Jump to content

Strzok Testimony

babysdaddy

By babysdaddy
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Anastasis

Anastasis 23375

Posted
Posted
On 8/14/2018 at 9:32 AM, tantric superman said:

Government.

I can't believe it took them this long to fire.

Biased investigation - you're fired.

Appearance of biased investigation - you're fired.

And yes, life isn't fair.  I'm sure if you looked at everyone's texts you'd have 100 new cases of apparent bias.  But he got caught in the cross hairs.

  

This.  Any of us working in the private sector caught texting disparaging remarks about candidates on the short list for CEO to a coworker that they were having an affair with via their company phone would be out on their ass. Shit.  Pick one of the three and you might be out on your ass, but all three. Come on.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 573
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Swam@Texas
Swam@Texas

For some reason, it's taking more than five minutes for every member of Congress and every American citizen to understand the incredibly simple concept that someone who texted "Fuck Trump" to his mist

Ghost of LL
Ghost of LL

Just a few general observations: 1) This notion that the FBI is some left-wing cabal is mildly amusing.  The FBI is probably the most Republican agency in the federal government.   2) Underl

Swam@Texas
Swam@Texas

1) They are elected officials with clearly understood adversarial agendas, not law enforcement officials who are tasked with objectively acting on behalf of the American people. 2) So if there wa

jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45512

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

This.  Any of us working in the private sector caught texting disparaging remarks about candidates on the short list for CEO to a coworker that they were having an affair with via their company phone would be out on their ass. Shit.  Pick one of the three and you might be out on your ass, but all three. Come on.  

I don't think that's a big point of contention.  The issue is Trumpkins' insistence that it renders the investigation meaningless, or at the very least, any evidence collected by Strzok should be inadmissible.  They just keep making shit up.

  • Like 1
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 27309

Posted
Posted (edited)
39 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

This.  Any of us working in the private sector caught texting disparaging remarks about candidates on the short list for CEO to a coworker that they were having an affair with via their company phone would be out on their ass. Shit.  Pick one of the three and you might be out on your ass, but all three. Come on.  

What if the independent inspector general for your public sector job did a thorough review of your actions, recommended a punishment, assured you that you would retain your job there, and then you were fired several weeks later for transparently political reasons and as punishment for political beliefs?

Sure would be a shame if political beliefs were affirmed as being protected under the 1A by the supreme court a couple years ago. But no you're right, this is completely acceptable for the trump admin to be trampling on somebody's first amendment rights. Trump's admin did nothing wrong, as is always the case apparently.

Edited by Captainant
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23375

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, Captainant said:

What if the independent inspector general for your private company did a thorough review of your actions, recommended a punishment, assured you that you would retain your job there...

Then I would apparently be a government employee. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 27309

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Then I would apparently be a government employee. 

Then your "what if" analogy doesn't really matter with regard to how Strzok was fired and you're just trying to muddy the water in the face of someone's 1A rights are being infringed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 17420

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Then I would apparently be a government employee. 

Keep in mind, unlike private employees, government employees are protected by the First Amendment from adverse employment decisions that result from their exercise of free speech.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23375

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Then your "what if" analogy doesn't really matter with regard to how Strzok was fired and you're just trying to muddy the water in the face of someone's 1A rights are being infringed?

I was agreeing with a prior post that pointed out the stark difference between what is apparently acceptable behavior in government jobs such as special agent for the FBI and basically any private sector position of any note. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23375

Posted
Posted
25 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Keep in mind, unlike private employees, government employees are protected by the First Amendment from adverse employment decisions that result from their exercise of free speech.  

That's great.  My point is that in the private sector railing your coworkers, misusing company property, and talking shit about your potential boss doesn't usually end well. Apparently if you are an FBI agent you get a pass on all that cause 1A. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 27309

Posted
Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

That's great.  My point is that in the private sector railing your coworkers, misusing company property, and talking shit about your potential boss doesn't usually end well. Apparently if you are an FBI agent you get a pass on all that cause 1A. 

Like most things, you're muddying the waters again.

All public employees enjoy that right because they should not have to worry about privately held partisan affiliation or opinions while working for the public interest. Because otherwise all our public services from education to sanitation to government agencies  would be subject to partisan approval and removal. Which generally isn't good for making sure those jobs get done in a timely and fiscally responsible manner.

Edited by Captainant
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Onboard 2.0

Onboard 2.0 9083

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Like most things, you're muddying the waters again.

All public employees enjoy that right because they should not have to worry about privately held partisan affiliation or opinions while working for the public interest. Because otherwise all our public services from education to sanitation to government agencies  would be subject to partisan approval and removal. Which generally isn't good for making sure those jobs get done in a timely and fiscally responsible manner.

Using the phrases in a timely manner and fiscally responsible when you're talking about civil servants is not what I'd call related topics.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 27309

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Using the phrases in a timely manner and fiscally responsible when you're talking about civil servants is not what I'd call related topics.

haha fair enough. I more mean that by creating more churn in agencies and governmental orgs, you're only worsening their ability to take care of their duties in a timely and fiscally responsible manner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Onboard 2.0

Onboard 2.0 9083

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, Captainant said:

haha fair enough. I more mean that by creating more churn in agencies and governmental orgs, you're only worsening their ability to take care of their duties in a timely and fiscally responsible manner.

No, I agree.  The free speech thing needs to be guarded strenuously for civil servants/anyone in the public sector.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23375

Posted
Posted

 

20 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

All posters here caping for Mr Strzok should contribute to his go Fund me page.  

 https://www.gofundme.com/peterstrzok

He's going for 500k now. Seems like a really worthy cause. Our world is totally fucked. 

Jill Stein was really the vanguard in fleecing idiots this cycle.  McCabe and Strzok are derivative. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 17420

Posted
Posted
39 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

That's great.  My point is that in the private sector railing your coworkers, misusing company property, and talking shit about your potential boss doesn't usually end well. Apparently if you are an FBI agent you get a pass on all that cause 1A. 

I don't understand your point. Are you suggesting that we shouldn't enforce the Constitution in this instance? This is a well established right--government employees are protected like everyone else from government action that infringes upon free speech.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tantric superman

tantric superman 4667

Posted
Posted
52 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Then your "what if" analogy doesn't really matter with regard to how Strzok was fired and you're just trying to muddy the water in the face of someone's 1A rights are being infringed? 

I admit there are two issues.  The first is whether this was a fireable offense from the get go. I think it was.  And I agree with Anastasis that lots of private sector folks would do a quick analysis and make the decision.

I think that you are correct that a clean termination can otherwise be made to look like impermissible retaliation (or at least bullshit retaliation).  The problem with this is of course that there is an internal recommendation not to term --- and therefore whether the term was a pretext is a legitimate issue. 

I've said my peace -- I would have fired this guy and cranked out an investigation that gave him minimal due process asap.  Now that it lingered, it looks bad.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29187

Posted
Posted
45 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

That's great.  My point is that in the private sector railing your coworkers, misusing company property, and talking shit about your potential boss doesn't usually end well. Apparently if you are an FBI agent you get a pass on all that cause 1A. 

Why do you hate the Constitution?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23375

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

I admit there are two issues.  The first is whether this was a fireable offense from the get go. I think it was.  And I agree with Anastasis that lots of private sector folks would do a quick analysis and make the decision.

I think that you are correct that a clean termination can otherwise be made to look like impermissible retaliation (or at least bullshit retaliation).  The problem with this is of course that there is an internal recommendation not to term --- and therefore whether the term was a pretext is a legitimate issue. 

I've said my peace -- I would have fired this guy and cranked out an investigation that gave him minimal due process asap.  Now that it lingered, it looks bad.

 

Agree with all of this.  Except *piece. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31184

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Captainant said:

What if the independent inspector general for your public sector job did a thorough review of your actions, recommended a punishment, assured you that you would retain your job there, and then you were fired several weeks later for transparently political reasons and as punishment for political beliefs?

Sure would be a shame if political beliefs were affirmed as being protected under the 1A by the supreme court a couple years ago. But no you're right, this is completely acceptable for the trump admin to be trampling on somebody's first amendment rights. Trump's admin did nothing wrong, as is always the case apparently.

Actually, the IG considered only Strzok's behavior as directly related to the Clinton investigation.  It didn't even mention the fact that he was porking the other feeb.  So the "recommended punishment" was only for the appearance of impropriety and other mis/malfeasances in connection with that investigation.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 45477

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

I don't think that's a big point of contention.  The issue is Trumpkins' insistence that it renders the investigation meaningless, or at the very least, any evidence collected by Strzok should be inadmissible.  They just keep making shit up.

This.  I could give a fuck why he got fired.  That doesn't make the whole investigation somehow tainted and/or irrelevant.  He is a tiny piece in this whole investigation, but they are trying to make him sound like some sort of mastermind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 27309

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Actually, the IG considered only Strzok's behavior as directly related to the Clinton investigation.  It didn't even mention the fact that he was porking the other feeb.

FWIW, I don't think it's against FBI policy (or federal employee conduct codes) to date another agent. There are concerns if it's a supervisor/employee situation or if there are financial implications to the relationship, but it's not generally a problem. Is it poor taste to cheat on your wife to bang a coworker? Absolutely. Is it a fireable offense? Not typically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45512

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

This.  I could give a fuck why he got fired.  That doesn't make the whole investigation somehow tainted and/or irrelevant.  He is a tiny piece in this whole investigation, but they are trying to make him sound like some sort of mastermind.

I should have been more clear, though -- I was agreeing to Anastasis' clarification of how the private sector would handle it.  I understand that government employees have more clearly enumerated rights to expression of political opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 17420

Posted
Posted
35 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I don't understand your point. Are you suggesting that we shouldn't enforce the Constitution in this instance? This is a well established right--government employees are protected like everyone else from government action that infringes upon free speech.

I should add, I'm not saying that in this instance the firing wasn't justified. I really don't have an opinion on that one way or another. I'm just saying we have to be cognizant that private employment isn't an entirely appropriate analog. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31184

Posted
Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, Captainant said:

FWIW, I don't think it's against FBI policy (or federal employee conduct codes) to date another agent. There are concerns if it's a supervisor/employee situation or if there are financial implications to the relationship, but it's not generally a problem. Is it poor taste to cheat on your wife to bang a coworker? Absolutely. Is it a fireable offense? Not typically.

https://www.justice.gov/jmd/ethics-handbook

 

Conduct Prejudicial to the Government

An employee shall not engage in criminal, infamous, dishonest, immoral or disgraceful conduct, or other conduct prejudicial to the government.In connection with overseas service, the State Department has defined notoriously disgraceful conduct as conduct which, were it to become widely known, would embarrass, discredit, or subject to opprobrium the perpetrator and the United States.

 

Given that the FBI has been pretty strenuous in the past as to appearing beyond reproach, I think the above probably cooks Strzok's goose even if not specifically forbitdden.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23375

Posted
Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

This.  I could give a fuck why he got fired.  That doesn't make the whole investigation somehow tainted and/or irrelevant.  He is a tiny piece in this whole investigation, but they are trying to make him sound like some sort of mastermind.

FTR, I don't think that Strzok getting fired should have any further impact on the perception of the investigation.  He already did his damage to the perception of the investigation. Which Mueller understood and which is why he removed him. 

Edited by Anastasis
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104462

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Is it poor taste to cheat on your wife to bang a coworker? Absolutely. Is it a fireable offense? Not typically.

Big caveat here -- when you have a security clearance, that sort of thing can ABSOLUTELY be a disqualifier.  Not because of what it says about you morally, etc., but because it can be a point of LEVERAGE that a hostile party can use against you.

"Drop the investigation of Bob Bad Guy, or we'll tell your wife you're cheating on her.  We have pictures, Agent.  You know what you need to do."

Compromising information is the problem.  You're not going to be compromised by dating someone.  You CAN be compromised by cheating on your wife (presuming that you intend to hide it from her).  Being in a compromising situation can disqualify you from your high-level-clearance position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31184

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Big caveat here -- when you have a security clearance, that sort of thing can ABSOLUTELY be a disqualifier.  Not because of what it says about you morally, etc., but because it can be a point of LEVERAGE that a hostile party can use against you.

"Drop the investigation of Bob Bad Guy, or we'll tell your wife you're cheating on her.  We have pictures, Agent.  You know what you need to do."

Compromising information is the problem.  You're not going to be compromised by dating someone.  You CAN be compromised by cheating on your wife (presuming that you intend to hide it from her).  Being in a compromising situation can disqualify you from your high-level-clearance position.

Yep, that too, alluded to earlier.  At one time, Strzok was head of domestic counterintel.  The "top domestic spy."  Extramarital affairs are no bueno in that context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GRHorn

GRHorn 105

Posted
Posted
38 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

He's going to do just fine in the private sector.

Doing what?  Why are people donating money to him then?  

I guess it's some new age perverse virtue signaling.  "Look at this money I donated to this able bodied #resistance member."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 27309

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Big caveat here -- when you have a security clearance, that sort of thing can ABSOLUTELY be a disqualifier.  Not because of what it says about you morally, etc., but because it can be a point of LEVERAGE that a hostile party can use against you.

"Drop the investigation of Bob Bad Guy, or we'll tell your wife you're cheating on her.  We have pictures, Agent.  You know what you need to do."

Compromising information is the problem.  You're not going to be compromised by dating someone.  You CAN be compromised by cheating on your wife (presuming that you intend to hide it from her).  Being in a compromising situation can disqualify you from your high-level-clearance position.

I definitely understand this angle, but that doesn't appear to be the case in Strzok's firing. Trump has said publicly that he fired Strzok for saying mean things about him. They could have hidden behind a reasonable justification like that for firing him, but that's not what the chief executive is saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104462

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, Captainant said:

I definitely understand this angle, but that doesn't appear to be the case in Strzok's firing. Trump has said publicly that he fired Strzok for saying mean things about him. They could have hidden behind a reasonable justification like that for firing him, but that's not what the chief executive is saying.

Oh, I"m not arguing that point at all.  Shit, the POTUS said he fired Comey over the Russia investigation.  We know EXACTLY why they were both fired -- political and obstruction of justice purposes.

I'm just noting that Strzok had another big problem, and that it means that termination could have been on the table no matter what.  DOTUS is too dumb to fucking know that, and he has to make it a political fight and political victory, but DOTUS gonna DOTUS.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45512

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Yes, perversions of the established sense based norms are quite common and accepted today.  Such is the fallen world we live in. 

LOL.  I'll include that in my prayers tonight to my Mom, the deceased English professor.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...