American Politics XIV: The Dawning of the Age of the Pumpkin

[Mountains and Volcanoes]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/08/22/walker-georgia-senate/

Walker, criticizing climate law, asks: ‘Don’t we have enough trees around here?’

If the people of Georgia elect this idiot to the Senate they deserve him.

If there was a mental test for political candidates in order to run for the US Senate, Herschel Walker would not be the Republican nominee for Senate in Georgia. Period.

Seriously, there needs to be a litmus test to run for office!

[Yerachmeal]

Proof that we need a third party for moderates: two senators who aren't even famous exceptions to party line voting (cause comparing Manchin and Collins would just look like exceptions) voted with each other a majority of the time this term.
https://projects.propublica.org/represent/members/H001076-margaret-hassan/compare-votes/G000359-lindsey-graham/117

This actually is a fine example of why that kind of stat without context is completely meaningless.

First of all "majority of the time" is technically correct in that 55% is a majority. It is not however the kind of margin that comes to mind when someone says 'majority.'

Second, when you're looking at the actual votes where they agreed...they weren't close. Which is to say that neither of them could have been the rare instance of someone crossing party lines. Like on Senate Vote 277, they were both part of the 90 people who voted the same way as opposed to the 7 that voted the other way. Some of them are appointments. Without the context you want us to believe it means one things but when you dig into it you find that there is just a whole bunch of procedural crap that the senate votes on or things that the body by and large votes on, apparently about half of the time.

Addressing your first point, they would be at opposite ends of their party. Hassan would be one of the most liberal "realists," as i've dubbed the party, and Graham would be one of the most conservative members. Therefore 55% seems like an accurate number.
Addressing your second point compare Hassan with most other republicans, I doubt more then five of them will agree with her over half the time, so it's oviously not just near unanamous votes they agreed on.

[Kannap]

It's ignorant statements like this that leave people not taking NY/NJ, New England, and west coast Democrats seriously. You make statements like this, writing off whole red states and everybody in them, without knowing the political challenges those of us who live in such states face. We live in states that are gerrymandered and have countless other voting obstacles and roadblocks put in place by Republican legislatures so that we quite literally cannot elect Democratic legislatures. But none of that matters to folks like you, our states are red so we "deserve" the suffering we live through. You make me sick.

It's not entirely incorrect to point out that voters who, in any given intraparty contest, gravitate towards the most unhinged, sociopathic, or ignorant candidate who demonstrate these traits in public are part of the problem, however.

Not carrying a particular brief for Lumen; as is so often the case, his comment lacked nuance let alone subtlety, but he's not wrong, completely.

True, I have no qualms with being upset with the people in red states who actively vote Republican and support the Republican's harmful beliefs.

But what I'm sick and tired of is hearing Democrats in blue states come online to post about how we "deserve it" every time bad news comes out of southern red states. Our legislatures have stacked the deck against us in such a way that we don't get to choose.

[Myrensis]

Proof that we need a third party for moderates: two senators who aren't even famous exceptions to party line voting (cause comparing Manchin and Collins would just look like exceptions) voted with each other a majority of the time this term.
https://projects.propublica.org/represent/members/H001076-margaret-hassan/compare-votes/G000359-lindsey-graham/117

This actually is a fine example of why that kind of stat without context is completely meaningless.

First of all "majority of the time" is technically correct in that 55% is a majority. It is not however the kind of margin that comes to mind when someone says 'majority.'

Second, when you're looking at the actual votes where they agreed...they weren't close. Which is to say that neither of them could have been the rare instance of someone crossing party lines. Like on Senate Vote 277, they were both part of the 90 people who voted the same way as opposed to the 7 that voted the other way. Some of them are appointments. Without the context you want us to believe it means one things but when you dig into it you find that there is just a whole bunch of procedural crap that the senate votes on or things that the body by and large votes on, apparently about half of the time.

I'm more amused at the idea that Republicans and Democrats agreeing on too much is why we need more 'moderates'.

"The extremists are cooperating on too many things, we need more moderates who will take uncompromising stances on everything!"

[Yerachmeal]

This actually is a fine example of why that kind of stat without context is completely meaningless.

First of all "majority of the time" is technically correct in that 55% is a majority. It is not however the kind of margin that comes to mind when someone says 'majority.'

Second, when you're looking at the actual votes where they agreed...they weren't close. Which is to say that neither of them could have been the rare instance of someone crossing party lines. Like on Senate Vote 277, they were both part of the 90 people who voted the same way as opposed to the 7 that voted the other way. Some of them are appointments. Without the context you want us to believe it means one things but when you dig into it you find that there is just a whole bunch of procedural crap that the senate votes on or things that the body by and large votes on, apparently about half of the time.

I'm more amused at the idea that Republicans and Democrats agreeing on too much is why we need more 'moderates'.

"The extremists are cooperating on too many things, we need more moderates who will take uncompromising stances on everything!"

On the contrary, since most politicians today aren't overly moderate, the few bipartisan ones should have their own party of swing votes. In a theoretical world where they tried this and still got elected, they'd probably be able to force a lot more compromises then they can right now.

[San Lumen]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/08/22/walker-georgia-senate/

Walker, criticizing climate law, asks: ‘Don’t we have enough trees around here?’

If the people of Georgia elect this idiot to the Senate they deserve him.

I suppose we all collectively deserved Trump then, because we collectively elected him once.

He lost the popular vote.

[Ngelmish]

It's not entirely incorrect to point out that voters who, in any given intraparty contest, gravitate towards the most unhinged, sociopathic, or ignorant candidate who demonstrate these traits in public are part of the problem, however.

Not carrying a particular brief for Lumen; as is so often the case, his comment lacked nuance let alone subtlety, but he's not wrong, completely.

True, I have no qualms with being upset with the people in red states who actively vote Republican and support the Republican's harmful beliefs.

But what I'm sick and tired of is hearing Democrats in blue states come online to post about how we "deserve it" every time bad news comes out of southern red states. Our legislatures have stacked the deck against us in such a way that we don't get to choose.

Yeah, that's fair. It would be nice if more people would be a little more careful about specifying who they're criticizing when it comes to that point. Intraparty contests are one thing; when it comes to a general election, I think it can be understandable to cast a wider net of which voters are to "blame" for the end the result (to steal one of Lumen's favorite lines: If difference between the finalists is less than the number of votes not cast, mathematically, you have a case to get into an argument about why they should have voted and changed the outcome). Sometimes that argument is misguided, sometimes I'm inclined to make it.

My mother's family is from NC originally, incidentally, and I will say, I know y'all are not responsible for the state GOP down there, and frankly, yes, when it comes to talking smack about voters -- the most polite way to do it is to be particular about who you're blaming for what.

[Cannot think of a name]

I would gladly see Nixon be forgiven by everyone just to have better Republicans.

Rockefeller should have been the 1968 nominee and won with George Romney as the VP. I think he was more liberal leaning than his son Mitt.

I was going to make some meaningless car nerd snark about the Rambler and "remember how AMC is still a car company...oh..."

Buuuuutttt...aside from a lot of the regular corporate shit he returned his salary when it was out of proportion for the year (easy to do when you're a millionaire via stock options) and tried to get the 'big three' manufacturers broken up (though that's on the heels of him taking Hudson and Nash and making them kissImean merged them. The largest at the time, so...) but he supported a fair employment act and started a employee profit sharing program. And he was positioning AMC as an American car company that built fuel efficient smaller cars (but then, they made the Javelin muscle car and the weirdness that is the AMX that looks like a muscle car but was a two seater...anyway, raced in the muscle car road series Trans Am (which is where the Trans Am gets its name despite never actually racing a Trans Am in the Trans Am series...there's a whole story that goes with that but this parenthetical is already too long).

So I guess 'eehhhhhhh'. His son did implement the first version of the Affordable Care Act.

[The Jamesian Republic]

Rockefeller should have been the 1968 nominee and won with George Romney as the VP. I think he was more liberal leaning than his son Mitt.

I was going to make some meaningless car nerd snark about the Rambler and "remember how AMC is still a car company...oh..."

Buuuuutttt...aside from a lot of the regular corporate shit he returned his salary when it was out of proportion for the year (easy to do when you're a millionaire via stock options) and tried to get the 'big three' manufacturers broken up (though that's on the heels of him taking Hudson and Nash and making them kissImean merged them. The largest at the time, so...) but he supported a fair employment act and started a employee profit sharing program. And he was positioning AMC as an American car company that built fuel efficient smaller cars (but then, they made the Javelin muscle car and the weirdness that is the AMX that looks like a muscle car but was a two seater...anyway, raced in the muscle car road series Trans Am (which is where the Trans Am gets its name despite never actually racing a Trans Am in the Trans Am series...there's a whole story that goes with that but this parenthetical is already too long).

So I guess 'eehhhhhhh'. His son did implement the first version of the Affordable Care Act.

I knew he was the head of AMC and Mitt had Romneycare.

[Cannot think of a name]

This actually is a fine example of why that kind of stat without context is completely meaningless.

First of all "majority of the time" is technically correct in that 55% is a majority. It is not however the kind of margin that comes to mind when someone says 'majority.'

Second, when you're looking at the actual votes where they agreed...they weren't close. Which is to say that neither of them could have been the rare instance of someone crossing party lines. Like on Senate Vote 277, they were both part of the 90 people who voted the same way as opposed to the 7 that voted the other way. Some of them are appointments. Without the context you want us to believe it means one things but when you dig into it you find that there is just a whole bunch of procedural crap that the senate votes on or things that the body by and large votes on, apparently about half of the time.

Addressing your first point, they would be at opposite ends of their party. Hassan would be one of the most liberal "realists," as i've dubbed the party, and Graham would be one of the most conservative members. Therefore 55% seems like an accurate number.

What?

Addressing your second point compare Hassan with most other republicans, I doubt more then five of them will agree with her over half the time, so it's oviously not just near unanamous votes they agreed on.

You doubt something so a conclusion you've already come to is obvious.

Well, that was very convincing. If only you had some kind of website where you could compare votes take by congress members you wouldn't have to doubt or guess and you could maybe come up with a better example than these two fucking randos you found that vote together on measures that either win or fail by 30-90 votes.

[Big Bad Blue]

Over 300 classified documents so far found at Mar-A-Lago

The initial batch of documents retrieved by the National Archives from former President Donald J. Trump in January included more than 150 marked as classified, a number that ignited intense concern at the Justice Department and helped trigger the criminal investigation that led F.B.I. agents to swoop into Mar-a-Lago this month seeking to recover more, multiple people briefed on the matter said.

In total, the government has recovered more than 300 documents with classified markings from Mr. Trump since he left office, the people said: that first batch of documents returned in January, another set provided by Mr. Trump’s aides to the Justice Department in June and the material seized by the F.B.I. in the search this month.

The previously unreported volume of the sensitive material found in the former president’s possession in January helps explain why the Justice Department moved so urgently to hunt down any further classified materials he might have.

And the extent to which such a large number of highly sensitive documents remained at Mar-a-Lago for months, even as the department sought the return of all material that should have been left in government custody when Mr. Trump left office, suggested to officials that the former president or his aides had been cavalier in handling it, not fully forthcoming with investigators, or both.

The specific nature of the sensitive material that Mr. Trump took from the White House remains unclear. But the 15 boxes Mr. Trump turned over to the archives in January, nearly a year after he left office, included documents from the C.I.A., the National Security Agency and the F.B.I. spanning a variety of topics of national security interest, a person briefed on the matter said.

Mr. Trump went through the boxes himself in late 2021, according to multiple people briefed on his efforts, before turning them over.

The highly sensitive nature of some of the material in the boxes prompted archives officials to refer the matter to the Justice Department, which within months had convened a grand jury investigation.

Aides to Mr. Trump turned over a few dozen additional sensitive documents during a visit to Mar-a-Lago by Justice Department officials in early June. At the conclusion of the search this month, officials left with 26 boxes, including 11 sets of material marked as classified, comprising scores of additional documents. One set had the highest level of classification, top secret/sensitive compartmented information.

The Justice Department investigation is continuing, suggesting that officials are not certain whether they have recovered all the presidential records that Mr. Trump took with him from the White House.

Even after the extraordinary decision by the F.B.I. to execute a search warrant at Mar-a-Lago on Aug. 8, investigators have sought additional surveillance footage from the club, people familiar with the matter said.

It was the second such demand for the club’s security tapes, said the people familiar with the matter, and underscored that authorities are still scrutinizing how the classified documents were handled by Mr. Trump and his staff before the search.

A spokesman for Mr. Trump did not immediately respond to a request for comment. A spokeswoman for the F.B.I. declined to comment.

Mr. Trump’s allies insist that the president had a “standing order” to declassify material that left the Oval Office for the White House residence, and have claimed that the General Services Administration, not Mr. Trump’s staff, packed the boxes with the documents.

No documentation has come to light confirming that Mr. Trump declassified the material, and the potential crimes cited by the Justice Department in seeking the search warrant for Mar-a-Lago would not hinge on the classification status of the documents.

National Archives officials spent much of 2021 trying to get back material from Mr. Trump, after learning that roughly two dozen boxes of presidential records material had been lingering in the White House residence for several months. Under the Presidential Records Act, all official material remains government property and has to be provided to the archives at the end of a president’s term.

Among the items they knew were missing were Mr. Trump’s original letters from the North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un, and the note that President Barack Obama had left Mr. Trump before he left office.

Two former White House officials, who had been designated as among Mr. Trump’s representatives with the archives, received calls and tried to facilitate the documents’ return.

Mr. Trump resisted those calls, describing the boxes of documents as “mine,” according to three advisers familiar with his comments.

Soon after beginning their investigation early this year, Justice Department officials came to believe there were additional classified documents that they needed to collect. In May, after conducting a series of witness interviews, the department issued a subpoena for the return of remaining classified material, according to people familiar with the episode.

On June 3, Jay Bratt, the chief of the counterespionage section of the national security division of the Justice Department, went to Mar-a-Lago to meet with two of Mr. Trump’s lawyers, Evan Corcoran and Christina Bobb, and retrieve any remaining classified material to satisfy the subpoena. Mr. Corcoran went through the boxes himself to identify classified material beforehand, according to two people familiar with his efforts.

Mr. Corcoran showed Mr. Bratt the basement storage room where, he said, the remaining material had been kept.

Mr. Trump briefly came to see the investigators during the visit.

Mr. Bratt and the agents who joined him were given a sheaf of classified material, according to two people familiar with the meeting. Mr. Corcoran then drafted a statement, which Ms. Bobb, who is said to be the custodian of the documents, signed. It asserted that, to the best of her knowledge, all classified material that was there had been returned, according to two people familiar with the statement.

Mr. Corcoran did not respond to repeated requests for comment. Ms. Bobb did not respond to an email seeking comment.

Soon after that visit, investigators, who were interviewing several people in Mr. Trump’s circle about the documents, came to believe that there were other presidential records that had not been turned over, according to the people familiar with the matter.

On June 22, the Justice Department subpoenaed the Trump Organization for Mar-a-Lago’s security footage, which included a well-trafficked hallway outside the storage area, the people said.

The club had surveillance footage going back 60 days for some areas of the property, stretching back to late April of this year.

While much of the footage showed hours of club employees walking through the busy corridor, some of it raised concerns for investigators, according to people familiar with the matter. It revealed people moving boxes in and out, and in some cases, appearing to change the containers some documents were held in. The footage also showed other parts of the property.

In seeking a second round of security footage, the Justice Department want to review tapes for the weeks leading up to the Aug. 8 search.

Federal officials have indicated that their initial goal has been to secure any classified documents Mr. Trump was holding at Mar-a-Lago, a pay-for-membership club where there is little control over who comes in as guests. It remains to be seen whether anyone will face criminal charges stemming from the investigation.

The combination of witness interviews and the initial security footage led Justice Department officials to begin drafting a request for a search warrant, the people familiar with the matter said.

The F.B.I. agents who conducted the search found the additional documents in the storage area in the basement of Mar-a-Lago, as well as in a container in a closet in Mr. Trump’s office, the people said.

Mr. Trump’s allies have attacked the law enforcement agencies, accusing the investigators of being partisan.

The intense public interest has now spurred a legal fight to see the search warrant’s underlying affidavit. On Monday, a federal magistrate issued a formal order directing the Justice Department to send him under seal proposed redactions to the affidavit underlying the warrant used to search Mar-a-Lago by Thursday, accompanied by a memo explaining its justifications.

In the order, the judge, Bruce E. Reinhart, said he was inclined to release portions of the sealed affidavit but wanted to wait until he saw the government’s redactions before making a decision.

MAGA: Making Attorneys Get Attorneys

[Cannot think of a name]

I was going to make some meaningless car nerd snark about the Rambler and "remember how AMC is still a car company...oh..."

Buuuuutttt...aside from a lot of the regular corporate shit he returned his salary when it was out of proportion for the year (easy to do when you're a millionaire via stock options) and tried to get the 'big three' manufacturers broken up (though that's on the heels of him taking Hudson and Nash and making them kissImean merged them. The largest at the time, so...) but he supported a fair employment act and started a employee profit sharing program. And he was positioning AMC as an American car company that built fuel efficient smaller cars (but then, they made the Javelin muscle car and the weirdness that is the AMX that looks like a muscle car but was a two seater...anyway, raced in the muscle car road series Trans Am (which is where the Trans Am gets its name despite never actually racing a Trans Am in the Trans Am series...there's a whole story that goes with that but this parenthetical is already too long).

So I guess 'eehhhhhhh'. His son did implement the first version of the Affordable Care Act.

I knew he was the head of AMC and Mitt had Romneycare.

Yeah...just wanted to make a car nerd thing about AMC but his time there didn't fit my dumb joke.

[Yerachmeal]

Addressing your first point, they would be at opposite ends of their party. Hassan would be one of the most liberal "realists," as i've dubbed the party, and Graham would be one of the most conservative members. Therefore 55% seems like an accurate number.

What?

Well right now Susan Collins and Ted Cruz have agreed on 42%, so 55% is definitely more. I was trying to avoid the outright centrists becasue everyone already knows about them, but compare Manchin or Sinema, with Susan Collins and Lisa Murkoski, and you'll see that they are alll very similar.

Addressing your second point compare Hassan with most other republicans, I doubt more then five of them will agree with her over half the time, so it's oviously not just near unanamous votes they agreed on.

You doubt something so a conclusion you've already come to is obvious.

Well, that was very convincing. If only you had some kind of website where you could compare votes take by congress members you wouldn't have to doubt or guess and you could maybe come up with a better example than these two fucking randos you found that vote together on measures that either win or fail by 30-90 votes.[/quote]
Use the website I put up before, I did. I compared her to several republicans, and only the 2 that I named above, and Graham voted with her over half the time.

[The Jamesian Republic]

I knew he was the head of AMC and Mitt had Romneycare.

Yeah...just wanted to make a car nerd thing about AMC but his time there didn't fit my dumb joke.

I used to be a car nerd too.

[Yerachmeal]

Addressing your first point, they would be at opposite ends of their party. Hassan would be one of the most liberal "realists," as i've dubbed the party, and Graham would be one of the most conservative members. Therefore 55% seems like an accurate number.

What?

Well right now Susan Collins and Ted Cruz have agreed on 42%, so 55% is definitely more. I was trying to avoid the outright centrists becasue everyone already knows about them, but compare Manchin or Sinema, with Susan Collins and Lisa Murkoski, and you'll see that they are alll very similar.

Addressing your second point compare Hassan with most other republicans, I doubt more then five of them will agree with her over half the time, so it's oviously not just near unanamous votes they agreed on.

You doubt something so a conclusion you've already come to is obvious.

Well, that was very convincing. If only you had some kind of website where you could compare votes take by congress members you wouldn't have to doubt or guess and you could maybe come up with a better example than these two fucking randos you found that vote together on measures that either win or fail by 30-90 votes.

Use the website I put up before, I did. I compared her to several republicans, and only the 2 that I named above, and Graham voted with her over half the time.[/quote]
My bad, Ted Cruz and Susan Collins agreed on 40% not 42%, but the edit option isn't working.

[Mountains and Volcanoes]

I would gladly see Nixon be forgiven by everyone just to have better Republicans.

Rockefeller should have been the 1968 nominee and won with George Romney as the VP. I think he was more liberal leaning than his son Mitt.

What about this instead?

[Cannot think of a name]

Addressing your first point, they would be at opposite ends of their party. Hassan would be one of the most liberal "realists," as i've dubbed the party, and Graham would be one of the most conservative members. Therefore 55% seems like an accurate number.

What?

Well right now Susan Collins and Ted Cruz have agreed on 42%, so 55% is definitely more. I was trying to avoid the outright centrists becasue everyone already knows about them, but compare Manchin or Sinema, with Susan Collins and Lisa Murkoski, and you'll see that they are alll very similar.

...what? You keep saying these things like they mean something but don't seem to be able to articulate what it is you think they mean or why, and every answer so far has just been more confusing than the last.

You doubt something so a conclusion you've already come to is obvious.

Well, that was very convincing. If only you had some kind of website where you could compare votes take by congress members you wouldn't have to doubt or guess and you could maybe come up with a better example than these two fucking randos you found that vote together on measures that either win or fail by 30-90 votes.

Use the website I put up before, I did. I compared her to several republicans, and only the 2 that I named above, and Graham voted with her over half the time.

So...I'm not doing your homework, dude. You got a pattern you want to bring up and think it proves something...you do it. I'm not chasing your evidence. I was being snarky about you saying "I doubt" when you were linking to a website that would mean you don't have to guess, you can actually look. But you didn't really. You seem fixated on the percentage with no engagement at all with the votes themselves.

Which makes this whole thing kind of a wank. I don't know what it is you think you've discovered and I'm suspecting at this point that neither do you.

EDIT: Also, man...trying to figure out how you broke the quotes is both frustrating and confounding. I mean, I kind of sorted it out but I can't figure out how you got there.

[Kazak Yeli]

I don't care about his human rights record, he was a great leader and is remembered as such.

The economy has dropped by 4% of GDP and wages have been declining since 2013. He also made more of his neighbors join NATO and reveal that the Russian army is completely garbage. He's the opposite of a great leader.

Good thing I'm not talking about Putin, then.

[Emotional Support Crocodile]

The economy has dropped by 4% of GDP and wages have been declining since 2013. He also made more of his neighbors join NATO and reveal that the Russian army is completely garbage. He's the opposite of a great leader.

Good thing I'm not talking about Putin, then.

Though you are talking about someone else who stayed in power by fixing elections. That doesn't make you a great leader.

[Kazak Yeli]

Good thing I'm not talking about Putin, then.

Though you are talking about someone else who stayed in power by fixing elections. That doesn't make you a great leader.

Perhaps the elections were fixed, perhaps they were not.

Nazarbayev was a great leader, and that is how the Kazakh people remember him.

[Emotional Support Crocodile]

Though you are talking about someone else who stayed in power by fixing elections. That doesn't make you a great leader.

Perhaps the elections were fixed, perhaps they were not.

Nazarbayev was a great leader, and that is how the Kazakh people remember him.

Your argument was that he was a great leader because he stayed in power a long time. Now you are just asserting that he was, and not all Kazakh people feel that way.

[Kazak Yeli]

Perhaps the elections were fixed, perhaps they were not.

Nazarbayev was a great leader, and that is how the Kazakh people remember him.

Your argument was that he was a great leader because he stayed in power a long time. Now you are just asserting that he was, and not all Kazakh people feel that way.

The vast majority of Kazakh people feel like that.

[Page]

Over 300 classified documents so far found at Mar-A-Lago

The initial batch of documents retrieved by the National Archives from former President Donald J. Trump in January included more than 150 marked as classified, a number that ignited intense concern at the Justice Department and helped trigger the criminal investigation that led F.B.I. agents to swoop into Mar-a-Lago this month seeking to recover more, multiple people briefed on the matter said.

In total, the government has recovered more than 300 documents with classified markings from Mr. Trump since he left office, the people said: that first batch of documents returned in January, another set provided by Mr. Trump’s aides to the Justice Department in June and the material seized by the F.B.I. in the search this month.

The previously unreported volume of the sensitive material found in the former president’s possession in January helps explain why the Justice Department moved so urgently to hunt down any further classified materials he might have.

And the extent to which such a large number of highly sensitive documents remained at Mar-a-Lago for months, even as the department sought the return of all material that should have been left in government custody when Mr. Trump left office, suggested to officials that the former president or his aides had been cavalier in handling it, not fully forthcoming with investigators, or both.

The specific nature of the sensitive material that Mr. Trump took from the White House remains unclear. But the 15 boxes Mr. Trump turned over to the archives in January, nearly a year after he left office, included documents from the C.I.A., the National Security Agency and the F.B.I. spanning a variety of topics of national security interest, a person briefed on the matter said.

Mr. Trump went through the boxes himself in late 2021, according to multiple people briefed on his efforts, before turning them over.

The highly sensitive nature of some of the material in the boxes prompted archives officials to refer the matter to the Justice Department, which within months had convened a grand jury investigation.

Aides to Mr. Trump turned over a few dozen additional sensitive documents during a visit to Mar-a-Lago by Justice Department officials in early June. At the conclusion of the search this month, officials left with 26 boxes, including 11 sets of material marked as classified, comprising scores of additional documents. One set had the highest level of classification, top secret/sensitive compartmented information.

The Justice Department investigation is continuing, suggesting that officials are not certain whether they have recovered all the presidential records that Mr. Trump took with him from the White House.

Even after the extraordinary decision by the F.B.I. to execute a search warrant at Mar-a-Lago on Aug. 8, investigators have sought additional surveillance footage from the club, people familiar with the matter said.

It was the second such demand for the club’s security tapes, said the people familiar with the matter, and underscored that authorities are still scrutinizing how the classified documents were handled by Mr. Trump and his staff before the search.

A spokesman for Mr. Trump did not immediately respond to a request for comment. A spokeswoman for the F.B.I. declined to comment.

Mr. Trump’s allies insist that the president had a “standing order” to declassify material that left the Oval Office for the White House residence, and have claimed that the General Services Administration, not Mr. Trump’s staff, packed the boxes with the documents.

No documentation has come to light confirming that Mr. Trump declassified the material, and the potential crimes cited by the Justice Department in seeking the search warrant for Mar-a-Lago would not hinge on the classification status of the documents.

National Archives officials spent much of 2021 trying to get back material from Mr. Trump, after learning that roughly two dozen boxes of presidential records material had been lingering in the White House residence for several months. Under the Presidential Records Act, all official material remains government property and has to be provided to the archives at the end of a president’s term.

Among the items they knew were missing were Mr. Trump’s original letters from the North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un, and the note that President Barack Obama had left Mr. Trump before he left office.

Two former White House officials, who had been designated as among Mr. Trump’s representatives with the archives, received calls and tried to facilitate the documents’ return.

Mr. Trump resisted those calls, describing the boxes of documents as “mine,” according to three advisers familiar with his comments.

Soon after beginning their investigation early this year, Justice Department officials came to believe there were additional classified documents that they needed to collect. In May, after conducting a series of witness interviews, the department issued a subpoena for the return of remaining classified material, according to people familiar with the episode.

On June 3, Jay Bratt, the chief of the counterespionage section of the national security division of the Justice Department, went to Mar-a-Lago to meet with two of Mr. Trump’s lawyers, Evan Corcoran and Christina Bobb, and retrieve any remaining classified material to satisfy the subpoena. Mr. Corcoran went through the boxes himself to identify classified material beforehand, according to two people familiar with his efforts.

Mr. Corcoran showed Mr. Bratt the basement storage room where, he said, the remaining material had been kept.

Mr. Trump briefly came to see the investigators during the visit.

Mr. Bratt and the agents who joined him were given a sheaf of classified material, according to two people familiar with the meeting. Mr. Corcoran then drafted a statement, which Ms. Bobb, who is said to be the custodian of the documents, signed. It asserted that, to the best of her knowledge, all classified material that was there had been returned, according to two people familiar with the statement.

Mr. Corcoran did not respond to repeated requests for comment. Ms. Bobb did not respond to an email seeking comment.

Soon after that visit, investigators, who were interviewing several people in Mr. Trump’s circle about the documents, came to believe that there were other presidential records that had not been turned over, according to the people familiar with the matter.

On June 22, the Justice Department subpoenaed the Trump Organization for Mar-a-Lago’s security footage, which included a well-trafficked hallway outside the storage area, the people said.

The club had surveillance footage going back 60 days for some areas of the property, stretching back to late April of this year.

While much of the footage showed hours of club employees walking through the busy corridor, some of it raised concerns for investigators, according to people familiar with the matter. It revealed people moving boxes in and out, and in some cases, appearing to change the containers some documents were held in. The footage also showed other parts of the property.

In seeking a second round of security footage, the Justice Department want to review tapes for the weeks leading up to the Aug. 8 search.

Federal officials have indicated that their initial goal has been to secure any classified documents Mr. Trump was holding at Mar-a-Lago, a pay-for-membership club where there is little control over who comes in as guests. It remains to be seen whether anyone will face criminal charges stemming from the investigation.

The combination of witness interviews and the initial security footage led Justice Department officials to begin drafting a request for a search warrant, the people familiar with the matter said.

The F.B.I. agents who conducted the search found the additional documents in the storage area in the basement of Mar-a-Lago, as well as in a container in a closet in Mr. Trump’s office, the people said.

Mr. Trump’s allies have attacked the law enforcement agencies, accusing the investigators of being partisan.

The intense public interest has now spurred a legal fight to see the search warrant’s underlying affidavit. On Monday, a federal magistrate issued a formal order directing the Justice Department to send him under seal proposed redactions to the affidavit underlying the warrant used to search Mar-a-Lago by Thursday, accompanied by a memo explaining its justifications.

In the order, the judge, Bruce E. Reinhart, said he was inclined to release portions of the sealed affidavit but wanted to wait until he saw the government’s redactions before making a decision.

This is delicious. I love everything about it. I love the possibility, however unlikely it may be, of Trump being criminally charged. I love watching the MAGA fascists doing a 180 from blue lives matter to going to war with the FBI. And I love how utterly embarassed the government and law enforcement is that it took a year and a half to get these documents back.

[Kazak Yeli]

"Classified documents"?! Oh my god! Has Trump kept the nuclear launch codes or the secret password to Fort Knox?

[Emotional Support Crocodile]

Your argument was that he was a great leader because he stayed in power a long time. Now you are just asserting that he was, and not all Kazakh people feel that way.

The vast majority of Kazakh people feel like that.

Is that based on official polls?