BOMBSHELL: FBI Staged Fake Photo of Classified Documents for PR Purposes

[Sam]

That doesn't change the fact that your PARAPHRASE of the CP's complaint was misrepresentative of what he actually wrote. You may not agree with his complaint, but you did not actually represent his complaint in an honest manner.

The complaint is that the FBI found classified documents at Mar-a-Lago and instead of publishing a photograph that displayed the content of those documents, it used cover sheets relevant to the level of classification in each document and, in doing so, misrepresented its discovery.

Does that make the photograph "kinda, sorta faked. Staged. Not accurate at all. A sham. A con. Complete BS", as alleged? No, it does not — at least not for anyone with a sense of object permanence. The photo isn't staged or fake, it's as accurate a representation of what the FBI found as you can get without actually displaying the naked documents themselves. So unless the complaint is that these documents should have been photographed without hiding their classified material, there's no real complaint at all.

-Sam

[Sam]

Fact is, regardless of the spin, in a high profile case like this it is IMPERATIVE to do things entirely by the book to prevent even the allegation of wrongdoing.

Clearly, that was not the case.

Why is that clear? What's "by the book" in this instance? What is the SOP for photographing classified documents during recovery and what citation do you offer as support?

-Sam

[CivilDiscourse]

The complaint is that the FBI found classified documents at Mar-a-Lago and instead of publishing a photograph that displayed the content of those documents, it used cover sheets relevant to the level of classification in each document and, in doing so, misrepresented its discovery.

Does that make the photograph "kinda, sorta faked. Staged. Not accurate at all. A sham. A con. Complete BS", as alleged? No, it does not — at least not for anyone with a sense of object permanence. The photo isn't staged or fake, it's as accurate a representation of what the FBI found as you can get without actually displaying the naked documents themselves. So unless the complaint is that these documents should have been photographed without hiding their classified material, there's no real complaint at all.

-Sam

Again, that does not change that your paraphrase of his complaint was incorrect.

[Cow Poke]

Why is that clear? What's "by the book" in this instance? What is the SOP for photographing classified documents during recovery and what citation do you offer as support?

-Sam

The way they did it is a good example of how not to, Sam.

[Sam]

The way they did it is a good example of how not to, Sam.

Based on what SOP? You argue that this wasn't done "by the book". I'm interested in knowing what "the book" actually says.

-Sam

[Cow Poke]

Based on what SOP? You argue that this wasn't done "by the book". I'm interested in knowing what "the book" actually says.

-Sam

It's a 'paraphrase', Sam.

[Mountain Man]

... what's being depicted in the photograph is an accurate representation of what the government found ...

Demonstrably false. They did not find a trove of documents with colored cover sheets emblazoned with "TOP SECRET". Those sheets were literally planted by the agents themselves during the raid. This begs the question: What else was planted?

Back when Mar-a-Lago was raided, and the FBI refused to allow President Trump's lawyers or any of his staff to accompany them, I voiced my concerns then about this suspicious behavior, saying that it could give the FBI the opportunity to plant evidence in order to frame the President. Of course my (as it turns out wholly legitimate) concerns were loudly dismissed by the TDS crowd as a ridiculous conspiracy theory.

It turns out I was right.

[Sam]

It's a 'paraphrase', Sam.

OK. So, again, there's not an actual complaint here. It's not that taking the photograph in this manner violates proper practice but that you don't like the photograph existing, as there isn't another way to photograph "naked" classified documents without revealing their contents.

-Sam

[Cow Poke]

OK. So, again, there's not an actual complaint here. It's not that taking the photograph in this manner violates proper practice but that you don't like the photograph existing, as there isn't another way to photograph "naked" classified documents without revealing their contents.

-Sam

Then go find somebody else to harass, Sam.

[Sparko]

The complaint is that the FBI found classified documents at Mar-a-Lago and instead of publishing a photograph that displayed the content of those documents, it used cover sheets relevant to the level of classification in each document and, in doing so, misrepresented its discovery.

Does that make the photograph "kinda, sorta faked. Staged. Not accurate at all. A sham. A con. Complete BS", as alleged? No, it does not — at least not for anyone with a sense of object permanence. The photo isn't staged or fake, it's as accurate a representation of what the FBI found as you can get without actually displaying the naked documents themselves. So unless the complaint is that these documents should have been photographed without hiding their classified material, there's no real complaint at all.

-Sam

Sam if you look at the picture they actually DO show the documents themselves and redacted the words off the page. The problem is ADDING cover sheets to those documents and then claiming that is what they found. That is a lie. They could have just photographed the actual documents (which they did) without the cover sheets. So the photograph is not a photograph of what they found. It is changed. It created a false impression. One that they wanted to create.

docs.jpg

[Mountain Man]

Fact is, regardless of the spin, in a high profile case like this it is IMPERATIVE to do things entirely by the book to prevent even the allegation of wrongdoing.

Clearly, that was not the case.

Smith was pushing hard for a quick trial, likely to keep his misdeeds hidden, but Judge Cannon smelled a rat and pulled the brakes. This is what happens when lawfare runs into an honest judge.

[Cow Poke]

Sam if you look at the picture they actually DO show the documents themselves and redacted the words off the page. The problem is ADDING cover sheets to those documents and then claiming that is what they found. That is a lie. They could have just photographed the actual documents (which they did) without the cover sheets. So the photograph is not a photograph of what they found. It is changed. It created a false impression. One that they wanted to create.

docs.jpg

When doing a high profile case like this, again, it is IMPERATIVE that you do it right. Cases have been thrown out of court for far less. You want to do your best not to give ANY opportunity for the defense to claim things weren't done properly.

[Sam]

Sam if you look at the picture they actually DO show the documents themselves and redacted the words off the page. The problem is ADDING cover sheets to those documents and then claiming that is what they found. That is a lie. They could have just photographed the actual documents (which they did) without the cover sheets. So the photograph is not a photograph of what they found. It is changed. It created a false impression. One that they wanted to create.

docs.jpg

I'm seeing redactions on cover folders that were recovered (meaning the documents are or should be inside — some documents were found outside their cover folders and some folders did not have corresponding documents) and FBI-provided cover sheets for documents that are outside their cover folders (i.e., "naked" documents). What are you seeing?

Again, I don't think anyone here has actual citations of LEO or prosecutors "claiming that is what they found". I think y'all are making an inference from the provided photo and backfilling quotations or claims that probably don't exist.

-Sam

ETA: I'll have to look for a higher resolution photo but if those are redacted documents and not cover folders then I really don't see the complaint. If anything, I'd suggest that taking photographs of the content of classified documents to redact later would be a problem. The argument "The government took a photo of classified documents next to classification cover sheets they had to use" absolutely doesn't get you anywhere.

[rogue06]

Since the mishandling of document order occurred during subsequent reviews after the boxes had been relocated to DC, no.

-Sam

So two separate instances of mishandling classified evidence.

They should charge OMB with them as well.

[rogue06]

Sam if you look at the picture they actually DO show the documents themselves and redacted the words off the page. The problem is ADDING cover sheets to those documents and then claiming that is what they found. That is a lie. They could have just photographed the actual documents (which they did) without the cover sheets. So the photograph is not a photograph of what they found. It is changed. It created a false impression. One that they wanted to create.

docs.jpg

Yup. They wanted to create the impression that OMB not only had the documents, but rather they were all clearly marked as being classified which the bad man simply ignored anyway. This was designed to mislead the public but now may be part of what gets the case tossed (although I doubt it if the judge knows what's good for her)