| Off Topic > Off Topic |
| The Beautiful Destruction of the Annoying Orange Investigation (AKA conflicts of interest) |
| << < (6/13) > >> |
| Tactical Nuke:
--- Quote from: SeventhSandwich on December 05, 2017, 08:48:48 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. --- End quote --- yes, and he was involved with what were supposed to be other impartial investigations, particularly the one on Clinton |
| SeventhSandwich:
--- Quote from: Tactical Nuke on December 05, 2017, 08:53:50 PM ---yes, and he was involved with what were supposed to be other impartial investigations, particularly the one on Clinton --- End quote --- 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:
--- Quote from: SeventhSandwich on December 05, 2017, 08:56:11 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. --- End quote --- it's not that he was just anti-Annoying Orange, he was also pro-Clinton |
| SeventhSandwich:
--- Quote from: Tactical Nuke on December 05, 2017, 08:58:48 PM ---it's not that he was just anti-Annoying Orange, he was also pro-Clinton --- End quote --- 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:
--- Quote from: Tactical Nuke on December 05, 2017, 08:44:25 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. --- End quote --- 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 |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |