Trump stole top secret nuclear docs - greatest security risk in US history - MORE TAPES!!!

[Orlando Tim]

38 minutes ago, Andy1 said:

For myself, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, flies like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck, I feel reasonably comfortable calling it a duck. I don’t need a DNA test to tell me it’s a duck.

 

What standard of proof is needed? Does Trump need to go on trial to determine guilt or innocence for you?

Similar situation right now- do you think Araiza is a rapist? There is no evidence beyond the accusation but many are calling him a rapist 

[Andy1]

10 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

Similar situation right now- do you think Araiza is a rapist? There is no evidence beyond the accusation but many are calling him a rapist 

I have considered this. With Trump, there is evidence. The FBI removed dozens of boxes of classified docs. There are court records of why they searched and what they found. For me, that is credible evidence.
 

With Araiza, we don’t have any such evidence that has been publicly released. It certainly appears that an underage girl was raped, she filed a police report and got a rape test the next day, Araiza may have admitted to having sex with the victim, there may be phone recordings, there are probably witnesses, the others listed in the lawsuit might be friends of Araiza, it might have happened at a place where he lived. There is likely evidence about the events that day that we are not yet aware of.  Given all of that, it doesn’t look good for him. The Bills will be forced to make a decision with incomplete knowledge of the events that day. I would probably cut him, but I can’t say he is guilty and I can’t say he is completely innocent. 

[Orlando Tim]

1 minute ago, Andy1 said:

I have considered this. With Trump, there is evidence. The FBI removed dozens of boxes of classified docs. There are court records of why they searched and what they found. For me, that is credible evidence.

You consider the FBI raid as evidence when the search warrant states it was looking for evidence? By that thought process Brianna Taylor was guilty because they searched her house. What did the FBI find? That evidence is not presented yet and if it is presented I will decide the likelihood he is guilt then. I don't love Trump but the FBI has not  looked good when dealing with him. 

[SoCal Deek]

1 hour ago, nedboy7 said:

 

Is that what you got out of that?  Unreal.  Like Jan 6 was too? 

Yes, that’s what I got. So in a nutshell, the all knowing and infallible US Government lets a bunch of its employees pack up the President’s office and ship the boxes to his house. Then that same government decides they packed up the wrong stuff, wait until the homeowner is out of town, and then raid his home with weapons drawn to retrieve those documents (plus more for good measure) just to return them to the place they say they shouldn’t have been taken from in the first place. Yes…this is utterly STUPID story.

[Andy1]

19 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

You consider the FBI raid as evidence when the search warrant states it was looking for evidence? By that thought process Brianna Taylor was guilty because they searched her house. What did the FBI find? That evidence is not presented yet and if it is presented I will decide the likelihood he is guilt then. I don't love Trump but the FBI has not  looked good when dealing with him. 

Tim, read the affidavit. It is damning evidence. We are talking about thousands and thousands of pages of classified documents. These include the most sensitive information that could cause tremendous harm to national security. 

 

[BillsFanNC]

18 minutes ago, Andy1 said:

Tim, read the affidavit. It is damning evidence. We are talking about thousands and thousands of pages of classified documents. These include the most sensitive information that could cause tremendous harm to national security. 

 

 

All of this ignores, as per usual, that Donald Trump was POTUS.

 

 

[Orlando Tim]

1 hour ago, Andy1 said:

Tim, read the affidavit. It is damning evidence. We are talking about thousands and thousands of pages of classified documents. These include the most sensitive information that could cause tremendous harm to national security. 

 

The president had access to top secret documents? SHOCKING! He removed them from DC when he was president and he has the legal right to do that. If the FBI show us he was being inappropriate with the information then I will join the call to arrest him but this article for people who have TDS and don't understand that while president he could do whatever he wanted with ALL of the data you are fretting over. You do realize that Biden could tell Russia our entire military plan for Ukraine and it would be legal so long as he did not profit from it personally? 

[sherpa]

52 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

The president had access to top secret documents? SHOCKING! He removed them from DC when he was president and he has the legal right to do that. If the FBI show us he was being inappropriate with the information then I will join the call to arrest him but this article for people wh 

 

I strongly disagree with the focus of this post.

The President has access to what he needs to do his job.

There is absolutely no reason to have anything beyond that information, and I'm not sure why anyone would want to.

He is not an analyst. 

He has absolutely no background in these things.

 

Methods, sources and tech data/capability are not part of that reasonable request for data, and Trump wasn't that much interested in that stuff anyway.

 

I have absolutely no idea what they found, so for now, I'll not condemn him.

 

But if they found unprotected, important information at his home that has any significance to capability, sources or other compartmentalized intel that does not involve the president, we should be appalled.

 

I'll wait for more info, but if any of this is true, it is a stunning development, and we have to clean this up.

If this happened in the services, the firings/court martials would be instantaneous.

 

 

[Tiberius]

 

[Albwan]

leftie stooges clutching at their pearls is so amusing.

[B-Man]

 

                                             

 

 

.

[SoCal Deek]

4 hours ago, nedboy7 said:

 

Your take is utterly Stupid.  But typical. 

The facts of the case are undisputed. Deal with it. 

[TSOL]

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

 

 

 

Wait, was Ms. Lavarello a former president? 

 

That's comparing apples to *ucking bowling balls. 

[SoCal Deek]

19 minutes ago, nedboy7 said:

 

Maybe when you read the garbage you read.  I watch Fox.  I know your weird reality. 

And you believe what exactly? Let me guess….Trump was keeping the nuclear codes in his basement amidst his personal mementos just in case the border was opened, crime and inflation got out of hand, and war broke out in Eastern Europe? Oh wait….

[nedboy7]

4 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

And you believe what exactly? Let me guess….Trump was keeping the nuclear codes in his basement amidst his personal mementos just in case the border was opened, crime and inflation got out of hand, and war broke out in Eastern Europe? Oh wait….

 

It is hard to think he is that smart.  We can argue forever.  I always thought your posts were intelligent and reasonable over the years.  So I am going with that and we dont agree at some level in politics.  Much respect. 

[Orlando Tim]

8 hours ago, sherpa said:

 

I strongly disagree with the focus of this post.

The President has access to what he needs to do his job.

There is absolutely no reason to have anything beyond that information, and I'm not sure why anyone would want to.

He is not an analyst. 

He has absolutely no background in these things.

 

Methods, sources and tech data/capability are not part of that reasonable request for data, and Trump wasn't that much interested in that stuff anyway.

 

I have absolutely no idea what they found, so for now, I'll not condemn him.

 

But if they found unprotected, important information at his home that has any significance to capability, sources or other compartmentalized intel that does not involve the president, we should be appalled.

 

I'll wait for more info, but if any of this is true, it is a stunning development, and we have to clean this up.

If this happened in the services, the firings/court martials would be instantaneous.

 

 

the president had access to all info that government is aware of at all times. Anything that is kept from him would be considered treason if he asked for it directly. He is not kept in the loop for what he needs, he has free reign so long as no personal benefit is being realized. What the heck are you quoting when you are writing? Is this how your company works or are you simply unaware of how our Republic works?

[sherpa]

8 hours ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

the president had access to all info that government is aware of at all times. Anything that is kept from him would be considered treason if he asked for it directly. He is not kept in the loop for what he needs, he has free reign so long as no personal benefit is being realized. What the heck are you quoting when you are writing? Is this how your company works or are you simply unaware of how our Republic works?

 

I'm not sure what your question about "quoting" relates to.

I am quite aware how our Republic works, and have a good deal of experience in dealing with US intel data, how it is handled and the protocols involved in accessing it, studying it and eventually teaching it up to the Top Secret Noforn level  in areas I was involved in.

Higher levels of data, so called "compartmentalized" information, was not accessible unless there was a need to know. When the need was perceived, the info was available, but only to the level necessary.

 

Of course the President has access to whatever he wants. However, he has no need to know the very detailed information that would include names, specifics on technical capability and a host of other information.

He is not an analyst and has no technical capability.

He is briefed on a daily basis, and those briefs are tailored to his wants. 

The President trusts capable analysts to present the data that is important, and  requests what he wants if he wants more info.

These daily briefs have bee n very different for each Pres.

 

Again, I have no information on what was at his Florida place, but there is no justifiable reason to have items there that contain sensitive information on ongoing programs, sources, methods, or technology after his term, and certainly not in an unsecure setting. 

If that occurred, it is gross negligence and the gov agencies have a responsibility to fix the issue as soon as they are aware of it.

 

Ex presidents get basic intel info as a courtesy and are often consulted to offer views because of their experience in certain situations and knowledge of personalities, but are, essentially, regular citizens with secrets service protection.

 

 

Edited August 28, 2022 by sherpa

[Matt_In_NH]

8 hours ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

The President has access to what he needs to do his job

What about a former president?

[Orlando Tim]

1 hour ago, sherpa said:

 

I'm not sure what your question about "quoting" relates to.

I am quite aware how our Republic works, and have a good deal of experience in dealing with US intel data, how it is handled and the protocols involved in accessing it, studying it and eventually teaching it up to the Top Secret Noforn level  in areas I was involved in.

Higher levels of data, so called "compartmentalized" information, was not accessible unless there was a need to know. When the need was perceived, the info was available, but only to the level necessary.

 

Of course the President has access to whatever he wants. However, he has no need to know the very detailed information that would include names, specifics on technical capability and a host of other information.

He is not an analyst and has no technical capability.

He is briefed on a daily basis, and those briefs are tailored to his wants. 

The President trusts capable analysts to present the data that is important, and  requests what he wants if he wants more info.

These daily briefs have bee n very different for each Pres.

 

Again, I have no information on what was at his Florida place, but there is no justifiable reason to have items there that contain sensitive information on ongoing programs, sources, methods, or technology after his term, and certainly not in an unsecure setting. 

If that occurred, it is gross negligence and the gov agencies have a responsibility to fix the issue as soon as they are aware of it.

 

Ex presidents get basic intel info as a courtesy and are often consulted to offer views because of their experience in certain situations and knowledge of personalities, but are, essentially, regular citizens with secrets service protection.

 

 

Everything you are saying is true but you are missing the large point of the president has access to everything he wants while president- if a former CIA director had this stuff it would be different but as long as Trump brought it to Mar a largo while president and it has been kept secure then it is impossible for him to be in violation of any law. If they have evidence he was going to make it public maybe we have an issue but there is no evidence of that. 

[Orlando Tim]

57 minutes ago, Matt_In_NH said:

What about a former president?

If he brought to Mar a Largo while president and it has been kept secure he is clearly legally safe. No evidence has been shown these two things are untrue. All the labels of top secret mean nothing to this case without much more info 

[All_Pro_Bills]

1 hour ago, sherpa said:

 

I'm not sure what your question about "quoting" relates to.

I am quite aware how our Republic works, and have a good deal of experience in dealing with US intel data, how it is handled and the protocols involved in accessing it, studying it and eventually teaching it up to the Top Secret Noforn level  in areas I was involved in.

Higher levels of data, so called "compartmentalized" information, was not accessible unless there was a need to know. When the need was perceived, the info was available, but only to the level necessary.

 

Of course the President has access to whatever he wants. However, he has no need to know the very detailed information that would include names, specifics on technical capability and a host of other information.

He is not an analyst and has no technical capability.

He is briefed on a daily basis, and those briefs are tailored to his wants. 

The President trusts capable analysts to present the data that is important, and  requests what he wants if he wants more info.

These daily briefs have bee n very different for each Pres.

 

Again, I have no information on what was at his Florida place, but there is no justifiable reason to have items there that contain sensitive information on ongoing programs, sources, methods, or technology after his term, and certainly not in an unsecure setting. 

If that occurred, it is gross negligence and the gov agencies have a responsibility to fix the issue as soon as they are aware of it.

 

Ex presidents get basic intel info as a courtesy and are often consulted to offer views because of their experience in certain situations and knowledge of personalities, but are, essentially, regular citizens with secrets service protection.

 

 

What is unexplained is if these documents contain current "secret" and "confidential" information then why did the government fail to act with any sense of urgency?  As we're all being led to believe these are important secrets, they waited 20 months to execute a search and retrieval operation.  Agent executed subpoenas as recently as June and had access to the documents and removed a number of items and boxes at that time.  And by all accounts the President's legal team was cooperating.  What suddenly changed the tone of the engagement?   Yet an answer to this simple and basic answer question is elusive.  Its neither detailed in the affidavit or the warrant or any statements made by DOJ or the FBI.  In short there's no talk on the motive of the former President to hold these documents or the motive of the DOJ/FBI to change their previous casual attitude to one of urgency.  

 

Nothing to this point has convinced me to alter my initial suspicion that agents executed a warrant in search of something else.  Using the boxes of documents as pretext for probable cause to request a broadly scoped warrant.  To seize and secure anything related to the entire term of the presidency found anywhere at the residence.   

 

It also seems an unlikely coincident that the judge that signed off on the search was previously assigned to the Trump civil case against Clinton and then recused himself later after the case began only to show up here again here.  Given the contentious nature of the political environment I find it difficult to believe the events have no connection or the assignments of two critical cases to a specific magistrate were some game of chance random thing.

[BillStime]

2 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

If he brought to Mar a Largo while president and it has been kept secure he is clearly legally safe. No evidence has been shown these two things are untrue. All the labels of top secret mean nothing to this case without much more info 

The government asked for the documents back. Multiple times.

 

Trumps lawyers signed a statement in June that all documents had been turned over.

 

They lied.

 

The search was warranted. 
 

Trump is no longer POTUS and should not have had those classified documents.

[Tiberius]

26 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

What is unexplained is if these documents contain current "secret" and "confidential" information then why did the government fail to act with any sense of urgency?  As we're all being led to believe these are important secrets, they waited 20 months to execute a search and retrieval operation.  Agent executed subpoenas as recently as June and had access to the documents and removed a number of items and boxes at that time.  And by all accounts the President's legal team was cooperating.  What suddenly changed the tone of the engagement?   Yet an answer to this simple and basic answer question is elusive.  Its neither detailed in the affidavit or the warrant or any statements made by DOJ or the FBI.  In short there's no talk on the motive of the former President to hold these documents or the motive of the DOJ/FBI to change their previous casual attitude to one of urgency.  

 

Nothing to this point has convinced me to alter my initial suspicion that agents executed a warrant in search of something else.  Using the boxes of documents as pretext for probable cause to request a broadly scoped warrant.  To seize and secure anything related to the entire term of the presidency found anywhere at the residence.   

 

It also seems an unlikely coincident that the judge that signed off on the search was previously assigned to the Trump civil case against Clinton and then recused himself later after the case began only to show up here again here.  Given the contentious nature of the political environment I find it difficult to believe the events have no connection or the assignments of two critical cases to a specific magistrate were some game of chance random thing.

Because they (the Gov and Trump)  understood the backlash that would ensue getting these secrets away from him. Look, one person has been killed already and many many terrorist threats have been made. They acted with due caution before getting them back, Trump just should never have had them. Him just having and not securing them is a crime 

[Matt_In_NH]

54 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

If he brought to Mar a Largo while president and it has been kept secure he is clearly legally safe. No evidence has been shown these two things are untrue. All the labels of top secret mean nothing to this case without much more info 

I don’t think that is true.  Even as president there are rules about where hard copies are and are not kept.  

[sherpa]

54 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

 

Nothing to this point has convinced me to alter my initial suspicion that agents executed a warrant in search of something else.  Using the boxes of documents as pretext for probable cause to request a broadly scoped warrant.  To seize and secure anything related to the entire term of the presidency found anywhere at the residence.   

 

 

 

I have no opinion on why they acted when they did, what they found, or why he seemingly resisted requests to turn stuff over.

I do have an opinion on whether an ex president has the "right" to have currently classified information at a private unsecured location, no matter when he got it.

He doesn't.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Orlando Tim]

4 hours ago, Matt_In_NH said:

I don’t think that is true.  Even as president there are rules about where hard copies are and are not kept.  

The rules apply to keeping it secure, which if he did not keep them secure he could have an issue. Do we think Biden does not have top secret info in Delaware this weekend? It has to be kept secure.

5 hours ago, BillStime said:

The government asked for the documents back. Multiple times.

 

Trumps lawyers signed a statement in June that all documents had been turned over.

 

They lied.

 

The search was warranted. 
 

Trump is no longer POTUS and should not have had those classified documents.

The FBI lied? Yes we know they do it often, we just don't know if this one of the cases. Your opinion on this is literally below worthless because you will twist it all so long as Trump ends up in jail. As I have stated I am not sure of whether Trump is in trouble but neither does anyone who has not seen the actual info 

[sherpa]

Biden is the acting president.

Trump's status conveys no right to posses classified information at a private residence.

An ex president is a private citizen with secret service protection.

Anything he is provided is as a courtesy.

It is not his "right."

[Orlando Tim]

8 minutes ago, sherpa said:

Biden is the acting president.

Trump's status conveys no right to posses classified information at a private residence.

An ex president is a private citizen with secret service protection.

Anything he is provided is as a courtesy.

It is not his "right."

I thought he was "compartmentalized"? At least you dropped that argument. His argument will be he declassified whatever it is they are after, which he had the power to do while still president. I have heard conflicting opinions on how formal that process is but his argument is valid.

[BillStime]

20 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

The rules apply to keeping it secure, which if he did not keep them secure he could have an issue. Do we think Biden does not have top secret info in Delaware this weekend? It has to be kept secure.

The FBI lied? Yes we know they do it often, we just don't know if this one of the cases. Your opinion on this is literally below worthless because you will twist it all so long as Trump ends up in jail. As I have stated I am not sure of whether Trump is in trouble but neither does anyone who has not seen the actual info 

C’mon Tim - Trump will never see the inside of a jail cell - it’s never going to happen. 
 

He will never see the inside of the WH as POTUS either.  Sorry.
 

But you twisting yourself inside out to defend him having highly classified documents in one of the most insecure place on earth is pathetic. 

 

[Orlando Tim]

21 minutes ago, BillStime said:

C’mon Tim - Trump will never see the inside of a jail cell - it’s never going to happen. 
 

He will never see the inside of the WH as POTUS either.  Sorry.
 

But you twisting yourself inside out to defend him having highly classified documents in one of the most insecure place on earth is pathetic. 

 

Seriously your TDS is something special- if you think Mar a Largo is not more secure than all but about 50 buildings on the entire planet you are not realistic. If you doubt me try to get inside the gate much less anywhere near his actual house.

[BillStime]

2 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

Seriously your TDS is something special- if you think Mar a Largo is not more secure than all but about 50 buildings on the entire planet you are not realistic. If you doubt me try to get inside the gate much less anywhere near his actual house.

lmao - my TDS? lmao - your TDS is extra special - lmao

 

Can you elaborate on how secure Mar a Lago is? lmao

 

A Brief History of Mar-a-Lago’s Infamously Bad Security

The long list of episodes that stoked security concerns at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago

Secret 911 Call Log Reveals 17 Major Security Breaches At Mar-a-Lago After Donald Trump Left Office

 

Trump's Mar-a-Lago security breach: Officials shoot Connecticut woman's SUV after she crashes through checkpoints

 

Mar-a-Lago, a security ‘nightmare’ that housed classified records

 

[sherpa]

40 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

I thought he was "compartmentalized"? At least you dropped that argument. 

 

I have no idea what this means and I certainly have not dropped any argument.

He was "compartmentalized?"

[T master]

On 8/11/2022 at 7:28 PM, BillStime said:

The most corrupt POTUS/administration in our lifetime.

 

There is NO defense from the cult to justify Trumps actions w top secret / classified information.

 

 

 

 

 

If these accusations are true then be transparent & show who called for the warrant & if these accusations are true then they will find these documents because if you are right (which you are normally FOS) then it will be proven that Trump lied because they will find these things which you so boldly accuse him of pilfering .

[nedboy7]

So ironic that Garland will be the one to end the Trump cult.  

[Orlando Tim]

8 hours ago, sherpa said:

 

I'm not sure what your question about "quoting" relates to.

I am quite aware how our Republic works, and have a good deal of experience in dealing with US intel data, how it is handled and the protocols involved in accessing it, studying it and eventually teaching it up to the Top Secret Noforn level  in areas I was involved in.

Higher levels of data, so called "compartmentalized" information, was not accessible unless there was a need to know. When the need was perceived, the info was available, but only to the level necessary.

 

Of course the President has access to whatever he wants. However, he has no need to know the very detailed information that would include names, specifics on technical capability and a host of other information.

He is not an analyst and has no technical capability.

He is briefed on a daily basis, and those briefs are tailored to his wants. 

The President trusts capable analysts to present the data that is important, and  requests what he wants if he wants more info.

These daily briefs have bee n very different for each Pres.

 

Again, I have no information on what was at his Florida place, but there is no justifiable reason to have items there that contain sensitive information on ongoing programs, sources, methods, or technology after his term, and certainly not in an unsecure setting. 

If that occurred, it is gross negligence and the gov agencies have a responsibility to fix the issue as soon as they are aware of it.

 

Ex presidents get basic intel info as a courtesy and are often consulted to offer views because of their experience in certain situations and knowledge of personalities, but are, essentially, regular citizens with secrets service protection.

 

 

 

54 minutes ago, sherpa said:

 

I have no idea what this means and I certainly have not dropped any argument.

He was "compartmentalized?"

Do you still believe the president has compartmentalized data? Or is he given any data he requests?

[Orlando Tim]

1 hour ago, BillStime said:

lmao - my TDS? lmao - your TDS is extra special - lmao

 

Can you elaborate on how secure Mar a Lago is? lmao

 

A Brief History of Mar-a-Lago’s Infamously Bad Security

The long list of episodes that stoked security concerns at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago

Secret 911 Call Log Reveals 17 Major Security Breaches At Mar-a-Lago After Donald Trump Left Office

 

Trump's Mar-a-Lago security breach: Officials shoot Connecticut woman's SUV after she crashes through checkpoints

 

Mar-a-Lago, a security ‘nightmare’ that housed classified records

 

Interesting that not one of those people got anywhere near Trump or his home and when these things happen at the White House we don't question the security. Your belief that the majority of the Secret Service as incompetent buffoons is surprising to me.

[Matt_In_NH]

2 hours ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

The rules apply to keeping it secure, which if he did not keep them secure he could have an issue. Do we think Biden does not have top secret info in Delaware this weekend? It has to be kept secure.

 

That is not right.  There are approved areas this stuff is kept.  Access is always documented and available to be audited.  You cannot have a safe in your house unless it is approved for each sci program.  You don’t know what you are talking about 

[Orlando Tim]

20 minutes ago, Matt_In_NH said:

That is not right.  There are approved areas this stuff is kept.  Access is always documented and available to be audited.  You cannot have a safe in your house unless it is approved for each sci program.  You don’t know what you are talking about 

The documentation is part of keeping it secure, and we know he had secure information there for 4 years, so where did I get it wrong? When they reveal more information we might find out something Trump did was wrong but you guys are pretending that this info is available to the general public right now. 

[All_Pro_Bills]

7 hours ago, sherpa said:

 

 

I have no opinion on why they acted when they did, what they found, or why he seemingly resisted requests to turn stuff over.

I do have an opinion on whether an ex president has the "right" to have currently classified information at a private unsecured location, no matter when he got it.

He doesn't.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My concern isn't so much defending or explaining what Trump did or didn't do.  And I have no idea how past presidents have handled this situation and how they were treated.  I suspect there aren't a lot of posters here that have paid attention to the disposition of presidential records prior to this time around.

 

My problem is most government documents and information designated as "secret" are classified in that way to withhold the truth about lots of events and activities from the American public.  To avoid exposing the real actions taken by government that violate or contradict the official line.  To assist in the continuous process of shoveling BS and covering us with it.  Not information kept under wraps from all kinds of nefarious adversaries and enemies that would harm or injure Americans and American interests if they somehow got their grubby hands on the secret or confidential information.  That aspect of it all is part of the mystique of the "national security" issue mantra.  And when it's invoked the implication is it demands total and unwavering obedience to the excuse.  Most times it's a lie

Edited August 28, 2022 by All_Pro_Bills

[sherpa]

1 hour ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

 

Do you still believe the president has compartmentalized data? Or is he given any data he requests?

 

The acting president has access to compartmentalized data. Anybody who has the relevant security clearance and a need to know has such access.

He is given any data he requests, but it would be senseless for anyone to request data that does not inform a decision, and they don't.

Trump, as an ex president has no access beyond what they need to tell him, and I doubt that is anything.

I'm sure Bush senior was informed of the Iraqi plan to kill him, because they probably increased security measure in response, but Trump has no role in anything anymore, and has no right to intel data, and certainly no right to hold currently classified info.