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

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-09-2019, 11:45 AM)jj22 Wrote: 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.

There isn't a single personal attack in that post, so kindly stop whining.  I do find the accusation amusing, and intensely hypocritical, since you accused me of being a Nazi sympathizer earlier in this very thread.  Quit simply, if you're going to engage in this level of childish conduct I will leave you to continue responding to yourself.  Thank you and good day.

[Benton]

(08-09-2019, 12:15 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: 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.

Him having an affair is none of my business.

Him speaking out against his boss is his boss's business (and just cause for being fired).

Him as a public employee talking about impacting the Democratic process or plotting against other public employees and elected officials is my business.

For the same reason I didn't like the politically motivated Clinton investigations, I don't like this.

[jj22]

(08-09-2019, 12:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: There isn't a single personal attack in that post, so kindly stop whining.  I do find the accusation amusing, and intensely hypocritical, since you accused me of being a Nazi sympathizer earlier in this very thread.  Quit simply, if you're going to engage in this level of childish conduct I will leave you to continue responding to yourself.  Thank you and good day.

So again. You have nothing.

In the mean time, I'll keep reading up on the FBI agents public leaks against Hillary that were so blatant folks bragged about it on Fox and in conservative media. They used their power to really effected the election (Per Rudi) you know, the stuff you don't care about (go figure), while you stay mad at a private text to a girlfriend that had no effect on the election because none of us knew about it until long after Trump was elected.

Hell he should have just leaked Trump was under FBI investigation if he really wanted to be apart of the resistance. He didn't. But then again, you guys think the FBI were pro Clinton (as they hid Trump being under investigation and leaked all about Hillary). So the long con has worked.

The rest of us remember it was Clinton under full attack from the FBI leaks while Trump was fully protected.

[NATI BENGALS]

(08-09-2019, 12:55 PM)Benton Wrote: Him having an affair is none of my business.

Him speaking out against his boss is his boss's business (and just cause for being fired).

Him as a public employee talking about impacting the Democratic process or plotting against other public employees and elected officials is my business.

For the same reason I didn't like the politically motivated Clinton investigations, I don't like this.

It wasnt his boss it was a candidate for most of this i thought? And if we fired every government employee who shared a negative opinion in private about their boss we might as well be north korea.

I dont ever recall the USMC telling me i wasnt allowed to have private conversations about my political beliefs. If this was out in public for the world to see i would agree with yalls point there. But it was private text messages.

Other than imaginations running wild with a few words "we'll stop him" where is this him talking about impacting the democratic process and plotting against public employees and elected officials?

[Benton]

(08-09-2019, 02:11 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: It wasnt his boss it was a candidate for most of this i thought? And if we fired every government employee who shared a negative opinion in private about their boss we might as well be north korea.

I dont ever recall the USMC telling me i wasnt allowed to have private conversations about my political beliefs. If this was out in public for the world to see i would agree with yalls point there. But it was private text messages.

Other than imaginations running wild with a few words "we'll stop him" where is this him talking about impacting the democratic process and plotting against public employees and elected officials?

To the first graf, it's a first amendment issue. You have the right to criticize your boss. Your boss also has the right to fire you for it. Go to work tomorrow,call your boss a few names and tell co-workers you need to make sure he's not your boss any more.

To the second, have all the conversations you want, regardless of employment. As I said, none of those outside of a spouse or sometimes legal counsel, are private. If you call your Co names and say you're trying to get rid of him, I don't expect him to just say 'well, guess you got me!'

Well, yeah, if you exclude the part where he says that, then I guess he didn't say that. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-09-2019, 12:15 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: 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.

It's not the only thing as I'll explain below (again).

Quote:You did a little dancing but no answer.

I didn't even tap my feet.

Quote: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.

I certainly didn't make it up because I literally never said it.  If you disagree please pull the quote.

Quote:Or you are repeating a fake news talking point. Or i totally missed it.

I've literally said everything I'm about type in this thread.  I will repeat it here for your benefit.

When Strzok said what he said he opened himself to allegations of bias.  Once this perception of bias is created it now taints every decision Strzok made, past and present and any he makes in the future.  His own words state he cannot be trusted to act impartially.  He may never act on this bias, he may make unbiased decisions in this regard for his entire career.  The problem is there is no way to prove that.  At the very least he is wide open to accusations of implicit bias, i.e. bias he acts upon without even being aware of it.  I made the comparison before and oddly enough no one has actually addressed it; if he made disparaging remarks about a ethnic or religious minority would not any decision he made involving such a person be suspect?  Would you have no problem with it then?


In the LEO profession you cannot be perceived as having a bias and be expected to conduct your business in a fair and  impartial manner.  Again, even the appearance of bias is just as bad as blatant displays of it as it introduces the same doubt as to your ability to fairly conduct your job.  If his conversation had never come to light he would not be perceived as being biased and therefore would have no problems in this area.  But he did and he is and that's the fact.

[*PhilHos*]

(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?

But as long as they're espousing their white supremacist, Neo Nazi views to their wives/girlfriends you don't think they should be fired, correct?

[NATI BENGALS]

(08-09-2019, 01:46 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  stating you would use your power to ensure your preference won the day.  

?

[NATI BENGALS]

(08-09-2019, 02:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's not the only thing as I'll explain below (again).



I didn't even tap my feet.



I certainly didn't make it up because I literally never said it.  If you disagree please pull the quote.


I've literally said everything I'm about type in this thread.  I will repeat it here for your benefit.

When Strzok said what he said he opened himself to allegations of bias.  Once this perception of bias is created it now taints every decision Strzok made, past and present and any he makes in the future.  His own words state he cannot be trusted to act impartially.  He may never act on this bias, he may make unbiased decisions in this regard for his entire career.  The problem is there is no way to prove that.  At the very least he is wide open to accusations of implicit bias, i.e. bias he acts upon without even being aware of it.  I made the comparison before and oddly enough no one has actually addressed it; if he made disparaging remarks about a ethnic or religious minority would not any decision he made involving such a person be suspect?  Would you have no problem with it then?


In the LEO profession you cannot be perceived as having a bias and be expected to conduct your business in a fair and  impartial manner.  Again, even the appearance of bias is just as bad as blatant displays of it as it introduces the same doubt as to your ability to fairly conduct your job.  If his conversation had never come to light he would not be perceived as being biased and therefore would have no problems in this area.  But he did and he is and that's the fact.

So lets break this down in its most simple form.

A LEO sharing a political opinion in private is grounds for termination. 

Ha. Scary to think there are people on board with cleaning house of anyone who disagrees with the dear leader. And all they need to prove it is a vague comment made in private.

What a joke. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-09-2019, 03:20 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: ?

Ahh, I understand the confusion now.  He literally said, "we'll make sure that doesn't happen".  You've actually bolstered my argument btw, as this shows how subject to interpretation his remarks were.

(08-09-2019, 03:34 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: So lets break this down in its most simple form.

A LEO sharing a political opinion in private is grounds for termination.

Nope.  This was not said or intimated. 

Quote:Ha. Scary to think there are people on board with cleaning house of anyone who disagrees with the dear leader. And all they need to prove it is a vague comment made in private.

What a joke. 

I am forced to conclude that the argument being put forth is either beyond your comprehension or you choose not to try and comprehend it.  You're drawing conclusions from what is being said that could not be drawn if you did.  That being the case I'm fine with leaving things as is and moving on.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

This literally could not have been better timed.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/08/09/black-man-michigan-cop-kkk-house-suspension/?noredirect=on

In response, Muskegon announced on Thursday that the police department had opened an internal investigation “after a social media post was brought to our attention accusing an officer of being in possession of certain items associated with a white supremacy group.” The local government wrote in a Facebook post that the police officer was “immediately placed on administrative leave, pending a thorough investigation.”


I'm curious, do the people defending Strzok in this thread feel the same way about the officer in this story?  After all, these are just objects in the man's home right? 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

A further quote from the article.



The prosecutor later cleared Anderson of wrongdoing and eventually charged Phillips with lying to police, prompting protests from Johnson’s family and the NAACP, according to MLive. Eric Hood, the president of the Muskegon County chapter of the NAACP, has now called for a comprehensive look at Anderson’s dealings with people of color, WOOD reported.

“We want a thorough investigation to be sure that when he goes out there and puts on that uniform and performs his duties as an officer that he’s being fair and impartial,” he said to the outlet.

Where have I heard this argument before?

[*PhilHos*]

(08-09-2019, 03:34 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: A LEO sharing a political opinion in private is grounds for termination. 

Except it wasn't in private. Not when you use company provided equipment.

[NATI BENGALS]

(08-09-2019, 04:02 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This literally could not have been better timed.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/08/09/black-man-michigan-cop-kkk-house-suspension/?noredirect=on

In response, Muskegon announced on Thursday that the police department had opened an internal investigation “after a social media post was brought to our attention accusing an officer of being in possession of certain items associated with a white supremacy group.” The local government wrote in a Facebook post that the police officer was “immediately placed on administrative leave, pending a thorough investigation.”


I'm curious, do the people defending Strzok in this thread feel the same way about the officer in this story?  After all, these are just objects in the man's home right? 

I didnt see anything in there that said proudly displaying racist memorabilia in your home as the public is invited in to view it is the same as sharing political thoughts in a text message to a significant other.

He is allowed to hang up whatever he wants in his house. But when you openly invite the public in and display to them a framed kkk application. Now you are demonstrating to the public an apparent bias that just became of public concern. 

I doubt the freedom of information act covers the text messages of FBI employees.

[NATI BENGALS]

Oh and just wanted to mention. Being racist and not liking a political candidate are two different things. Just an fyi

[jj22]

(08-09-2019, 03:06 PM)PhilHos Wrote: But as long as they're espousing their white supremacist, Neo Nazi views to their wives/girlfriends you don't think they should be fired, correct?

If people had to worry about all the White Supremacist, Neo Nazi's talking about it to their wives, unemployment would be well over 20%.

I maintain the point I've always maintained.

I don't care what you text your wife. When we start caring about what people text their wives and girlfriends then we are waaaaay into peoples personal lives.

But yall like this change of subject talking point presented by Socio. Thinking it's because I mentioned White supremacist, and that tends to bring out the Trump supporters in full frenzy of defense. So I'm against White supremacy, and yall know it. Are you guys going to try to throw that up in my face in every debate. The nerve of me!

The question is would you still want them fired? I haven't changed my opinion at all.

[Benton]

(08-09-2019, 04:55 PM)jj22 Wrote: But yall like this change of subject talking point presented by Socio.

Well, yeah. The whole issue is that he said it. If he didn't say it, it's not an issue. You can be partisan. That's okey dokie. You can also be fired if your employer disapproves of the publicity your partisanship brings.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-09-2019, 04:40 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: I didnt see anything in there that said proudly displaying racist memorabilia in your home as the public is invited in to view it is the same as sharing political thoughts in a text message to a significant other.

He is allowed to hang up whatever he wants in his house. But when you openly invite the public in and display to them a framed kkk application. Now you are demonstrating to the public an apparent bias that just became of public concern. 

I doubt the freedom of information act covers the text messages of FBI employees.

(08-09-2019, 04:48 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Oh and just wanted to mention. Being racist and not liking a political candidate are two different things. Just an fyi

Well, I'm completely done here.  I don't know any simpler way to convey the point being made.

[Belsnickel]

(08-09-2019, 04:02 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This literally could not have been better timed.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/08/09/black-man-michigan-cop-kkk-house-suspension/?noredirect=on

In response, Muskegon announced on Thursday that the police department had opened an internal investigation “after a social media post was brought to our attention accusing an officer of being in possession of certain items associated with a white supremacy group.” The local government wrote in a Facebook post that the police officer was “immediately placed on administrative leave, pending a thorough investigation.”


I'm curious, do the people defending Strzok in this thread feel the same way about the officer in this story?  After all, these are just objects in the man's home right? 

Yes. I think if something like that is discovered there is just cause to investigate whether there has been any racial bias in their work. If there has not, they should not be fired. I would advocate for counseling on public image and ensure there is either a lack of mention of the police department anywhere on the page or the white supremacist stuff is taken down.

There is, however, still a difference in posting on social media and texts between two parties. But I still support a person's right to freedom of expression in that way as long as their actions are not biased.

Edit: Just saw the follow up post. Seems fair to me and what I was saying all along.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-09-2019, 06:21 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yes. I think if something like that is discovered there is just cause to investigate whether there has been any racial bias in their work. If there has not, they should not be fired. I would advocate for counseling on public image and ensure there is either a lack of mention of the police department anywhere on the page or the white supremacist stuff is taken down.

There is, however, still a difference in posting on social media and texts between two parties. But I still support a person's right to freedom of expression in that way as long as their actions are not biased.

Edit: Just saw the follow up post. Seems fair to me and what I was saying all along.

The social media post was from the person who went to the house to potentially buy it, not the officer.  The officer did not post any of these objects on social media or anywhere else.  That's why these two cases are such a good parallel, the words or objects in question were completely private until made public by outside parties.