Slade3200
Diamond Member
- Jan 13, 2016
- 66,227
- 16,729
- 2,190
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 communicationsif 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?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 didn't change the verbiage, is "gross negligence" something they would have to prosecute?Your statements are true but the corrupt spin you are trying to weave in there is your fantasy.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.
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.
who made the request/suggestion to change it?