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.
I'm sorry you find a few small paragraphs of words so overwhelming.
You didn't offer a third, more logical option, as your third option was offered in ignorance, and was ultimately erroneous.
And none of this explains why you introduced termination into the equation when termination was never necessarily implied. One with potential biases or conflicts of interests needn't be terminated from their position to preserve the integrity of an investigation--they can be reassigned, or given alternative responsibilities that do not allow them sufficient influence/control with which to undermine or call into question the integrity of the investigation, as is being suggested by this tweet.
Then again you still can't even seem to concede the point about the obvious problem with conflicts of interest in an investigation that is necessarily tied to the corruption that emerged from conflict of interests in a related investigation.
And spare me your infantile butthurt if you insist on proceeding with this exercise in futility.
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.
I'm sorry you find a few small paragraphs of words so overwhelming.
You didn't offer a third, more logical option, as your third option was offered in ignorance, and was ultimately erroneous.
And none of this explains why you introduced termination into the equation when termination was never necessarily implied. One with potential biases or conflicts of interests needn't be terminated from their position to preserve the integrity of an investigation--they can be reassigned, or given alternative responsibilities that do not allow them sufficient influence/control with which to undermine or call into question the integrity of the investigation, as is being suggested by this tweet.
Then again you still can't even seem to concede the point about the obvious problem with conflicts of interest in an investigation that is necessarily tied to the corruption that emerged from conflict of interests in a related investigation.
And spare me your infantile butthurt if you insist on proceeding with this exercise in futility.