The article title implies that he’s already been sentenced and is on probation. That’s what that string of words means. The probation officer he met with is doing a presentence investigation. They aren’t assigned to him.
I.e. not his probation officer because he’s not on probation because this is still pre-sentencing.
Well just under the headline the article states “pre-sentencing”
So you didn’t take the time to understand the article, didn’t take the opportunity to realize your lack of understanding of the various roles and duties of a New York probation officer, and still haven’t, even though multiple inaccuracies in your statements have been pointed out to you.
Obtuse throughout.
Edit: engaging has been my mistake. I thought your original comment was in regards to the headline. This makes clear you are speaking to the article. Had I understood that, I would have not replied, as there would be little point.
So… Trump met with a probation officer that is assigned to his case currently. Right? So… His probation officer.
Super curious. What about this hair makes you think you needed to split it(and edit your error without acknowledging its correction)?
The article title implies that he’s already been sentenced and is on probation. That’s what that string of words means. The probation officer he met with is doing a presentence investigation. They aren’t assigned to him.
I.e. not his probation officer because he’s not on probation because this is still pre-sentencing.
I edited italics for clarity. Don’t be an ass.
Edit I also edited this post for clarity. Twice!
Well just under the headline the article states “pre-sentencing”
So you didn’t take the time to understand the article, didn’t take the opportunity to realize your lack of understanding of the various roles and duties of a New York probation officer, and still haven’t, even though multiple inaccuracies in your statements have been pointed out to you.
Obtuse throughout.
Edit: engaging has been my mistake. I thought your original comment was in regards to the headline. This makes clear you are speaking to the article. Had I understood that, I would have not replied, as there would be little point.