Depends to whom you are expressing them. If you express them in a public place like Facebook or a newspaper or a forum you might have a point. This seems to be a personal conversation.
If it was conducted on official government hardware using official channels, not so much. I would want the people with a lot of influence over something like this to be held to the same kind of standard we hold jurors, namely, that any opinions are kept totally to themselves. At the very least, it brings into question their authority.
Thought experiment. Let's say the coroner in the Ferguson case had a conversation with his lover in which he expressed his desire to find evidence that Brown gave the cop no choice but to shoot him? Further suppose that he stated that he would do what he could to clear the cop. Do you think his conclusion exonerating the cop would be accepted by a public anxious to find evidence supporting their anti-cop animus?
He could be just as impartial and meticulous in his work as is humanly possible, and that conversation would make his conclusion meaningless. Likewise, this "private" conversation calls into question everything the agents, and by extension, the agency, did.
-Nobody keeps their opinions just to themselves. They used government hardware, but as the conversation clearly indicates it wasn't used to proclaim policy or even to be read by anyone but the 2 people holding the conversation. If I use my work e-mail to talk about politics to a friend, does that say anything about my ability to do my job? I'm sure that all cops hate pedophiles, do you therefor accept a claim of bias by a child molester? I'm betting you wouldn't accept that defense.
As to your thought experiment. It seems to be a not equivalent analogy. Because nothing in the conversation in the OP suggests they were tampering with evidence, or doing anything wrong even. Furthermore, correct me if I'm wrong in the Strozk case, which you are referring wasn't he immediately removed from the probe by Mueller the moment he, not the public learned about the affair. In other words if the public, and with the public I mean the right's only defense is that the FBI is biased so therefore Mueller is tainted, shouldn't you be able to point to a single instance were Mueller acted in any biased manner, or show a clear link between the FBI and the probe?
- What I find greatly disturbing about this entire thing is the sheer gall of it all. The president of the United States knows Mueller is going to eventually release his findings. His only defense will be if he can convince enough of the populace that those findings are part of huge conspiracy thereby giving congress the opportunity to ignore those findings. This OP as so many others are a part of that ploy and it frankly disgusts me. After Trump the US will have to pick up the pieces. It will have to trust that the agencies are capable and trustworthy to do their assigned jobs. The GOP and POTUS seem to not care about any of it as long as they keep power. It is telling that you see more and more people on this forum asking for dictatorial powers for Trump, something I didn't see by any person on the left during the Obama era. it is telling POTUS is suggesting self pardon.I don't know,what does that tell you?
