Peter Strzok sues FBI for firing him over anti-Trump texts

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-08-2019, 11:02 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: So he sent a private message.. Was there ever any proof he did anything improper other than having an affair?

Dude, you haven't read the whole thread.  Please do.  I dig you, but I'm not going to repeat all the points made.  Benton's posts do an excellent job of explaining.

[Benton]

(08-08-2019, 08:49 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: He wasn't the one that made the statements public, though. I just have a problem with the assumption that private correspondences, if made public by a third party, can be used against you by and employer, and especially by the government. That is a concerning situation when it comes to our privacy rights and our rights of free expression.

It's a simplistic view, but if you tell someone else, it's not private. The exception there is in some regards to legal representation and a marriage. Spousal communications and spousal testimony has been laid out... I don't think there's been any case law to extend that to side pieces.

I have a right to privacy. I have a right to an opinion. If I keep that to myself or share it to my wife, I have a reasonable expectation for that to remain a non-issue. If I go to a bar, pick up a chick, tell her my opinion and she posts it to Facebook... that's my fault.

That's the nature of some jobs. At almost every newspaper I was at, you were prohibited from expressing political opinions. You were also prohibited from serving on civic boards or groups, but that aside, you couldn't be your local Democratic Chair or join your local Republican Women's Club without risk of being fired. That's the due because the job involves accusations of bias. If you don't like it, you're entitled to find a different job, or work for a different organization (some wear their partisanship like a badge).

In the end, all your freedoms are great, but nearly all of them have a reasonable expectation of limitation from some jobs. It's your right against unreasonable searches... but if you fly commuter planes for a living you can reasonably expect to get drug tested from time to time.

[Benton]

(08-08-2019, 09:55 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: So how far does this go? If anyone in public service expresses political opinions in a private message that was sent on a government issued device they should be fired?

(08-08-2019, 10:29 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't think the issue is his having a political opinion, everyone does.  What got him in trouble is the "we're going to stop Trump from getting elected" comment.  That comment exposes him to an interpretation that he would/could act improperly to ensure this.

Agreed. Political opinion is one thing, and different from outright partisanship. And in that case, it leaned toward politically motivated statements about his soon-to-be boss.

[NATI BENGALS]

(08-08-2019, 11:47 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dude, you haven't read the whole thread.  Please do.  I dig you, but I'm not going to repeat all the points made.  Benton's posts do an excellent job of explaining.

So nothing illegal. 

This is bonkers.

Does this mean every LEO in the country is now open to losing their life's worth of work if they express an opinion in private to a significant other about not wanting to see an individual elected. Seems like a super solid North Korea type deal. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-09-2019, 01:06 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: So nothing illegal.

No one mentioned illegal. 

Quote:This is bonkers.

Does this mean every LEO in the country is now open to losing their life's worth of work if they express an opinion in private to a significant other about not wanting to see an individual elected. Seems like a super solid North Korea type deal. 

There's a huge difference between expressing a preference and stating you would use your power to ensure your preference won the day.  This seems so blatantly obvious I'm honestly surprised I have the state it.

[jj22]

Let me try another point to let you guys know how lame this really is.

Why isn't it wrong to have an affair using government phones? We all know how many affairs go on and isn't that all improper use of the phone issued by the job to communicate/initiate the affair with the lover and hide it from the wife? That is far more improper than making a statement of non support for a president candidate. SO it's not the point it was a government phone. That is all spin. If it was, we all know we couldn't use the phone to text improper sexual relationship messages to an employee. That should have been their argument. Seems like they didn't care about any of that but do care that he seemed to not want to vote for Trump. Which is the only reason he was fired (because he didn't support a man he knew was under FBI Investigation for collusion with Russia in it's attack on America GASP! The nerve of him not to be ok with that scream Trump supporters who have long turned on the United States of America).

If the argument was improper use of government phone, then it should be the affair and improper relationship with a fellow employee.

It isn't which let's you know that it's bs.

[jj22]

(08-08-2019, 10:29 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't think the issue is his having a political opinion, everyone does.  What got him in trouble is the "we're going to stop Trump from getting elected" comment.  That comment exposes him to an interpretation that he would/could act improperly to ensure this.

So you guys want us (minorities) to believe that these White supremacist, Neo Nazi lawyers, cops, judges, politicians, employers, educators can set aside their personal feelings to treat minorities equally, but don't trust our law enforcement and FBI agents to set there politics aside?

If you really believe your comment, then it sounds like you are closer to understanding the minority plight living in a world with so many of these people in high positions and influence, and that's good even if you wouldn't have admitted it outright.

[GMDino]

I tend to side with his being fired due to the look of impropriety. Same as  would if a police officer was part of a racist thread on facebook or a judge made overtly political statements that could indicated a prejudice over certain cases.

On a personal level I don't think his texts were "I am part of a powerful group who will work to stop Trump!" but more "I don't believe as a voter tha we the people will let him into office".

Either way once they became public he had to pay the price for it.

I think a lot of people would be in the same boat.

To me the issue with the lawsuit is whether they followed the proper procedures to remove him.  We are non-union but have steps to termination (with exception) and they are all laid out in a handbook.  Even when followed to a "T" we have lost unemployment cases for technicalities.

As an aside: If public release of texts that are seen as biased from government officials is the bottomline for firing how does that apply to ALL political posts from our elected officials?  Could Trump be "fired" for calling democrats names and saying they should be investigated for whatever he saw on Fox and Friends that day?  Clearly that shows a bias that would affect his ability to make decisions good for the entire nation because he has shown he will not work with those members on the other side.  Could Ted Lieu be removed for accusing the POTUS of being racist without 100% concrete proof that he is?  If the Nixon tapes had come out during the Reagan terms in office could he have been impeached?

That's when I come down on the other side with Matt.  Political speech seems to be handled differently when it is made in public versus when it is made in private as if the private message means people are being "sneaky" and "underhanded" in their dealings simply because they then became public.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-09-2019, 09:28 AM)jj22 Wrote: So you guys want us (minorities) to believe that these White supremacist, Neo Nazi lawyers, cops, judges, politicians, employers, educators can set aside their personal feelings to treat minorities equally, but don't trust our law enforcement and FBI agents to set there politics aside?

Anyone in any of those positions who becomes known as anything you described should be removed from their position as well.  Or any hate group.

Quote:If you really believe your comment, then it sounds like you are closer to understanding the minority plight living in a world with so many of these people in high positions and influence, and that's good even if you wouldn't have admitted it outright.

I'm not one to type something I don't believe.  

[NATI BENGALS]

(08-09-2019, 01:46 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No one mentioned illegal. 


There's a huge difference between expressing a preference and stating you would use your power to ensure your preference won the day.  This seems so blatantly obvious I'm honestly surprised I have the state it.

Are you getting all that from the "we'll stop him" message?

What if that meant by casting our votes for a different candidate he will be stopped? 

I don't recall seeing anything where he stated he would use his power to impact the election.

[jj22]

(08-09-2019, 10:51 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Are you getting all that from the "we'll stop him" message?

What if that meant by casting our votes for a different candidate he will be stopped? 

I don't recall seeing anything where he stated he would use his power to impact the election.

He didn't have any power. He was just a regular fbi agent texting his girlfriend about current news (a presidential candidate he wasn't planning on voting for).

The religious right and conservatives don't care about him cheating and the improper relationship. Just that he didn't support their candidate. And for that, Hell must be paid.

Sounds more like NK or Russia then America.

Thankfully Hillary or Obama never cared about what fbi agents texted about them. Especially Hillary, you think no one mentioned her to their spouses with all the investigations going on? But they (Obama/Hillary) believed in a Democracy and aren't thin skinned.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-09-2019, 10:51 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Are you getting all that from the "we'll stop him" message?

What if that meant by casting our votes for a different candidate he will be stopped? 

I don't recall seeing anything where he stated he would use his power to impact the election.

You're thinking in far too concrete terms.  If you go back and reread the entire thread, especially Benton's posts, you'll, hopefully, understand why that statement was such a problem.  The fact that Strzok conducted himself in a completely unacceptable manner is not in dispute.  His best case scenario was demotion and censure, which is basically the end of his career.  His worst case scenario is what actually happened, termination.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-09-2019, 10:53 AM)jj22 Wrote: He didn't have any power. He was just a regular fbi agent texting his girlfriend about current news (a presidential candidate he wasn't planning on voting for).

The religious right and conservatives don't care about him cheating and the improper relationship. Just that he didn't support their candidate. And for that, Hell must be paid.

Sounds more like NK or Russia then America.

Thankfully Hillary or Obama never cared about what fbi agents texted about them. Especially Hillary, you think no one mentioned her to their spouses with all the investigations going on? But they (Obama/Hillary) believed in a Democracy and aren't thin skinned.

This hyperbolic post really leads me to conclude you don't understand the topic at hand at all.

[jj22]

Oh I got the topic at hand. You believe someone can't text their girl their political opinions.

I don't care what people text their significant others so I disagree.

You believe it was improper because of a government phone.

I believe it's lame to ignore everything else going on on that government phone (affair, scheduled dates, personal conversations etc), just to up and care when someone says they don't plan to help elect Trump.

I believe as an American, it's ok not to support a presidential candidate under FBI investigation for collusion with a foreign country who attacked America.

You're fine with him being fired for having the nerve not to.

I believe in a Democracy and free speech.

I believe if we have to trust people in high places to put personal feelings aside (KKK, Neo Nazi's, White Supremacists), then we have to trust fbi agents to do the same when it comes to politics.

Not rocket science. I'm always very clear about what I feel, and always understand the arguments proposed.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-09-2019, 11:19 AM)jj22 Wrote: Oh I got the topic at hand. You believe someone can't text their girl their political opinions.

Incorrect, lack of basic understanding intensifying. 

Quote:I don't care what people text their significant others so I disagree.

Not true.  If he said disparaging remarks about ethnic minorities you'd be the first one howling for his blood.  Please don't waste our time trying to deny this.

Quote:You believe it was improper because of a government phone.

Incorrect, lack of basic understanding intensifying. 

Quote:I believe it's lame to ignore everything else going on on that government phone (affair, scheduled dates, personal conversations etc), just to up and care when someone says they don't plan to help elect Trump.

Not what he said.  Lack of basic understanding intensifying. 

Quote:Not rocket science.

Indeed, which makes your confusion that much more puzzling.

[jj22]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/03/fbi-leaks-hillary-clinton-james-comey-donald-trump

Quote:The currently serving FBI agent said Clinton is “the antichrist personified to a large swath of FBI personnel,” and that “the reason why they’re leaking is they’re pro-Trump.”

The agent called the bureau “Trumplandia”, with some colleagues openly discussing voting for a GOP nominee who has garnered unprecedented condemnation from the party’s national security wing and who has pledged to jail Clinton if elected.

In the mean time I'll just keep reading up on all the anti Hillary Fbi agents yall don't seem to care about (go figure). But leave it to me to dig through and get to the bottom of spin to come up with an educated opinion yall will try to discredit because it doesn't fit fake news conservative talking points.

[jj22]

https://www.vox.com/world/2016/11/5/13525698/fbi-clinton-trump-leaks-server-email-scandal

Quote:Another anti-Clinton leak came Thursday, when sources thought to be disgruntled FBI officials told Fox News that an indictment was coming in the Clinton Foundation case. The story gave Trump a new talking point, dominated Fox’s primetime news programming, and rocketed across the conservative media before being debunked by an array of other media outlets. By that point, though, the damage had already been done.

Taken together, it’s easy to come away with the conclusion that the FBI is out to get Hillary Clinton. The truth, though, is far more complicated. The FBI isn’t a monolith, and it isn’t the bureau as a whole that is targeting Clinton. Experts who study the FBI believe the leaks are coming from a small clique of agents who profoundly distrust Clinton and believe she deserves to be punished for what they see as a long record of ethically dubious behavior.

[jj22]

https://washingtonmonthly.com/2018/12/10/how-rogue-agents-in-the-fbis-ny-field-office-helped-elect-trump/

Quote:You might recall that on October 26th (two days before Comey released his letter), Giuliani told Fox News’s Martha MacCallum, “I do think that all of these revelations about Hillary Clinton are beginning to have an impact. [Trump’s] got a surprise or two that you’re going to hear about in the next two days.”

What Comey didn’t mention is that the FBI was also leaking the information to Rep. Devin Nunes, as he later went on to tell Laura Ingraham.

Before I continue will anyone upset with Stizork speak out against what FBI agents did to Hillary publically, bragged about by Laura,Giuliani, and Nunes? Or was this really all about him not supporting Trump in a private text to his girlfriend as I said? I think we all know the answer, but these are interesting reads that' I'll continue to review to make sure I'm not as easily conned when I hear these lame political talking points and spin.

[jj22]

(08-09-2019, 11:22 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Incorrect, lack of basic understanding intensifying. 



Not true.  If he said disparaging remarks about ethnic minorities you'd be the first one howling for his blood.  Please don't waste our time trying to deny this.



Incorrect, lack of basic understanding intensifying. 



Not what he said.  Lack of basic understanding intensifying. 



Indeed, which makes your confusion that much more puzzling.

Basically you can't come up with anything but lame personal attacks. It beats lame threats to try to silence me since you found out that tactic wasn't going to work.

Hate to break it to you, but neither will personal attacks.

[NATI BENGALS]

(08-09-2019, 11:13 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You're thinking in far too concrete terms.  If you go back and reread the entire thread, especially Benton's posts, you'll, hopefully, understand why that statement was such a problem.  The fact that Strzok conducted himself in a completely unacceptable manner is not in dispute.  His best case scenario was demotion and censure, which is basically the end of his career.  His worst case scenario is what actually happened, termination.

I can only read it so many times. The only completely unacceptable conduct i am seeing is an affair. That is risky business. Especially if you lie about it, attempt to cover it up, and even pay hush money by improperly using funds. But i sont think he did anything that dirty.

You did a little dancing but no answer. So maybe you just made that part up about him saying he would use his powers to ensure he got the election results he wanted. Or you are repeating a fake news talking point. Or i totally missed it.