If they were explicitly, or even implicitly (tacitly) allowed (or even encouraged) to have these discussions on this system and on taxpayer time, that might be insufficient justification for firing.
If they were explicitly, or even implicitly (tacitly) allowed (or even encouraged) to have these discussions on this system and on taxpayer time, that might be insufficient justification for firing.
That seems like sufficient justification for firing management as well.
I'd like to hear the "teach men not to rape" crowd on the left to explain to me why that's necessary given the fact that few men commit rape, yet it has to be clearly articulated why discussing this weekend's gangbang is off limits as a water cooler conversation before canning someone... Especially someone who has carte blanche access to someone else's (exes, etc) private info and presumably private photos as well.
If they are going to keep sawing off the tree limbs they sit on, we should just let them fall. The fact they seem unaware of professional conduct or the mores of normal people doesn't exempt them from the consequences of being openly degenerate.
Yes, I agree it might be justification for firing management, unless, say, the order can from the very top, and those people (that person?)can't from the very top.
I'd imagine there are cases in which even what was tacitly permitted was violated, so there's that as an option.
Anything from the top that OKs this has probably already gone through the paper shredder or degaussing device, so if firing these degenerates results in turning state's evidence against the former white house, even better.
Any spook that doesn't keep a record of legitimation isn't much of a spook and should probably be canned on that basis alone.
If they were explicitly, or even implicitly (tacitly) allowed (or even encouraged) to have these discussions on this system and on taxpayer time, that might be insufficient justification for firing.
That seems like sufficient justification for firing management as well.
I'd like to hear the "teach men not to rape" crowd on the left to explain to me why that's necessary given the fact that few men commit rape, yet it has to be clearly articulated why discussing this weekend's gangbang is off limits as a water cooler conversation before canning someone... Especially someone who has carte blanche access to someone else's (exes, etc) private info and presumably private photos as well.
If they are going to keep sawing off the tree limbs they sit on, we should just let them fall. The fact they seem unaware of professional conduct or the mores of normal people doesn't exempt them from the consequences of being openly degenerate.
Yes, I agree it might be justification for firing management, unless, say, the order can from the very top, and those people (that person?)can't from the very top.
I'd imagine there are cases in which even what was tacitly permitted was violated, so there's that as an option.
Anything from the top that OKs this has probably already gone through the paper shredder or degaussing device, so if firing these degenerates results in turning state's evidence against the former white house, even better.
Any spook that doesn't keep a record of legitimation isn't much of a spook and should probably be canned on that basis alone.