Trumps Florida Home Raided by the FBI

HoosierfanJM

Redshirt Freshman
Feb 7, 2013
1,133
1,061
113
Yep, I think it’s entertaining watching so many people jumping to conclusions, one way or the other, when we know very little about the actual facts or evidence of the investigation. I think the only reasonable take is to sit back and wait for the facts to come out, while also being skeptical of the fbi based on their recent track record. That doesn’t mean this investigation isn’t above board or won’t prove wrongdoing by trump, but someone would have to have had their head up their ass the last 5 years to not question the veracity of the fbi top brass or their willingness to politicize an investigation.


I agree, we will know much more about the substance and legitimacy of the raid once the affidavit gets released, which it appears will be in one form or another, although most likely highly redacted.
Being skeptical of government is healthy. However, my take on the FBI in the last five years is that their senior leadership under Comey massively overshared, not that the opening of investigations was misguided or politicized. The FBI is the primary investigative agency for public corruption; anytime those cases happen the subjects potentially will accuse them of 'politicizing.' It's the way it's always been.

That's why there are federal judges that need to approve search warrants.
 

bear_down_chicago_89

All-American
Gold Member
Jan 25, 2017
32,580
49,790
113
Yep, I think it’s entertaining watching so many people jumping to conclusions, one way or the other, when we know very little about the actual facts or evidence of the investigation. I think the only reasonable take is to sit back and wait for the facts to come out, while also being skeptical of the fbi based on their recent track record. That doesn’t mean this investigation isn’t above board or won’t prove wrongdoing by trump, but someone would have to have had their head up their ass the last 5 years to not question the veracity of the fbi top brass or their willingness to politicize an investigation.


I agree, we will know much more about the substance and legitimacy of the raid once the affidavit gets released, which it appears will be in one form or another, although most likely highly redacted.
I don’t disagree that we should all be skeptical of what we see and hear about these investigations, however, let’s also keep in mind that Trump appointed Wray and served Trump for more than 2 years as the head of the FBI. I don’t believe Wray was in the FBI for any of the stuff that you are talking about. To Hoosier’s point … he very well seems to have learned a lesson from Comey’s mistakes.

I wouldn’t count on see much of the affidavit for some time. Whatever gets released will be heavily redacted. I also think a not insignificant point is that Trump’s legal team did not request it be unsealed. They have so far been silent on this … and again, i pay more attention to what his lawyers say and do in court than what he says on Truth.
 

jrcrist

Sophomore
Gold Member
May 11, 2008
1,583
1,777
113
Being skeptical of government is healthy. However, my take on the FBI in the last five years is that their senior leadership under Comey massively overshared, not that the opening of investigations was misguided or politicized. The FBI is the primary investigative agency for public corruption; anytime those cases happen the subjects potentially will accuse them of 'politicizing.' It's the way it's always been.

That's why there are federal judges that need to approve search warrants.
That’s fair. Maybe I should have said the last 10 years to encompass the Comey admin. I’ll just describe it as some unsavory investigative techniques during the last 5 years.
 

BuilderBob6

All-American
Gold Member
Jan 27, 2007
11,976
13,029
113
61
North Carolina
Yep, I think it’s entertaining watching so many people jumping to conclusions, one way or the other, when we know very little about the actual facts or evidence of the investigation. I think the only reasonable take is to sit back and wait for the facts to come out, while also being skeptical of the fbi based on their recent track record. That doesn’t mean this investigation isn’t above board or won’t prove wrongdoing by trump, but someone would have to have had their head up their ass the last 5 years to not question the veracity of the fbi top brass or their willingness to politicize an investigation.


I agree, we will know much more about the substance and legitimacy of the raid once the affidavit gets released, which it appears will be in one form or another, although most likely highly redacted.
But what you don't point out is you think the FBI/DOJ are partisan organizations......and that trump had been unfairly targeted.

The FBI/DOJ were investigating the trump campaign during the run-up to the 2016 election. Obama knew about it too. Yet nothing was revealed to the public. Nothing leaked. Meanwhile, Comey made his announcement of reopening the investigation of HC 11 days before the election.

If they wanted to get trump, seems to me leaking the investigation would have been a great way to do it.
 
Last edited:

jrcrist

Sophomore
Gold Member
May 11, 2008
1,583
1,777
113
I don’t disagree that we should all be skeptical of what we see and hear about these investigations, however, let’s also keep in mind that Trump appointed Wray and served Trump for more than 2 years as the head of the FBI. I don’t believe Wray was in the FBI for any of the stuff that you are talking about. To Hoosier’s point … he very well seems to have learned a lesson from Comey’s mistakes.

I wouldn’t count on see much of the affidavit for some time. Whatever gets released will be heavily redacted. I also think a not insignificant point is that Trump’s legal team did not request it be unsealed. They have so far been silent on this … and again, i pay more attention to what his lawyers say and do in court than what he says on Truth.
Fair points

They might not have requested it, but they also haven’t objected to its unsealing as far as I know and have seen. The party that objected was the Feds, which they may very well have a good legal basis for doing.
 

jrcrist

Sophomore
Gold Member
May 11, 2008
1,583
1,777
113
But what you don't point out is you think the FBI/DOJ are partisan organizations......and that trump had been unfairly targeted.

The FBI/DOJ were investigating the trump campaign during the run-up to the 2016 election. Obama knew about it too. Yet nothing was revealed to the public. Nothing leaked. Meanwhile, Comey made his announcement of reopening the investigation of HC 11 days before the election.

If they wanted to get trump, seems to mean leaking the investigation would have been a great way to do it.
I absolutely think certain actors within the fbi/doj are partisan hacks, and if I insinuated otherwise, that was not my intent. I also think the entire Russian Collusion Hoax was just that, a partisan hoax. I mean the fbi fabricated evidence to obtain fisa warrants; what do you call that? An oversight?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BSIT

bear_down_chicago_89

All-American
Gold Member
Jan 25, 2017
32,580
49,790
113
Fair points

They might not have requested it, but they also haven’t objected to its unsealing as far as I know and have seen. The party that objected was the Feds, which they may very well have a good legal basis for doing.
The request to unseal the affidavit came from Judicial Watch and multiple media outlets. The judge gave both sides (DOJ and Trump) until this past Monday to either object or support the request. Everyone knew the DOJ would object, but Trump had a right to support the motion to unseal .. and they did not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bethboilerfan

HoosierfanJM

Redshirt Freshman
Feb 7, 2013
1,133
1,061
113
I don’t disagree that we should all be skeptical of what we see and hear about these investigations, however, let’s also keep in mind that Trump appointed Wray and served Trump for more than 2 years as the head of the FBI. I don’t believe Wray was in the FBI for any of the stuff that you are talking about. To Hoosier’s point … he very well seems to have learned a lesson from Comey’s mistakes.

I wouldn’t count on see much of the affidavit for some time. Whatever gets released will be heavily redacted. I also think a not insignificant point is that Trump’s legal team did not request it be unsealed. They have so far been silent on this … and again, i pay more attention to what his lawyers say and do in court than what he says on Truth.
Trump's lawyers (at the least the ones that have been in public) are incredibly, shockingly, inexperienced.

None of them practice in Federal Court and none of them are experienced (all under 40 years old). That. Is. Crazy.

The lack of experienced legal counsel may have markedly contributed to the June, 2022 lack of subpoena compliance, the open advertisement that the warrant was served, and the rotating explanations (planted info, not classified info, Trump declassified it, etc).
 

jrcrist

Sophomore
Gold Member
May 11, 2008
1,583
1,777
113
The request to unseal the affidavit came from Judicial Watch and multiple media outlets. The judge gave both sides (DOJ and Trump) until this past Monday to either object or support the request. Everyone knew the DOJ would object, but Trump had a right to support the motion to unseal .. and they did not.
That is my understanding of events as well. My experience has always been that by not objecting, you’re approving of the release, whether that approval is voiced or not.
 

bear_down_chicago_89

All-American
Gold Member
Jan 25, 2017
32,580
49,790
113
Trump's lawyers (at the least the ones that have been in public) are incredibly, shockingly, inexperienced.

None of them practice in Federal Court and none of them are experienced (all under 40 years old). That. Is. Crazy.

The lack of experienced legal counsel may have markedly contributed to the June, 2022 lack of subpoena compliance, the open advertisement that the warrant was served, and the rotating explanations (planted info, not classified info, Trump declassified it, etc).
It’s kind of a replay of the election lawsuits. Trump sent Giuliani to plead a lot of his cases (most notably in PA) … to my knowledge Rudy hasn’t actually been the lawyer of record in case since the 90s and i don’t think ever practiced anything related to election law (and it was obvious in the hearings). There are plenty of firms who specialize in this stuff.

In the current case … if i was Trump and potentially looking at being convicted of serious federal charges, i sure would want someone with a lot of experience in that arena. The 2 i’ve seen (Christina Bobb and Alina Habba) don’t seem to have any actual experience in this arena.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HoosierfanJM

jrcrist

Sophomore
Gold Member
May 11, 2008
1,583
1,777
113
It’s kind of a replay of the election lawsuits. Trump sent Giuliani to plead a lot of his cases (most notably in PA) … to my knowledge Rudy hasn’t actually been the lawyer of record in case since the 90s and i don’t think ever practiced anything related to election law (and it was obvious in the hearings). There are plenty of firms who specialize in this stuff.

In the current case … if i was Trump and potentially looking at being convicted of serious federal charges, i sure would want someone with a lot of experience in that arena. The 2 i’ve seen (Christina Bobb and Alina Habba) don’t seem to have any actual experience in this arena.
At least Christina is easier to look at than Rudy
 

HoosierfanJM

Redshirt Freshman
Feb 7, 2013
1,133
1,061
113
That is my understanding of events as well. My experience has always been that by not objecting, you’re approving of the release, whether that approval is voiced or not.
Usually, but not always.

Sometimes you don't want them released, but you don't want to go on record as saying so when others (in this case DOJ) are willing to fight the legal battle for you.

Trump's legal team has not written a motion in this thing yet, and the three women who are the faces of that legal team have never written a motion for a federal court in their collective careers as attorneys. This probably is not the best time to start lol.
 
Last edited:

bear_down_chicago_89

All-American
Gold Member
Jan 25, 2017
32,580
49,790
113
Usually, but not always.

Sometimes you don't want them released, but you don't want to go on record as saying so when others (in this case DOJ) are willing to fight the legal battle for you.

Trump's legal team has not written a motion in this thing yet, and the the three women who are the faces of that legal team have never written a motion for a federal court in their collective careers as attorneys. This probably is not the best time to start lol.
Laura Ingraham was questioning whether they may have waived their right to be involved in the redacting process by not filing a motion (either to support or object) to the un-sealing request.

I have no clue if that’s a factor or not, however, if Trump did want the affidavit revealed, at a minimum i would think filing a motion in support would at least have to be considered by the judge and i think it would take about 5 minutes to write.
 

BuilderBob6

All-American
Gold Member
Jan 27, 2007
11,976
13,029
113
61
North Carolina
Trump's lawyers (at the least the ones that have been in public) are incredibly, shockingly, inexperienced.

None of them practice in Federal Court and none of them are experienced (all under 40 years old). That. Is. Crazy.

The lack of experienced legal counsel may have markedly contributed to the June, 2022 lack of subpoena compliance, the open advertisement that the warrant was served, and the rotating explanations (planted info, not classified info, Trump declassified it, etc).
Not trying to stereotype here, but they have more than a law degree in common. Not unusual for Trump.

 

BuilderBob6

All-American
Gold Member
Jan 27, 2007
11,976
13,029
113
61
North Carolina
I absolutely think certain actors within the fbi/doj are partisan hacks, and if I insinuated otherwise, that was not my intent. I also think the entire Russian Collusion Hoax was just that, a partisan hoax. I mean the fbi fabricated evidence to obtain fisa warrants; what do you call that? An oversight?
I call that certain actors, just as you said.

When you say the Russia investigation was a hoax, you're ignoring a mountain of evidence that has nothing to do with FISA warrants.
 

charlespig

All-American
Gold Member
Jun 20, 2014
5,275
5,962
113
The request to unseal the affidavit came from Judicial Watch and multiple media outlets. The judge gave both sides (DOJ and Trump) until this past Monday to either object or support the request. Everyone knew the DOJ would object, but Trump had a right to support the motion to unseal .. and they did not.

So media outlets want the affidavit unsealed.

DOJ doesn't want it.

Trump doesn't support nor reject.

And the end result is, the judge orders it to be unsealed (with redaction)?

I dunno the media has so much power.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bethboilerfan

jrcrist

Sophomore
Gold Member
May 11, 2008
1,583
1,777
113
So media outlets want the affidavit unsealed.

DOJ doesn't want it.

Trump doesn't support nor reject.

And the end result is, the judge orders it to be unsealed (with redaction)?

I dunno the media has so much power.
I think Judicial Watch motioned to intervene, which if approved by the court makes them an actual party to the case. I’m curious what their legal basis was
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bethboilerfan

bear_down_chicago_89

All-American
Gold Member
Jan 25, 2017
32,580
49,790
113
I think Judicial Watch motioned to intervene, which if approved by the court makes them an actual party to the case. I’m curious what their legal basis was
Not sure how or why they’d intervene and be a party to the case. They just filed to unseal the warrant and affidavit.

 

Bethboilerfan

Senior
Sep 14, 2012
3,798
4,009
113
Two high ranking governments officials are caught with illegal possession of top secret documents. One put them in a locked room in arguably one of the most highly protected properties on the planet. The other had them on an unsecured server that could be accessed and distributed by any anyone given the right set of circumstances. Are they both wrong? Sure, but they're far from equivalent with regard to the likelihood of impacting sensitive matters and/or national security.

I would assume Trump's reasoning will be he thought everything he had possession of was declassified. That's somewhat believable. On the other hand, HRC said she thought the lettering on the documents were for alphabetizing (LOL!). Not to mention that doesn't even answer as to why she had government docs on her personal email in the first place.
First, it apparently was not that secure from videos from the cameras focused on the safe and the room.

Second, He was told many times that he should not take the classified documents. "Former President Donald Trump railed against attempts by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) to retrieve a trove of documents, saying "it's not theirs, it's mine," That is the response that several advisors told the paper that Trump gave to White House counsel Pat Cipollone and his deputy Patrick Philbin". The Independent, UK. Both Cipollone and Philbin said they advised him many times not to take classified documents so he knew that it was illegal and that the documents did not belong to him.

I despise Hillary Clinton but I see vast differences in what was done.
 

gr8indoorsman

All-American
Gold Member
Oct 4, 2004
57,837
39,550
113
San Diego, CA
There’s the usual short man syndrome infected dick I’m used to seeing on here. Figured that’s how this would go. And if you consider yourself a measure of intelligence, then I consider that a compliment.
So if you haven’t seen anything to refute that report, then why were you so quick to dismiss it or consider it unreliable? I assumed you knew something more than the rest of us considering your access to super duper top secret information.
Witty. Yet, as dumb as you think I am, I never reference anything that comes from a website that also advertises people losing their noses due to monkey pox or any other stupid shit they happened to make up that minute.
 

jrcrist

Sophomore
Gold Member
May 11, 2008
1,583
1,777
113
Witty. Yet, as dumb as you think I am, I never reference anything that comes from a website that also advertises people losing their noses due to monkey pox or any other stupid shit they happened to make up that minute.
Never thought you were dumb. Just wish you could have a conversation or dialogue without talking down to people and going to insults whenever you’re challenged. You have a lot of good takes but you’ve also been wrong about plenty of things over the last few years so stop acting like you're intellectually superior to everyone, cause you aren’t.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joetboiler

Joetboiler

Senior
Gold Member
Aug 29, 2001
3,779
4,187
113
You'd better go check your facts again.

A "very small number" (it was 3, like I said) emails marked classified. The rest were retroactively classified due to the content, meaning they contained classified information that was discussed between the participants but they were not marked at the time. This does not excuse the content, as someone read-in to access at these levels should know better, as Comey said:



Again, I am not defending Hillary here - she was wrong - 100% wrong; she was negligent; she should have known better; she should never and will never hold public office again nor have access to classified information.

Like you, I am arguing for the same standard to be applied: investigate Trump, probably find no criminal wrongdoing (just like with Hillary), and that he never holds public office again.

If we threw every person in jail who mishandled classified information ("Lock her up" was a dumbass "movement"), probably 50% of people with clearances would be in prison, including me. Because Hillary and Trump are both privy to TONS of highly classified information, the likelihood that they're going to get it 100% right all the time is practically nil.

I truly do not see what's so hard to grasp here. It honestly doesn't matter which one is worse. They're both wrong. They're both negiligent. Neither should ever be trusted with classified information again, because that's what would happen to anyone else who did these kinds of things.

Condemn Hillary. Condemn Trump too.

Or shut the **** up.
Now I know that you have over 140 years of Top Secret Squirrel Level 5 Clearance and access to the secret Stone Cutter's Meeting with Homer, but let's go to the tape:

 

Joetboiler

Senior
Gold Member
Aug 29, 2001
3,779
4,187
113
Not to distract from what you clearly feel is a terrific dunk on gr8 but he even bolded the word "marked" in his post...
Not sure why somebody with over 175 years of top level security clearance and has level 9 access to the Illuminati needs a defender but she had top secret information on her server. not just a couple of classified emails. Do i need to reference the posts about Trump being worse because there was top secret material with Trump? She had top secret material on a private unsecured server and transmitted it. And god knows what was on the 13 blackberries and 5 IPads destroyed despite an ordered hold. Every email she sent classified or not was a violation of the law. She wasn't even fined. While at the same time a sailor was in jail for sending his mom a picture of himself in front of a sub. She didn't get off because there was no evidence. She got off because the FBI/DOJ inserted "intent" into the Criminal Code where it did not exist. I think a read of IG Horowitz report on the matter would valuable for some people.

Me, i hate that these idiots breathed life into this guy. Congratulations. Now he's back. And the country can get crazy again. But it makes sense, as detailed by RCI the same people who were in charge of the email investigation, Russian collusion, burying the laptop, rustled up this gem. Did you know that? The same flipping team minus Strzok. Crazier, despite being under investigation by Durham and internally.
 

QuadBoiler

All-American
Gold Member
Apr 14, 2012
7,459
4,315
113
Fort Worth, TX
Not sure why somebody with over 175 years of top level security clearance and has level 9 access to the Illuminati needs a defender but she had top secret information on her server. not just a couple of classified emails. Do i need to reference the posts about Trump being worse because there was top secret material with Trump? She had top secret material on a private unsecured server and transmitted it. And god knows what was on the 13 blackberries and 5 IPads destroyed despite an ordered hold. Every email she sent classified or not was a violation of the law. She wasn't even fined. While at the same time a sailor was in jail for sending his mom a picture of himself in front of a sub. She didn't get off because there was no evidence. She got off because the FBI/DOJ inserted "intent" into the Criminal Code where it did not exist. I think a read of IG Horowitz report on the matter would valuable for some people.

Me, i hate that these idiots breathed life into this guy. Congratulations. Now he's back. And the country can get crazy again. But it makes sense, as detailed by RCI the same people who were in charge of the email investigation, Russian collusion, burying the laptop, rustled up this gem. Did you know that? The same flipping team minus Strzok. Crazier, despite being under investigation by Durham and internally.
How much whiskey have you had tonight? The point about the emails was that very few were MARKED classified. Several were deemded classified after the fact as they should have been but they were not at the time. Most of the rest of your post is, quite frankly, conspiracy theory bs. Also, this was made a felony by your lord and savior, so maybe you should blame him for his current situation.
 

HoosierfanJM

Redshirt Freshman
Feb 7, 2013
1,133
1,061
113
Trump's lawyers (at the least the ones that have been in public) are incredibly, shockingly, inexperienced.

None of them practice in Federal Court and none of them are experienced (all under 40 years old). That. Is. Crazy.

The lack of experienced legal counsel may have markedly contributed to the June, 2022 lack of subpoena compliance, the open advertisement that the warrant was served, and the rotating explanations (planted info, not classified info, Trump declassified it, etc).
To my point on the quality of legal counsel being critical, on Ingraham Thursday night Trump’s lawyer Christina Bobb states that for these classified documents it was very secure because only certain members of Mar A Lago staff could get down there.

So, an admission that Mar A Lago staff had access to classified or even SCI docs.

And an admission that after the June subpoena classified docs remained behind.

Why any attorney would make any public statement that can be used in court, and in this case potentially turn Ms. Bobb into a prosecution material fact witness is beyond belief.
 
Last edited:

SCBoiler1

Redshirt Freshman
Feb 10, 2014
1,170
1,614
113
I call that certain actors, just as you said.

When you say the Russia investigation was a hoax, you're ignoring a mountain of evidence that has nothing to do with FISA warrants.
Yeah, I don't get were it was ever determined that the results of the investigation concluded that the whole thing was a hoax.

The bipartisan senate report found many contacts between Russia and the Trump campaign and evidence of Russian interference as did the Mueller report.


Was a crime committed by Trump himself other than possibly obstruction? I'll go along with the Mueller investigation and the Senate Report and conclude it couldn't be proven but its not like there was nothing to it.
 

BuilderBob6

All-American
Gold Member
Jan 27, 2007
11,976
13,029
113
61
North Carolina
Yeah, I don't get were it was ever determined that the results of the investigation concluded that the whole thing was a hoax.

The bipartisan senate report found many contacts between Russia and the Trump campaign and evidence of Russian interference as did the Mueller report.


Was a crime committed by Trump himself other than possibly obstruction? I'll go along with the Mueller investigation and the Senate Report and conclude it couldn't be proven but its not like there was nothing to it.
Agreed.
Always said I would go along with Mueller's findings. He couldn't prove any coordination but considering the clear obstruction by Trump and those loyal to him it's hard to be sure nothing happened. It's also clear the trump campaigned welcomed the Russian interference and did nothing to stop it.

There is a new development.


Barr acted way outside the ropes with regard to the Mueller report and obstruction.

Interesting that the Biden weaponized DOJ defended Barr's actions in court. If Garland is out to get trump why would he do such a thing?
 

gr8indoorsman

All-American
Gold Member
Oct 4, 2004
57,837
39,550
113
San Diego, CA
Never thought you were dumb. Just wish you could have a conversation or dialogue without talking down to people and going to insults whenever you’re challenged. You have a lot of good takes but you’ve also been wrong about plenty of things over the last few years so stop acting like you're intellectually superior to everyone, cause you aren’t.
I actually do believe I’m intellectually superior to many of the dumbasses I have on ignore here. I don’t apologize for that. Some of these guys hold opinions so ill informed as to be comical and have demonstrated sheer idiocy and unwillingness to engage in honest, reasoned debate. Yeah, I’ll look down on those people. No apologies.

As I have done over the years here, I would encourage anyone who wants to be taken seriously to find better sources than random Twitter handles or summit.news (among others) to cite.

Now, that said, I appreciate your well reasoned approach here. I know I’ve been wrong - so has every single person on this board. I’m willing to admit changes in my opinions, and when I’m wrong, and I’m willing to be consistent regardless of party lines.

Wish I could say the same for most here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SCBoiler1

gr8indoorsman

All-American
Gold Member
Oct 4, 2004
57,837
39,550
113
San Diego, CA
Not sure why somebody with over 175 years of top level security clearance and has level 9 access to the Illuminati needs a defender but she had top secret information on her server. not just a couple of classified emails. Do i need to reference the posts about Trump being worse because there was top secret material with Trump? She had top secret material on a private unsecured server and transmitted it. And god knows what was on the 13 blackberries and 5 IPads destroyed despite an ordered hold. Every email she sent classified or not was a violation of the law. She wasn't even fined. While at the same time a sailor was in jail for sending his mom a picture of himself in front of a sub. She didn't get off because there was no evidence. She got off because the FBI/DOJ inserted "intent" into the Criminal Code where it did not exist. I think a read of IG Horowitz report on the matter would valuable for some people.

Me, i hate that these idiots breathed life into this guy. Congratulations. Now he's back. And the country can get crazy again. But it makes sense, as detailed by RCI the same people who were in charge of the email investigation, Russian collusion, burying the laptop, rustled up this gem. Did you know that? The same flipping team minus Strzok. Crazier, despite being under investigation by Durham and internally.
My response to this shit remains the same: Both are wrong. Condemn them BOTH, or shut the **** up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bethboilerfan

bullsfan321

Silver Member
Dec 5, 2021
481
555
93
First, it apparently was not that secure from videos from the cameras focused on the safe and the room.
Lol ok.

Second, He was told many times that he should not take the classified documents. "Former President Donald Trump railed against attempts by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) to retrieve a trove of documents, saying "it's not theirs, it's mine," That is the response that several advisors told the paper that Trump gave to White House counsel Pat Cipollone and his deputy Patrick Philbin". The Independent, UK. Both Cipollone and Philbin said they advised him many times not to take classified documents so he knew that it was illegal and that the documents did not belong to him.
This comes from a Maggie Haberman article in NYT so it's a bunch of half truths at the very least if not completely made up.