See all the latest videos and articles patriots need to watch and read at Discern.tv.
The federal special investigation into the Trump Administration’s or its individual members’ various activities with Russia, real estate and other assorted subjects is tainted by one agent’s supposed political bias against President Trump, according to a dominant narrative in the political arena this month.
I disagree.
An investigation is not supposed to be scrupulously politically impartial. That’s because it is an adversarial process. Investigators are the adversaries of the subjects and targets of their investigation.
Of course, an investigation is supposed to search for and follow objective facts. It is supposed to refrain from prejudging people, an act which contradicts the imperative to be fact-based. The investigation is also supposed to be open-minded (not open-ended), insofar as investigators should be mindful of the “unknown unknowns,” meaning facts which can move an investigation in a direction which was previously, simply unanticipated.
However, political leanings do not mean that an investigator should automatically be disqualified from a case. Let’s be aware that if political opinions considered adverse to an investigative subject on one hand warrant removal, logical consistency suggests that opposite opinions (i.e., opinions supporting the subject) would qualify an agent’s assignment to an investigation.
Just imagine the circus that would result, if only liberal Democratic agents could investigate liberal Democrats, only conservative Republicans investigate conservative Republicans under investigation.
Personal opinions should be relevant in hiring and staffing decisions only if and when they interfere with the primary requirement to put facts first.
An agent’s public expressions of political sentiment may be relevant, however, if those expressions bear on the agent’s judgment. It is hard to argue, and I am not arguing, that social media posts for or against a candidate for public office are inherently benign and neutral; I do raise the issue of whether an agent is exercising the proper amount of judgment and discretion when he or she ever expresses opinions on social media or elsewhere in public.
While the First Amendment protects us from government intrusion into speech, when such speech interferes with the requisite judgment necessary to do work on behalf of the government, some restrictions may be appropriate. There is no right to work for the government, much less to be an FBI agent; these are privileges which are earned and sustained.
Covid variant BA.5 is spreading. It appears milder but much more contagious and evades natural immunity. Best to boost your immune system with new Z-Dtox and Z-Stack nutraceuticals from our dear friend, the late Dr. Vladimir Zelenko.