Strzok fired

[piezoe]

Actually, I studied four years of Latin in anpublic high school.

When did you graduate? At one time Latin was a requirement in the high school college track. But usually beyond one year, and certainly two, would be elective in the 1950s, and not many public secondary schools offered four years. After the Great Society "innovations", Latin began disappearing from the public secondary school curricula. By the mid 1970s it was all but gone. But there is apparently some interest in reviving it.

Latin, along with tracking, were among the several victims of the "Great Society". The downhill glide of public education had it's origin in the Great Society. But one can't blame the Great Society entirely for the decline in the quality and outcomes of public education. Some of those G.S. initiatives, such as integration, were sorely needed.

https://www.the74million.org/articl...ssrooms-these-educators-are-bringing-it-back/

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

I guess people have the right to show their support in this way. I would guess he'll have no trouble, with his experience, landing a good job, so I don't understand why someone would do this, unless they are just using their money to make a statement.

I still don't know if those emails were foolishly intended as private emails to his girl friend, but he was using a government computer to send them, which technically he should have avoided. I am certain people email their significant others all the time from work to tell them they'll be home late, and what not. If you send a communication using your company or government terminal I suppose you have no privacy; yet i'm old fashioned enough that it bothers me, not that companies/government might monitor email sent over their servers, but that people would release it for political reasons. I still have not seen anything to suggest that his work was impacted in any way by his political views, as pungent and ambiguous as they apparently were.

And of course it must be true that close to 100% of government employees have personal political views. They can't be legally discriminated against for harboring such views, and it is a stretch to say that someone who expresses a political view in an ersatz private communication to a personal friend, even if that friend is also an employee, can be considered as political activity at work. The latter, in government positions, is always both inappropriate and illegal under the Hatch Act. Strzok's ersatz private email was certainly not the kind of political expression that the Hatch Act was intended to address.

I was equally bothered by the opinion of some here on ET that the IRS's Ms Lerner should lose her Fifth Amendment right because she is a Government employee, or even because she is a government employee testifying before a congressional committee. That view, fortunately, did not hold up ; yet it is disturbing that anyone should think that. She had been unwise in becoming a little too conspicuous outside of work in expression of her political views, but being unwise, in and of itself, does not eliminate our Constitutional rights, I hope.

Nice try.

You are not the one who wants to explain in court before a jury why your prosecutor and case was being conducted by someone clearly biased. Mueller immediately shit-canned him to try to do damage control on that one because he knows how clear Strzok's bias and actions were. So even he will not by your glib dismissal under the guise of everyone having a right to political opinions.

The lefties want to point to Mueller's dismissal of Strzok as a saving grace but it does not work out that way and will not if certain trials occur. Strzok was lead launcher of the investigation against Trump and had already set a whole corrupt process in motion before being contained. That will and is haunting Mueller at every step. As I said, it will be easy for you from your armchair perspective. Not so easy in court.

 

[UsualName]

When did you graduate? At one time Latin was a requirement in the high school college track. But usually beyond one year, and certainly two, would be elective in the 1950s, and not many public secondary schools offered four years. After the Great Society "innovations", Latin began disappearing from the public secondary school curricula.

Yes, mine was the only high school I knew of that offered Latin and it was taught by a true PhD. It was offered as an elective but also counted toward language. Forgive me if I do not share my age but am from what most would call generation x.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

Yes, mine was the only high school I knew of that offered Latin and it was taught by a true PhD.

Probably a Jesuit.

 

[piezoe]

Bo bis bit, bimus bitus bunt.
... thats all i remember

You've remembered enough then.

 

[piezoe]

Yes, mine was the only high school I knew of that offered Latin and it was taught by a true PhD. It was offered as an elective but also counted toward language. Forgive me if I do not share my age but am from what most would call generation x.

A New York School perhaps. A special Science school. Or a school in a wealthy community I would guess.

 

[piezoe]

Nice try.

You are not the one who wants to explain in court before a jury why your prosecutor and case was being conducted by someone clearly biased. Mueller immediately shit-canned him to try to do damage control on that one because he knows how clear Strzok's bias and actions were. So even he will not by your glib dismissal under the guise of everyone having a right to political opinions.

The lefties want to point to Mueller's dismissal of Strzok as a saving grace but it does not work out that way and will not if certain trials occur. Strzok was lead launcher of the investigation against Trump and had already set a whole corrupt process in motion before being contained. That will and is haunting Mueller at every step. As I said, it will be easy for you from your armchair perspective. Not so easy in court.

If you fired everyone in government with a political bias you'd have to fire nearly everyone! The only sound reason for firing someone is evidence that they let their biases effect their work, or they violated the hatch act.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

The only sound reason for firing someone is evidence that they let their biases effect their work.

No. A person is required to recuse if they are biased or if it is apparent to others that their bias rises to the level where it undoubtedly can or could be perceived as effecting their work or judgement.

Your political trance state does not allow you to see this. However, if a prosecutor were prosecuting a black person and it became known that he had said "when I go into Walmart I can smell them" along with dozens of other vitriolic prejudial and biased comments, you would see it immediately. You give a nice rap here about how as a trained academician you are up on Mount Olympus- unlike the rest of the hoi polloi here- and are not a product of your previous conditioning and biases. But when the rubber meets the road, you are just one more person who sees what your political views allow you to see.

As I said before- and none of the lefties here rise to counter it, for good reason- even Mueller saw that Strzok's texts were nothing but toxic to the process. He dumped him as soon as he could, except it was too late. Mueller owes his very appointment to a Strzok's actions.

 

[UsualName]

A New York School perhaps. A special Science school. Or a school in a wealthy community I would guess.

NY metro area but not NY proper and certainly not wealthy.