Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

So are we pretty much admitting now WAPO lied about nuclear?

---

Probably.

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

So are we pretty much admitting now WAPO lied about nuclear?

---

Appears so. From national defense to "nuclear" to "Miscellaneous Classified Documents"???

When the warrant says things like "all records between January 20, 2017 through January 20, 2021" that means any and everything and is directly tied to the Presidential Records Act which again does not have criminal penalties in the statute.

By that one statement alone, it is an admission that it was a fishing expedition and not narrowly drawn in scope, contrary to what Garland asserted yesterday.

aggiehawg said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

So are we pretty much admitting now WAPO lied about nuclear?

---

Appears so. From national defense to "nuclear" to "Miscellaneous Classified Documents"???

When the warrant says things like "all records between January 20, 2017 through January 20, 2021" that means any and everything and is directly tied to the Presidential Records Act which again does not have criminal penalties in the statute.

By that one statement alone, it is an admission that it was a fishing expedition and not narrowly drawn in scope, contrary to what Garland asserted yesterday.

---

I really thought they would hide this and have something "specific" they were looking for and then just grab what they wanted in the process of executing the search. Nope, they literally said they were taking everything and a judge approved it. I don't see how this is legal.

dermdoc said:

---

I have two questions.

Why now?

What is the purpose?

---

Those are good questions, but for those who made the decisions to get the search warrant.

I'd like to know,, too.

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

So are we pretty much admitting now WAPO lied about nuclear?

---

What actual information do you have that makes you think that they lied?

All I've seen is a bunch of speculation with no basis in fact at all. We need facts, not speculation. We cannot logically jump to the conclusion that things like "miscellaneous top secret documents" covers or does not cover nuclear documents.

dermdoc said:

---

I have two questions.

Why now?

What is the purpose?

---

(R)easons...

well if so the WaPo should burn their anonymous source immediately

it's unethical if they don't tbh

Wait, so there were no nuclear secrets? Maybe agjacent will come back to eat crow, but more likely he's attaching some wheels to his goalposts.

zoneag said:

---

Wait, so there were no nuclear secrets? Maybe agjacent will come back to eat crow, but more likely he's attaching some wheels to his goalposts.

---

He already sold them to Saudi Arabia

I just saw something about the government had already issued a subpoena for all classified materials but that not all had been turned over. If this is true, then it would make sense for a search warrant to be the next step so that the classified materials could be retrieved.

Where is a copy of the subpoena? If true, it should exist. Also, the history of efforts would be contained in the application for the warrant, but the doj doesn't seem to want to disclose that.

Proc92 said:

---

Where is a copy of the subpoena? If true, it should exist. Also, the history of efforts would be contained in the application for the warrant, but the doj doesn't seem to want to disclose that.

---

Those are good points.

Note that I highlighted the "If this is true" because I don't know that the assertion actually is true.

captkirk said:

---

zoneag said:

---

Wait, so there were no nuclear secrets? Maybe agjacent will come back to eat crow, but more likely he's attaching some wheels to his goalposts.

---

He already sold them to Saudi Arabia

---

LOL.

Bushes would have given the Saudis that crap long ago.

zoneag said:

---

Wait, so there were no nuclear secrets? Maybe agjacent will come back to eat crow, but more likely he's attaching some wheels to his goalposts.

---

He's just moving on to his next board to troll as a paid shill. I'm sure this post will get deleted just like the rest of mine on this thread though pointing that out. Took all of 2 minutes looking at his posting history.

cone said:

---

well if so the WaPo should burn their anonymous source immediately

it's unethical if they don't tbh

---

Ya THINK????

So all I saw listed was SCI today, nothing having to do with CNWDI, so doubtful it was anything that had to do with weapons designs. I assume, like most all of y'all do, that the post is clueless and knows nothing about which they speak with such self imposed authority.

aggiehawg said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

So are we pretty much admitting now WAPO lied about nuclear?

---

Appears so. From national defense to "nuclear" to "Miscellaneous Classified Documents"???

When the warrant says things like "all records between January 20, 2017 through January 20, 2021" that means any and everything and is directly tied to the Presidential Records Act which again does not have criminal penalties in the statute.

By that one statement alone, it is an admission that it was a fishing expedition and not narrowly drawn in scope, contrary to what Garland asserted yesterday.

---

Isn't WAPO more known for lying more often than not? At least where a Republican vs a Democrat's interest is involved?