Author Topic: The Beautiful Destruction of the Annoying Orange Investigation (AKA conflicts of interest) (Read 5872 times)

torin� · December 05, 2017, 07:17:55 PM

BASED Annoying Orange does it again

Ad Bot · Advertisement

Mr.No�ody · December 05, 2017, 07:20:49 PM

So, this Peter Strzok guy doesn't like Annoying Orange and Clinton much?
Yeah, D-Stroyed I guess...

PhantOS · December 05, 2017, 07:25:49 PM

Quote from: Tactical Nuke on December 05, 2017, 07:15:59 PM

yes, they specifically said that she mishandled classified information
they didn't charge her with anything though, because of the change in language in the memo

thats not exactly how the law works. you can't just change wording and suddenly all charges are dropped. the judges all keep personal records on the case. if they find tangible evidence it would be presented as part of the investigation

The words 'gross negligence' have nothing to do with her charges, it's just how it's described in the memo. what's probably happened is the same thing that happened to mike pence, which was that the storage of the confidential files on the private account cannot be charged, so nothing happens

PhantOS · December 05, 2017, 07:28:18 PM

Tampering with the memo also doesn't count as tampering with evidence, since memos aren't actually evidence but rather notes on the situation

Verification · December 05, 2017, 07:31:18 PM

i will destroy Political Threads Which Could Easily Go In The Politics Megathread !!!

Gytyyhgfffff · December 05, 2017, 07:38:37 PM

Quote from: Tactical Nuke on December 05, 2017, 07:15:59 PM

yes, they specifically said that she mishandled classified information
they didn't charge her with anything though, because of the change in language in the memo

you would think that if they actually were going to charge her with something they wouldn't just simply announce it in a memo they would announce it publicly and go through the process of charging her whatever that is

Tactical Nuke · December 05, 2017, 07:44:25 PM

The wording of the memo is very important. Under the Federal Statute for Prosecution, 18 U.S. Code � 793 (f):

Quote from: Federal Statute for Prosecution, 18 U.S. Code � 793 (f)

Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer�
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

If the original wording had remained "grossly negligent", this would have opened Clinton up to be prosecuted under federal law. But this guy changed it, so all of this is now irrelevant.

Fire Vine · December 05, 2017, 07:45:11 PM

Quote from: Verification on December 05, 2017, 07:31:18 PM

i will destroy Political Threads Which Could Easily Go In The Politics Megathread !!!

SeventhSandwich · December 05, 2017, 07:48:48 PM

On first inspection, it sounds to me like this agent, who was hired to help in an impartial investigation of Annoying Orange, was fired for having a documented anti-Annoying Orange bias. Is this the correction interpretation or am I reading this wrong? Genuinely asking, since I'm seeing like fifteen different threads in this story.

PhantOS · December 05, 2017, 07:50:50 PM

Quote from: Tactical Nuke on December 05, 2017, 07:44:25 PM

The wording of the memo is very important. Under the Federal Statute for Prosecution, 18 U.S. Code � 793 (f):

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

If the original wording had remained "grossly negligent", this would have opened Clinton up to be prosecuted under federal law. But this guy changed it, so all of this is now irrelevant.

ok if we were to assume that the fbi memo is a legally binding document (it most likely isn't), grossly negligent and gross negligence are separate things. It's like writing 'slanderous' and assuming that that word alone carries the charge of slander, which it doesn't

I can see where you're coming from but it's more than likely that the description of grossly negligent had zero weight beyond a description inside the memo. I'm no law major but if I was i'd probably say the same thing. After all, the law is serious, and the way charges are written and carried out isn't just determined by a memo in the fbi's office

Regardless, this whole email scenario is pretty much gross negligence. The only decisive factor is whether or not the charges exist in her state. in mike pence's state, email misuse isn't legally gross negligence so there were no charges.

Tactical Nuke · December 05, 2017, 07:53:50 PM

Quote from: SeventhSandwich on December 05, 2017, 07:48:48 PM

On first inspection, it sounds to me like this agent, who was hired to help in an impartial investigation of Annoying Orange, was fired for having a documented anti-Annoying Orange bias. Is this the correction interpretation or am I reading this wrong? Genuinely asking, since I'm seeing like fifteen different threads in this story.

yes, and he was involved with what were supposed to be other impartial investigations, particularly the one on Clinton

SeventhSandwich · December 05, 2017, 07:56:11 PM

Quote from: Tactical Nuke on December 05, 2017, 07:53:50 PM

yes, and he was involved with what were supposed to be other impartial investigations, particularly the one on Clinton

So it sounds like this person should have been fired a long time ago. But like, there is absolutely no way that this guy's sheer presence in the Clinton investigation was some kind of lynchpin that stopped her from being charged, convicted, and imprisoned. I hope that doesn't sound unreasonable.

Tactical Nuke · December 05, 2017, 07:58:48 PM

Quote from: SeventhSandwich on December 05, 2017, 07:56:11 PM

So it sounds like this person should have been fired a long time ago. But like, there is absolutely no way that this guy's sheer presence in the Clinton investigation was some kind of lynchpin that stopped her from being charged, convicted, and imprisoned. I hope that doesn't sound unreasonable.

it's not that he was just anti-Annoying Orange, he was also pro-Clinton

SeventhSandwich · December 05, 2017, 08:01:44 PM

Quote from: Tactical Nuke on December 05, 2017, 07:58:48 PM

it's not that he was just anti-Annoying Orange, he was also pro-Clinton

Yeah, but that's a given. He's the most controversial figure in the world. Unless you hire FBI agents from Papua New Guinean pygmy tribes devoid of contact from the outside world, there's a 100% probability that every single one of them has a polarized opinion on Annoying Orange - potentially a negative one.

If someone is going around and stuffting on the defendant in an investigation, then yeah, I would say that you might have a good case to remove them from the investigation for lack of impartiality. But that doesn't prove that they were damaging the investigation, and the fact remains that there's still gonna be biased people in any investigation regarding Annoying Orange or Clinton.

As it stands, conservatives will always find a new excuse for why the Clinton investigation didn't find the real, ground-breaking evidence. But it's just gonna get more crazy and tenuous as time goes on.

RedGajin · December 05, 2017, 08:03:15 PM

Quote from: Tactical Nuke on December 05, 2017, 07:44:25 PM

If the original wording had remained "grossly negligent", this would have opened Clinton up to be prosecuted under federal law. But this guy changed it, so all of this is now irrelevant.

where are you getting this info from. is there a consensus from lawyers or something that she would have been prosecuted? did the judge say that? just because you change wording in a memo doesn�t mean that any charges are dropped