Lets just hold those bolting horses for a second. The site and "the person seems to know what they're talking about". Because they've dug up a picture of "a colour printed cover sheet" and passed their opinion that it, categorically, proves that... actually, what is the insinuation? That someone colour photocopied sheets because there's a white border?
Firstly, a printer can also resize to give the border by not printing to the edge of the paper; infact, default printing will likely resize to give the exact observed effect. Additionally, it's far more likely to have a colour printer than a colour photocopier. So is it supposed to be that these cover sheets are created and there are stacks in locations which people are supposed to pick up and use when moving documents that they've printed off? Or...
Secondly, even if you did - so? With printed paper from original electronic documents, there's no such thing as "original" or "copy". Having a classified document in his possession that's neither stored correctly nor legally entitled to see, is the problem. It shouldn't have been removed from wherever it was and absolutely shouldn't have been stored wherever it was. You copy a classified document, you end up with 2 classified documents. Having it in your possession or making copies when you aren't permitted to have it is the issue. There probably is some form of means to document all physical copies in existence though - to be able to account for. In that instance, were they correctly registered/documented as being produced. Maybe that's the insinuation.
As it is, those documents are classified regardless of the header sheet's he's claiming prove whatever he thinks it proves. Those header sheets are probably the only unclassified thing (other than the ruler) in the photo. But to jump from "it has a white line around it" to imply that 1) They're copies and therefore 2) there's something illegal about it beyond holding classified documents when he shouldn't, 3) they're also incorrectly stored.
Furthermore, trusting the site when...
[ERRATUM] After checking around a bit, I have learned that yellow is the appropriate color for a TS//SCI cover sheet. However, it’s a different shade of yellow.
He therefore published without knowing what he was talking about... "In a few pictures, that colour is not the same, therefore it's a copy" - followed by "people have now told me that is indeed the correct colour". What does this show? That he does due dilligence? That he researches and asks people in the know? No, it proves he runs off with assumptions that have zero research nor basis of knowledge or fact. It should be a huge red flag.
In an October 2018 Simmons Research survey of 38 news organizations, the Daily Kos was ranked the fifth least trusted news organization by Americans in a tie with Breitbart News, with the Palmer Report, Occupy Democrats, InfoWars and The Daily Caller being lower-ranked.[16]
Great source. Doesn't mean it can't be true. Just means don't believe some rambling eejits blog.
Finally, what secrets do you think are going to net Trump billions without anyone noticing? First of all, what secrets are worth billions? Secondly, how do you sell that to get billions without any of the organisations (including the IRS or whatever Govt Dept is responsible with checking his tax returns) noticing?
That article at the posts related to it whiff horribly. It doesn't mean there's not possibly something about it, but trusting that site as a single source and running with it to extrapolate out to his financial woes mean he'd copied to sell (seriously, electronic copies far easier) to bail himself out etc - its just too much. If we're going down conspiracy alley's based off what we read on a blog, then threads become worthless. If it's news from reputable sources there's likely something to comment and discuss. If it's something someone put on a blog, or on their twitter, or in a TikTok video without a reputable news source as the origin, then...
It starts with "I've been waiting for someone to point out this obvious tell..." - the answer is, perhaps there's no tell and he's a nut - it'd certainly explain why "no-one" is pointing it out.