Donnie Dumptruck says Mar-A-Lago's been searched by the FBI

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New Trump statement - under the "Trump projection" rubric this totally means that there were classified nuclear documents at MAL, right?

Is this libel?

No. Let’s just put both Trump and Obama in a cell together and call it a day.

Why?

2 for 1 discount if they both took home nuclear secrets.

This really is libel, and if some armed vigilante shows up at Obama's house likat guy did at Comet Ping Pong, it could get dangerous.

It may be dumb, but it’s certainly not libel.

Why not? It's a published statement. It's false. It's damaging to Obama's reputation. It sounds like libel to me.

Presidents are public figures and libel law is complex and nuanced when it comes to fact vs. opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New Trump statement - under the "Trump projection" rubric this totally means that there were classified nuclear documents at MAL, right?

Is this libel?

No. Let’s just put both Trump and Obama in a cell together and call it a day.

Why?

2 for 1 discount if they both took home nuclear secrets.

This really is libel, and if some armed vigilante shows up at Obama's house likat guy did at Comet Ping Pong, it could get dangerous.

It may be dumb, but it’s certainly not libel.

Why not? It's a published statement. It's false. It's damaging to Obama's reputation. It sounds like libel to me.

Presidents are public figures and libel law is complex and nuanced when it comes to fact vs. opinion.

Public figures can still sue for libel. The bar is higher, but this would clear it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New Trump statement - under the "Trump projection" rubric this totally means that there were classified nuclear documents at MAL, right?

Is this libel?

No. Let’s just put both Trump and Obama in a cell together and call it a day.

Why?

2 for 1 discount if they both took home nuclear secrets.

This really is libel, and if some armed vigilante shows up at Obama's house likat guy did at Comet Ping Pong, it could get dangerous.

If you insist.

It may be dumb, but it’s certainly not libel.

Why not? It's a published statement. It's false. It's damaging to Obama's reputation. It sounds like libel to me.

Presidents are public figures and libel law is complex and nuanced when it comes to fact vs. opinion.

Public figures can still sue for libel. The bar is higher, but this would clear it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Initial reports of inventory indicated 11 sets of classified documents were siezed, with several classified as SCI, one of the highest levels. Holy smokes.

To clarify, the materials would be marked TS/SCI and could only seen by someone with the appropriate clearance who has been read into a SCIF. They are likely to consist in part of analyses of decrypted communications intercepts (SIGINT) based on other reporting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Initial reports of inventory indicated 11 sets of classified documents were siezed, with several classified as SCI, one of the highest levels. Holy smokes.

To clarify, the materials would be marked TS/SCI and could only seen by someone with the appropriate clearance who has been read into a SCIF. They are likely to consist in part of analyses of decrypted communications intercepts (SIGINT) based on other reporting.

This sounds bad

[Anonymous]

From the WSJ:

The Federal Bureau of Investigation agents took around 20 boxes of items, binders of photos, a handwritten note and the executive grant of clemency for Mr. Trump’s ally Roger Stone, a list of items removed from the property shows. Also included in the list was information about the “President of France,” according to the three-page list.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm beginning to wonder more about the WHY. Why did Trump have any documents at all at Mar-a-Lago?

Dumb and sloppy.

I want to know who helped him. It's not like Trump, himself, thumbed through the file cabinets and chose what to take.

“The Daily” Podcast had on a reporter who reported that for weeks before he left the White House he was asking staff to bring him this document or that document into his residence. No one was logging what they gave him. I think staff was sloppy, but Trump just flagrantly didn’t want to comply with the Presidential Records Act. He considered the documents his, not the nations and behaved accordingly.

[Anonymous]

Hey! As a French national, what’s this about “President of France”???

Now this is a global problem. If Trump was going to exploit French nuclear tech or French secrets, there’s going to be hell to pay.

[Anonymous]

Don't lie about the National Archives and their documents

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don't lie about the National Archives and their documents

don't mess with librarians!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don't lie about the National Archives and their documents

You mean Fatso told a lie?

[Anonymous]

How many lies has Trumpworld told about this just since Monday?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Initial reports of inventory indicated 11 sets of classified documents were siezed, with several classified as SCI, one of the highest levels. Holy smokes.

To clarify, the materials would be marked TS/SCI and could only seen by someone with the appropriate clearance who has been read into a SCIF. They are likely to consist in part of analyses of decrypted communications intercepts (SIGINT) based on other reporting.

This sounds bad

It is bad.

[Anonymous]

love this:

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:love this:

Nicely done.