Blinken mocked for hosting State Department ‘cry sessions’ over ‘personal meltdowns’ over Trump victory. Left and Right Discussion

They did it in 2016 and now they are doing it again.

Difficult To Cope: Unbelievable! The State Department is running post-election therapy sessions with our tax dollars to coddle overpaid bureaucrats that have been left reeling after Trump’s election win. Anyone else want to know how much taxpayer cash was spent on “cry” sessions? BREAKING: Rep. Darrell Issa is demanding answers from Secretary Blinken regarding taxpayer-funded “crying sessions” held for State Department employees after Trump’s election victory.

Listen to a discussion on this news – contrasting Right Vs Left sources… more details below as well.

Blinken mocked for hosting State Department ‘cry sessions’ after officials have ‘personal meltd… https://t.co/O74KNihc9K @MailOnline

— Steven J Gross (@calistevenj) November 25, 2024

Therapy Sessions Post-Election: The State Department organized therapy sessions for employees distressed by President-elect Donald Trump’s victory. New York Post
Congressional Criticism: Rep. Darrell Issa criticized Secretary of State Antony Blinken for using taxpayer money to counsel federal employees unhappy with the election outcome.
Nature of Sessions: Reports indicated that two therapy sessions and a separate stress management webinar were organized following Trump’s win.
Issa’s Concerns: Issa questioned the appropriateness of these activities, suggesting they indicate a reluctance among some State Department personnel to implement Trump’s policies.
Demand for Details: Issa demanded information on the number of sessions held, planned future sessions, and the associated costs.
State Department’s Response: The State Department has not yet responded to these concerns.
Email Communication: An email to agency employees promoted a webinar on stress management techniques to navigate challenging times post-election.
Focus on Mental Health: The sessions aimed to provide tips and practical strategies for managing stress and maintaining well-being.
Nonpartisan Expectations: Issa emphasized that nonpartisan government officials should not experience a personal meltdown over the result of a free and fair election.
Policy Implementation Concerns: The mere fact that the Department is hosting these sessions raises significant questions about the willingness of its personnel to implement the lawful policy priorities that the American people elected President … .
Mandate for Change: Issa highlighted that the Trump Administration has a mandate for … .
Call for Resignation: Issa suggested that if foreign service officers cannot follow … .
Previous Instances: The article references past instances where government employees expressed distress over election outcomes, indicating a pattern of such reactions.
Public Reaction: The organization of therapy sessions has sparked debate among the public regarding the use of taxpayer funds for such purposes.
Future Implications: The situation raises questions about how government agencies should support employees during political transitions while maintaining nonpartisanship.

Briefing Doc: State Department “Cry Sessions” After Trump Victory

Subject: Allegations of taxpayer-funded therapy sessions for State Department employees upset over Trump’s 2016 election victory.

Sources: Two articles covering the same story, one from a right-leaning source (possibly Daily Mail or Fox News Digital based on language) and one from a left-leaning source.

Main Themes:

Partisan divide: Both articles cover the same event but frame it differently. The right-leaning source paints the therapy sessions as frivolous and indicative of a lack of professionalism, while the left-leaning source focuses on criticism of Blinken and the State Department’s alleged resistance to Trump’s policies.
Employee morale and political transitions: The articles highlight the potential emotional impact of political transitions on government employees, particularly when the incoming administration represents a significant ideological shift.
Use of taxpayer funds: Congressman Issa raises concerns about the use of taxpayer funds for these sessions, arguing that employees should not receive government-funded counseling for their personal political disappointment.

Most Important Ideas/Facts:

Right-leaning source:

Congressman Darrell Issa (R-CA) sent a letter to Secretary of State Antony Blinken criticizing the “cry sessions” as a misuse of taxpayer funds.
Issa argues that the sessions are evidence of State Department employees’ unwillingness to implement Trump’s policies: “The mere fact that the Department is hosting these sessions raises significant questions about the willingness of its personnel to implement the lawful policy priorities that the American people elected President Trump to pursue and implement.”
The source claims Marco Rubio will replace Blinken in January and bring much-needed reform to the State Department.
The source portrays the sessions as “madness” comparable to “ultra-liberal academia coping techniques.”

Left-leaning source:

Highlights criticism of Blinken, mentioning his contempt of Congress charge related to the Afghanistan withdrawal.
Presents the sessions as a response to a stressful environment of change, quoting the email sent to employees: “Change is a constant in our lives, but it can often bring about stress and uncertainty.”
Notes that sources told the Washington Free Beacon the meetings were a “cry session” for upset liberal staffers.
Focuses on Rubio’s hawkish foreign policy stance and potential impact on Trump’s international agenda.

Points of Agreement:

Both sources confirm the existence of stress management sessions offered to State Department employees after Trump’s victory.
Both sources mention Congressman Issa’s letter and quote his concerns about taxpayer-funded counseling for employees upset over the election outcome.

Questions for Further Research:

What was the specific content of the therapy sessions?
How many employees participated in the sessions?
What were the total costs associated with these sessions?
Was this a unique response to the 2016 election, or have similar services been offered during other presidential transitions?

Conclusion:

While both sources agree on the basic facts of the story, they interpret them through contrasting political lenses. Further investigation is needed to determine the scope and nature of the sessions, as well as their appropriateness as a use of taxpayer funds. The story raises broader questions about the role of government agencies in supporting employee well-being during periods of political transition and potential ideological conflict.