a suspension is temporary, a firing is permanent, not remotely the same thing. I could survive 2 months without pay at my job (thank god I have a savings account) so let's not equate those two actions please...

Strzoks firing more than likely is political, ironically.

😂😂

Yes, but....



From the link I posted above.

So you think Horowitz testified that he did not have confidence in Strzok's prioritization of the investigations, without having any reason for such doubts?
Horowitz was speaking in an intentional negative instead of affirmative because that is the difference between having evidence and having proof.
As penis_hat said, it would require inordinate proof for Horowitz to affirmatively testify that Strzok acted with bias in the decision making. Anything short of a smoking gun or confession, and all Horowitz could give is a no-confidence.

If Horowitz didn't have reason to believe Strzok's bias tinged his priorities, he would not have testified that he had no confidence the priorities were untinged by bias.
These kinds of doublespeak double-negatives have been pretty common in politics and FBI testimony / press since forever.

is your tiny intellect even capable of defining "equate" and then applying it to what i said? I'm asking rhetorically of course, as you've failed already to do this.

lol

you're trying to to say a firing is "not that all out of line" (your words) with a suspension...

I'm saying they are out of line...

do you get off trying to play devil's advocate on every issue and discussion?

but no decisions in those investigations were affected by political bias, from Horowitz himself... you really think he should be fired (against normal protocol/recommendations) for possibly trying to prioritize one investigation he may have thought may have been more important? couldn't that just have been a professional decision?

yes of course he should be fired for that.
The biased allocation of resources, of time and effort on persecuting a political opponent is a corruption of the FBI's investigative process.
It doesn't require any evidence of investigative malpractice or criminal manipulation of evidence, just to have reason to believe that his bias was shaping his decision making on the investigations.

The FBI has wide discretion in utilizing its investigative resources. If that discretion is shaped by political bias, it is an abuse of power.
Like if the IRS were to selectively target groups with terms like "patriot" and "tea party" in their name for extra scrutiny

This post was edited by Goomshill on Aug 13 2018 12:22pm

What I said was:



there are a Myriad of potential punishments when working for a dept like the FBI. many of them are just marks on your record, tedious training you're required to sit through, reports on the situation to your superiors, desk duty rather than field work, etc.

If you had an entire spectrum of punishments the two in question here (2 month suspension and termination) would both be at the upper end. Below only prosecution for a lower crime, prosecution for a major crime, or prosecution for treason. It's not practical to suspend someone much longer than 2 months, instead you'd just fire them.

If you and I are waiting in line for mcdonalds, and i'm directly in front of you, we're in line with each other. Because we're very comparable about when we'll order and receive our food. If i order 26 double cheese burgers and you order an apple pie you will even get yours before mine. But if you're 10 spots back you're not comparably near me, wont receive your food before me, and we're not really in line together. That's the way i meant it, not at all to equate things.





This post was edited by thesnipa on Aug 13 2018 12:37pm