New Evidence: FBI Agent Dismissed from Mueller Probe Let Clinton Off & Opened Russia Probe!

Looks like Trump is following JW he he he

a reply to: Grambler

Look at Jaded's link. It;'s very specific.

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: introvert

You forgot one key word:

or (2) having knowledge

I did not forget.

It transitions from "gross negligence, in section (1), to "having knowlege", in section (2).

Gross negligence or having knowledge.

Both specific in regards to intent.

a reply to: burntheships And also to you i say why don't you use the known proper use of the English language. You have zero respect from me.

a reply to: Grambler

Hahahahahaha! Yep. So if I was grossly negligent in the driving of my car, the prosecutor must prove I inetended to hurt another person.

If you intended to kill someone with your car and they can prove it, that would be the difference between the varying degrees of charges you would potentially face if you did not intentionally kill someone.

If my child is hurt in my home because is left my pool open, the court must prove is intened for the kid to get in the pool and drown. What a joke.

Joke indeed.

What a stupid example.

a reply to: introvert

Well as I have said all over ats, I don't think the bias should overturn verifiable evidence.

For example, let's says strzok was the on that found evidence of Manafprt improperly storing money.

As long as he can show the evidenve, his bias shouldn't matter.

However, in the case of hillary, we do not know if his bias affected the interview, because he didn't record it.

And given your stance that bias doesn't prove that people won't be impartial, I am sure you would not want sessions to have to recuse himself or anyone else.

In fact, why not just get Mueller out of there and allow trumps own lawyers to do the investigation.

Just because they are his lawyers, you would have to prove that they did something wrong.

You would have no problem with taht, right?

Of course you would, because what you really mean is its ok for anti trump bias to be involved in the investigations, but not pro trump.

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
a reply to: burntheships And also to you i say why don't you use the known proper use of the English language. You have zero respect from me.

You must be the new JoshuaCox2.0. I didn't know ATS needed another Clown but welcome.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler

Hahahahahaha! Yep. So if I was grossly negligent in the driving of my car, the prosecutor must prove I inetended to hurt another person.

If you intended to kill someone with your car and they can prove it, that would be the difference between the varying degrees of charges you would potentially face if you did not intentionally kill someone.

If my child is hurt in my home because is left my pool open, the court must prove is intened for the kid to get in the pool and drown. What a joke.

Joke indeed.

What a stupid example.

Right. I would be charged with manslaughter because my gross negligence caused someone to die, even though I did not intend for that person to die.

Much in the same way that intent was not necessary to prove gross negligence in Hillary's handling of classified documents.

Had she intends to get the material stolen or to otjers, that would be a more serious charge.

I have to command you for some grade a shilling for your side though.

Flat out inserting the word intent into the statute where it doesn't exist, even for you that is great dedication to defending your side.

Great job!

a reply to: Grambler

However, in the case of hillary, we do not know if his bias affected the interview, because he didn't record it.

Ok. So it would seem that playing "what if" would be pointless in this case.

And given your stance that bias doesn't prove that people won't be impartial, I am sure you would not want sessions to have to recuse himself or anyone else.

Sessions did not recuse himself because of his personal bias. He recused himself out of potential conflicts of interest.

Completely different monster altogether.

In fact, why not just get Mueller out of there and allow trumps own lawyers to do the investigation. Just because they are his lawyers, you would have to prove that they did something wrong. You would have no problem with taht, right?

Considering that Trump is part of the investigation, that would be a clear conflict of interest.

Of course you would, because what you really mean is its ok for anti trump bias to be involved in the investigations, but not pro trump.

I think you are completely confused. Are we talking bias or obvious conflicts of interest?

In this case, we are talking bias, but in your examples you are talking about conflicts of interest.

Two separate things.

Let's focus here.

a reply to: Perfectenemy I can assure you that Joshua would be very upset by that allegation. And I don't think ATS needs another num nuts posting crap......aka you

a reply to: Grambler

Right. I would be charged with manslaughter because my gross negligence caused someone to die, even though I did not intend for that person to die.

But you intended, or knowingly, operated the vehicle in an unsafe manner, even though you did not intend to kill someone.

See how that works?

Much in the same way that intent was not necessary to prove gross negligence in Hillary's handling of classified documents.

By definition, intent is required to prove gross negligence. That is not the same as simple negligence.

Had she intends to get the material stolen or to otjers, that would be a more serious charge.

Of course, if they could prove that intent. I think you're getting it.

I have to command you for some grade a shilling for your side though. Flat out inserting the word intent into the statute where it doesn't exist, even for you that is great dedication to defending your side.

I didn't insert anything. It was already in the statute I responded to.

Can't you fricken read?

a reply to: introvert

Conflicts of interest like lynch not recusing herself?

But anyways having a bias of wanting hillary to do well and trump to go down or vice versa seems to be a conflict of interest.

But fine, the Mueller should go and Shawn Hannity could appoint some of his lawyer friends to do a new hillary investigation and the investigation into trump.

No problems there, right?

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
a reply to: Perfectenemy I can assure you that Joshua would be very upset by that allegation. And I don't think ATS needs another num nuts posting crap......aka you

How adorable. Well sucks to be you because i'm always right.

a reply to: introvert

You seem to need help with your understanding



If the statute had meant for both clauses to apply at the same time, the word, "and," would have been used.

Lou Dobbs.

Mueller witch hunt corrupt to the core.

Live tv just now.

and I agree.

Partisan witch hunt.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler

Right. I would be charged with manslaughter because my gross negligence caused someone to die, even though I did not intend for that person to die.

But you intended, or knowingly, operated the vehicle in an unsafe manner, even though you did not intend to kill someone.

See how that works?

Much in the same way that intent was not necessary to prove gross negligence in Hillary's handling of classified documents.

By definition, intent is required to prove gross negligence. That is not the same as simple negligence.

Had she intends to get the material stolen or to otjers, that would be a more serious charge.

Of course, if they could prove that intent. I think you're getting it.

I have to command you for some grade a shilling for your side though. Flat out inserting the word intent into the statute where it doesn't exist, even for you that is great dedication to defending your side.

I didn't insert anything. It was already in the statute I responded to.

Can't you fricken read?

Now you get it!

They shouldn't have to prove that Hillary inetended for the material to be stolen or in danger, only that she knowingly stored the material where it wasn't allowed.

And we know she did this.

Just like I would have to knowingly operate the car in an unsafe manner, exactly like you say.

Case closed.

Great to finally have you understand!

a reply to: Grambler

Conflicts of interest like lynch not recusing herself?

Sure. I know that was just a deflection, but are you starting to understand the difference, or are you just throwing irrelevant crap at the wall to deflect from the unfortunate possibility that you don't know the difference between bias an conflict of interest?

But anyways having a bias of wanting hillary to do well and trump to go down or vice versa seems to be a conflict of interest.

No, it's a bias unless other inappropriate actions are taken...like appointing personal lawyers to go after political opponents.

But fine, the Mueller should go and Shawn Hannity could appoint some of his lawyer friends to do a new hillary investigation and the investigation into trump. No problems there, right?

Hannity is TV celeb and has no authority to appoint anyone to an official investigation.

Hit the coconut rum a little early tonight?

originally posted by: introvert


I didn't insert anything. It was already in the statute I responded to.

Can't you fricken read?

Well one of us is wrong. Luckily for us this is easily setteled.

jaded posted the statute last page.

Please show me the word intent.

I must have missed it because I can't fricken read.

So please, show me where the word intent is.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

You seem to need help with your understanding

I am doing just fine.

Did you not read or understand the link you posted?

Gross negligence, which by your own definition requires intent, in to "knowingly"...intent.

If the statute hand meant for both clauses to apply at the same time, the word, "and," would have been used.

Who said anything about both clauses applying at the same time? Are you arguing against something I never claimed?

We were talking about intent and the clauses you posted both refer to intent.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Grossly negligent means criminal acts are implied. It's not rocket science. Every lawyer would tell you that. Case closed. There is still the question if the changing of the draft was entirely legal. Comey wrote the draft himself or didnt he? If Trump pardons Peter Strzok i expect many character assassination attempts coming his way to discredit him. Well he #ed another woman behind his wifes back so he is not really a trustworthy guy to begin with.