55
submitted 1 month ago by RandAlThor@lemmy.ca to c/politics@lemmy.world

A handful of documents found by the FBI at Mar-a-Lago were so sensitive that even a senior Justice Department official didn’t have authorization to see them.

top 13 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] wuffah@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

For anyone wondering why we keep top secret documentation in printed form, some of this stuff is so secret they don’t trust electronic devices to house it. To dump it in a bathroom in Mar-a-Lago is a sin that defies comprehension.

In a transcript of a July 2021 meeting obtained for his indictment, this is a direct quote from Trump, speaking to a White House staffer:

“Secret. This is secret information. Look, look at this.”

Only a senile malignant narcissist could lack the self-awareness to say such a thing. When I say Trump is clinically insane, this is what I mean. The fact that this man is president instills a dread approaching cosmic horror. My highest hope at this point is to survive the next three years without a nuclear holocaust.

[-] ReallyActuallyFrankenstein@lemmynsfw.com 12 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Some of this information was available but read the entire article. It's very good reporting on just how clear Trump's intent to break the law was, the extreme sensitivity of the documents, and the clear lies Trump told in response to the raid and demands. Just an example excerpt:

Olsen’s minders then told him about a fourth stack of documents, stored in a separate safe, explaining that only one agent in the field office was approved to handle them. Each of the documents in the safe bore a ticket with coding that described its unique handling instructions — above and beyond the strict approvals for highly sensitive top-secret and sensitive compartmented information.

Olsen got on the phone with his counsel to read the codes aloud, one by one, to determine if he had permission to view them. Some of the documents were so restricted that top Justice Department security officials reacted with surprise to the code names: They had never heard of them before. Some involved special access programs that required the president or a cabinet member to grant approval to view.

The documents that Trump did not turn over - after repeated requests were ignored, after turning over the initial boxes, the false "complete" folder of additional documents, showing the FBI the room with other boxes that was staged after they moved out other incriminating documents - were documents so sensitive that infosec policy required the acting president or cabinet member to personally authorize any request to view them.

If Trump "authorizes" the DOJ to settle his frivolous lawsuit related to the FBI raid, it will be a criminal openly stealing public funds in retribution for catching him red-handed after he repeatedly lied to police, and for nearly but not even making him face consequences. It gives me a headache how corrupt, unethical, and immoral that would be.

[-] HasturInYellow@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago

The fact that every level of law enforcement has failed so utterly in this regard is the most damning reason for a wholesale restructuring and rewriting of our legal codes and governing system. It is unconscionable to be a part of such a broken society.

[-] zd9@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago

History will go back and look at all of these enabling acts that brought about the fascist collapse of the American Empire. People in the future would be like, WHY WASN'T HE ARRESTED FOR THE BLATANT CRIMES??? in the same way we go "why wasn't Hitler stopped after this or that event?"

[-] RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago

This, I blame Biden for. He knew Trump was a traitor, and did absolutely nothing about it, while telling the public every day how big of a threat Trump will be. Biden willfully allowed this to happen.

[-] dondelelcaro@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

Biden could have done more, but Trump was charged and was in the process of being tried when Aileen Cannon blocked it. The appeal was abandoned when Trump was reelected. If the case was in front of an actual unbiased jurist, it would have gone much farther, but Cannon is pretty infamous for being a biased and inadequate jurist

[-] Serinus@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Biden's idea was that ordering the DoJ to go after his political opponent, justified or not, would be something that would never be undone and the American people would never forgive.

He also had faith that the American people, when presented with a choice between a bumbling fascist idiot and anyone else, they would make the right choice. If he's right, not putting any pressure on the judicial branch should do the least damage.

He gambled for what he thought was the overall best outcome and lost. It's no coincidence that was also the path that required him to do nothing extreme.

America had forgotten how to do bold things. The Dems realized they couldn't campaign on status quo even though that was pretty decent and improving. And when they needed to come up with something more, their best answer was, "idk, $50k towards your first house, if the Republicans let us?"

I don't know which is worse, Obama for not forcing his Supreme Court justice through or Robert fucking Mueller, who was too fucking scared to actually outright say he's guilty af, even if he did line everything up for Congress to draw that conclusion.

This is an explicit admission that the law is powerless against at least the president, but also likely many many more people in power. Freedom cannot exist if some people have cart blanche to trample other peoples freedoms, so now by the US's own word, they are no longer a free country.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

If it had been anyone else, he would have been arrested - within hours of them realizing those things were missing.

[-] DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

How about do your fucking job when we most need you to? Worthless jerks.

[-] shittydwarf@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 month ago

"You might be a fascist cocksucker if you say this"

[-] santa@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 month ago

The problem is — it shouldn’t matter. A crime is a crime. Succession is built into our foundation.

[-] rockettaco37@feddit.nu 1 points 1 month ago

Fascists don't play by the rules.

I seriously hope Trump gets taken out full on Mussolini style...

this post was submitted on 03 Nov 2025
55 points (100.0% liked)

politics

26774 readers
1064 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS