I watched most of the 10 hours of the clown show yesterday while working on a project. I most frequently heard it pronounced, “Strock.” Like Spock, only with a ‘tr’ instead of a ‘p.’
Are we talking about the FBI making political statements, or about individual people who work for the FBI making political statements? The thread title says the former, but the real-world situation which presumably inspired the thread is the latter.
I will also admit to being surprised by this answer. I thought you had a pragmatic view of Trump from the start.
Do you have a specific “outrageous political statement” in mind?
One option is to choose high officials who have integrity. For example, Peter Strzok disliked Trump, had secret information on election violations that might have doomed Trump’s campaign if leaked; yet the idea of leaking to affect the campaign never occurred to Strzok.
Just to see if we’re on the same page, OP: Compare Strzok’s integrity with that of, say, Scott Pruitt or Jared Kushner.
Well put. There might be a need for internal guidelines about proper use of government computers and cell phones, but we don’t need a law to shut people up.
So, the FBI is trying to frame Trump. Says the Hannity, saw him say it. Also, the Justice Dept.
That means that the “mainstream” Republicans are to be purged from the ranks? The Night of the Long Nerfs?
Laws against them saying negative political statements? Surely if someone thinks the current president is monstrous and must be stopped, the problem not that they’re willing to say that, but rather that not every individual in any position of authority thinks that they think that.
And again, any accusation of “liberal bias” within the FBI falls flat when you consider what actually happened in the 2016 election - the FBI had potentially very damning information on both candidates, but only gave us the information on Clinton.
Would you mind making your subtext clear, silver lining? You have this obnoxious way of dancing around the point you’re trying to actually make, which most people tend to miss, because it’s a very silly point. Why not just say what you want to say? Is it that there should be a law to prevent what happened with Peter Strzok? Is it that the FBI is untrustworthy? What is your actual point here?
First, white folk who scream about Democrat v. Republican need to understand that all of ya’ll are white. Congress is 81% white. Congress is 81% white. Congress is 81% white. Let that sink in. Second, white folk need to understand that there are no laws that protect political affiliation. If you want your political speech protected, pass a goddamned law. White folks conceptualize, voice, draw, and animate School House Rock but suddenly forget it’s meaning. A testament how white folks have abandoned the fields education and knowledge to wander in the dark woods of white fragility. Lastly, ya’ll white folk didn’t give a shit when the FBI and law enforcement was waging war against minorities (or a Democratic President for that matter), but now because your white supremacist President is being investigated, you now see the light and want to reign in the FBI and law enforcement? Get out of here and stay on the porch; ya’ll on punishment for that.
You still had confidence to lose? Tell me something, so that we understand whether that statement of yours means much or not:
On a scale of 1 to 100, 1 being “There is nothing wrong with this President and he deserves our support” and 100 meaning “This bastard has got to go, ASAP”, where are you right now? Did that statement of yours move you from 7 to 8 on the scale, or did it move you from 89 to 90?
I know you didn’t ask me, but I’ll answer:
I think he was making a joke.
I’m often wrong when I think that wrt posts on the Dope, but I’m willing to stick my neck out again, in this instance.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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?
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.
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 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.
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.