Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 07-14-2018, 03:05 PM
Quartz Quartz is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Home of the haggis
Posts: 29,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver lining View Post
Should there be laws for the FBI and law enforcement from making political statements of anger via emails or texts or not?

No, but I do think that political neutrality should be part of their contract of employment. So they are free to speak, but speaking should ordinarily cost them their jobs. Edge cases like whistleblowers will, of course, apply.
  #52  
Old 07-14-2018, 03:12 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 24,409
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
No, but I do think that political neutrality should be part of their contract of employment. So they are free to speak, but speaking should ordinarily cost them their jobs. Edge cases like whistleblowers will, of course, apply.
This is a horrible precedent for an imaginary problem. So much for the First Amendment.

Last edited by Ravenman; 07-14-2018 at 03:14 PM.
  #53  
Old 07-14-2018, 03:29 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 30,924
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
No, but I do think that political neutrality should be part of their contract of employment. So they are free to speak, but speaking should ordinarily cost them their jobs. Edge cases like whistleblowers will, of course, apply.
Part of their employment already includes not speaking publicly about politics (which is why he was removed from the case once his texts became public). Do you really believe they shouldn't be allowed to speak at all -- including in private?
  #54  
Old 07-14-2018, 03:34 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole Whack-a-Mole is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver lining View Post
I'm saying those conducting an investigation should not state their political opinions against someone with an ax to grind with co workers or other officials.
Clearly these people have opinions. Everyone does. They are American citizens and can (and do) vote. They have as much right to their political opinion as you do.

They bring that to work with them. Same as you do. There is no way around it.

It seems your complaint is that they should not discuss their opinions with anyone. Better to keep their bias hidden. If Peter Strzok had simply not talked to his mistress then no problem right?

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 07-14-2018 at 03:35 PM.
  #55  
Old 07-14-2018, 03:40 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 9,060
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Anyone here proud of Gowdy's performance yesterday?
I was proud of the blind squirrel that was trained to do his hair.

I mean, it's a pretty terrible 'do, but impressive work with those little paws.
  #56  
Old 07-14-2018, 04:11 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
Clearly these people have opinions. Everyone does. They are American citizens and can (and do) vote. They have as much right to their political opinion as you do.

They bring that to work with them. Same as you do. There is no way around it.

It seems your complaint is that they should not discuss their opinions with anyone. Better to keep their bias hidden. If Peter Strzok had simply not talked to his mistress then no problem right?
Actually, most of them don't. They leave them home. This is drilled into every civil servant from the moment they swear their oath. Every LEO, lawyer, judge, lowly "deep state" clerk like yours truly understands this. We all have our opinions, but we are not permitted to let them influence the work we do.

I'm an atheist. But every single day I went to work as a judge's assistant, I was required to administer oaths to witnesses, jurors and interpreters that included the words, "so help you God." I would have been rightfully fired had I refused to utter these words based on my personal opinions/beliefs.

I am a liberal. Most of the judges I worked for were conservatives. We would often spar over whatever political issues were topical in the privacy of the judges' chambers. But we left those biases at the door when we entered the courtroom -- as did the bailiffs, court reporters, prosecutors, public defenders and everyone else involved in the justice system. That's the job. My goodness, however did we all manage to process justice for all those many years without purity tests to determine whether we brought our personal biases into our work?

Similarly, Peter Strzok went to work every single day and put his personal beliefs aside to do his job. There are safeguards in place to ensure that if his personal beliefs bled into his work, the bias would be ameliorated. He made this point clearly at the (sham) hearing. He also made the very important point that he was fired due to the appearance of bias -- not that any bias entered the work he had done as an FBI agent. And let's remember, FBI agents are very biased against criminals. Strzok's strong opinions about Trump appear to be motivated by his belief that a criminal might assume the presidency -- not by the fact that Trump ran as a Republican.

Peter Strzok's mistakes were not that he had personal opinions, or even that he expressed them in his private life. His mistakes were to use a work phone to communicate those opinions and assuming he had any expectation of privacy on that phone. Mueller immediately remedied the situation when Strzok's carelessness was discovered, by removing him from the investigation. It was the right decision, and even Strzok does not disagree.

k9bfriender, Gowdy's hair don'ts never disappoint, do they?
  #57  
Old 07-14-2018, 04:17 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 6,934
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
No, but I do think that political neutrality should be part of their contract of employment. So they are free to speak, but speaking should ordinarily cost them their jobs. Edge cases like whistleblowers will, of course, apply.
But why should private comments cost them their jobs? I can see Mueller's logic in taking him off the case - that was the responsible decision to make. But fired for having a private opinion or making a private comment is dumb.
  #58  
Old 07-14-2018, 05:03 PM
Quartz Quartz is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Home of the haggis
Posts: 29,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
This is a horrible precedent for an imaginary problem. So much for the First Amendment.
I disagree and I speak from experience. If you are a member of a government agency - local government in my case - you need to be able to work with politicians of all hues. They need to be able to trust you. Therefore you must remain politically neutral. If you stray from neutrality you are forever tainted.

As for the First Amendment, nothing is stopping you from speaking, but you have the responsibility of shouldering the consequences.

Last edited by Quartz; 07-14-2018 at 05:04 PM.
  #59  
Old 07-14-2018, 05:05 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,839
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
I disagree and I speak from experience. If you are a member of a government agency - local government in my case - you need to be able to work with politicians of all hues. They need to be able to trust you. Therefore you must remain politically neutral. If you stray from neutrality you are forever tainted.
I doubt there as many people in the United States with any clue about politics who have no opinion about whether Trump or Clinton would make a better president as we would need to staff all the federal agencies. Because we would need more than zero people.
  #60  
Old 07-14-2018, 05:17 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 30,924
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
I disagree and I speak from experience. If you are a member of a government agency - local government in my case - you need to be able to work with politicians of all hues. They need to be able to trust you. Therefore you must remain politically neutral. If you stray from neutrality you are forever tainted.
This is already required by the FBI and other governmental organizations. It's ludicrous to suggest that they not be allowed in their private lives to talk about politics.
  #61  
Old 07-14-2018, 05:42 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 24,409
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
I disagree and I speak from experience. If you are a member of a government agency - local government in my case - you need to be able to work with politicians of all hues. They need to be able to trust you. Therefore you must remain politically neutral. If you stray from neutrality you are forever tainted.

As for the First Amendment, nothing is stopping you from speaking, but you have the responsibility of shouldering the consequences.
I have extensive experience with the Federal government and also work with both parties (and those with no parties). The idea that the people I work with are without political opinions because we don’t really talk about them during the workday is just... dumb.

The test I believe that people apply is whether one’s political opinions unfairly influence the job you are doing. And many times, when the political affiliations are well-known, doing a fair job for both sides is something that is frequently commended in DC.

Except in this case, where Republicans are demanding that someone do a job that is expected to result preconceived conclusion (Trump never did anything ever, witch hunt) and is using statements made outline of ones line of duty to disparage an investigator.

It’s totally fair that this investigator be removed in this case for the appearance of bias - even though an independent watchdog cleared him of bias in his work. But that does not mean that every civil servant must be prohibited from having political discussions outside of their official duties in all situations. That’s a sign of totalitarianism.
  #62  
Old 07-14-2018, 08:48 PM
simster simster is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,779
Its funny that we worry about people political leanings - but the OP says nothing about the religious leanings interfering.

(to wit, Pence, a county clerk in Ky, etc).
  #63  
Old 07-17-2018, 11:36 AM
Horatius Horatius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 864
Here in Canada, it used to be the law that public servants (including the RCMP and I believe other police forces) were barred from any public statements concerning politics, or political affiliations. The law went so far that you couldn't even put a campaign sign on your lawn.

This law was rescinded about 30 years ago.

I have noticed absolutely no change in the level of politicization or professionalism of the public service in those 30 years.

So, have a law, don't have a law, it matter not.
__________________
Where am I going, and why am I in this handbasket?
  #64  
Old 07-17-2018, 11:42 AM
BeepKillBeep BeepKillBeep is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
Here in Canada, it used to be the law that public servants (including the RCMP and I believe other police forces) were barred from any public statements concerning politics, or political affiliations. The law went so far that you couldn't even put a campaign sign on your lawn.

This law was rescinded about 30 years ago.

I have noticed absolutely no change in the level of politicization or professionalism of the public service in those 30 years.

So, have a law, don't have a law, it matter not.
Member of the Canadian Forces are forbidden from certain types of political speech according to the QR&Os. We were told during basic training that although it doesn't explicitly forbid certain political activities and speech that the best course of action is to not get involved in political activities (other than voting of course). The reason said was that it is important the military be subservient to the civil authority and getting involved in political activities risks blurring that line.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-pol...-01/ch-19.page

Last edited by BeepKillBeep; 07-17-2018 at 11:43 AM.
  #65  
Old 07-17-2018, 11:52 AM
Lemur866's Avatar
Lemur866 Lemur866 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The Middle of Puget Sound
Posts: 22,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
I disagree and I speak from experience. If you are a member of a government agency - local government in my case - you need to be able to work with politicians of all hues. They need to be able to trust you. Therefore you must remain politically neutral. If you stray from neutrality you are forever tainted.

As for the First Amendment, nothing is stopping you from speaking, but you have the responsibility of shouldering the consequences.
If expressing political opinions in private should get you fired, 97% of public employees would have to be fired.

I ride the bus to work sometimes, and my regular bus driver has expressed his opinions about President Trump. He is a public employee who works for an agency of the city. Should he be fired for complaining about Trump? Or should he only be fired if he complains about the mayor?

Dude, I don't know how you run things over in the United Kingdom, but over here in America we have freedom of speech. Civil service employees can't be fired just because they express a political opinion.
  #66  
Old 07-18-2018, 09:12 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 17,354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver lining View Post
Should there be laws for the FBI and law enforcement from making political statements of anger via emails or texts or not?

I for one think anyone empowered with the job that requires an investigation should refrain from of making outrageous political statements that can be perceived as bias against. No one would be picked for a jury for such as bias.

Do you agree, or welcome this as the new normal from the FBI?
Do you think his private e-mail should be submitted to the Republican Party so they can monitor his private thoughts? Does the U.S. need Lèse-majesté laws like Thailand has?

Strzok was a highly ethical public servant. He knew a Trump Presidency would damage the U.S.; he had confidential information about possible criminal behavior by Trump's campaign; and he knew he could leak that info anonymously and probably influence the election. Yet he refused to do so! That GOP liars and haters have twisted this into its opposite is astounding.

@ Silver lining — what would you think if a Democratic Congressman yelled "You lie!" at Trump while he was addressing Congress?
— What about a high official who called our Prez "Douchebag Donald" whenever he referred to him?

@ Silver lining — Please answer these questions. You ask us questions; we want to know how you feel.
  #67  
Old 07-19-2018, 12:31 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 17,354
@ Silver lining — Are you there? Cat got your tongue?
  #68  
Old 07-19-2018, 12:54 PM
Silver lining Silver lining is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 738
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Do you think his private e-mail should be submitted to the Republican Party so they can monitor his private thoughts? Does the U.S. need Lèse-majesté laws like Thailand has?

Strzok was a highly ethical public servant. He knew a Trump Presidency would damage the U.S.; he had confidential information about possible criminal behavior by Trump's campaign; and he knew he could leak that info anonymously and probably influence the election. Yet he refused to do so! That GOP liars and haters have twisted this into its opposite is astounding.

@ Silver lining — what would you think if a Democratic Congressman yelled "You lie!" at Trump while he was addressing Congress?
— What about a high official who called our Prez "Douchebag Donald" whenever he referred to him?

@ Silver lining — Please answer these questions. You ask us questions; we want to know how you feel.

Septimus,

Democratic say Trump lies all of the time. Have you been following the news lately? Whoever said lair to Obama during the State of the Union lacked class. The name of the person was who???? What did Obama say to prompt the reply? Was he deceiving, or being up front and honest?

Why did Clinton keep a private server? By definition of the law, sending classified information over a private server is illegal.

But more concerning it this. Why did Obama tell his chief security person to stand down during a Russian cyber attack aimed at our election? Answer that one, and I'll be floored.
I'll never duck out of a reply .PM me if needed as I don't always follow threads here. I would appreciate if you can give me an answer to the last question.

Last edited by Silver lining; 07-19-2018 at 12:55 PM.
  #69  
Old 07-19-2018, 01:00 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 24,409
Are you having as many problems with your fonts are you are your arguments?
  #70  
Old 07-19-2018, 01:15 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 8,643
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver lining View Post
By definition of the law, sending classified information over a private server is illegal.
This is not true. Many private companies send classified information over their own servers every single day.
  #71  
Old 07-19-2018, 01:21 PM
steronz steronz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 4,443
Here ya go, buddy.
  #72  
Old 07-19-2018, 04:08 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 17,354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver lining View Post
Septimus,

Democratic say Trump lies all of the time. Have you been following the news lately? Whoever said lair to Obama during the State of the Union lacked class. The name of the person was who???? What did Obama say to prompt the reply? Was he deceiving, or being up front and honest?

Why did Clinton keep a private server? By definition of the law, sending classified information over a private server is illegal.

But more concerning it this. Why did Obama tell his chief security person to stand down during a Russian cyber attack aimed at our election? Answer that one, and I'll be floored.
I'll never duck out of a reply .PM me if needed as I don't always follow threads here. I would appreciate if you can give me an answer to the last question.
Hi, Silver lining. Thanks for answering.

I'm trying to put your views into focus. I'm looking to compare apples with apples, or at least with oranges.I hope you will focus on the questions I ask, and the comparisons I make. Don't veer into other tangents; instead answer my questions and explain the apparent inconsistencies in your already-stated position.

You mention an FBI officer who badmouths Trump in personal private e-mail. I mention a Congressman who interrupts Obama's speech to Congress to say "You Lie!" Yes, I've muddied the waters here. An officer of the executive is different from an elected legislator. I wonder how you would compare these examples of bad-mouthing. You seem to think the former should be illegal, and the latter shows "lack of class." Fine, I guess. But then you introduce "Democratic say Trump lies all of the time." What does this even mean? Certainly many GOP call D's liars and worse. Then you suggest that Obama deserved the bad lip. Trump doesn't? Which President do you think lies more often?

And you focus particularly on Obama's alleged complicity with the Russian election meddling. steronz addresses the facts on this, but I want to ask you what you think Obama's motive was. WHY, in your opinion, did Obama "tell his chief security person to stand down during a Russian cyber attack"?

It's very clear from the evidence already published that the Russians were trying to help Trump, not Clinton. The FBI knew this; Obama knew this. Yet you seem to imply Obama failed to pursue this. Even if the meddling couldn't be stopped, publicizing it would help the Democrats.

Yet you seem to think Obama showed malice or partisanship by standing down a counter-terrorism team. Supposing this were true, WHY do you think Obama did this?? Did he want Trump to win?
  #73  
Old 07-19-2018, 04:34 PM
elucidator elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 59,031
I think he told us why, when he made that statement about it was difficult to impossible for anyone to rig an election as complex and scattershot as ours. The Russian interference would have been entirely legal if it had been done by Americans. Nothing illegal about lying your ass off on FB. Nor for targeting carefully chosen demographics.

He didn't think it would work. Add to that, McConnell was tuning up to scream his head off at any suggestion of chicanery on the part of the Russians, he would fire up his base by claiming that Obama was just firing up his base. Obama is a patriotic centrist, he loves our country and grieves to see compromise and accommodation fall to fanaticism. Last thing he wanted to do was pour more gas on that fire. In a word, conscience.

And lastly, it seemed a good bet that Hillary would win anyway. Why risk such awful results for nothing?

It was a wise and carefully considered choice, kinda the reason I voted for him. But, bless his heart....he was wrong. And so it went.
__________________
Law above fear, justice above law, mercy above justice, love above all.
  #74  
Old 07-19-2018, 05:12 PM
Lemur866's Avatar
Lemur866 Lemur866 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The Middle of Puget Sound
Posts: 22,145
I still want to know if my bus driver should be fired for complaining about Trump.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:29 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017