Bad news for Loverboy?

[HereWeGoAgain]

They changed the wording to avoid having to charge hillary.

That’s such a dumb statement . You mean the wording that they drafted for the statement that they were making to explain the conclusions of their investigation? The same investigation that the IG found no work product bias in?

Why did Stroke change it?

Because the conclusion of their investigation was to not indict. It’s not hard to understand

They changed the wording because they had no intention of prosecuting.
Just like they declared her innocent before they even finished the investigation.

I love how you think you know more than the people who actually spent months investigating actual evidence. Sounds like you have wishful thinking and not an educated opinion

Both of my statements are true and factual.

 

[Slade3200]

That’s such a dumb statement . You mean the wording that they drafted for the statement that they were making to explain the conclusions of their investigation? The same investigation that the IG found no work product bias in?

Why did Stroke change it?

Because the conclusion of their investigation was to not indict. It’s not hard to understand

They changed the wording because they had no intention of prosecuting.
Just like they declared her innocent before they even finished the investigation.

I love how you think you know more than the people who actually spent months investigating actual evidence. Sounds like you have wishful thinking and not an educated opinion

And your explanation on changing the verbiage?

Ive explained it three times. Try to keep up

 

[iceberg]

I was just watching FOX and the guest stated Paige confirmed significant bias among current DOJ employees and Muellers team. Paige is exposing the deep state....

and yet now the people who defended her and strozk are about to attack her w/o mercy.

i just want to get to the truth. not some fucktards jacked up version of it.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Why did Stroke change it?

Because the conclusion of their investigation was to not indict. It’s not hard to understand

They changed the wording because they had no intention of prosecuting.
Just like they declared her innocent before they even finished the investigation.

I love how you think you know more than the people who actually spent months investigating actual evidence. Sounds like you have wishful thinking and not an educated opinion

And your explanation on changing the verbiage?

Ive explained it three times. Try to keep up

So a guy with an obvious bias changes the wording in a report and that doesnt set off alarm bells?
Please keep doing what you're doing.
People like you are the reason Trump got elected.

 

[Slade3200]

That’s such a dumb statement . You mean the wording that they drafted for the statement that they were making to explain the conclusions of their investigation? The same investigation that the IG found no work product bias in?

Why did Stroke change it?

Because the conclusion of their investigation was to not indict. It’s not hard to understand

They changed the wording because they had no intention of prosecuting.
Just like they declared her innocent before they even finished the investigation.

I love how you think you know more than the people who actually spent months investigating actual evidence. Sounds like you have wishful thinking and not an educated opinion

Both of my statements are true and factual.

Your statements are true but the corrupt spin you are trying to weave in there is your fantasy.

Yes they changed the verbiage because they weren’t going to prosecute. They weren’t going to prosecute because the evidence didn’t warrant prosecution. Conclusions are often realized mid way through investigations as the picture becomes clear. Then they wrap them up.

You seem to be trying to paint this deep state conspiracy but there is really nothing there.

 

[WelfareQueen]

You go Lisa Page.

 

[Slade3200]

Because the conclusion of their investigation was to not indict. It’s not hard to understand

They changed the wording because they had no intention of prosecuting.
Just like they declared her innocent before they even finished the investigation.

I love how you think you know more than the people who actually spent months investigating actual evidence. Sounds like you have wishful thinking and not an educated opinion

And your explanation on changing the verbiage?

Ive explained it three times. Try to keep up

So a guy with an obvious bias changes the wording in a report and that doesnt set off alarm bells?
Please keep doing what you're doing.
People like you are the reason Trump got elected.

If his colleagues and his director didn’t agree with the change then they wouldn’t have gone with it.

Sorry I’m not a deep state conspiracy theorist. That shit just makes you sound like a joke

 

[iceberg]

Why did Stroke change it?

Because the conclusion of their investigation was to not indict. It’s not hard to understand

They changed the wording because they had no intention of prosecuting.
Just like they declared her innocent before they even finished the investigation.

I love how you think you know more than the people who actually spent months investigating actual evidence. Sounds like you have wishful thinking and not an educated opinion

Both of my statements are true and factual.

Your statements are true but the corrupt spin you are trying to weave in there is your fantasy.

Yes they changed the verbiage because they weren’t going to prosecute. They weren’t going to prosecute because the evidence didn’t warrant prosecution. Conclusions are often realized mid way through investigations as the picture becomes clear. Then they wrap them up.

You seem to be trying to paint this deep state conspiracy but there is really nothing there.

if they didn't change the verbiage, is "gross negligence" something they would have to prosecute?

who made the request/suggestion to change it?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Why did Stroke change it?

Because the conclusion of their investigation was to not indict. It’s not hard to understand

They changed the wording because they had no intention of prosecuting.
Just like they declared her innocent before they even finished the investigation.

I love how you think you know more than the people who actually spent months investigating actual evidence. Sounds like you have wishful thinking and not an educated opinion

Both of my statements are true and factual.

Your statements are true but the corrupt spin you are trying to weave in there is your fantasy.

Yes they changed the verbiage because they weren’t going to prosecute. They weren’t going to prosecute because the evidence didn’t warrant prosecution. Conclusions are often realized mid way through investigations as the picture becomes clear. Then they wrap them up.

You seem to be trying to paint this deep state conspiracy but there is really nothing there.

Than why was it considered gross negligence before Stroke boy got a hold of it?

 

[Thinker101]

Why did Stroke change it?

Because the conclusion of their investigation was to not indict. It’s not hard to understand

They changed the wording because they had no intention of prosecuting.
Just like they declared her innocent before they even finished the investigation.

I love how you think you know more than the people who actually spent months investigating actual evidence. Sounds like you have wishful thinking and not an educated opinion

And your explanation on changing the verbiage?

Ive explained it three times. Try to keep up

Yup, not about to search for it.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Because the conclusion of their investigation was to not indict. It’s not hard to understand

They changed the wording because they had no intention of prosecuting.
Just like they declared her innocent before they even finished the investigation.

I love how you think you know more than the people who actually spent months investigating actual evidence. Sounds like you have wishful thinking and not an educated opinion

And your explanation on changing the verbiage?

Ive explained it three times. Try to keep up

Yup, not about to search for it.

No need.
All she did was twist it to fit her narrative.

 

[Thinker101]

They changed the wording because they had no intention of prosecuting.
Just like they declared her innocent before they even finished the investigation.

I love how you think you know more than the people who actually spent months investigating actual evidence. Sounds like you have wishful thinking and not an educated opinion

And your explanation on changing the verbiage?

Ive explained it three times. Try to keep up

Yup, not about to search for it.

No need.
All she did was twist it to fit her narrative.

I am shocked, just shocked...LOL.

 

[Slade3200]

Because the conclusion of their investigation was to not indict. It’s not hard to understand

They changed the wording because they had no intention of prosecuting.
Just like they declared her innocent before they even finished the investigation.

I love how you think you know more than the people who actually spent months investigating actual evidence. Sounds like you have wishful thinking and not an educated opinion

Both of my statements are true and factual.

Your statements are true but the corrupt spin you are trying to weave in there is your fantasy.

Yes they changed the verbiage because they weren’t going to prosecute. They weren’t going to prosecute because the evidence didn’t warrant prosecution. Conclusions are often realized mid way through investigations as the picture becomes clear. Then they wrap them up.

You seem to be trying to paint this deep state conspiracy but there is really nothing there.

if they didn't change the verbiage, is "gross negligence" something they would have to prosecute?

who made the request/suggestion to change it?

Yes, gross negligence has legal ramifications. Extremely careless doesn’t. If they were going to recommend an idictment they would have left the original language of the draft. Since they decided not to recommend persecution they changed it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Their messages conveyed that they would do anything to stop Trump from being elected, and if they failed at that, do whatever they can (insurance policy) to get him thrown out of office. It doesn't have to be illegal to be inappropriate. You don't let investigators who hate a subject to investigate them.

Right and as a result Pete was demoted and there was an investigation to see if actions were taken to try and stop trump from being elected.... NOTHING WAS FOUND. In fact many details that could have hurt trump during the election were kept secret and not exposed. How does that work with your narrative?

This jerk off was in charge of the investigation. His favorite was Hillary who he interviewed. HTF do you prove he was not aggressive enough during the investigation as he otherwise would have been for anybody else?

If he and his whore had any ability to change the election or circumstances afterwards, they would have done it.

Then why didn’t they leak about the Trump investigation? It surely would have hurt him

There was nothing to leak. I have no idea what you're talking about.

There was an FBI investigation into Russia election meddling and collusion with the Trump campaign since July of 2016. That’s before the election and if these agents really wanted to impact the election and hurt Trump they could have simply leaked details. Instead the national media was obsessed with locking hillary up and email servers, and Comey announcing all kinds of details about that investigation that her opponents pounced on.

Timeline of Russia Investigation - FactCheck.org

Oh please, the media was already talking about Russia collusion by then:

Is Donald Trump Working for Russia?

Clinton's campaign manager: Russia helping Trump - CNNPolitics

 

[Slade3200]

Because the conclusion of their investigation was to not indict. It’s not hard to understand

They changed the wording because they had no intention of prosecuting.
Just like they declared her innocent before they even finished the investigation.

I love how you think you know more than the people who actually spent months investigating actual evidence. Sounds like you have wishful thinking and not an educated opinion

Both of my statements are true and factual.

Your statements are true but the corrupt spin you are trying to weave in there is your fantasy.

Yes they changed the verbiage because they weren’t going to prosecute. They weren’t going to prosecute because the evidence didn’t warrant prosecution. Conclusions are often realized mid way through investigations as the picture becomes clear. Then they wrap them up.

You seem to be trying to paint this deep state conspiracy but there is really nothing there.

Than why was it considered gross negligence before Stroke boy got a hold of it?

It was a draft and a message that the fbi wanted to take a strong stand on so people would be more careful with how they protect their information in the future.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Former FBI lawyer Lisa Page was “cooperative” and "credible" in a closed-door session Friday with select House committee members that lasted nearly five hours.

U.S. Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., had been among Page’s harshest critics heading into the session, but he said her cooperation “speaks well of her,” according to the Hill. Lisa Page 'cooperative,' 'credible,' lawmakers say after 5-hour closed-door session
Did loverboys terrible performance testifying spark this? Desire to try to salvage career? IS this the first crack in conspirators silence?

I saw that yesterday.
But WTF is up with the closed door meeting?
Sounds like Lisa's testimony is far more enlightening than ol Stroke boys testimony.
It would have been great to see the look on Cummings,Jacksons ...etc's faces when she said she meant what she texted.

The most important part being when they asked her what those texts against Trump meant, and she answered "exactly what they said."

 

[Slade3200]

Right and as a result Pete was demoted and there was an investigation to see if actions were taken to try and stop trump from being elected.... NOTHING WAS FOUND. In fact many details that could have hurt trump during the election were kept secret and not exposed. How does that work with your narrative?

This jerk off was in charge of the investigation. His favorite was Hillary who he interviewed. HTF do you prove he was not aggressive enough during the investigation as he otherwise would have been for anybody else?

If he and his whore had any ability to change the election or circumstances afterwards, they would have done it.

Then why didn’t they leak about the Trump investigation? It surely would have hurt him

There was nothing to leak. I have no idea what you're talking about.

There was an FBI investigation into Russia election meddling and collusion with the Trump campaign since July of 2016. That’s before the election and if these agents really wanted to impact the election and hurt Trump they could have simply leaked details. Instead the national media was obsessed with locking hillary up and email servers, and Comey announcing all kinds of details about that investigation that her opponents pounced on.

Timeline of Russia Investigation - FactCheck.org

Oh please, the media was already talking about Russia collusion by then:

Is Donald Trump Working for Russia?

Clinton's campaign manager: Russia helping Trump - CNNPolitics

Did either of those articles say anything about an FBI investigation?

 

[iceberg]

They changed the wording because they had no intention of prosecuting.
Just like they declared her innocent before they even finished the investigation.

I love how you think you know more than the people who actually spent months investigating actual evidence. Sounds like you have wishful thinking and not an educated opinion

Both of my statements are true and factual.

Your statements are true but the corrupt spin you are trying to weave in there is your fantasy.

Yes they changed the verbiage because they weren’t going to prosecute. They weren’t going to prosecute because the evidence didn’t warrant prosecution. Conclusions are often realized mid way through investigations as the picture becomes clear. Then they wrap them up.

You seem to be trying to paint this deep state conspiracy but there is really nothing there.

if they didn't change the verbiage, is "gross negligence" something they would have to prosecute?

who made the request/suggestion to change it?

Yes, gross negligence has legal ramifications. Extremely careless doesn’t. If they were going to recommend an idictment they would have left the original language of the draft. Since they decided not to recommend persecution they changed it.

if they found gross negligence and that is prosecutable, then i would question the motives of anyone who would wish to change this. who made that request?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Ha, and y’all think the Trump Russia thing is a witch hunt. Just listen to yourselves.

So a couple FBI agents thought Trump was a douchebag... so did most of America. So what?! If bias wasn’t found in the work product, which it wasn’t then there is nothing there but partisan drama

by their own texts they were biased....she must be smart enough to know this where he wasn't.

Yeah they were bias, so what?! It wasn’t like they knew trump personally or had a conflict of interest, they just thought he was an idiot along with most of America. Do you think every cop and detective has zero opinion about the subjects of their investigations? As long as their work product is by the book, as the IG concluded, then what’s the big deal?

Slow down dood, in one post you say there was no bias, 5 minutes later you say there was bias...WTF. Considering much of that bias was conveyed on work devices, their work product is affected.

Ha, and y’all think the Trump Russia thing is a witch hunt. Just listen to yourselves.

So a couple FBI agents thought Trump was a douchebag... so did most of America. So what?! If bias wasn’t found in the work product, which it wasn’t then there is nothing there but partisan drama

by their own texts they were biased....she must be smart enough to know this where he wasn't.

Yeah they were bias, so what?! It wasn’t like they knew trump personally or had a conflict of interest, they just thought he was an idiot along with most of America. Do you think every cop and detective has zero opinion about the subjects of their investigations? As long as their work product is by the book, as the IG concluded, then what’s the big deal?

Slow down dood, in one post you say there was no bias, 5 minutes later you say there was bias...WTF. Considering much of that bias was conveyed on work devices, their work product is affected.

Actually I’m all my posts I said their opinions of Trump were biased but there wasn’t evidence of bias in their work. There is a difference

Most, if not all the companies I've worked for really discourage using work devices for anything other than work, and 50,000 bias tweets on a work device pretty much suggests work was affected. Although, I must agree, there is no evidence of any work at all.

These two people are intelligent enough to work in the FBI, so certainly they knew their texts could and would be monitored. However what they didn't expect is Hillary to lose, so they had no fear of using FBI phones to text each other because the Democrats would have never let those messages see the light of day.

Now that I think of it, it's likely they wanted Hillary to see those messages after she was elected; a little kissing ass points.

 

[Rambunctious]

A real PAGE Flipper.....LMAO....we finally have a flipper....Buuuuaaaahahahaha
Oh OOooooooo Obama?????