So... Durham and Barr repeated the same mistake as the FBI in allowing avowed NeverTrumpers to control an investigation that is inherently tied to Trump, even though that mistake by the FBI is also central to why they're running an investigation in the first place.
This isn't true. "Political affiliation" is not a protected classification at the federal level. And only a handful of states have any protections against discrimination based on political affiliation.
Moreover, conflicts of interest and biases have always been central considerations in administration of justice.
It's not a "you're dumb" reply. It's a "you don't know what you're talking about" reply. Maybe don't make declarative replies with assumptions of authoritativeness prior to informing yourself on the subject.
People get fired all the time for espousing and pursuing political beliefs and agendas that do not align with the administration's. 1A doesn't protect them from being fired. It protects them from the state criminalizing their speech. Getting fired is not going to jail.
But I wasn't even necessarily referring to termination of employment, anyway. I honestly don't even know why you're talking about termination of employment at all, as it has absolutely nothing to do with my post here.
I was simply criticizing the fact that Barr and Durham (according to this tweet) obviously should not have someone with avowed biases against a central subject of an investigation in a position of control of said investigation, especially when said investigation also has within its purview a previous investigation wherein political biases clearly played a central role in the corruption of that investigation.
What a super controversial suggestion! I guess common sense is exceedingly scarce.
So... Durham and Barr repeated the same mistake as the FBI in allowing avowed NeverTrumpers to control an investigation that is inherently tied to Trump, even though that mistake by the FBI is also central to why they're running an investigation in the first place.
Are they retarded, or just corrupt?
Corrupt
The hard truth everyone seems to ignore
Yes
This isn't true. "Political affiliation" is not a protected classification at the federal level. And only a handful of states have any protections against discrimination based on political affiliation.
Moreover, conflicts of interest and biases have always been central considerations in administration of justice.
You don't know what you're talking about.
It's not a "you're dumb" reply. It's a "you don't know what you're talking about" reply. Maybe don't make declarative replies with assumptions of authoritativeness prior to informing yourself on the subject.
People get fired all the time for espousing and pursuing political beliefs and agendas that do not align with the administration's. 1A doesn't protect them from being fired. It protects them from the state criminalizing their speech. Getting fired is not going to jail.
But I wasn't even necessarily referring to termination of employment, anyway. I honestly don't even know why you're talking about termination of employment at all, as it has absolutely nothing to do with my post here.
I was simply criticizing the fact that Barr and Durham (according to this tweet) obviously should not have someone with avowed biases against a central subject of an investigation in a position of control of said investigation, especially when said investigation also has within its purview a previous investigation wherein political biases clearly played a central role in the corruption of that investigation.
What a super controversial suggestion! I guess common sense is exceedingly scarce.
¿Porque no los dos?