, S/SI, C, and C/NF."

SI is "signals intel", NOFORN is "do not distribute to foreign persons or gov.", HCS is "human intel (spies)", SAP is "special access program", TK is related to satellite data collection, and ORCON is "originator controlled" (ie. declass by original classifier).

There is one more marking that really matters here: "FRD" is "former restricted data" a DOE marking that refers to information that while not classified is covered by the Atomic Energy Act.

Anyone who had seen the GJ subpoena and understood those codes (or knew where to find them) could know that they search included nuclear information. Now who had that subpoena and could have shared it:

The Grand Jury in DC
The Chief Judge in DC supervising the GJ
The DOJ lawyers working on the investigations
The FBI agents working on the case and serving the subpoena

All of these people have an obligation to keep the contents of the investigation and GJ work confidential.

There was another, smaller, group of people that knew the contents of the subpoena and *didn't* have an obligation to keep the subpoena confidential:

The person receiving the subpoena (Donald J. Trump) and his lawyers. They have the right (unless under seal from the judge) to tell anyone and everyone that they got a subpoena. (The DOJ filing from last night indicates that the Trump team *did* release information from the subpoena which is how they got the DC CJ to release it.)

That subpoena from May can be found on page 11 of this filing from the DOJ last night:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763.48.1_5.pdf

So far everything that looks like a DOJ/FBI leak can be traced to information the reporters could have gotten from Trump or his lawyers. In this instance, the most likely explanation is that a reporter with close contacts with Trump or his inner circle was shown the DC GJ subpoena, recognized the "FRD" marking as referring to nuclear information and included that item as part of the "things sought" by the search in the article.

No original reporting (or DOJ filling) has claimed that such information was found, but it was (not so clearly) on the list of things sought.

 

[ozso]

Right. If I say that John killed his wife when actually he kissed his wife, it's a single word error. I can't see why John would be upset with me.

Well if you did that on purpose it would be malicious intent. Is that what the OP is being accused of?

 

[ozso]

The OP thinks so. The clear purpose is to malign the FBI.

Okay there's a direct accusation of malicious intent.

 

[Sparagmos]

I like that folks are dickering over whether or not the info was leaked. When what matters is that the top secret nuclear threat to national security documents, are in reality essentially tabloid material about the president of France.

What are you talking about? The file on Macron was only one of many documents that were taken. Have you read the list?

And this, as far as we know, isn’t about a nuclear threat. That’s a strawman.

 

[essentialsaltes]

There is one more marking that really matters here: "FRD" is "former restricted data" a DOE marking that refers to information that while not classified is covered by the Atomic Energy Act.

Found a nice explainer from DOE. Slide 21


What is Formerly Restricted Data?

Information classified under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 that has been removed from the RD category and placed in the FRD category after DOE and the Department of Defense have jointly determined that it:

relates primarily to the military
utilization of atomic weapons and

can be adequately safeguarded
in a manner similar to National
Security Information.*

*FRD is not automatically declassified, is treated as RD in foreign transmission, and requires special markings

Don't misunderstand the term
"Formerly" to mean that the
information is no longer classified.
IT IS STILL CLASSIFIED.