Re:Judge dismisses classified documents case against Donald ...
by ceejayoz on Monday July 15, 2024 @10:57AM
(#40968434)
No, the important part of your claim is "It was regular papers before".
The TOP SECRET cover sheets cover TOP SECRET classified information, not "regular papers".
They were "super illegal" with or without the cover sheets.
Re:Judge dismisses classified documents case against Donald ...
by meragrin_ on Monday July 15, 2024 @12:15PM
(#40969165)
> They were "super illegal" with or without the cover sheets.
Um, not necessarily. They were going to court to determine that.
Re:Judge dismisses classified documents case against Donald ...
by ceejayoz on Monday July 15, 2024 @12:55PM
(#40969527)
The point is that putting a "TOP SECRET" cover sheet on a TOP SECRET document doesn't change the status of what's underneath that cover sheet.
They didn't bring a bunch of "TOP SECRET" cover sheets to sprinkle on random unclassified docs to make it look more illegal than it was. They weren't "regular papers"; they were classified documents.
Re:Judge dismisses classified documents case against Donald ...
by ricktdotorg on Monday July 15, 2024 @10:58AM
(#40968443)
steady on. you said
> It was regular papers before and made to look super illegal in the photo
it was "regular papers before" does not match with the evidence regarding the large amount of classified documents found, that had to be covered with coversheets so that classified information would not be leaked.
Yes it does. You're just describing what they did in more detail, but it doesn't change the fact of my claim.
edit: Regular papers meaning they didn't have TOP SECRET cover sheets on them originally