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.
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This law was rescinded about 30 years ago.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.