Bad news for Loverboy?

[Slade3200]

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?

I don’t think it was ever decided that it was gross negligence. It was a working draft of how to best communicate the findings of the investigation. And it was written before the conclusions had been decided on. Good reason why the public shouldn’t be seeing drafts and private communications

 

[Slade3200]

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.

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.

Great point Ray. I’m sure Hillary’s first point of business as POTUS would have been to read all the private text messages from the thousands of FBI agents.

 

[iceberg]

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?

I don’t think it was ever decided that it was gross negligence. It was a working draft of how to best communicate the findings of the investigation. And it was written before the conclusions had been decided on. Good reason why the public shouldn’t be seeing drafts and private communications

if gross negligence is a chargeable offense i would have to think comey knew this when he wrote it. would he do so lightly and in a "draft" motion?

*who* suggested making the change?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

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.

Great point Ray. I’m sure Hillary’s first point of business as POTUS would have been to read all the private text messages from the thousands of FBI agents.

Comey was part of the club. I'm sure he would have made it known to her.

 

[Thinker101]

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.

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.

Great point Ray. I’m sure Hillary’s first point of business as POTUS would have been to read all the private text messages from the thousands of FBI agents.

You mean when she runs a third time and it's rigged to the point where she can't lose. IF that were to happen, considering she overlooks "C-O-N-F-I-D-E-N-T-I-A-L T-O-P S-E-C-R-E-T" on the emails she did receive, pretty sure she won't be reading anything from the lowly FBI.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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.

Yeah......before the investigation had ended.
Funny that.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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.

....so they made it a non issue.
That'll sure stop em in the future!!!

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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?

I don’t think it was ever decided that it was gross negligence. It was a working draft of how to best communicate the findings of the investigation. And it was written before the conclusions had been decided on. Good reason why the public shouldn’t be seeing drafts and private communications

So how do you explain her exoneration before the investigation was even completed?
This of course makes your stance seem ridiculous at face value.

 

[iceberg]

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.

....so they made a non issue.
That'll sure stop em in the future!!!

non-issue
non-paper...

 

[Slade3200]

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?

I don’t think it was ever decided that it was gross negligence. It was a working draft of how to best communicate the findings of the investigation. And it was written before the conclusions had been decided on. Good reason why the public shouldn’t be seeing drafts and private communications

if gross negligence is a chargeable offense i would have to think comey knew this when he wrote it. would he do so lightly and in a "draft" motion?

*who* suggested making the change?

I wasn’t there so I won’t presume to know why he wrote it or what he thought about the investigation when he wrote it or who changed it or why... but I know after all was said and done the agreed upon conclusion came out like it did. It wasnt because of one man it was because of a team of FBI agents.

 

[Slade3200]

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.

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.

Great point Ray. I’m sure Hillary’s first point of business as POTUS would have been to read all the private text messages from the thousands of FBI agents.

Comey was part of the club. I'm sure he would have made it known to her.

I’m glad your sure. That’s funny

 

[Slade3200]

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.

Yeah......before the investigation had ended.
Funny that.

You don’t think investigators know where an investigation is going before it’s concluded? Really?

 

[iceberg]

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?

I don’t think it was ever decided that it was gross negligence. It was a working draft of how to best communicate the findings of the investigation. And it was written before the conclusions had been decided on. Good reason why the public shouldn’t be seeing drafts and private communications

if gross negligence is a chargeable offense i would have to think comey knew this when he wrote it. would he do so lightly and in a "draft" motion?

*who* suggested making the change?

I wasn’t there so I won’t presume to know why he wrote it or what he thought about the investigation when he wrote it or who changed it or why... but I know after all was said and done the agreed upon conclusion came out like it did. It wasnt because of one man it was because of a team of FBI agents.

but if you're saying they didn't charge her so they changed the wording, you are presuming for that stance then. yet, the other stance we can't presume.

as far as i know strozk was on that team. given his now diagnosed TDS and desire to ensure that didn't happen (insurance and all) it's not a reach to say he wanted that changed so she wouldn't be charged.

can we agree there?

 

[Thinker101]

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.

Yeah......before the investigation had ended.
Funny that.

You don’t think investigators know where an investigation is going before it’s concluded? Really?

Only the "rigged" ones.

 

[iceberg]

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.

Yeah......before the investigation had ended.
Funny that.

You don’t think investigators know where an investigation is going before it’s concluded? Really?

you don't seem to think they're aware of what "gross negligence" means when they initially write it.

NOT trying to slam you but a reach is a reach.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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.

Yeah......before the investigation had ended.
Funny that.

You don’t think investigators know where an investigation is going before it’s concluded? Really?

You think it's right to declare someone innocent when they havent even questioned the defendant under oath?

 

[Slade3200]

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.

Yeah......before the investigation had ended.
Funny that.

You don’t think investigators know where an investigation is going before it’s concluded? Really?

Only the "rigged" ones.

Do you realize how silly you sound?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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.

Yeah......before the investigation had ended.
Funny that.

You don’t think investigators know where an investigation is going before it’s concluded? Really?

Only the "rigged" ones.

Do you realize how silly you sound?

Hmmmmm.....I was thinking the same of you.

 

[Slade3200]

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.

Yeah......before the investigation had ended.
Funny that.

You don’t think investigators know where an investigation is going before it’s concluded? Really?

you don't seem to think they're aware of what "gross negligence" means when they initially write it.

NOT trying to slam you but a reach is a reach.

I’m not presuming to know what they were thinking. Maybe he thought she was guilty of criminal intent when he wrote it and then found evidence to convince him otherwise. Maybe he wanted to use harsh language to convey the seriousness of the security breach and that was the term he used but did want to confuse the conclusions so he changed the language. I don’t know, but I do know what the final conclusions were. The rest is uneducated speculation

 

[Slade3200]

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.

Yeah......before the investigation had ended.
Funny that.

You don’t think investigators know where an investigation is going before it’s concluded? Really?

You think it's right to declare someone innocent when they havent even questioned the defendant under oath?

Sure if the situation warrants it. Do you think Mueller has to question Trump to declare him innocent?