Bad news for Loverboy?

[Thinker101]

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?

As long as it's less silly than you, I'm good.

 

[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.

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

and part of the team that made that change is under investigation for bias.

i agree he can be as angry as he wants at trump. i agree he and whoever he wants can exchange whatever texts they want. hell i even agree if there was something more nefarious going on that we'd have more than 1 insurance text to drool over and pretend it's the smoking gun it doesn't happen to be.

but if this person is on a team that gets to decide what to do with hillary, i'm simply not going to believe that he wasn't influenced by his emotions in a time where that is clearly how many in this country exactly behave.

would you agree that his being a part of that decision puts him in legitimate question then?

 

[Slade3200]

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?

As long as it's less silly than you, I'm good.

Hey, you’re the one playing the deep state conspiracy games. Carry on if you think it’s effective. Just sounds silly to me

 

[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.

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?

i didn't know trump was the one under investigation.

 

[Slade3200]

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

and part of the team that made that change is under investigation for bias.

i agree he can be as angry as he wants at trump. i agree he and whoever he wants can exchange whatever texts they want. hell i even agree if there was something more nefarious going on that we'd have more than 1 insurance text to drool over and pretend it's the smoking gun it doesn't happen to be.

but if this person is on a team that gets to decide what to do with hillary, i'm simply not going to believe that he wasn't influenced by his emotions in a time where that is clearly how many in this country exactly behave.

would you agree that his being a part of that decision puts him in legitimate question then?

Sure I can agree with that. But I don’t think it proves that the investigation was compromised. First of all there was a team involved, second, it was investigated and concluded that there was no bias in the work product. If something comes out that Strzok covered up or tampered with evidence then throw him in jail, I’m on board.

 

[Slade3200]

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?

i didn't know trump was the one under investigation.

At this point I would be surprised if he wasn’t

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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

and part of the team that made that change is under investigation for bias.

i agree he can be as angry as he wants at trump. i agree he and whoever he wants can exchange whatever texts they want. hell i even agree if there was something more nefarious going on that we'd have more than 1 insurance text to drool over and pretend it's the smoking gun it doesn't happen to be.

but if this person is on a team that gets to decide what to do with hillary, i'm simply not going to believe that he wasn't influenced by his emotions in a time where that is clearly how many in this country exactly behave.

would you agree that his being a part of that decision puts him in legitimate question then?

Sure I can agree with that. But I don’t think it proves that the investigation was compromised. First of all there was a team involved, second, it was investigated and concluded that there was no bias in the work product. If something comes out that Strzok covered up or tampered with evidence then throw him in jail, I’m on board.

A team of Trump haters to be sure.
And Lisa has already contradicted Strokes testimony.

 

[iceberg]

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

and part of the team that made that change is under investigation for bias.

i agree he can be as angry as he wants at trump. i agree he and whoever he wants can exchange whatever texts they want. hell i even agree if there was something more nefarious going on that we'd have more than 1 insurance text to drool over and pretend it's the smoking gun it doesn't happen to be.

but if this person is on a team that gets to decide what to do with hillary, i'm simply not going to believe that he wasn't influenced by his emotions in a time where that is clearly how many in this country exactly behave.

would you agree that his being a part of that decision puts him in legitimate question then?

Sure I can agree with that. But I don’t think it proves that the investigation was compromised. First of all there was a team involved, second, it was investigated and concluded that there was no bias in the work product. If something comes out that Strzok covered up or tampered with evidence then throw him in jail, I’m on board.

none of us in the cheap seats can prove much of anything at all.

we know the media is full of shit and can't be trusted, yet it's all we have to go by in the end. we now use jaded information to formulate our views and then argue over who is doing it better, it would seem.

i can't say if it was compromised or not. but if someone with a vast hate of trump will by their own words do whatever they can to stop him from winning, it simply isn't the reach the left makes it out to be to say that strozk was biased by having comey change the verbiage in the final document.

to argue that he didn't do it is just as baseless as to say he did. all i can say is the needle points to he did it out of bias but that is how i feel about it; not know for sure. since we can agree it's *NOT* a reach to come to this conclusion, i'll leave it there and bow out from here.

 

[iceberg]

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?

i didn't know trump was the one under investigation.

At this point I would be surprised if he wasn’t

find me a link somewhere that says he is. i'm in to learn and change my thoughts.

 

[Slade3200]

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

and part of the team that made that change is under investigation for bias.

i agree he can be as angry as he wants at trump. i agree he and whoever he wants can exchange whatever texts they want. hell i even agree if there was something more nefarious going on that we'd have more than 1 insurance text to drool over and pretend it's the smoking gun it doesn't happen to be.

but if this person is on a team that gets to decide what to do with hillary, i'm simply not going to believe that he wasn't influenced by his emotions in a time where that is clearly how many in this country exactly behave.

would you agree that his being a part of that decision puts him in legitimate question then?

Let’s look at teachers... how many do you think come home at night and talk shit about their kids. How many emails and text messages do you think get sent venting frustrations. Should we review all this communication and then fire the teachers that made statements that could be viewed as negative or biased against the kids? Point is there are words and then there are actions.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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

and part of the team that made that change is under investigation for bias.

i agree he can be as angry as he wants at trump. i agree he and whoever he wants can exchange whatever texts they want. hell i even agree if there was something more nefarious going on that we'd have more than 1 insurance text to drool over and pretend it's the smoking gun it doesn't happen to be.

but if this person is on a team that gets to decide what to do with hillary, i'm simply not going to believe that he wasn't influenced by his emotions in a time where that is clearly how many in this country exactly behave.

would you agree that his being a part of that decision puts him in legitimate question then?

Let’s look at teachers... how many do you think come home at night and talk shit about their kids. How many emails and text messages do you think get sent venting frustrations. Should we review all this communication and then fire the teachers that made statements that could be viewed as negative or biased against the kids? Point is there are words and then there are actions.

Not even close to the same thing.

 

[Slade3200]

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

and part of the team that made that change is under investigation for bias.

i agree he can be as angry as he wants at trump. i agree he and whoever he wants can exchange whatever texts they want. hell i even agree if there was something more nefarious going on that we'd have more than 1 insurance text to drool over and pretend it's the smoking gun it doesn't happen to be.

but if this person is on a team that gets to decide what to do with hillary, i'm simply not going to believe that he wasn't influenced by his emotions in a time where that is clearly how many in this country exactly behave.

would you agree that his being a part of that decision puts him in legitimate question then?

Sure I can agree with that. But I don’t think it proves that the investigation was compromised. First of all there was a team involved, second, it was investigated and concluded that there was no bias in the work product. If something comes out that Strzok covered up or tampered with evidence then throw him in jail, I’m on board.

A team of Trump haters to be sure.
And Lisa has already contradicted Strokes testimony.

Not to be “sure” that’s to be “presumptive”

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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

and part of the team that made that change is under investigation for bias.

i agree he can be as angry as he wants at trump. i agree he and whoever he wants can exchange whatever texts they want. hell i even agree if there was something more nefarious going on that we'd have more than 1 insurance text to drool over and pretend it's the smoking gun it doesn't happen to be.

but if this person is on a team that gets to decide what to do with hillary, i'm simply not going to believe that he wasn't influenced by his emotions in a time where that is clearly how many in this country exactly behave.

would you agree that his being a part of that decision puts him in legitimate question then?

Sure I can agree with that. But I don’t think it proves that the investigation was compromised. First of all there was a team involved, second, it was investigated and concluded that there was no bias in the work product. If something comes out that Strzok covered up or tampered with evidence then throw him in jail, I’m on board.

A team of Trump haters to be sure.
And Lisa has already contradicted Strokes testimony.

Not to be “sure” that’s to be “presumptive”

I'm not the only one saying it....
Opinion | Robert Mueller has got some explaining to do

 

[Slade3200]

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?

i didn't know trump was the one under investigation.

At this point I would be surprised if he wasn’t

find me a link somewhere that says he is. i'm in to learn and change my thoughts.

I don’t need links, I can just point to a few facts. If they are investigating Obstruction of Justice then Trump would be the subject. When they find several members of the campaign lying about connections with the Russians, including Trumps son then any goodninbestigator is going to dig into what they lied about, why they lied, and who know about it. Trump was found to have written a cover up statement for his sons meeting with the Russians, so of course Trump is being looked at. Again, this is all just my observation.

 

[Slade3200]

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

and part of the team that made that change is under investigation for bias.

i agree he can be as angry as he wants at trump. i agree he and whoever he wants can exchange whatever texts they want. hell i even agree if there was something more nefarious going on that we'd have more than 1 insurance text to drool over and pretend it's the smoking gun it doesn't happen to be.

but if this person is on a team that gets to decide what to do with hillary, i'm simply not going to believe that he wasn't influenced by his emotions in a time where that is clearly how many in this country exactly behave.

would you agree that his being a part of that decision puts him in legitimate question then?

Let’s look at teachers... how many do you think come home at night and talk shit about their kids. How many emails and text messages do you think get sent venting frustrations. Should we review all this communication and then fire the teachers that made statements that could be viewed as negative or biased against the kids? Point is there are words and then there are actions.

Not even close to the same thing.

Great explaination, I’ll think about that.

 

[Slade3200]

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

and part of the team that made that change is under investigation for bias.

i agree he can be as angry as he wants at trump. i agree he and whoever he wants can exchange whatever texts they want. hell i even agree if there was something more nefarious going on that we'd have more than 1 insurance text to drool over and pretend it's the smoking gun it doesn't happen to be.

but if this person is on a team that gets to decide what to do with hillary, i'm simply not going to believe that he wasn't influenced by his emotions in a time where that is clearly how many in this country exactly behave.

would you agree that his being a part of that decision puts him in legitimate question then?

Sure I can agree with that. But I don’t think it proves that the investigation was compromised. First of all there was a team involved, second, it was investigated and concluded that there was no bias in the work product. If something comes out that Strzok covered up or tampered with evidence then throw him in jail, I’m on board.

A team of Trump haters to be sure.
And Lisa has already contradicted Strokes testimony.

Not to be “sure” that’s to be “presumptive”

I'm not the only one saying it....
Opinion | Robert Mueller has got some explaining to do

I don’t know about you but if I was in charge of an investigation I would hire the best talent and look for people who will question and be skeptical. Y’all are acting like Trump should have a bunch of his friends investigating him. We saw how the house committees investigation went. It was a joke.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

and part of the team that made that change is under investigation for bias.

i agree he can be as angry as he wants at trump. i agree he and whoever he wants can exchange whatever texts they want. hell i even agree if there was something more nefarious going on that we'd have more than 1 insurance text to drool over and pretend it's the smoking gun it doesn't happen to be.

but if this person is on a team that gets to decide what to do with hillary, i'm simply not going to believe that he wasn't influenced by his emotions in a time where that is clearly how many in this country exactly behave.

would you agree that his being a part of that decision puts him in legitimate question then?

Sure I can agree with that. But I don’t think it proves that the investigation was compromised. First of all there was a team involved, second, it was investigated and concluded that there was no bias in the work product. If something comes out that Strzok covered up or tampered with evidence then throw him in jail, I’m on board.

A team of Trump haters to be sure.
And Lisa has already contradicted Strokes testimony.

Not to be “sure” that’s to be “presumptive”

I'm not the only one saying it....
Opinion | Robert Mueller has got some explaining to do

I don’t know about you but if I was in charge of an investigation I would hire the best talent and look for people who will question and be skeptical. Y’all are acting like Trump should have a bunch of his friends investigating him. We saw how the house committees investigation went. It was a joke.

And you're acting like his enemies should be investigating him.
Which is exactly whats happening.

 

[toobfreak]

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 Trump was right again.

 

[Slade3200]

Sure I can agree with that. But I don’t think it proves that the investigation was compromised. First of all there was a team involved, second, it was investigated and concluded that there was no bias in the work product. If something comes out that Strzok covered up or tampered with evidence then throw him in jail, I’m on board.

A team of Trump haters to be sure.
And Lisa has already contradicted Strokes testimony.

Not to be “sure” that’s to be “presumptive”

I'm not the only one saying it....
Opinion | Robert Mueller has got some explaining to do

I don’t know about you but if I was in charge of an investigation I would hire the best talent and look for people who will question and be skeptical. Y’all are acting like Trump should have a bunch of his friends investigating him. We saw how the house committees investigation went. It was a joke.

And you're acting like his enemies should be investigating him.
Which is exactly whats happening.

You are calling them his enemies without basis, that’s just right wing hyperbole. You’ve got two agents that didn’t like him and a couple lawyers that made donations to democrats. That doesn’t make them enemies and it doesn’t mean that they would break the law to try and corrupt the investigation.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

A team of Trump haters to be sure.
And Lisa has already contradicted Strokes testimony.

Not to be “sure” that’s to be “presumptive”

I'm not the only one saying it....
Opinion | Robert Mueller has got some explaining to do

I don’t know about you but if I was in charge of an investigation I would hire the best talent and look for people who will question and be skeptical. Y’all are acting like Trump should have a bunch of his friends investigating him. We saw how the house committees investigation went. It was a joke.

And you're acting like his enemies should be investigating him.
Which is exactly whats happening.

You are calling them his enemies without basis, that’s just right wing hyperbole. You’ve got two agents that didn’t like him and a couple lawyers that made donations to democrats. That doesn’t make them enemies and it doesn’t mean that they would break the law to try and corrupt the investigation.

Yeah right....