Well that goes with the territory.
I hear tonight is going to be wonderful for a bit of stargazing, might even catch a glimpse of Saturn.
I have to admit here I only listened to a few hours of the live stream, so I don’t know every detail. Very entertaining with all the pompous posturing and old-timey “the gentleman from Arkansaw” type stuff.
I think there is no debate that Strzok had very strong political opinions against Trump and for Clinton. He said that it was fair that he didn’t like Trump and before anything had happened with the investigations he was saying stuff like “impeach Trump” an “We’ll stop him”. Is that bias?
I would agree with Strzok that everyone has political opinions and the difference is if you act on them when you should be impartial. That is why this whole hearing was so inane, because the ongoing investigation couldn’t even be discussed at that level to find proof of biased decision making. So the result was of course just posturing.
The whole question is sort of interesting: in what circumstances can just opinions be evidence of bias enough that you should be barred from participating before any evidence of wrongdoing? I would think that would be true in cases where a “look and see” approach is too dangerous, the consequences too heavy. Like a case of a president with sympathies for the state’s strongest enemy? To Strzok’s employer just a look of bias because of the text messages was enough.
My point about the fair was that Strzok’s defense through the hearing was that even though he has political opinions he wouldn’t act on them because of his good judgement. He posited that he couldn’t have bias because he would not act in a way that would be counter to the FBI’s or the people’s interest. Yet, while working in counter intelligence, he had an affair which is a very dangerous and irresponsible thing to do. To me this undermines is defense.
Press D to disagree.