Should there be laws for the FBI and law enforcement from making political statements of anger

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?

Welcome what as the new normal?


FBI agents without personal opinions…hmm. Are you saying that we should root out all agents that bad-mouthed Hillary Clinton and supported Donald Trump publicly?

It’s not the new normal, it’s the old normal. Everybody bitches. I think it is wise not to discuss unrelated politics on work e-mail and I don’t see anything wrong with forbidding it as a standard job policy.

Private e-mail/text accounts? You should be allowed to do whatever you want. Free country and all that. I’ve been on a jury where I’ve( successfully )argued for acquittal on a count that I believed the individual was probably guilty of, but there just wasn’t enough evidence to support. Adults should be perfectly capable of rising above their biases to do there jobs and if they can’t forbidding then from talking about it isn’t going to change anything.

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.

If you for that, by all means say so.

In general there is nothing wrong with law enforcement having political opinions, and expressing those opinions privately, and my general impression is that your proposed law would probably hit a lot more people with opinions on the right rather than on the left. The problem with the FBI agents that presumably led to this thread is that they were actually involved in the investigation of the people they commented on. So although there is no evidence that this biased their investigation, the appearance of bias was all that was necessary to remove them from the case.

That said I can’t really blame them that when of dealing with evidence that the presidential nominee may be a Russian plant one might form the opinion that he should not be allowed to become president. If one of the agents tasked building up evidence to bring Rafael McDaniel to justice was heard to comment “At last we’re going to nail that bastard!” I don’t think that that would be grounds to call the whole investigation a biased witch hunt.

On the other hand public statements that go over the top to the point of including racial slurs and wishes of death to public officials are fair game for firing.

Are you talking about the New York Field Office which had all those leaks before the election about how Hillary broke the law? Those are the sort of thoughts you want to crack down on?

ETA: Also, if Congress were to conduct an impeachment hearing, should we also disqualify politicians who may have a bias for or against the public official in question from sitting in judgment?

Americans in the FBI (and other official organizations) can have political opinions, and speak privately about their political opinions, as long as they do not violate their oath to do their duties with objectivity. There is no evidence that Strzok, or anyone else in the FBI, did not do their duty with objectivity.

For example…?

I like the first amendment. It’s like, really awesome and stuff.


Is that the one that allows our congresscritters to publically denigrate the FBI and baselessly accuse them of all sorts of shenanigans?

Maybe not, but their statements raised a reasonable apprehension of bias about their ability to do their duties objectively, so they’re off the case.

Public servants have to be careful of the need to maintain the public confidence in government, and even their private statements, if related to their work, can undermine that confidence.

That pretty much goes without saying, but the remedy is to remove people from cases when the appearance of bias becomes a problem – as opposed to mandating that certain public officials no longer have First Amendment rights to have opinions on politics.

I agree. Booting them from the case was the right move.


But there is a law that does that. Article I, Section 6, Clause 1 of the supreme law of the land.


We talked about this. In the US, we have freedom of speech. If that freedom interferes with your work duties, then you can be fired. If it doesn’t, it’s your own business.

If you’re a member of the KKK and a cop, I really don’t have a problem with it. I do have a problem if 90% of the people you arrest are black when the department average is 10% or you have complaints of brutality against minorities. Being a member of the KKK makes you a bigot, but if you can compartmentalize your bigotry I don’t have an issue with it. I’m a liberal who voted for Clinton, I’m more than capable in my job of dealing with MAGAs in a fair and impartial manner. If I don’t do that, then I deserve to get canned, otherwise if I tell my wife that Donald Trump is a bleeding anus that needs to be horsewhipped and sent to a deserted island to repent of the stain that his presence makes on humanity, then that’s my business.