Andrew McCabe and Peter Strzok are both suing the Justice Department

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

Interesting. Not sure if I buy the "the timing of the filings was coincidental" line, but there's at least enough of an argument by both men to claim First Amendment protection to get past a motion to dismiss, I think. What gets me is that the administration totally could have pulled this off without bringing any additional scrutiny if they hadn't been so goddamn hamfisted about it. There was a distinct lack of finesse here. If you're going to do something like, oh, fire people for their political activities, don't be so bloody obvious about it. Trump needs someone silky and quiet to be his chief hatchet man; even Barr falls down in that regard.

 

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/8/8/20797421/andrew-mccabe-peter-strzok-lawsuits-trump-barr

[yuna628 9,676]

They have an argument, but do you think it will go very far? Somehow I think it won't ultimately. Finesse is not something that exists in Trumpworld lol.

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,370]

3 minutes ago, elmcitymaven said:

Interesting. Not sure if I buy the "the timing of the filings was coincidental" line, but there's at least enough of an argument by both men to claim First Amendment protection to get past a motion to dismiss, I think. What gets me is that the administration totally could have pulled this off without bringing any additional scrutiny if they hadn't been so goddamn hamfisted about it. There was a distinct lack of finesse here. If you're going to do something like, oh, fire people for their political activities, don't be so bloody obvious about it. Trump needs someone silky and quiet to be his chief hatchet man; even Barr falls down in that regard.

 

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/8/8/20797421/andrew-mccabe-peter-strzok-lawsuits-trump-barr

how did you get that past the word filter

 

How is their first amendment protected when they are on Company electronic equipment ?

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

1 minute ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

how did you get that past the word filter

 

How is their first amendment protected when they are on Company electronic equipment ?

Hmm, 'goddamn'? That one's okay, as far as I know. 'Bloody' better be or there will be hell to pay! 

 

The 'it's on company equipment' argument is a canard. Just because one is using a government instrumentality to express oneself, does not mean that one's speech is capable of being restricted by the government if it is protected. There are ways that restrictions CAN be put in place, but this isn't one of them. I'll write more later -- they're making me do law stuff now at work. 

[yuna628 9,676]

Hubby and I were talking about this over dinner... I think the waitress was bemused. As he works for the state technically, he has to attend seminars about workplace behavior and such. He was told that political speech isn't protected in the workplace. He was trying to wrestle with how that could be true, as wouldn't it fall under the 1st amendment anyway and that how could, an employer being the government (state or feds) restrict that free speech thereof as it is a public entity rather than a private entity? But then he mentioned the 2006 case of Garcetti v. Ceballos, and I went, ''look at you being all like an 'murican' and remembering court cases now." Based on past rulings like that (and I'm not sure if it applies in these lawsuits) I'm not sure how far they will go in their endeavors.

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

52 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

H

42 minutes ago, elmcitymaven said:

Hmm, 'goddamn'? That one's okay, as far as I know. 'Bloody' better be or there will be hell to pay! 

 

The 'it's on company equipment' argument is a canard. Just because one is using a government instrumentality to express oneself, does not mean that one's speech is capable of being restricted by the government if it is protected. There are ways that restrictions CAN be put in place, but this isn't one of them. I'll write more later -- they're making me do law stuff now at work. 

ow is their first amendment protected when they are on Company electronic equipment ?

Actually the whole company equipment argument is perfectly valid. As a current GS employee that was given a phone in my last job for the USGS you are notified and usage of the phone is agreement. You are informed about that policy that anything that is said or done on the phone should be on the up and up for government work. They have the ability to audit these records and to verify your usage of the equipment. 

[TBoneTX 45,288]

If these guys win their lawsuits, they'll need every penny to face what Horowitz, Barr, Durham, & Huber presumably have coming.

[Dashinka 24,494]

On 8/11/2019 at 2:02 PM, TBoneTX said:

If these guys win their lawsuits, they'll need every penny to face what Horowitz, Barr, Durham, & Huber presumably have coming.

This is what I am waiting for.